"Method and Details for Creation of a Spectacular Brilliant Light Flash Potentially Resulting from Hydrino Formation" (BLP Replication Effort)

On the Facebook LENR, Cold Fusion and Andrea Rossi page, a poster named Simon Brink, an Australian engineer, has provided a link to a document he has published in which he attempts a replication of the Brilliant Light Power method.

The report by Simon Brink, published in the Journal of Advances in Physics, is titled “Method and Details for Creation of a Spectacular Brilliant Light Flash Potentially Resulting from Hydrino Formation”, and can be read here: http://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/2684/pdf_276

From the Discussion in the article:

This experiment demonstrated production of a significant density of photon emissions from a high current, low voltage pulse, as observed within the visible light range.

Photon energy release from excited H2O following energy absorbsion from the transition of base state hydrogen (also from H2O) to a smaller form of hydrogen (hydrino), as proposed by Mills (2011), could be a possible explanation.
Other possible mechanisms for the visible light photon emission observations could include:

– excitement of electron orbitals in copper (or other elements) to higher energy states by electric current, then the subsequent release of photons during a return to ground state.

– a reduction in the orbital size of excited free electrons moving through the system (as current) as they pass into the high resistance zone between electrodes resulting in a release of photons.

Interestingly, Simon states that he has received from BLP threats of legal action because of his work: “Cease and desist notices. IP infringement”

  • Ged

    I am starting to get worried about how vicious BLP is acting. They already went after MFMP and had their analysis video taken down for infringement despite that it only used publicly available material. Say what one wills of Rossi, but he at least does not accost the community.

    • US_Citizen71

      I see only two reasons for their actions, the process is easily reproduced and they are afraid of someone beating them to market or they’re unsure the process works as stated or at all and are afraid of being labeled frauds.

      • Ged

        Those are both good points. From what it currently seems, the experiment described here sounds like those electrolysis experiments, which also give off bright visible light though no excess energy.

      • Mats002

        The same binary outcome goes for Rossi.

        • US_Citizen71

          Definitely. Rossi does seem to have more confidence in his patent(s) than Mills as he doesn’t threaten legal action against anyone attempting replication.

      • HS61AF91

        Maybe IH is in cahoots with BLP, and delays E-cat for a BLP head start. Refusal to pay for the 1-yr test attests to that.

    • Zephir

      Rossi also attacked the Piantelli’s patent, despite Piantelli is the most probable inventor of all this Nickel and Lithium stuff and Rossi just utilized Focardi for to get Piantelli’s know-how. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/

  • Ged

    I am starting to get worried about how vicious BLP is acting. They already went after MFMP and had their analysis video taken down for infringement despite that it only used publicly available material. Say what one wills of Rossi, but he at least does not accost the community.

    • US_Citizen71

      I see only two reasons for their actions, the process is easily reproduced and they are afraid of someone beating them to market or they’re unsure the process works as stated or at all and are afraid of being labeled frauds.

      • Ged

        Those are both good points. From what it currently seems, the experiment described here sounds like those electrolysis experiments, which also give off bright visible light though no excess energy.

      • Mats002

        The same binary outcome goes for Rossi.

        • US_Citizen71

          Definitely. Rossi does seem to have more confidence in his patent(s) than Mills as he doesn’t threaten legal action against anyone attempting replication.

      • HS61AF91

        Maybe IH is in cahoots with BLP, and delays E-cat for a BLP head start. Refusal to pay for the 1-yr test attests to that.

    • optiongeek

      Actually, they have no choice. In order to defend their IP, they must show that they were diligent in pursuing all cases of potential infringement. We may not like it, but Mills is just doing what he must in the interests of his investors.

      • Ged

        Problem is, none of these cases are infingement. MFMP’s video was clear “fair use” simply talking about publicly published material. They are being just too aggressive right now.

    • Charles Hansen

      I wasn’t aware, can you explain what MFMP did that BLP had taken down?

    • Zephir

      Rossi also attacked the Piantelli’s patent, despite Piantelli is the most probable inventor of all this Nickel and Lithium stuff and Rossi just utilized Focardi for to get Piantelli’s know-how. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/

  • BadgerWI

    Can they do that? Can they take legal action on an individual doing non profit science? I was always under the impression that as long as it was being done for discovery and not profit that people were protected from IP infringement law suits?

  • Mats002

    I wonder about this ‘High current low voltage’ pulse: the resistance must be low in the extreme to get a high current at low voltage.

    What is the explanation? Temporary superconduction?

    • Gerard McEk

      A plasma has a very low resistance over a small distance.

      • Mats002

        That could be the explanation for the Rossi effect and Brillouin also if there is a plasma state between clusters of metal in the LAH under influence of EMF by say a Q pulse. Agree?

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, things may come together. The question is though: is it LENR or hydrino’s causing the energy release?

          • Ged

            If it is visible light, then the amount of energy per atom being released by electron shell reconfiguration is no different then combustion.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes the nucleus is not being changed. Nevertheless is the energy that can be released by the electron, going to a much lower in orbit than the standard Bohr orbits, much higher than standard chemical energy per atom, if Mills theory is right.

          • Ged

            The frequency of light so far disagrees, though. Visible light is just 1.2 to 3 eV/atom at max (far red to far blue) while combustion of hydrogen is around 2.6 eV/atom, and so far hydrino formation is claimed to be releasing visible light, which is how photovaltaic cells can be used to harvest the energy. But that puts it on par with hydrogen combustion which, of course, also gives off visible light (fire), not 20x that.

