Brilliant Light Power Announces ‘First Sustaining Plasma’ in History

Brilliant Light Power has posted videos from their recent Industry Day Event on their website here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ

BLP has also posted this Tweet:

  • georgehants

    BLP has made a statement looking like a Fact —–
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Now all it needs is an open, checkable, repeatable demonstration and their “potential” Fact becomes a reality and hopefully all of humanity gains.

    • William D. Fleming

      Another option is that they could put their product on the market.

      • georgehants

        William, agreed but after 5+ years of waiting for Rosie to show the sale of anything, the more conventional scientific route of open etc. demonstration I suggest above would be good.
        No need again to give away any secrets, no “experts” necessary, just a number of definitely independent domestic electricians with an Avo, checking electrical power in and electrical power out of whatever solar panels they have around.
        If the electrical output, no matter what the overall COP may be is COP 1+ then we have a winner.
        All the extras such as heat and method are incidental to a genuine, proven, over-unity device.
        Best

  • georgehants

    BLP has made a statement looking like a Fact —–
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Now all it needs is an open, independent, checkable, repeatable demonstration and their “potential” Fact becomes a reality and hopefully all of humanity gains.

    • William D. Fleming

      Another option is that they could put their product on the market.

      • georgehants

        William, agreed but after 5+ years of waiting for Rosie to show the sale of anything, the more conventional scientific route of open etc. demonstration I suggest above would be good.
        No need again to give away any secrets, no “experts” necessary, just a number of definitely independent domestic electricians with an Avo, checking electrical power in and electrical power out of whatever solar panels they have around and clever enough to notice any odd connections to the table it sits on etc. concealing a disguised truck load of car batteries etc.
        If the electrical output, no matter what the overall COP may be is COP 1+ then we have a winner.
        All the extras such as heat and method are incidental to a genuine, proven, over-unity device.
        Best

        • Michael W Wolf

          There is no one independent. There will always be detractors saying it is not independent. The whole world is polarized if you have not noticed.

          • georgehants

            Michael, of course you are correct in general, but I think taking your view as literal then we are going to be taken in by somebody who stands up and says the Sun does not shine.
            Viewed in your way, you must put up the same reply you have to me on every comment giving information.
            Being aware of your above point simply means being sure that something given as Fact such as Rossie’s claims or BLP’s statement above, must be handled competently such as in the way I suggest above.
            Can you give a better method acceptable to all sane people or by definition nothing can be accepted.
            I think I have made it plain above to counter exactly what you are saying, but this page will continue ad-infinitum consisting of nothing but mostly speculation, hearsay, opinion etc.
            In the end you seem to be saying, no George let’s not satisfactorily prove anything, just go on either believing or disbelieving as our characters lead us.

          • Michael W Wolf

            I am kind of saying that George. I see your point. I don’t believe blindly though. I do weigh what I have learned over the past several years and decide which way I will lean. But don’t we all? I have a lot of respect for you, although I may not show it all the time, I do.

  • MIT Course XXII

    Thanks for this link. Video 4 of 7 was factual and educational.

  • MIT Course XXII

    Thanks for this link. Video 4 of 7 was factual and educational.

  • Gerard McEk

    After studying the video’s I found it is the same story again. They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve. That short time slope is then translated into output power and compared to a continuous input power, outrageous! People ask the right questions in video 4 like ‘Where does the Mega Watts of heat go to?’ They agreed that the test device would vaporize when that kind of power were constantly generated. So today BLP have tweeted that they have ‘sustained plasma’, so why is the test SunCell not vaporized? I just continue to wait for the real proof: a COP>1

    • Mark Underwood

      “They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve.”

      “Just” based on the slope of a temperature curve? Perhaps you missed the part where Mills stresses that the slope method, the water calorimetry method, and the spectroscopic method – each a way to determine output power output – were all in essential agreement as to the amount of power generated?

      • Gerard McEk

        With ‘just’ I meant the short period where a huge power was generated. When they compare it with the average input power of 7.5 kW, the whole story becomes misleading and should not be done in that way. They talked about calorimetry , but didn’t really show that they actually used that. I hope BLP will show that the SunCell actually generates an ENERGY surplus soon. And I hope they do it convincingly, using calorimetry and proper energy input measurements during a longer time.

        • Mark Underwood

          In case it may be puzzling: Mills likes to emphasize ‘power’ output because frankly that was one of the main shortcomings of previous techniques to extract energy out of the hydrino formation process. The power density was too low.
          I have not yet gone through all the videos from the Industry Day, but a previous demonstration day (in June?) had Mills showing bomb calorimetry of a pellet detonating, and showing clear excess *energy*. The calorimetry was done by an expert in the field.
          So to people following this, the energy surplus of the basic hydrino reaction which would be used in the SunCell is already established. The trick now is harnessing that energy from a working SunCell.

  • Gerard McEk

    After studying the video’s I found it is the same story again. They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve. That short time slope is then translated into output power and compared to a continuous input power, outrageous! People ask the right questions in video 4 like ‘Where does the Mega Watts of heat go to?’ They agreed that the test device would vaporize when that kind of power were constantly generated. So today BLP have tweeted that they have ‘sustained plasma’, so why is the test SunCell not vaporized? I just continue to wait for the real proof: a COP>1

    • Good point. Do you have a theory of what is causing the light output? The presentation was much better than previous demonstrations, but we need to know what we are looking at.

