Blacklight Power Having Challenges With Prototype

The following post was submitted by Becktemba

Blacklight Power having challenges sourcing parts and controlling its prototype.  Alludes to problems with the brain of the system or controlling the system.  Also with sourcing certain components.

Check out Blacklight Power’s latest tweets.

  • Facepalm

    Claims by BLP:

    1999: Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year. 1000 W, within 4 months.

    2005: Only months away from commercialization.

    2008: 50000 W, within 12 to 18 months.

    2009: Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months.

    2012: 100 W by the end of 2012, 1500 W 2013

    2014: 100000 W in 16 to 18 weeks.

    • Daniel Maris


    • Agaricus

      Mills did some good work on ‘chemonuclear’ anomalous heat systems, including Ni/H, but seems to have become obsessed with his hydrino theory to the exclusion of any other possibilities. It’s this that has led him down the dead end of mechanical-feed plasma toys.

      I don’t see an intentional scammer, although that’s what his claims amount to, but as a highly autistic individual blinded by his own perceived brilliance. I suspect that at the time, he truly believes the claims he makes, is puzzled when his clunky modified spot welders fail to work as envisaged, but somehow continues to believe that success is just around the corner.

      Unfortunately, while he is genuinely a first rate theorist, his engineering abilities ‘suck’. Until he co-operates with some genuine engineers who can foresee the potential problems with his ideas and either work around them or suggest alternative approaches, then IMHO he will remain stuck in his current pattern until the funding eventually dries up.

      • Owen Geiger

        He got input from experienced engineers this time and still has nothing credible to show.

        • Agaricus

          I really meant work with as equals, allowing them to design equipment utilising his principles, rather than as technicians following his instructions. I doubt very much that his ego would allow anything like that.

      • Mark Underwood

        Combine: Dr. Mills can-do attitude, with the thrill of a finding a new method of generating hydrino, with a desire to reward and attract investors, to improve the world, and to provide the ultimate demonstration of his grand unified theory of classical physics.

        What do you get? Unfortunately one thing is a blindspot to very real obstacles in the path to a working device.

        Depending on the particular method Mills has discovered to generate hydrino over the years, the obstacles have varied: from unacceptably low power density to quenching of the hydrino reaction to difficulty regenerating the catalyst to engineering challenges.

        Happily, it appears that with the latest attempt – the SunCell – the only substantial obstacle is the engineering challenge.

        If one looks only at missed timelines then yes it can be easy to become jaded. Or blinded. Blinded to what Mills has accomplished over the last twenty years in published physics theory and demonstration of the hydrino’s existence and potential for power generation, and in chemistry software.

        In a way, a practical working device is icing on the cake at this point. Pity to refuse or dis the cake just because it doesn’t (yet) have icing.

        Eugene Mallove, even on his last interview (Coast to Coast) – considered Dr. Mills and Blacklight Power as leading the way, ahead of cold fusion, in giving unmistakeable and reproducible results in anomalous energy generation.

        • Agaricus

          Dr Mills’ can-do attitude seems to stem from an inability to accept that his concepts may simply not be workable. The problems mostly arise from ‘real world’ issues such as ejecta and deposits on mechanical and optical surfaces, unavoidable heat buildup, inefficient collection and conversion of output, and similar obvious problems which he glibly dismisses but actually has no workable solutions for.

          While each problem can be masked by additional layers of complexity, none of these will provide 100% solutions, meaning that any devices based on his current ideas would be extremely (and increasingly) inefficient and subject to very rapid failure when run for any length of time. He appears to think only in ‘overview’ mode without consideration of detail, and seems incapable of the discipline necessary to get each step in development working before moving on to the next.

          For example, a reliable feed mechanism before calorimetric measurement of I/O, before attempting to harvest/convert light in the current case, and similarly for the previously proposed MHD generator concept. Basically he needs to re-think some basic ideas but seems unable to do so, possibly because this would reveal his fallibility. In many ways he seems to be his own worst enemy, and any hope that he will succeed in building a workable energy source seems pretty slim.