            If hydrino formation is giving off more energy than combustion, and thus more energy than the visible light emitted, then it isn’t simply an electron moving orbitals, which is a process that only gives off photons (and the photons we see are equal with combustion). It would have to be doing more, something that does mess with the nucleus core. It really just looks like “normal” cold fusion, if there is excess energy beyond that being input.

            However. Electrolysis processes can also give off light as we have seen, so the visible light here may be from the electrolysis input energy, and not hydrinos. Then, if hydrinos were giving off x-rays during formation, which the experimentor here may not be set up to detect, that would be the proper energy release to align theory and results.

          • stefan

            No the hydrino releases EUV that hits the gas in the chamber and heat the gas to high temperatures that radiates visible light. In the tests in the initial phase seen in many experiments there is not much gas to transform the light to visible spectrum and there is dim light but as the gas develops a bright light that saturates the camera develops (A features that people have attributed to BrLP adjusting the cameras). So the light seen is a secondary effect.

          • Ged

            What gas that is part of these setups fluoresces with visible light in response to UV? We must put this idea to the test.

          • Job001

            Silver vapor, you might carefully do the full demos.

          • Ged

            Do you happen to have the specs on hand for what wavelength silver vapor absorbs and emits at? I can find nothing but shiny nail polish when I search for it.

          • Job001

            Somewhere in the long BLP read for the spectrometry are cool charts showing the energy before and after it is thermalized from high energy to visible. This also shows that initially the vast bulk of the initial energy is down in the region of 40-200nm with exceptionally little in the visible 400-700+nm. After thermalization the energy ends up a good blackbody curve suitable for PV.

            Be carful to understand which spectrometers are being used when, for instance they don’t use the low wavelength during the main demo because thermalization has occurred but the technician knows the factor for the control where thermalization has not occurred. Good practice by the technician because the very low wavelength equipment is exceptional and must be used carefully with special precautions.

            These charts speak to me as I understand spectrometry and the computer integration of spectra peaks and broadband. Very real well done excellent observational science, IMO.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            In addition to brilliant silver nail polish Brilliant Light can provide services for sunburn.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, good point. Energy release is depending on the stage and may be between 41 eV and about 1keV, still (E)UV, according Mills. This is nowhere near to the MeV assumed for LENR. I still have doubts if hydrino’s exist. If these are released then I do not want to be near to them, they look too much like neutrons to me. 😉

    • Ted-Z

      The BLP technology sounds like just the welding process (or the old technology of making light between two graphite electrodes).
      The welding process uses high current (amperage) at low voltage and creates bright light.
      Something not picked up by anybody in this forum: the atomic hydrogen welding is known to produce some gamma radiation. The welding using atomic hydrogen is apparently no longer used in commercial processes.
      The details are important – is there any excess of energy?

  • Mats002

    I wonder about this ‘High current low voltage’ pulse: the resistance must be low in the extreme to get a high current at low voltage.

    What is the explanation? Temporary superconduction?

    • Gerard McEk

      A plasma has a very low resistance over a small distance.

      • Mats002

        That could be the explanation for the Rossi effect and Brillouin also if there is a plasma state between clusters of metal in the LAH under influence of EMF by say a Q pulse. Agree?

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, things may come together. The question is though: is it LENR or hydrino’s causing the energy release?

          • Ged

            If it is visible light, then the amount of energy per atom being released by electron shell reconfiguration is no different than combustion. LENR releases more energy because the nucleus is also being altered as the main energy source, and visible photons are secondary events.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes the nucleus is not being changed. Nevertheless is the energy that can be released by the electron, going to a much lower in orbit than the standard Bohr orbits, much higher than standard chemical energy per atom, if Mills theory is right.

          • Ged

            The frequency of light so far disagrees, though. Visible light is just 1.2 to 3 eV/atom at max (far red to far blue) while combustion of hydrogen is around 2.6 eV/atom, and so far hydrino formation is claimed to be releasing visible light, which is how photovoltaic cells can be used to harvest the energy. But that puts it on par with hydrogen combustion–which, of course, also gives off visible light (fire)–not 20x that.

            If hydrino formation is giving off more energy than combustion, and thus more energy than the visible light emitted, then it isn’t simply an electron moving orbitals, which is a process that only gives off photons (and the photons we see are equal with combustion). It would have to be doing more, something that does mess with the nuclear core. It really just looks like “normal” cold fusion, if there is excess energy beyond that being input.

            However. Electrolysis processes can also give off light as we have seen, so the visible light here may be from the electrolysis input energy, and not hydrinos. Then, if hydrinos were giving off far UV to x-rays during formation, which the experimentor here may not be set up to detect, that would be the proper energy release to align theory and results.

          • stefan

            No the hydrino releases EUV that hits the gas in the chamber and heat the gas to high temperatures that radiates visible light. In the tests in the initial phase seen in many experiments there is not much gas to transform the light to visible spectrum and there is dim light but as the gas develops a bright light that saturates the camera develops (A features that people have attributed to BrLP adjusting the cameras). So the light seen is a secondary effect.

          • Ged

            What gas that is part of these setups fluoresces with visible light in response to UV? We must put this idea to the test.

          • Job001

            Silver vapor, you might carefully do the full demos.

          • Ged

            Do you happen to have the specs on hand for what wavelength silver vapor absorbs and emits at? I can find nothing but shiny nail polish when I search for it.