    • Epi

      Mills has this covered quite well. Back in May they could not control the reaction very well. And so of course they speak about power density, because it is all they had back then. Mills is joking about this in the video. But melting tungsten or molybdenium in seconds is a good indication. Not a proof, but an indication.

      The cell is not melting now because they are controlling the reaction rate now. He also speaks about this in the video of the demonstration day.

      But waiting is also ok. But it would be better to take some action and verify his theory. Join me here: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/4510-Validation-of-Randell-Mills-GUTCP-a-call-for-action/?pageNo=1

    • nferguso

      There’s always something. From the videos I actually noticed two things. During the presentation, claims were made that the new design prototype can be run for hours, being turned off only when the office closes for the day. But then at 21:40 of Part 5 we find out these tests were run at “very very low power” (per RM). So as of that day BrLP had not shown (or was not officially claiming, anyway) that the reaction could be controlled at desired power levels for long periods. I wonder if BrLP was trying to leave people with a different impression?
      The second thing I noticed was a possibly unintentional reveal in video 6 by the presenter for Misano Semiconductor, Brad Siskavich. He said the only relevant IP would be a novel use patent, combining CPVC’s with the reactor. He plainly admitted that all PVC patents have expired. The inference is that BrLP can’t protect the reactor itself as novel, unobvious, with no prior art, etc.
      A novel use patent strikes me as eminently challengeable.
      Mr. Siskavich delicately made the point that independent validation of short duration events was all very well, but the real proof would be the rollout of a reactor using their CPVC’s to generate the claimed power. He said the first SunCell assembled for testing is scheduled for January 2017. I hope that it isn’t too long after that that word of success gets out.

      • MorganMck

        I will listen again, but what I recall Brad Siskavich addressing was only the patent-ability of the CPVs being developed for use in the SunCell, not the SunCell in general. His point seemed to be that the CPVs were simply multi-junction versions of open technology (patents long expired) and therefore the only IP associated with them is as a part of the SunCell system and would therefore belong to BrLP.

      • tlp

        That “very very low power” comment was about one of those validation runs that last 30 minutes, using the old design with tungsten electrodes and non refractory materials, April or May this spring.

        • nferguso

          Sorry, but I think I’m right. Go back and listen to video #4 (not 5 like I said above) from 21:00. You’ll hear that the validation test runs a few months ago lasted no more than a few seconds before vaporizing the electrodes. The current system with the liquid electrodes runs for hours, but with only occasional bursts of high energy, ergo at a very low power level.

          • tlp

            Listen again, they were talking about validation runs, one validator reported 30 minutes run, check those slides also.

          • nferguso

            I’m shocked. Two people watch the same video and disagree about what it meant. I guess we’ll just have to accept that there are two interpretations, yours and the correct one , , , , , , , , wheeze>.

          • tlp

            Just look at the video on this sustained plasma story:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBheBH9eio

            There are sections of two minutes ignition off, then two minutes ignition on, then 2 min off again, all the time in plasma mode, over 5000K. It is not any occasional bursts anymore, but it had to be during those validation runs this spring, specially during that 30 minutes run that they asked about and Mills answered to that question.

          • nferguso

            It is very encouraging. But the video you link is far from definitive. The description is largely legalese, and it equivocates a bit. (For something supposedly this earth-shaking one would think RM would have taken care to put it better.) There are no calibrations or specifications. You’re interpreting the colors and intensities you see a certain way, but they might amount to something big or not much at all. For example there’s a big intense flash after ignition, but there were brief flashes before ignition. What were they? We don’t know. How intense is “really bright” in the video? We don’t know.
            I stand by my take on what was said in video 4, but of course eagerly await the triumphant denouement, which would be the CPVC-clad Suncell cranking out 100KWe

    • Mark Underwood

      “They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve.”

      “Just” based on the slope of a temperature curve? Perhaps you missed the part where Mills stresses that the slope method, the water calorimetry method, and the spectroscopic method – each a way to determine output power output – were all in essential agreement as to the amount of power generated?

      • Gerard McEk

        With ‘just’ I meant the short period where a huge power was generated. When they compare it with the average input power of 7.5 kW, the whole story becomes misleading and should not be done in that way. They talked about calorimetry , but didn’t really show that they actually used that. I hope BLP will show that the SunCell actually generates an ENERGY surplus soon. And I hope they do it convincingly, using calorimetry and proper energy input measurements during a longer time.

        • Mark Underwood

          In case it may be puzzling: Mills likes to emphasize ‘power’ output because frankly that was one of the main shortcomings of previous techniques to extract energy out of the hydrino formation process. The power density was too low.
          I have not yet gone through all the videos from the Industry Day, but a previous demonstration day (in June?) had Mills showing bomb calorimetry of a pellet detonating, and showing clear excess *energy*. The calorimetry was done by an expert in the field.
          So to people following this, the energy surplus of the basic hydrino reaction which would be used in the SunCell is already established. The trick now is harnessing that energy from a working SunCell.