          It seems to me that so far we only seem to have an unproven recipe and less than half the ingredients, but no cake at all (proven overunity energy output from a repeatable process).

          • friendlyprogrammer

            The Suncell is obviously a direction the company has taken only within the past year, and watching the July 21st demonstration is important to any wishing to comment.

            Once these high brightness/heat low compression Plasma bursts were created by them (USING THE HYDRINO THEORY), then the possibilities to adapt this light to Solar PV cells seemed most prudent.

            I’d say this Plasma Burst is akin to discovering the right filament for the light bulb invention. They have a plausible direction that they have been at for less than a year.

          • Agaricus

            It’s impossible to judge the energy contained in a bright flash from a video, and insufficient information is provided about I/O to do this by calculation, so even the first step – proving COP>1 – remains so far unproven. The flashgun on my camera can deliver a string of very bright plasma discharges using just 4×1.5V alkaline cells for power, but there was nothing on the box about overunity.

            The expensive looking kludge that Mills (with an obvious eye on his investors) has given the pretentious name ‘suncell’, would be lucky to last 10 minutes in operation — even assuming that some way could be found to reload the feed chain with fresh ‘fuel’. The only real question is what would kill it first – spatter and vapour deposition on the optics, flying sparks and debris in the feed mechanism, or general overheating, particularly in the photovoltaics.

            If Mills would just focus on step 1 and show conclusively that more energy is being produced in his mini-explosions than is being consumed to create them, then at least there might be some basis for hoping that one day he might be able to devise a workable power plant based on his theories. On the evidence so far though, this doesn’t seem too likley.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            So… You’re saying they’ve been trying for almost a year now and should just give up?

            The Mark Underwood timeline mentioned below is what we’ve seen from BLP so far. In fairness; an invention that could easily replace the fuel source for EVERYTHING on the planet with ZERO EMISSIONS should deserve at least a year and a half for R&D. It would prolong millions of lives and provide desalination and cheap food to starving nations as a bonus. Not to mention everything from your 60″ television to your paper towels will be able to sell for less than half of their current worth once manufacturers, shipping venues, and stores pass on their energy savings to other manufacturers and stores, prompting an economic upturn like never before.

            Should the Wright brothers have given up after a year?

            Should Tesla have given up on AC power after a year?

            Should Ford have given up on car designs while he was still on model “S”?

            Name ONE industry or people that will not be drastically improved after this invention is realized if it is real.

            You want Mills to concentrate on step one. He is. His concern is the Plasma ignition.

            Mark Underwood says everything best below. This is simply a logical progression of research.

  • Daniel Maris

    I say let’s stop now.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      Indeed. At least for myself, the question is rhetorical.

  • builditnow

    Blacklight gets a low credibility rating from me.
    Just a personal opinion from personal observation.
    Having watched a couple of Blacklight’s video’s, I observe a considerable potential for Mills to have surrounded himself with “Yes Men”. It seems that there could be little room for a personal opinion at Blacklight. Because of Mill’s behavior I observe, I’ve rated Blacklight as having a 1% chance, from my viewpoint, of even having anything at all. Then a much smaller chance of creating something real.
    Too much blase, off handed, ego from Mills.
    I’m not expecting Mills to change.
    I’ll look again when has a self running machine with no connections to external power sources and, making way more power than could be explained via chemical reactions.

  • Only opinion I follow is the money and he has been able to garner a lot of it. So until people stop giving him money I will stop believing Blacklight is viable.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      Mills works a system where energy companies can get tax breaks by investing in ‘alternative’ energy technology. These companies don’t expect any money back from Mills, because they already made it back, and more from the taxes saved.
      The fact that mills knows how to work this system to his advantage does not give any evidence to support his wild and baseless claims.
      If he ha something, then it is almost certainly a LENR device, and his obsession with ‘hydrino’ theory just shows that he is incompetent in the extreme to be in control of this much funding that could be far better spent.