          • Job001

            Somewhere in the long BLP read for the spectrometry are cool charts showing the energy before and after it is thermalized from high energy to visible. This also shows that initially the vast bulk of the initial energy is down in the region of 40-200nm with exceptionally little in the visible 400-700+nm. After thermalization the energy ends up a good blackbody curve suitable for PV.

            Be carful to understand which spectrometers are being used when, for instance they don’t use the low wavelength during the main demo because thermalization has occurred but the technician knows the factor for the control where thermalization has not occurred. Good practice by the technician because the very low wavelength equipment is exceptional and must be used carefully with special precautions.

            These charts speak to me as I understand spectrometry and the computer integration of spectra peaks and broadband. Very real well done excellent observational science, IMO.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            In addition to brilliant silver nail polish Brilliant Light can provide services for sunburn.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, good point. Energy release is depending on the stage and may be between 41 eV and about 1keV, still (E)UV, according Mills. This is nowhere near to the MeV assumed for LENR. I still have doubts if hydrino’s exist. If these are released then I do not want to be near to them, they look too much like neutrons to me. 😉

        • Charles Hansen

          There needs to be something reliably replicatable first to even begin to explain…

    • Ted-Z

      The BLP technology sounds like just the welding process (or the old technology of making light between two graphite electrodes).
      The welding process uses high current (amperage) at low voltage and creates bright light.
      Something not picked up by anybody in this forum: the atomic hydrogen welding is known to produce some gamma radiation. The welding using atomic hydrogen is apparently no longer used in commercial processes.
      The details are important – is there any excess of energy?

  • Gerard McEk

    Every person is entitled to do these tests himself and publish about it with reference to IH if needed. I do not see any need for BrLP to act so aggressively. They should be pleased that somebody replicates their much doubted statements and demonstrations.

  • theBuckWheat

    Let us be honest, the elephant in the room is credibility. LENR is just kookish and not even science to most people. As much as I want to cheer on innovators like Rossi or the people at BLP, the burden of proof is on them to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the claim is in fact true.

    Independent replication is a priceless way to establish credibility. In the case of LENR, people like myself want to see that someone else can acquire their own resources, build a replicant apparatus, and when it is operated properly it shows a positive COP that is beyond a doubt.

    There is a million miles of difference between attempting to reproduce the basic process in order to verify it, and attempting to steal a commercial product in development where the IP has already been filed and partially awarded. It is very counter-productive for the LENR community when people who seek to replicate work are jumped on by IP enforcement efforts. The entire community would benefit by a change of heart and the willingness to cooperate with serious independent researchers. Surely some simple mutual agreement could be reached so IP is acknowledged and protected so replication can proceed.

    • Mats002

      Let us be honest: official science find more and more evidence for this type of phenomena to be true:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/nature18639.html

    • cashmemorz

      Mills has more to be afraid of replications in the case where such replication refutes Mills’ claims. The experimental results by Simon Brink, as he describes them, are in the large part, subjective : “bright light” and the like, are not in any way, any kind of analysis that means anything as far as accurate scientific results are concerned. By issuing cease and desist statements Mills may be attempting to forestall further work by others where that work involves tight controls and accurate measurements which may expose that there is nothing to the theory of Mills’ hydrino.

      • Mark Underwood

        Brilliantlight Power is willing to issue licenses to other parties wanting to do experimental work on hydrino reactions. Doesn’t sit well with your very dark picture of the people at BrLP.

  • theBuckWheat

    Let us be honest, the elephant in the room is credibility. LENR is just kookish and not even science to most people. As much as I want to cheer on innovators like Rossi or the people at BLP, the burden of proof is on them to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the claim is in fact true.

    Independent replication is a priceless way to establish credibility. In the case of LENR, people like myself want to see that someone else can acquire their own resources, build a replicant apparatus, and when it is operated properly it shows a positive COP that is beyond a doubt.

    There is a million miles of difference between attempting to reproduce the basic process in order to verify it, and attempting to steal a commercial product in development where the IP has already been filed and partially awarded. It is very counter-productive for the LENR community when people who seek to replicate work are jumped on by IP enforcement efforts. The entire community would benefit by a change of heart and the willingness to cooperate with serious independent researchers. Surely some simple mutual agreement could be reached so IP is acknowledged and protected so replication can proceed.

    • Mats002

      Let us be honest: official science find more and more evidence for this type of phenomena to be true:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/nature18639.html

    • cashmemorz

      Mills has more to be afraid of replications in the case where such replication refutes Mills’ claims. The experimental results by Simon Brink, as he describes them, are in the large part, subjective : “bright light” and the like, are not in any way, any kind of analysis that means anything as far as accurate scientific results are concerned. By issuing cease and desist statements Mills may be attempting to forestall further work by others where that work involves tight controls and accurate measurements which may expose that there is nothing to the theory of Mills’ hydrino.

      • Mark Underwood

        Brilliantlight Power is willing to issue licenses to other parties wanting to do experimental work on hydrino reactions. Doesn’t sit well with your very dark picture of the people at BrLP.

        • optiongeek

          Yes, but BrLP license will force researchers to surrender any IP back to BrLP. I think that’s what is going to stick in the craw of many who now want to jump on Mills’ bandwagon.

          • Mark Underwood

            I didn’t know that was an aspect of the nature of the license, interesting. Still, a licensed party must be able to benefit somehow from the work they put into hydrino technology. I wonder how.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            There is no place to jump.