  • Quite an interesting presentation, and unlike previous presentations, it seems to have some degree of credibility.

  • Axil Axil

    I accept the reduced orbital behavior of the atom below base level as a characteristic of gainful (overunity) technologies, because Holmlid has deminstated it experimentally. Mills is wrong in his interpretation. These compounds and elements which show low electron orbits are described in high pressure physics as metalized hydrides. One of those hydrides is metalized water. Mills calls it HOH.

    I am using Mark LeClair’s name for the metalized water nanoparticle, the Water Crystal. Connecting this subject to LENR, Randall Mills has found that water crystals are the active agent in the SunCell. Mills describes this special form of water as having no covalent chemical bonds. This lack of chemical bonds is a result of charge separation between the positively charged “hole’ core of the nanoparticle and the electron cloud that orbits on the surface of the core of the superconductive crystal.

    In the 1960s, Joe Papp used this process to produce a patented water explosive that could shred 5/8 inch stainless steel pipe. People have been injecting HHO into their engines for many years now.

    http://www.americanantigravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Joseph-Papp-Cannon-1-186×110.jpg

    I beleive Holmlid, high pressure physics, and LeClair about the details of fractional electron orbitals, and not Mills. LeClair has photographed this stuff and has visualized its molecular structure,

    The primary difference between the two interpretations of factional electron orbits is the nuclear nature of the interaction between these collapsed elements and other matter.

    • Gerard McEk

      So what are these differences, Axil. How does normal matter interact with collapsed elements?

  • Axil Axil

    What Mills would discover if he set up multiple liquid metal fountains comprised of multiple liquid metal jets that a “Cat” fountains that is powered can ignite a self sustaining plasma reaction in the other unpowered “Mouse” fountains so that they all are also self sustaining.

    This is how I would beat Mills in the marketplace with a high COP Cat/Mouse systems architecture as demonstrated by Rossi.

    If Rossi can get a system to self sustain and so can Mills then I reason that Mills and Rossi are basically using the same physics.

    • tlp

      I think Rossi efect may have something common with hydrino reaction, but it is not the same.
      Lets look at hydrogen consumption:
      SunCell uses about 0.3 mg hydrogen/s when thermal power is 1MW. That means about 90 kg/year.
      Rossi efect fuel was just a few grams in 1 year 1MW test.
      Rossi efect must be at least mostly nuclear, SunCell is non nuclear hydrino reaction.

      • Axil Axil

        Compare apples to apples. Rossi’s 1 MW plant uses hydrogen in each reactor subunit. Mills has one unit whereas Rossi has many and Mills produces 5 times the power of Rossi’s reactor.

        Rossi also uses Lithium as fuel.

        • TVulgaris

          That’s still a difference of an order of magnitude when divided by 6, even including the lithium. Does anyone know how much lithium a SunCell would consume? That would be apples to apples.

  • Axil Axil

    What Mills would discover if he set up multiple liquid metal fountains comprised of multiple liquid metal jets that a single primary powered “Cat” fountain can ignite a self sustaining plasma reaction in the other unpowered secondary drone “Mouse” fountains so that they all are also self sustaining.

    This is how I would beat Mills in the marketplace with a high COP Cat/Mouse systems architecture as demonstrated by Rossi.

    If Rossi can get a system to self sustain and so can Mills then I reason that Mills and Rossi are basically using the same physics.

    Mills has now verified Rossi’s tech through replication. This replication shows that Rossi has the goods.

    It will be interesting to see who gets the patent on Self Sustained mode, Rossi or Mills.

    • tlp

      I think Rossi efect may have something common with hydrino reaction, but it is not the same.
      Lets look at hydrogen consumption:
      SunCell uses about 0.3 mg hydrogen/s when thermal power is 1MW. That means about 90 kg/year.
      Rossi efect fuel was just a few grams in 1 year 1MW test.
      Rossi efect must be at least mostly nuclear, SunCell is non nuclear hydrino reaction.

      • Axil Axil

        Compare apples to apples. Rossi’s 1 MW plant uses hydrogen in each reactor subunit. Mills has one unit whereas Rossi has many and Mills produces 5 times the power of Rossi’s reactor.

        Rossi also uses Lithium as fuel.

        • TVulgaris

          That’s still a difference of an order of magnitude when divided by 6, even including the lithium. Does anyone know how much lithium a SunCell would consume? That would be apples to apples.

  • Axil Axil

    Maximum power 5 megawatts, sustained is 1.2 MWs. Ash is hydrinos as dark matter. Gas feed is 3% hydrogen and 97% argon, an inert gas. Temperature is 6000K, reduced to 3000K by the carbon dome.

  • Axil Axil

    Maximum power 5 megawatts, sustained is 1.2 MWs. Ash is hydrinos as dark matter. Gas feed is 3% hydrogen and 97% argon, an inert gas. Hydrogen is burnt and agron is kept constant. Temperature is 6000K, reduced to 3000K by the carbon dome.