      • deleo77

        I think you are alluding to part of the problem which is that the LENR folks hate Hydrino theory and the Hydrino crowd (especially Mills) hates LENR. Mills at this point almost refuses to even discuss the possibility of LENR (he says it’s impossible, almost sounding like the established physics community), while you have comments here suggesting that Hydrinos are impossible. There are just a few of us who think that Mills and Rossi are on to the same thing. Just don’t tell either one of them that.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I have sometimes seen a bit similar pattern in space business. Initially, let’s say agency X has a large contractor Y, and the relationship has existed for decades. X funds new tech Z which might be used to partially replace Y. If X thinks Z is not viable, they just fund it. If Z might be viable, X also funds it, but sets goals and time frames that are impossible to meet. In both cases the development or Z fails. Despite failure, all partners win: X has their next year’s budget accepted because they can tell a heroic new tech pioneering story to politicians, Y retains their old business, and Z gets their share of R&D money. Everyone also did the right thing: X just set strict goals to look hard after taxpayer money and Y and Z just developed their own techs. No secret cabinet meetings took place. To treat companies equally, X remembers to give next year’s R&D grant to Y.

  • Anon2012_2014

    No, Mills drives a Porsche Cayenne with BLP vanity plates. Enough said. Optics is everything.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I find the amount of hate concerning timelines of BLP a bit annoying. Research by iits very nature is a process of trials, errors, and can encompass direction and focus changes throughout the process. Magic is currently not part of their strategy.

    Anybody who wants to spend a few hours watching their July 21st Demo should concede the idea is novel enough to warrant R&D expenditures a dozen times the $80 million already raised.

    Would we rather this avenue of possibility be ignored? Would you rather they just throw in the towel and forget about trying?

    If this takes another 75 years and BLP has a third generation continuing the research and it does succeed, then it would still be miraculous enough to warrant movies of hope and inspiration.

    If it does not succeed then there are a dozen things we know do not work.

    Who cares if R.Mill’s keeps redesigning his goals? He has based his research on the existence of a Hydrino which does seem to have evidence supporting it (radio waves from space, etc.). Perhaps if a few scientists also approached energy development with the idea of a Hydrino then he would not need to go it alone and explore every avenue himself.

    Mills has switched direction several times, and his current project direction seems like a viable concept. I think it would be foolish to ignore the possibilities more than I support the ideas of hate in these comments.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      no… just no… R.Mills is everything wrong with ‘free energy devices’. He makes money by working a system where large energy companies can actually save money by ‘investing’ (read: throwing their money away) in his “alternative” energy research.

      Aside from his ability to work this system to create millions in wealth for himself, he is completely talentless, and either an outright fraud, completely deluded, or incredibly incompetent (in order of decreasing likelihood).

      LENR at least takes place in a relatively unexplored corner of science (charged and excited metal lattices loaded with hydrogen), where the interactions of subatomic particles are not completely understood. So it is reasonable to assume that novel interactions here could be overlooked.

      Mills attempts to completely reinvent the physics of atoms with comparatively no knowledge whatsoever in the subject, makes claims that are either completely baseless, or misrepresents the facts with reckless abandon.

      The ‘Hydrino’ theory has NO evidence for it, period.

      Mills changing his story at every turn is just icing on the cake, not the meat of the argument about why he deserves no further discussion from me.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        Being a medical doctor does not make you talented at making an energy producing device. As i stated previously, stop making claims you can’t deliver on. the ‘true believers on here drive me nuts. you don’t need to make me believe, you need to CONVINCE ME… with evidence… there is no evidence for hydrino theory except a few people saying… ‘maybe’ or ‘who knows’.
        Belief has no place in science, if stated it before and ill state it again… the evidence for LENR is irrefutably strong. Randal mills has little if any strong evidence except conjecture, claims and hearsay.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          You say, ” you need to CONVINCE ME… with evidence”

          I would argue that everyone literate should investigate science on their own when it comes to Research/fringe elements.