      • Simon Brink

        I agree on Mills fearing rebuttal of his claims and attempting to forestall further work by others. There is also a more subtle twist. In my view Mills is most scarred that his theory will be shown to be inconsistent or only partly representative of his energy systems. If this is the case (which it appears to be) much of his IP and many of his approx. 100 patents may be legally useless. Publication of a more correct theory with supporting data that fully covers observations from Mills, Rossi and the many other LENR researchers will allow many other configurations to be rapidly developed. These systems will clearly sit outside the IP coverage of Mills.
        -> I am working on it, and I encourage others to do so too.

  • Thomas Baccei

    BLP has not the slightest basis for threatening anyone from doing scientific research. Under what law would they even consider that as faintly possible? Mr. Simon Brink should publish a complete and repeatable description of his experiments. And, thank you Mr. Brink! The very reason that patents must include a recipe is so that their effect can be verified by others, not to prevent them from doing so. The COMMERCIAL application of any such device is what is protected by intellectual property law.

    • Andrea Calaon

      Exactly!

  • Thomas Baccei

    BLP has not the slightest basis for threatening anyone from doing scientific research. Under what law would they even consider that as faintly possible? Mr. Simon Brink should publish a complete and repeatable description of his experiments. And, thank you Mr. Brink! The very reason that patents must include a recipe is so that their effect can be verified by others, not to prevent them from doing so. The COMMERCIAL application of any such device is what is protected by intellectual property law.

    • optiongeek

      Untrue – with *very* limited exceptions, research is considered a commercial activity and any IP from that research is generally covered by patents. Essentially all researchers will have to get a license from Mills or risk being sued for infringement.

      • US_Citizen71

        Baylor University’s law department doesn’t really agree with you. – http://www.baylor.edu/research/vpr/files/patentlawbasics.pdf

        • optiongeek

          That’s somewhat outdated. See Madey v. Duke University. One may use IP without permission only for “amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry.” Even paying for a lab assistant would be questionable under this regime.

          • Frank Acland

            Here’s some information regarding that case:

            “The Federal Circuit again limited the experimental use exception two years later in Madey v. Duke University. Madey, a research professor at Stanford University, owned a patent to two free electron lasers. He then brought the lasers with him to his new position at Duke University. Duke University continued to use the equipment after Madey resigned. The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement ruling that because Duke was a major academic institution in the business of research and education, the lower court should determine if the educational purpose was in the scope of the exception. On remand, the lower court found that even though the use of the patented invention was for educational purposes, it was still at least in part in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose and therefore did not qualify for the exception.

            Based on the Madey decision, it appears that the Federal Circuit precludes experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit research organizations including federal laboratories, research foundations, and research hospitals. Further, these cases render any use of the patented invention for testing, designing around a patent, or in pursuit of scientific knowledge too closely related to business interests to be infringement. The only remaining scenario where the experimental use exception may be used is in the case of an individual’s general interest without any intention to profit. Even in this scenario, the use must only be de minimis, small-scale tinkering.”

            http://nysstlc.syr.edu/experimental-use-exception-to-patent-infringement/

          • optiongeek

            Thanks, Frank, nice addition. In my mind, Mills has a pretty solid case to assert that essentially all research done for commercial purposes in this area must be done under a license. And since any such license will require the researcher to assign all incremental IP back to BrLP, Mills will have tight control over this technology for years.
            If it turns out that Mills’ earlier experiments with Ni-based reactions are in fact the basis for the e-cat, he’ll likely own that as well.

          • Thomas Baccei

            Mills has NO case unless he can prove that Mr. Brink intends to compete with him or in any other way use their patented material for commercial purposes.. Stop trying to cloud the lines of free science, the courts have clearly NOT done so.!

          • optiongeek

            Simon already admitted that BrLP was with their rights and that he would not contest the C&D.

          • I hope that by that he actually means that he will not publish the results of his further work in order to avoid ruinous court battles. When he has developed his work to a commercial level he will be able to find partners who would be in a position to counter such legal suppression attempts.

          • optiongeek

            Any such attempt would clearly be infringement on Mills’ patents and would be need to be surrendered to BrLP. Patents exist for a reason – Mills clearly deserves to reap the benefits of his decades long quest. Would you deny that basic right?

          • Simon Brink

            The research of Mills is simply building on previous energy research by many others others such as Harold Colman and Ronald Seddon-Gillespie, and Thomas Henry Moray. http://rexresearch.com/colman/colman.htm
            http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm
            BrLP have in no way a valid over the extent of IP which they appear to be claiming.
            This replication experiment was conducted as an independent assessment of the claims of Mills. Publication was requested by participants on the Mills controlled yahoo chat group “Society for Classical Physics”.
            As it turns out (from further ongoing investigations and analysis of Mills own data), the stated theory of Mills appears to be flawed in a number of ways. Mills appears to be either incompetent, “stuck” in his own theory or deliberately misrepresenting theory in an effort to try to establish market dominance. Mills claims that cold fusion is not possible which is a sharp contrast to Rossi. There is no validity in the position that Mills has any valid claim over technologies such as that of Rossi, or any other similar technologies.
            I would encourage all to continue researching in this area, and not to be scarred off by those clearly with some vested link to Brilliant Light Power.

          • Simon Brink

            Not correct. And where did you get that from?

          • Mark Underwood

            Simon he may be confusing you with eWall on the Yahoo group, who also got a cease and desist

          • Simon Brink

            Rossi -> Cold fusion process.
            Mills -> “Cold fusion not possible.”
            Spectroscopy of E-Cat reactants -> fusion occurs.
            And the winner is not Mills!!!