  • Axil Axil

    Like Rossi, Mills can also use lithium as fuel. Here is a phase diagram for silver lithium alloy:

    http://www.himikatus.ru/art/phase-diagr1/Ag-Li.gif

    • tlp

      Lithium is one possible hydrino reaction catalyst, but catalyst in not fuel. SunCell catalyst is water, not lithium.

      • Axil Axil

        That is great if Mills beleives that, because using lithium as fuel would simplify the system a lot.

        Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals.

        There would be no gas tanks, no hydrogen control function, no gas piping…a simpler system all around.

        • tlp

          There is free hydrogen everywhere in the air, in form of water. No need to refuel ever. Rossi needs to refuel lithium, and it is not freely available.

          • Axil Axil

            Then why is Mills using a hydrogen bottle as a hydrogen souce?

          • Mark Underwood

            Newly formed, ‘nascent’ water inside the SunCell is created when the hydrogen gas combines with a refractive, undisclosed oxide that circulates with the silver. The oxide regenerates itself.

          • Axil Axil

            Mills has his own secret sauce.

          • cashmemorz

            One blogger suggested diatomaceous earth as that secret ingredient. Then when I went to show how that might work another blogger, who seemed be one of the more knowledgeable bloggers, tried to cut me down by stating that is not true that there is no secret sauce. This leads me to a schizophrenic view of what is going on this site. Who is right?

          • Axil Axil

            Sorry, I forgot to put a ? to end my sentence. I will correct it now.

          • tlp

            That is propably written in those patent applications not yet public. Though there is certainly a list of possible oxides. And not releived what is the best.
            In those validation reports they tested two or three candidates, but those are sensored out.
            Validators know the secret, but won’t tell.

          • tlp

            Easier for first prototypes. Water tank is used in first commercial products, water wapor from air is the next phase.
            All air in Earth contains water.

          • Axil Axil

            Keep design simple and cheap. It is hard to extract hydrogen out of water. A hydride contains far more hydrogen per molecule and is released by simply using heat.

          • Axil Axil

            The system will not work where the air is dry if your systems design is assumed.

          • Leonard Weinstein

            Water, water everywhere. Are you joking about the problem with dry air? Take a tank of water for fuel. Refill at the sink or river. Bubble air through it.

        • NT

          “Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals”.
          Uh, take a closer look at your statement Axil as you may want to rephrase that a bit. Lithium is an alkali metal element and hydrogen is a gas element, if my old memory serves me correctly…

          • Axil Axil

            Hydrogen is in Group 1 of the Periodic Table, because it has the same electron configuration as the alkali metals but true, it differs from metals in a number of ways, but most importantly for LENR, hydrogen can behave like a metal at a pressure of 500 000 atm.
            It may exist as a metal in the interiors of large planets like Jupiter and Saturn and in the Sun and the LENR reaction.

          • NT

            Axil Axil, thanks for clarifying – I now see what you are getting at in this context – Hydrogen can act as a metal under very extreme conditions as could/may occur in LENR reactions…

  • Axil Axil

    Like Rossi, Mills can also use lithium as fuel. Here is a phase diagram for silver lithium alloy:

    http://www.himikatus.ru/art/phase-diagr1/Ag-Li.gif

    • tlp

      Lithium is one possible hydrino reaction catalyst, but catalyst in not fuel. SunCell catalyst is water, not lithium.

      • Axil Axil

        That is great if Mills believes that, because using lithium as fuel would simplify the system a lot.

        Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals. A system that does not use hydrogen would be safer and cheaper to build and maintain. There would be less things that go wrong.

        Such a simpler system would beat Mills in the marketplace.

        There would be no gas tanks, no hydrogen control function, no gas piping…a simpler and safer system all around.

        This simplicity is why Rossi went with lithium fuel.

        • tlp

          There is free hydrogen everywhere in the air, in form of water. No need to refuel ever. Rossi needs to refuel lithium, and it is not freely available.

          • Axil Axil

            Then why is Mills using a hydrogen bottle as a hydrogen souce?

          • Mark Underwood

            Newly formed, ‘nascent’ water inside the SunCell is created when the hydrogen gas combines with a refractive, undisclosed oxide that circulates with the silver. The oxide regenerates itself.

          • Axil Axil

            Mills has his own secret sauce?(edit)

          • cashmemorz

            One blogger suggested diatomaceous earth as that secret ingredient. Then when I went to show how that might work another blogger, who seemed be one of the more knowledgeable bloggers, tried to cut me down by stating that is not true that there is no secret sauce. This leads me to a schizophrenic view of what is going on this site. Who is right?

          • Axil Axil

            Sorry, I forgot to put a ? to end my sentence. I will correct it now.

          • tlp

            That is propably written in those patent applications not yet public. Though there is certainly a list of possible oxides. And not releived what is the best.
            In those validation reports they tested two or three candidates, but those are sensored out.
            Validators know the secret, but won’t tell.

          • tlp

            Easier for first prototypes. Water tank is used in first commercial products, water vapor from air is the next phase.
            All air in Earth contains water.

          • Axil Axil

            Keep design simple and cheap. It is hard to extract hydrogen out of water. A hydride contains far more hydrogen per molecule and is released by simply using heat.

          • Axil Axil

            The system will not work where the air is dry if your systems design is assumed.