          Your belief is valid for your judgement.

          Perhaps I am better informed on his proposals or my education is better at interpreting it. Then again maybe I am wrong and he is a fraud.

          I cannot for a minute think Mills has forfeited a career where he could make millions simply by being a Doctor, in order to dupe his shareholders. This seems to make sense to you and I shall not question it. You are entitled to your own beliefs.

          Fringe science by definition is R&D not yet peer reviewed so if you want evidence then you will need to wait a few years before even LENR is accepted by the mainstream Journals such as Nature.

          If you are waiting for LENR proof to be in your local library then you will be waiting even longer.

          So it boils down to whether Mills is lying or truthful. If he is truthful then the spark he is creating is already proof enough that every hydrogen atom still has energy left to give.

          If he is lying then he is creating the spark using other methods despite scrutiny and verifications.

          I think it makes sense that having the ability to earn over $2000/week in any city in the world removes motivation to commit financial fraud. Again you are entitle to believe the opposite, but I seriously question your judgement abilities in this case.

          Belief has no place in science? Then why are there so many scientists being funded to do research into the unknown?

          Scientists searching a Vietnamese Jungle for plants with unique properties believe and hope they are going to find something wonderful. They are funded by pharmaceutical corporations that also believe there is some value to it.

          Beliefs are integral to science. Bohr believed that if nobody looked at the moon it would cease to exist, while Einstein and Schrodinger ridiculed that belief leading to Scrodingers cat in box experiment..

          Interpretations of Quantum mechanics is another way of saying belief. Some believe in Many worlds interpretations, while others believe in The Copenhagen Interpretations, etc.

          I have “Believed” in Rossi since 2011. That had to do with character of the professors involved (Focardi, etc.) as much as the low rational for fraud. i.e. why would he immigrate to the US where anti fraud laws are the most stringent, or if his goal was only money he could have retired on a beach when PetrolDragon was worth $30 million.

          Belief is an educated guess for most of us. I am a Soil Engineer so I at least have a background in sciences and prefer chemistry over physics, but they are related in many facets.

          So it is educated guess (aka belief) via educated guess here in the comments.

          If Mills flash is real then he has proven Hydrino Theory and has a decent looking prototype. If it is fake then that’s just weird because he could legitimately make many millions being a Doctor, and it also defies the logic of all the investors whom likely want some return on their millions spent. Thirdly it would also make us wonder how the verifications he has paid for have returned so much in favor of Hydrino’s as a reality.

          If you want proof then go to a library 20 years from now. If you want to explore fringe science then you are on your own.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            If Mills flash is real he has not proven hydrino theory, but rather proven that ‘something’ odd is going on. His experiments indicate ‘something’ is going on, but the hydrino theory to back it up is rather sparse and ad hoc as I have seen so far (please link me if you think I’ve missed something).
            His insistence that hydrinos are definitely the source of what is occurring seems unfounded. Has he even tried looking for helium as a product? If he is right about the reactions in his device the hydrogen is going somewhere, considering that we also have decades of LENR research showing that H+H and D+D to He reactions occur in solid metal fuel, you’d think that occams razor would say to look at this first (one explanation rather than two separate ones) rather than trying to reinvent physics and make a product (hydrinos) that can’t be found or analysed.

          • Joseph Martin

            The new “large light bulb” is that answer. They got it.

            In two years this will be the rage. Oil will be only needed for chemicals and plastics. Thank God.

      • Sanjeev

        The ‘Hydrino’ theory has NO evidence for it, period.