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            While Mills may hold only completely unconfirmed state of the hydrogen atom-called “hydrino”.

          • Charles Hansen

            How is independent replication even possible in that case? Plus, continued experimental use is different from say replicating a patent to prove it works.

          • Thomas Baccei

            Education is a commercial pursuit. That is what was being limited along with those imposed on continued research for COMMERCIAL purposes. Purely scientific (i.e. “philosophical” experimentation is NOT restricted by Madey v. Duke!

    • Andrea Calaon

      Exactly!

    • Michael W Wolf

      BLP just ruffling their feathers, They seem to want to slow down the acceptance of their tech. Like you said, they can’t be serious, unless their patents haven’t all been approved.

  • optiongeek

    Here is a comment from Mills this morning:

    “Ran a successful off site demonstration in Boston yesterday. Vaporized the cell and tungsten electrodes in a few seconds. Engineer witnesses said that they have never seem power density so extreme. Impossible with known technology!” – Randell Mills

    • Charles Hansen

      That’s quite the exact measurement they have there. Is Mills trying to use primitive PR now for burden of proof or something???

      • optiongeek

        Let’s think about this, shall we. Mills has invented a device that can be carted around and plugged into the wall (any wall, not just the ones at his lab) that will vaporize heavy tungsten in seconds. Before an audience of apparently knowledgeable engineers. How is this a bad thing?
        Mills has not been taking shortcuts on the proof. But people need to actually read the proof he’s provided instead of naysaying it.

        • Charles Hansen

          It’s called a halogen bulb with the halogen cycle, you are right it can be plugged into any socket, since self looping has too many ‘gotchyas’.

          • optiongeek

            Please show me a halogen that can do this kind of damage. That’s solid molybdenum, essentially tank armor.

          • Charles Hansen

            plasma cutter can do that in as long as they ran the rig, big deal.

          • optiongeek

            Are you suggesting that during the replication in the off-site lab in Boston, they somehow failed to notice as a “plasma cutter” was wheeled in?

          • Charles Hansen

            That is a ‘liner’, no implication of it being solid, I think you are making things up:

            The cell was stopped since it blew through the molybdenum refractory metal liner with a melting point of 4,753 °F as shown in the photo above.

            To keep that picture in context:
            http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

          • Zephir

            The water vapor is very corrosive at high temperatures and molybdenum isn’t even very stable at the air: it does form a volatile oxides, so it merely evaporates in arc at air. These effects may look impressive but they still don’t imply one watt of free energy.

    • Gerard McEk

      The H-bomb is also proof that a lot of energy can be made, fusing hydrogen. We are now more than 40 years looking to control this in such a way that we can use it. I hope Mills’ finds a method to tame his fire.

      • optiongeek

        As do we all. But it does appear that he has the fire.

    • Zephir

      This is enthusiast but heavily non-scientific proclamation. It depends on the careful measurement of heat, not the effects, whether the actual energy production has been achieved. In particular, the water vapor gets extremely reactive with metals in higher temperatures (many seemingly stable metals explode with water at high temperatures) – so that without exact measurements Mr Mills looks rather delusional scam artist than serious researcher.

      During years his methods of alleged hydrino production continuously shifted from UV radiation over glow discharges into high current low voltage arc – the only one connecting line of his experiments was always just the loud claim of hydrino production.

      • Michael W Wolf

        It is Dr Mills.

        • otto1923

          No its Mills.

      • Otto1923

        Funny. Zephyr embraces infinitely dense aether and LENR but rejects the hydrino even though Mills has produced much more measurement data than either (dense aether – zero zilch nada)

        Is this merely an aesthetic choice zephyr?

        • Zephir

          /* though Mills has produced much more measurement data than either */

          The hydrino formation has no logics in it, it actually contradicts the dense aether model. In the omnipresent vibrating environment the particles cannot gain energy when collapse into fractional quantum states at free vacuum, they would consume it instead. These fractional quantum state could somehow survive at the surface of matter, but after then then must be also destroyed, when the matter gets evaporated.

          • optiongeek

            Zephir, you should learn about Mills’ model before criticizing. Collapsing a hydrogen atom to a hydrino is equivalent to a satellite going to a lower orbit. Less energy is required, which has to go somewhere. So it’s released to the catalyst resonantly and subsequently as EUV continuum radiation as the catalyst is ionized.

          • Zephir

            I think I do understand the Mills model better than others and I think that the fundamental quantum state exists from good physical reason: the vacuum is dynamic environment and it does prohibit the slowing of neverending motion at the quantum scale. If something moves more slowly in it than the fundamental quantum state, it just gets kicked with vacuum fluctuations into this quantum level again. If the atoms could gain energy by their further collapsing, they would already do it in stars and another environments, which have lotta hydrogen under pressure.

          • Mark Underwood

            Two things. First, hydrogen does not gain energy by collapsing. It loses energy and comes into a lower energy, stable hydrino state. Second, the hydrino’s electron is not moving more slowly that hydrogen’s electron, rather it is faster. Specifically the superconducting current loops making up an electron’s 2D surface are moving faster.

          • Zephir

            The vacuum is like the stormy sea. The proton is boat and the electron is a floater attached to this boat by Coulombic force. Due to energy of waves the floater will have tendency to separate from boat once it approaches to it too closely. From the same reason the momentum of electron rises, once we attempt to restrict its motion to a narrow space – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about it. I cannot exclude, that the subquantum levels are possible, but they should be metastable and as such rich of energy.