          • Leonard Weinstein

            Water, water everywhere. Are you joking about the problem with dry air? Take a tank of water for fuel. Refill at the sink or river. Bubble air through it.

        • NT

          “Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals”.
          Uh, take a closer look at your statement Axil as you may want to rephrase that a bit. Lithium is an alkali metal element and hydrogen is a gas element, if my old memory serves me correctly…

          • Axil Axil

            Hydrogen is in Group 1 of the Periodic Table, because it has the same electron configuration as the alkali metals but true, it differs from metals in a number of ways, but most importantly for LENR, hydrogen can behave like a metal at a pressure of 500 000 atm.
            It may exist as a metal in the interiors of large planets like Jupiter and Saturn and in the Sun and the LENR reaction.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-hydrogen-a-metal-1860-12-15/

          • NT

            Axil Axil, thanks for clarifying – I now see what you are getting at in this context – Hydrogen can act as a metal under very extreme conditions as could/may occur in LENR reactions…

  • Axil Axil

    Mills is very open in describing his technogym far more open than Rossi. Mills is also able to get his ideas patented with no problems. Is that because his theories are based on chemical energy production only? LENR can’t get patents through the system and this has caused Rossi to be tight lipped about his tech.

    Does Mills really beleive in the hydrino or is it a ploy to make his development easier. Maybe Rossi should also claim that his tech is based on the hydrino, then he can get his stuff patented and everybody can understand it in detail. I am sympathetic about the hydrino for that reason…propaganda.

    • Mark Underwood

      Mills has had tremendous challenges with the patent office! The USPO even withdrew a patent that was granted to Blacklight in 2000 ; a very unusual occurrence. The patent had to do with energy generation via hydrino formation. People like skeptopath Robert Park had undue and unseemly influence there. Hopefully Park will still be alive to see a SunCell in operation.

      • Axil Axil

        Mills is not restricted by an exclusion category in patent processing specifying LENR.

  • Axil Axil

    Mills is very open in describing his technology far more openly than Rossi has been. Mills is also able to get his ideas patented with no problems. Is that because his theories are based on chemical energy production only? LENR can’t get patents through the system and this has caused Rossi to become tight lipped about his tech and looking for IP thieves behind every bush and around every corner.

    Its no wonder that Mills has not checked for isotopic changes. A positive result would be the end of his chemistry only ploy and the beginning of his issues with the patent office.

    Raising money from investors has been easy for Mills. He has spent 10 million so far on the SunCell. investors buy into his chemistry only ploy.

    Come on now, who can beleive that 5 megawatts can be generated inside the volume of a teacup using chemistry only. Electron orbitals don’t produce that much power. Mills must doubt his hydrino myth when he sees 5 kilograms of tungsten electrodes vaporize in 20 seconds.

    Rossi could lose the overunity energy race by being honest about the underpinning of his reaction as Mills sails free and clear into product development, manufacturing, and product release into the market place.

    Does Mills really beleive in the hydrino or is it a ploy to make his system development easier. Maybe Rossi should also claim that his tech is based on the hydrino, then he can get his stuff patented and everybody can understand it in detail. I am sympathetic about the hydrino for that reason…propaganda.

    • Mark Underwood

      Mills has had tremendous challenges with the patent office! The USPO even withdrew a patent that was granted to Blacklight in 2000 ; a very unusual occurrence. The patent had to do with energy generation via hydrino formation. People like skeptopath Robert Park had undue and unseemly influence there. Hopefully Park will still be alive to see a SunCell in operation.

      • Axil Axil

        Mills is not restricted by an exclusion category in patent processing specifying LENR.

  • Axil Axil

    In my time at looking at nuclear reactor design, one key competitive advantage is power density. The more power that a reactor can produce with the smallest input of structural material makes the highest power dense reactor the winner.

    The pebble bed reactor never appealed to the electric utilities because it was a low power dense contraption. Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,

    Mills will beat the pants off of Rossi with his 20 watt Quark nonsense. Who wants to buy a megawatt reactor the size of a shipping container when a reactor the size of a breadbox will serve.

    Mills has the edge in this race.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If both Mills and Rossi are correct in their work and claims, Mills would win overall due to the method of energy capture. 35% PV concentrators over very high temperature surfaces avoid need for turbogenerators (which are not very efficient even at 1 MW levels). In addition, the direct heat waste can do what LENR can do in more compact space, while also supplying the electricity. However, for small systems (e.g., <30 kW), and where the lower quality heat are well used, the e-cat quarkX may well be the cheaper choice.

      Mills work is not yet final. The dome evaporation problem may limit max temperatures, and a method like used in Halogen lamps may be needed to avoid coating the PV.

    • cashmemorz

      “Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant
      construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,”

      And yet when the ITERs of the world put up super complex and super costly power producing units(to be realized some time in the future: at least 5 years to show continuous plasma using large inputs of power, not self sustaining as yet… ?) who is being convinced of the minimal plant construction? Is it really political lobbying, cronyism, promises to be kept despite the too long time and inertia of the size of the project? Something does not add up like a proper government oversight would seem to allow for.