        Actually, Nicholas… the Hydrino has been experimentally observed by independent testers. Its not merely a theory.
        You need to dig into BLP’s website to find that report. It shows a very strange thing – spectral lines for hydrino !
        Mills is not alone in theorizing hydrinos, there are some more. Its called a “Compact Object”. Compact because of the very closely fitted electron(s) near the nucleus. I know nothing more and I’m no expert on the hydrino, but I’m very surprised that the community of physicists did not quickly jump on it to verify or debunk it. Its a revolutionary finding and needs thorough experimentation to confirm, but I see pin drop silence.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          links please.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            The fact is… IF he has something… it is incredibly stupid for him to keep promising things he has no hope of delivering, Rossi learned this the hard way as well.
            It is important not to equate ‘MD from Harvard’ with ‘therefore reliable’, this is not overly helpful. also the idea that he ‘could make plenty of money being a doctor instead, is somewhat untenable. Being a doctor is hard, largely thankless, and extremely stressful work, and Mills has made millions with Blacklight power on a project that is quite the opposite (with dedicated fans, playing with fun and exciting stuff).
            I apologise for stating that fraud was the most likely, as I don’t have and have not read all of the material to have solid evidence to support this, however, I stand by that at the very least, he is incredibly incompetent to have been so sure to have a viable product in the ‘next few months or years’ promised it, and then failed to deliver it over and over.

            I’d like to hear more solid scientific debate, whether peer reviewed or not, and I’ll read any links you send me, however I haven’t seen anything
            I admit that I have not been able to find some of the papers that you allude to, and i would be interested in reading them. So far, all I’ve seen are vague claims that ‘hydrino’ theory COULD help explain known gaps in the standard model.
            Like i said before, IF he has something, his insistence on hydrinos at the expense of anything else is ridiculous.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            All of the reports listed at [] seem to take mills’ hydrino theory at face value, or else suggest that ‘some novel nuclear reaction’ is taking place. while flashy, most of these reports did take place at BLP own labs, although several took place in independent locations. Whether these professionals were paid for their services for making these documents and evaluations is not stated, which is odd, but doesn’t necessarily mean anything untoward is occurring.
            Overall the evidence seems ok that he might have *something* but as to his hydrino theory, or his ability to produce anything useful despite repeated claims of impending commercialisation, the evidence seems doubtful.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            @ Nicholas,

            The “proof” is in the pudding. Everything will play out and we won’t know the answer for years. Mills alos has a long list of other inventions he has built using his model of physics.
            Such as…
            “Dr. Mills has received patents or filed patent
            applications in the following areas: (1) Millsian computational
            chemical design technology based on Classical Physics (CP), a
            revolutionary approach to solving atomic and molecular structures; (2)
            magnetic resonance imaging; (3) Mossbauer cancer therapy (Nature,
            Hyperfine Interactions); (4) Luminide class of drug delivery molecules;
            (5) genomic sequencing method, and (6) artificial intelligence.”


            BLP is alleging that these sparks are caused by Hydrogen collapsing into its true ground state (aka Hydrino). The Plasma flashes were so blinding in nature you cannot even gleen how bright using cameras and viewing screens. The idea is to have the flashes repeat in as quick a manner as can be developed to essentially make a small counter top sized artificial sun and capture the energy directly using photovoltaic cells and output would be purely electrical and heat with no steam


            This was a new direction they had to examine after they began producing such bright flashes.

            If nothing else the idea is novel, and if you watch the July 21 demo (including verification) the idea seems feasible.

            Again… You are entitled to your view. I’ve explained some of my rational for doubting scam scenarios.

            Photovoltaics has advanced during the years and work perfectly with this invention (if true).

            I watched the entire two part demonstration the day after this because there was keen interest.

            Many people are mad because they keep switching research directions, and Mills is bad at predicting timelines.

            (You can see the “invention” in latest form at 1:50:00)

            Previously he was using this method…

            These are fun videos and the concept is viable if these flashes are not a scam as you have implied.

            All his validators would also need to be scammers along with all staff in the videos. Possible, but not probable imho.