          • Mark Underwood

            Oh yes, I know the analogy well. The problem of course is the stormy sea is calculated to have over 10^100 as much gravitational mass as what is observed cosmologically. (Fittingly, it is called the vacuum catastrophe.) And lets not forget that as the universe expands, it is magically creating all that new space energy out of nothing. So I hope you can see in part why some people like myself and optiongeek have no problem tossing things like the HUP overboard into the sea instead.

          • optiongeek

            Zephir – HUP is magical. Physics has been held back by magical thinking for over ninety years. Dispel the magic. Don’t believe in magic because someone else (who was just as confused as you) tells you something must be true. Discipline yourself to use words that describe only things that your own experience tells you are real. Wake up!

          • David

            This is magical thinking… Discipline yourself to use words which represent phenomena we can measure in the real world. Your senses, for instance, lack a radiation Geiger counter and yet we’re still capable of measuring radiation accurately.

          • optiongeek

            Zephir – what Mark Underwood said, only more so. Keep in mind that all these quantum thingamabobs. . . virtual particles, quantum scales, vacuum fluctuations, what have you – they’re all imaginary. Kind of like a child’s imaginary friend that keeps a physicist company when he is lost and confused. They aren’t real.
            Mills’ theory starts with real stuff – the boundary condition of the state of hydrogen that is stable to photonic radiation, and then sticks to reality to explain it’s properties. Charge, mass, momentum, energy, velocity. Nothing enters his equations except things that are real.
            Math is the tool, not the master.

          • David

            Oh really, I’d like to see the equations which describe the process? Does it look anything like cooling which is exactly the process that has been described (that is all a decrease in electron energy level is). Can you explain how this fails to increase the entropy of a system, because if it did increase entropy it would be akin to a perpetual motion machine?

          • optiongeek

            The equations are all in MIlls’ book, which is available for free download at http://www.brilliantlightpower.com. The material is dense, but it is possible to independently verify his solutions by spreadsheet, which I have done and would be happy to share my work with you. In fact, Mills is able to derive and predict many, many fundamental physical properties that have proven beyond the reach of QM/Standard Model techniques that rely on the inaccurate Schroedinger Wave Equation. An incomplete list of these properties include: ionization energies for 1 – 20 electron ions, energy of formation and bond angle for arbitrarily large molecules, mass ratios of the leptons and on and on.

  • Charles Hansen

    Rowan university divulged exact methods and procedures for making and testing an earlier BLP fuel:
    http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf

    I urged MFMP to attempt the Rowan replication but they’ve gone to ‘reinvent the wheel’ so to say with nothing proven. The reason I’ve given BLP any credence in the past was the above Rowan replication where even the fuel appeared independently replicated and confirmed. I’ve seen no efforts to replicate and Brink doesn’t appear to have followed the Rowan paper…

    With Mills now strangely silent on Hydrino compounds, it makes me think those fancy pictures of dust by descriptions of the fabled compounds were not fabled compounds… now they state the ‘hydrinos’ just float to space, as if a giant redaction in a way of what could be seen as egregious misleading.

    There’s also a question as to if Millsian software is doing a ‘best fit’ instead of actual calculation based on Mills new model. Someone needs to decompile it to say, or BLP needs to release source code for verification to back their claims.

    Too many old and new red flags are left to give Mills’ theory credence, sadly this extends to the Rowan validations it seems as no reports state a replication of Rowan’s methodology.

    • optiongeek

      Charles, you really have no basis for any of these assertions. Please go back and read the validation work more carefully. You can start with the most recent press release.

      • Charles Hansen

        lol I think I stated pretty clearly that a seemingly fully disclosed and independent validation has apparently been done with no replication of same methodology, almost a decade ago now. CIHT apparently had a validation but as far as I know galvanic reactions weren’t ruled out and it’s been scrapped anyway, why’s that? My basis for assertions is pretty strong, and what are you asserting anyways?

        • optiongeek

          CIHT research track was long ago abandoned – not because it wasn’t legitimate, but because it was deemed non-commercial. Efforts have been on the current generation of reactor using high current and if you bothered to read the most recent press release, you’d see that Rowan is mentioned as a validator of that work as well.
          However, it seems like CIHT research is going strong with other research groups, however it’s just not recognized as such. Rossi seems to be spending a great deal of his time getting Nickel-based electrode reactions to sufficient energy density and reliability.

      • interstellar hobo

        The Rowan researches, if they really thought this was legitimate, would have done something with the information by now. It’s been 8 years. Again, someone would have at least been testing it independantly, even if they had NDA’s preventing divulging certain aspects. The pressure from the administration on the research faculty alone would be immense. That never happened.Why only one university?

  • interstellar hobo

    Is this kind of reaction why no other school has tried to replicate this: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf ?

    • stefan

      This is from 2008. I don’t think that Mills suncell is the same approach. As I understand this result although correct could be challanged as having a normal physics explanation. I really don’t know what’s true if this is a proof of hydrinos or not. Just that the approach was stashed due to good reason and BrLP started to focus on the suncell approach in stead. There is 5 new validations done. The researchers in the recent newsflash although a bit affiliated with BrLP speak warmly and I’ve seen posts claiming that the validations is very convincing. Currently we can’t have a scientific understanding of if this is true due to the secrecy. Validations of tests like done here in the storyline with proper scientific verification of COP would be awesome. Although it is against Mills will to let the public have any such strong proof atm why the Leagal mussels shown – Mills do want to stay under the radar – he state that view explicitly in the video. It’s kind of weird though: why not be completely off the radar and keep everything secret, that one beats me.