      • Axil Axil

        A change in attitude

        I am now an ardent admirer of Mills who has solve most of the issues inherent in high power density LENR reactor design. I love high power density in a reactor.

        Mills can get top of the line power density out of just hydrogen fuel without melting down the reactor, something that Rossi has been trying to do for years now.

        The liquid electron idea is great and its implementation is even better. An miracle upon miracles is the self driven plasma reaction that can last for minutes without input stimulation. No one would have ever imagined that this astounding feat was even possible.

        And most satisfy trait of all, Mills is completely open and will explain how is tech works.

        Rossi on the other hand has sacrificed power density for 5 sigma. He has cut his power density by a factor of 1000 to keep his reactor from early destruction. Low reactor power density paves the road to system failure.

        Mills can improve power density even more by adding CAT/MOUSE based multi electrode operation. Mills can add magnetic protection to his structure to produce a hot fusion/LENR hybrid design with huge power density…a 100 megawatt reactor in a breadbox.

        • TVulgaris

          A lot of people are now criticizing Rossi for down-scaling power density for safety, reliability, packaging, and other engineering constraints. Why is that a problem? The ONLY “people” that currently require megawatts of power are corporations, and they demand it for dirt cheap, but will not redistribute it for dirt cheap. The SunCell as it’s currently conceived does absolutely nothing to remove the choke-hold private interests have on the commons as far as energy supplies (and finance, and defense, and soon air and water) go, and Mills has made clear he has no particular interest in accessing the domestic market for a long time.
          I’ve been very impressed with Mill’s work for at least 5 years now, both theoretical and experimental (and I seem to recall something cutting edge from way back in terms of light, nearly 20 years ago-’98 or so?) and applaud him all the way, especially if he’s played some of the big-money evildoers and not given away the store- but I don’t see any small SunCells at the $1000 price point within 20 years, while Rossi is talking next year for light commercial (and domestic whenever it happens due to certification difficulties).

  • Axil Axil

    In my time at looking at nuclear reactor design, one key competitive advantage in those type systems is power density. The more power that a reactor can produce with the smallest input of structural material makes the highest power dense reactor the winner.

    The pebble bed reactor never appealed to the electric utilities because it was a low power dense contraption. Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,

    Mills will beat the pants off of Rossi with his 20 watt Quark nonsense. Who wants to buy a megawatt reactor the size of a shipping container when a reactor the size of a breadbox will serve.

    Mills has the edge in this race.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If both Mills and Rossi are correct in their work and claims, Mills would win overall due to the method of energy capture. 35% PV concentrators over very high temperature surfaces avoid need for turbogenerators (which are not very efficient even at 1 MW levels). In addition, the direct heat waste can do what LENR can do in more compact space, while also supplying the electricity. However, for small systems (e.g., <30 kW), and where the lower quality heat are well used, the e-cat quarkX may well be the cheaper choice.

      Mills work is not yet final. The dome evaporation problem may limit max temperatures, and a method like used in Halogen lamps may be needed to avoid coating the PV.

      • Don’t forget the Quark X and follow on tech …

    • cashmemorz

      “Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant
      construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,”

      And yet when the ITERs of the world put up super complex and super costly power producing units(to be realized some time in the future: at least 5 years to show continuous plasma using large inputs of power, not self sustaining as yet… ?) who is being convinced of the minimal plant construction? Is it really political lobbying, cronyism, promises to be kept despite the too long time and inertia of the size of the project? Something does not add up like a proper government oversight would seem to allow for.

      • Axil Axil

        I am now an ardent admirer of Mills who has solved most of the issues inherent in high power density LENR reactor design. I love high power density in a reactor.

        Mills can get top of the line power density out of just hydrogen fuel without melting down the reactor, something that Rossi has been trying to do for years now. Have you noticed, all hydrogen only based LENR reactors will get out of control and melt down unless they are liquid already.

        The liquid electrode idea is great and its implementation is even better. A miracle upon miracles is the self-driven plasma reaction that can last for minutes without input stimulation. No one would have ever imagined that this astounding feat was even possible.

        And the most satisfying trait of all, Mills is completely open and will explain how his tech works.

        Rossi on the other hand has sacrificed power density for 5 sigma. When he reduced his reactor unit to 20 watts, Rossi cut his power density again by a factor of 1000 to keep his reactor from early destruction. Low reactor power density paves the road to system commercial failure.

        Mills can improve power density even more by adding CAT/MOUSE based multi electrode operation. Instead of just one liquid electrode pair, Mills can setup an array of 100 pairs that work in parallel with each electrode producing a plasma ball the size of a teacup with only one of those electrodes receiving power. Mills can add magnetic protection to his structure to produce a hot fusion/LENR hybrid design with huge power density…a 100 megawatt reactor in a breadbox.

        The limitation of the size of this reactor type is the amount of light conversion surface that is required to convert light to electric current.