      • GreenWin

        Last week I commented on Always Open re Dr. Kroesen’s replication of Mills hydrino experiments:

        And yet very few people, scientists, university labs have ever bothered
        to repeat these experiments and replications. This is hard evidence
        that Dr. Mills’ hydrino theory is accurate in its predicative ability.
        The work has occurred at the Technical University of Eindhoven –

        In 2003 a European Commission report ranked TU/e at third place among
        all European research universities (after Cambridge and Oxford and at
        equal rank with TU Munich), thus making it the highest ranked Technical
        University in Europe.”

        I remain convinced that Dr. Mills,
        following Pons & Fleischmann is the father of “cold fusion” and that
        the theory of atomic hydrogen compressed to a resonant low energy state
        is a central factor. But it is curious how BLP has remained intact with commercial products. Maybe he sells designs for non-commercial products to people who want to keep this tech classified? Nah…

        • GreenWin

          CORRECTION: BLP has remained intact without commercial products.

    • Sanjeev

      I must agree. Its too early to throw the baby with the bathwater.
      BLP is slow and erratic, and there are more claims than useful prototypes, but lets give them a benefit of doubt.
      I was very convinced that BLP is a scam, but nowadays I’m on fence. Its wise to adopt a neutral viewpoint with a pinch of hope. (Unless you are an investor and spending sleepless nights because Mills has your $million 🙂 )

    • It isn’t hatred Friendly, it’s just extremely frustrating listening to Mills’ pure hypocrisy and lack of humility. I’m infuriated with Mills because he trashed Rossi, has taken millions in investment $ and predicted Rossi was not going to produce what he claimed in his timeline. On top of that he called us all a cult following. It would be great if he does come up with something, but Rossi’s latest photo’s make his device look like a popcorn machine.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Any scientist with credibility issues must distance themselves from Rossi even if they secretly adored him and had signed Rossi posters on his ceiling. The reverse is also true.

        I will bet many will examine the Hydrino theory while attempting to explain LENR.

        I’d rather choose the popcorn machine if I could bring either to fruition as it outputs electricity.

        Mills may not be the greatest at creating realistic timelines, but his heart is in the right place. I’d be willing to think his machine is possibly heading to a dead end, but I’d find it hard to believe he is intentionally duping people.

        If his actions are honest then he is leading a noble life dedicated to mankind which should garner more pleasantness than he is receiving.

        • Maybe that’s the difference Friendly, I’m not convinced his heart is in the right place. Distancing himself from Rossi is one thing saying Rossi is not credible is another.
          Mills has been promising a product within a year multiple times since 1999 and collecting millions of investment $ along the way. Big red flag.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    Because Mills gives a bad name to real tech like LENR. I don’t know how many times I’ve had it brought up that IH was probably just another ‘tax haven company’ like Blacklight power, despite the fact that LENR is well supported empirically, while ‘hydrino theory’ is a complete and utter fantasy.

    • Mark

      Huh? Did I miss something. I don’t see why the comment directly above is a response to mine. I don’t see how it has anything to do with my main comment. I think I’m missing a piece of the puzzle, here. Ether that or somebody didn’t read my comment carefully enough…or maybe a little of both. I dunno…

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed, but one should also remember that Mills has tried to actively distance himself from LENR.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi is right, the important thing is the product…all else is chatter. Without a product, you have nothing.

    Joe Papp had a working over unity energy device a half century ago. The Papp engine was verified, certified, demoed, patented, and whatever else was necessary to give his investors a warm feeling but never placed his invention into production. Why, because Papp could not produce a product and he did not want to produce a product. Producing a product is far harder than producing a prototype. Most genius engineers don’t want to meet all the regulations and requirements necessary, endure all the heartache, feel all the pain necessary to get a product to a buyer.

    There are few Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in this world. Mills makes a good life tinkering with his prototypes and writing his theories. He cannot produce a product or down deep in his heart he does not want to be bothered with a product and so he joins the other chattereres as Rossi is apt to say.