  • interstellar hobo

    Is this kind of reaction why no other school has tried to replicate this: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf ?

    • Charles Hansen
    • stefan

      This is from 2008. I don’t think that Mills suncell is the same approach. As I understand this result although correct could be challanged as having a normal physics explanation. I really don’t know what’s true if this is a proof of hydrinos or not. Just that the approach was stashed due to good reason and BrLP started to focus on the suncell approach in stead. There is 5 new validations done. The researchers in the recent newsflash although a bit affiliated with BrLP speak warmly and I’ve seen posts claiming that the validations is very convincing. Currently we can’t have a scientific understanding of if this is true due to the secrecy. Validations of tests like done here in the storyline with proper scientific verification of COP would be awesome. Although it is against Mills will to let the public have any such strong proof atm why the Leagal mussels shown – Mills do want to stay under the radar – he state that view explicitly in the video. It’s kind of weird though: why not be completely off the radar and keep everything secret, that one beats me.

      • interstellar hobo

        Because Mill’s operation depends on investments. Mills has been doing this for a long time Fringe science attracts fraud. I don’t know whether he’s legitimate or if he’s just never been able to get the good enough results due to being tied to a bizarre theory. But he seems to know how to keep the development process going and going. Rossi at least APPEARS to want to get something on the market. The Rowan University tests was heartening, but then there wasn’t much to follow it but these closed demos. Certainly there were no other universities involved.

        I keep thinking of the Wright Brothers over and over. Had a great idea, they were years ahead of the pack, but they were secretive and litigious. It helped stifled the American aeronautical industry at its formative yeas, while an open development market in Europe was expanding. The Wrights could not even develop their own product very much for fears of demonstrating to the courts that their original patents were for an outdated product. This is the 21st century. Anything we design in the west is going to be studied, stolen and copied many times. There are no real protections except staying ahead of the copycats and building a better product.

  • sam
  • sam
  • US_Citizen71

    Baylor University’s law department doesn’t really agree with you. – http://www.baylor.edu/research/vpr/files/patentlawbasics.pdf

    • optiongeek

      That’s somewhat outdated. See Madey v. Duke University. One may use IP without permission only for “amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry.” Even paying for a lab assistant would be questionable under this regime.

      • Frank Acland

        Here’s some information regarding that case:

        “The Federal Circuit again limited the experimental use exception two years later in Madey v. Duke University. Madey, a research professor at Stanford University, owned a patent to two free electron lasers. He then brought the lasers with him to his new position at Duke University. Duke University continued to use the equipment after Madey resigned. The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement ruling that because Duke was a major academic institution in the business of research and education, the lower court should determine if the educational purpose was in the scope of the exception. On remand, the lower court found that even though the use of the patented invention was for educational purposes, it was still at least in part in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose and therefore did not qualify for the exception.

        Based on the Madey decision, it appears that the Federal Circuit precludes experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit research organizations including federal laboratories, research foundations, and research hospitals. Further, these cases render any use of the patented invention for testing, designing around a patent, or in pursuit of scientific knowledge too closely related to business interests to be infringement. The only remaining scenario where the experimental use exception may be used is in the case of an individual’s general interest without any intention to profit. Even in this scenario, the use must only be de minimis, small-scale tinkering.”

        http://nysstlc.syr.edu/experimental-use-exception-to-patent-infringement/

        • Thomas Baccei

          Education is a commercial pursuit. That is what was being limited along with those imposed on continued research for COMMERCIAL purposes. Purely scientific (i.e. “philosophical” experimentation is NOT restricted by Madey v. Duke!

  • optiongeek

    Let’s think about this, shall we. Mills has invented a device that can be carted around and plugged into the wall (any wall, not just the ones at his lab) that will vaporize heavy tungsten in seconds. Before an audience of apparently knowledgeable engineers. How is this a bad thing?
    Mills has not been taking shortcuts on the proof. But people need to actually read the proof he’s provided instead of naysaying it.

  • Ged

    Problem is, none of these cases are infingement. MFMP’s video was clear “fair use” simply talking about publicly published material. They are being just too aggressive right now.

  • stefan

    I’m missing some variation in this test. What happens when no destilled water is added?

    • optiongeek

      No source of hydrogen, no bright light.

  • stefan

    I’m missing some variation in this test. What happens when no destilled water is added?

    • optiongeek

      No source of hydrogen, no bright light.

  • optiongeek

    Charles, you really have no basis for any of these assertions. Please go back and read the validation work more carefully. You can start with the most recent press release.

  • Zephir

    This is enthusiast but heavily non-scientific proclamation. It depends on the careful measurement of heat, not the effects, whether the actual energy production has been achieved. In particular, the water vapor gets extremely reactive with metals in higher temperatures (many seemingly stable metals explode with water at high temperatures) – so that without exact measurements Mr Mills looks rather delusional scam artist than serious researcher.

    During years his methods of alleged hydrino production continuously shifted from UV radiation over glow discharges into high current low voltage arc – the only one connecting line of his experiments was always just the loud claim of hydrino production.

    • Michael W Wolf

      It is Dr Mills.

      • otto1923

        No its Mills.

      • Zephir

        The water vapor is very corrosive at high temperatures and molybdenum isn’t even very stable at the air: it does form a volatile oxides, so it merely evaporates in arc at air. These effects may look impressive but they still don’t imply one watt of free energy.