        A technology beyond photovoltaics can be developed and is currently in development that converts photon energy directly into electron flow by downshifting the EUV to longer wavelength EMF and generating current from that converted EMF. See nanoantenna

        epjam.edp-open.org/articles/ep…f/2015/01/epjam150012.pdf

        • TVulgaris

          A lot of people are now criticizing Rossi for down-scaling power density for safety, reliability, packaging, and other engineering constraints. Why is that a problem? The ONLY “people” that currently require megawatts of power are corporations, and they demand it for dirt cheap, but will not redistribute it for dirt cheap. The SunCell as it’s currently conceived does absolutely nothing to remove the choke-hold private interests have on the commons as far as energy supplies (and finance, and defense, and soon air and water) go, and Mills has made clear he has no particular interest in accessing the domestic market for a long time.
          I’ve been very impressed with Mill’s work for at least 5 years now, both theoretical and experimental (and I seem to recall something cutting edge from way back in terms of light, nearly 20 years ago-’98 or so?) and applaud him all the way, especially if he’s played some of the big-money evildoers and not given away the store- but I don’t see any small SunCells at the $1000 price point within 20 years, while Rossi is talking next year for light commercial (and domestic whenever it happens due to certification difficulties).

  • Chris Marshalk

    What’s the hold up in releasing this technology??? Why do they continue to tease the public with their claimed breakthroughs. If it was real I’d be able to buy it. Release another video is pointless.

    • Mark Underwood

      What’s the hold up? People like me have watched BLP, now BrLP, for over 15 years, and understand the delays. Perhaps you could either 1) inform yourself or 2) pretend the technology doesn’t exist and put up another windmill.

      • optiongeek

        It’s really a shame that the US election is seemingly all about how to resolve world-wide tension over a proposed gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. As of Industry Day, that sort of blood-for-oil politics has become moot.

        • TVulgaris

          Only for projective intelligence, something the US electorate (and nearly the entire world, as far as I can tell) commonly lacks. Any who DO have it are shouted down and marginalized, especially if they use rational methods of projection with reasonably hard data.

      • Axil Axil

        From the beginning, Mills has tried to extract energy from chemical means. Now that he is going nuclear, he is making good progress. The moral, get the system to work and don’t be tied to theory.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Wow, that is counter to establishment thinking. Everyone in the establishment says theory first. But you are probably right. It seems Mills needed the theory to get the patents. Kind of a catch 22 I guess. I wouldn’t really blame Mills if he went the chemical route, not because he believed it, but to obtain the patent protection for it. It seems far fetched, but I guess it is possible.

        • Mark Underwood

          If by ‘chemical means’ you mean energy from electron orbital energy differentials, then yes Mills is extracting energy by chemical means. Nuclear? No. Mills is clear that it is not nuclear, and the evidence is clear that it is not nuclear. So why are you saying it is nuclear?

          Mills shared recently has gone as far as using deuterium instead of normal hydrogen to see if it it made any difference in the reaction. There was no appreciable difference.

          Mills is very tied to theory, and he has repeatedly affirmed that his progress this far has been due very much to advances in theoretical understanding.

          • Axil Axil

            Post Axil 001,

            Reference: http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i44/Cold-fusion-died-25-years.html

            Rathke’s comment on the SunCell

            Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”

            When a conceptual model is built, it is only as good as the predictions that it makes. Applying Mills theory to just one system is a limited way to test the applicability of that theory to explaining what is going on in nature.

            When evaluating a theory, the wider the differences are between systems that the theory purports to explain, the better the chance that the theory approaches truth.

            A theory is like a ten thousand piece puzzle. Each system that the theory is intended to describe is a puzzle piece. If the theory can fit together all 10,000 systems into a connected and coherent whole, then the theory is a valuable one.

            But the selection and characterization of systems to analyze, the systems that reflects the theory as a valid system representation, is where the analysis of a theory fails.

            Here is a system that produces overunity power like the SunCell. It operates at about the same temperature using an arc discharge, and operates in a water environment.

            http://www.newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

            Can the hydrino theory explain how this system works? If not, why not?

            By the way, the Klimov system produces transmutation products. The system must be changing the atoms that enter the energy generating reaction. Is the SunCell also producing transmutation produces. Have the materials that enter into the SunCell reaction been tested for transmutation. If not why not?

    • Michael W Wolf

      The hold up is money. Mills has done well with the money he had to work with. The engineering is so complex, the establishment hasn’t even attempted it. Anyone who has, had their careers ruined. What Mills has accomplished is a miracle and you don’t even realize it. Because you want one for yourself, you’ll attack a man you should be praising.

      • Chris Marshalk

        I’ve not attacked a man in my statement but I see what you mean. TIME will tell if this is real.

        • Michael W Wolf

          “tease the public with claimed breakthroughs”. Touche’, it isn’t really an attack as much as your frustration. I apologize Chris.

  • Mark Underwood

    What’s the hold up? People like me have watched BLP, now BrLP, for over 15 years, and understand the delays. Perhaps you could either 1) inform yourself or 2) pretend the technology doesn’t exist and put up another windmill.

    • Axil Axil

      From the beginning, Mills has tried to extract energy from chemical means. Now that he is going nuclear, he is making good progress. The moral, get the system to work and don’t be tied to theory.

      • Mark Underwood

        If by ‘chemical means’ you mean energy from electron orbital energy differentials, then yes Mills is extracting energy by chemical means. Nuclear? No. Mills is clear that it is not nuclear, and the evidence is clear that it is not nuclear. So why are you saying it is nuclear?