    • deleo77

      BLP posted the message on Twitter a couple of days ago about the prototype being delayed. When I brought it up in the other forum Mills responded with the following:

      “BLP and our engineering firm are building a remarkable machine. I’m sure that the world will be impressed when it is done”.

      So while you may be right about everything up to last year, I do think things have changed. Mills and BLP latest designs are based on photo-voltaic cells and light. He raised $16MM soon after showing these designs to investors and then handed the designs off to a large engineering firm who will take it to the finish line. I agree that if the device had to be completely engineered and built out of BLP’s labs then perhaps we would have to wait forever to see something useful. But Mills was smart to hand his designs over to someone else this time around. I still think he may finally have figured it all out.

      • Axil Axil

        What Mills is doing now is about the same process that Joe Papp did. I worked on a Papp replication and without radioactive material, it was not possible to gather the electric currents needed to produce an over unity energy gain.

        As one who has gone through the mill, Mills might get close, but no over unity will be produced. Mills has too many inefficient processes in his design…solar cells being one.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      So, if Joe Pap didn’t want to produce his marvelous, transformation machine himself–worth trillions–was it beneath his dignity to sell he patent or a few million to, say, General Electric?

      • Axil Axil

        Maybe Papp was nuts and he did not like or trust people. Why make the lives of people easy when he had everything that a man could want thanks to his inverstors. .

  • deleo77

    Great point about transmutation. I guess I still think it all starts and ends with hydrogen. But your comment is a good one.

  • Sanjeev

    Randy Mills Says Great Things Are Coming

    I hesitate to make a hard opinion on BLP. Its delayed a lot, but not dead yet !
    Who knows, something may result from their efforts, even if they seem to be inefficient and unbelievable.

  • Daniel Maris

    The sooner we clear BLP out of the path of LENR, the better.

  • Wait, the sky isn’t falling?

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Thanks for sharing that last quote. I did not realize he was still optimistic and that was distressing. Your entire comment should be made into an article here imho. I would rather the BLP device than the ecat, but will be happy if either goes mainstream.

    The day either is in The Journal Nature in a positive glow out comes the champagne.

  • Mills has been working on a product much longer than Rossi. He’s been making claims he was months away since 1999. And then he said “Rossi is not very credible”. If he just kept to his own work that would be one thing, but a statement like that makes him into a pure hypocrite.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    The ecat has been in production much longer than 16 years and even the Pons/Fleischmann discovery in 1989 was the result of long term research and understandings.

    LENR research WORLDWIDE was born with that 1989 announcement. So we are looking at MINIMUM 25 years it has been ongoing.

    Do not forget Rossi did not even originate the Nickel/Hydrogen LENR process as he was building his concepts on the back of Piantelli who had earlier researched this with Focardi whom Rossi hired probably as much to pick his brain as to verify the process and examine dangers.

    So 16 years of research is nothing. There is a mark Underwood comment here that is noteworthy about timelines concerning BLP and they are in a steady and logical pace. The suncell approach is less than a year old but sprung from their earlier work.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    yeah I’ve looked at those, most are first party, and others seem to have been paid for, (yet oddly nowhere do the papers state where funding came from). not that I’m saying this definitely indicates fraud, not at all. in fact these papers indicate that he has ‘something’, however, without fail each of these papers takes at face value his Hydrino theory, doesn’t test that theory at all, and none of them point to his hydrino theory being the source of his extra energy.
    In fact id go so far as to imply that perhaps the ‘hydrino theory’ is a convenient cloak of invisibility. perhaps mills knows that his process is probably LENR in origin, but sticks to his hydrino theory both to avoid the negative connotations associated with Cold Fusion, and to avoid having to admit that his theory is bunk (which would be a giant blow to the company and its ability to gain funding).
    In Summary: the papers you reference above indicate that he probably has a device that produces more energy than is ‘chemically possible’, but none give any support to Hydrino theory over, say, LENR as an explanation of said excess energy.