  • Observer

    Based on the USPTO Patent Term Calculator, Mills’ patent “Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures “, expired on January 26th, 2016 (assuming there were no Patent Term Extensions or Patent Term Adjustments).

  • Observer

    Based on the USPTO Patent Term Calculator, Mills’ patent “Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures “, expired on January 26th, 2016 (assuming there were no Patent Term Extensions or Patent Term Adjustments).

  • Thomas Baccei

    Mills has NO case unless he can prove that Mr. Brink intends to compete with him or in any other way use their patented material for commercial purposes.. Stop trying to cloud the lines of free science, the courts have clearly NOT done so.!

    • optiongeek

      Simon already admitted that BrLP was with their rights and that he would not contest the C&D.

      • I hope that by that he actually means that he will not publish the results of his further work in order to avoid ruinous court battles. When he has developed his work to a commercial level he will be able to find partners who would be in a position to counter such legal suppression attempts.

      • Simon Brink

        Not correct. And where did you get that from?

        • Mark Underwood

          Simon he may be confusing you with eWall on the Yahoo group, who also got a cease and desist

  • Ged
  • US_Citizen71

    …and looks can be deceiving.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QcyW-qTUg

    Only time will tell as Dr. Mills is keeping the data and information to replicate close to his chest.

  • Patent infringement ONLY occurs in commercialization, there is absolutely no restraint on research. A legal threat against research in such a matter is in fact a crime.

    • Nixter

      Does that mean an individual may make something using a current patent as long as it’s not made for the purpose of selling it?

      • Philip James

        The answer often centers around another question… are you by virtue of what you are doing somehow denying the patent holder of their own benefit. If they do not have anything on the market, and you are not marketing anything, you are not, in fact, infringing.

        Of course, a sufficiently wealthy company could wrap you up in legal mumbo jumbo for months or longer even with a meritless set of claims.

  • Patent infringement ONLY occurs in commercialization, there is absolutely no restraint on research. A legal threat against research in such a matter is in fact a crime.

    • Nixter

      Does that mean an individual may make something using a current patent as long as it’s not made for the purpose of selling it?

      • Philip James

        The answer often centers around another question… are you by virtue of what you are doing somehow denying the patent holder of their own benefit. If they do not have anything on the market, and you are not marketing anything, you are not, in fact, infringing.

        Of course, a sufficiently wealthy company could wrap you up in legal mumbo jumbo for months or longer even with a meritless set of claims.

  • This seems kinda ironic that Mills would send cease and desist stuff after Mills has had more than enough time to get a real product into the market. Maybe Mills and his people are worried that someone might, unlike them, actually build a working, practical machine…

  • Zephir

    /* though Mills has produced much more measurement data than either */

    The hydrino formation has no logics in it, it actually contradicts the dense aether model. In the omnipresent vibrating environment the particles cannot gain energy when collapse into fractional quantum states at free vacuum, they would consume it instead. These fractional quantum state could somehow survive at the surface of matter, but after then then must be also destroyed, when the matter gets evaporated.

    • optiongeek

      Zephir, you should learn about Mills’ model before criticizing. Collapsing a hydrogen atom to a hydrino is equivalent to a satellite going to a lower orbit. Less energy is required, which has to go somewhere. So it’s released to the catalyst resonantly and subsequently as EUV continuum radiation as the catalyst is ionized.

      • Zephir

        I think I do understand the Mills model better than others and I think that the fundamental quantum state exists from good physical reason: the vacuum is dynamic environment and it does prohibit the slowing of neverending motion at the quantum scale. If something moves more slowly in it than the fundamental quantum state, it just gets kicked with vacuum fluctuations into this quantum level again. If the atoms could gain energy by their further collapsing, they would already do it in stars and another environments, which have lotta hydrogen under pressure.

        • Mark Underwood

          Two things. First, hydrogen does not gain energy by collapsing. It loses energy and comes into a lower energy, stable hydrino state. Second, the hydrino’s electron is not moving more slowly that hydrogen’s electron, rather it is faster. Specifically the superconducting current loops making up an electron’s 2D surface are moving faster.

          • Zephir

            The vacuum is like the stormy sea. The proton is boat and the electron is a floater attached to this boat by Coulombic force. Due to energy of waves the floater will have tendency to separate from boat once it approaches to it too closely. From the same reason the momentum of electron rises, once we attempt to restrict its motion to a narrow space – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about it. I cannot exclude, that the subquantum levels are possible, but they should be metastable and as such rich of energy.

          • Mark Underwood

            Oh yes, I know the analogy well. The problem of course is the stormy sea is calculated to have over 10^100 as much gravitational mass as what is observed cosmologically. (Fittingly, it is called the vacuum catastrophe.) And lets not forget that as the universe expands, it is magically creating all that new space energy out of nothing. So I hope you can see in part why some people like myself and optiongeek have no problem tossing things like the HUP overboard into the sea instead.

          • optiongeek

            Zephir – HUP is magical. Physics has been held back by magical thinking for over ninety years. Dispel the magic. Don’t believe in magic because someone else (who was just as confused as you) tells you something must be true. Discipline yourself to use words that describe only things that your own experience tells you are real. Wake up!

  • Mark Underwood

    I didn’t know that was an aspect of the nature of the license, interesting. Still, a licensed party must be able to benefit somehow from the work they put into hydrino technology. I wonder how.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    While Mills may hold only completely unconfirmed state of the hydrogen atom-called “hydrino”.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    There is no place to jump.