        Mills shared recently has gone as far as using deuterium instead of normal hydrogen to see if it it made any difference in the reaction. There was no appreciable difference.

        Mills is very tied to theory, and he has repeatedly affirmed that his progress this far has been due very much to advances in theoretical understanding.

        • Axil Axil

          Rathke’s comment on the SunCell

          Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”

          When a conceptual model is built, it is only as good as the predictions that it makes. Applying Mills theory to just one system is a limited way to test the applicability of that theory to explaining what is going on in nature.

          When evaluating a theory, the wider the differences are between systems that the theory purports to explain, the better the chance that the theory approaches truth.

          A theory is like a ten thousand piece puzzle. Each system that the theory is intended to describe is a puzzle piece. If the theory can fit together all 10,000 systems into a connected anf coherent whole, then the theory is a valuable one.

          But the selection and characterization of systems to analyze, the systems that reflects the theory as a valid system representation, is where the analysis of a theory fails.

          Here is a system that produces overunity power like the SunCell. It operates at t about the same temperature using an arc discharge. And operates in a water environment.

          http://www.newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

          Can the hydrino theory explain how this system works? If not, why not?

          By the way, it produces transmutation products. The system must be changing the atoms what enter the reaction which is generating energy.

  • Mark Underwood

    About a week ago, Dr. Jonathan Phillips posted the following (in part) at the Society of Classical Physics Yahoo group:

    As an expert on plasmas I can testify that prior to BLP presentation there was never a ‘self-sustaining plasma’ anywhere on earth. Even the plasma created by the ‘bomb’ locally only lasts a few shakes. To maintain a plasma it is necessary to create charged species (generally starts with a spark) that can absorb energy from an applied field of some kind. The ‘steady state’ charge concentration then gets very, very hot by adsorbing field energy. (The ‘steady state’ concentration is actually quite low as charges have a short ‘half-life’ as they are removed as soon as they reach a wall via diffusion. At steady state each charge, on average, ‘replaces’ itself via an ionization interaction with a neutral before it reaches the wall.) In turn, that energy is transferred to neutral species. (Notably, the neutral species never become as hot as the charged species, so there is a 2nd Law of Thermo basis for the energy transfer.) In the absence of a field (spark) the electrons/protons (‘ambipolars’) are quickly lost to the walls. There is no longer a means to absorb energy from the field, and the plasma dies. No energy in, no plasma. There is no neutral-neutral interaction, in pre CQM theory, that generates any energy. In all prior earth generated plasmas the ‘turn off’ process takes less than a second. A charged species at 100K degrees doesn’t take long to diffuse to the wall….In the BLP demo there is no field once the ignition is turned off. There is no energy input to the plasma of any kind! The plasma in a pre-CQM world should die immediately. Yet, there is clearly a plasma in the demo that does not cool significantly for at least one minute!

  • Mark Underwood

    About a week ago, Dr. Jonathan Phillips posted the following (in part) at the Society of Classical Physics Yahoo group:

    As an expert on plasmas I can testify that prior to BLP presentation there was never a ‘self-sustaining plasma’ anywhere on earth. Even the plasma created by the ‘bomb’ locally only lasts a few shakes. To maintain a plasma it is necessary to create charged species (generally starts with a spark) that can absorb energy from an applied field of some kind. The ‘steady state’ charge concentration then gets very, very hot by adsorbing field energy. (The ‘steady state’ concentration is actually quite low as charges have a short ‘half-life’ as they are removed as soon as they reach a wall via diffusion. At steady state each charge, on average, ‘replaces’ itself via an ionization interaction with a neutral before it reaches the wall.) In turn, that energy is transferred to neutral species. (Notably, the neutral species never become as hot as the charged species, so there is a 2nd Law of Thermo basis for the energy transfer.) In the absence of a field (spark) the electrons/protons (‘ambipolars’) are quickly lost to the walls. There is no longer a means to absorb energy from the field, and the plasma dies. No energy in, no plasma. There is no neutral-neutral interaction, in pre CQM theory, that generates any energy. In all prior earth generated plasmas the ‘turn off’ process takes less than a second. A charged species at 100K degrees doesn’t take long to diffuse to the wall….In the BLP demo there is no field once the ignition is turned off. There is no energy input to the plasma of any kind! The plasma in a pre-CQM world should die immediately. Yet, there is clearly a plasma in the demo that does not cool significantly for at least one minute!

  • artefact

    OT: Emdrive

    “New NASA Emdrive paper shows force of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt in a Vacuum and a low thrust pendulum and tests were at 40, 60 and 80 watts”

    http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html?m=1

    • georgehants

      Morning artefact, hope you don’t mind me putting to you a reply I received below which taken literally would make putting up such a link as yours pointless.
      Perhaps you could answer it better than I am able, which was to simply ask for clear independent, conformation.
      ———
      Michael W Wolf
      georgehants
      There is no one independent. There will always be detractors saying
      it is not independent. The whole world is polarized if you have not
      noticed.

      • Michael W Wolf

        George, you missed my point. I didn’t mean literally no one. I more meant there is no way you can prove something when you have detractors always and I mean always claim bias in one form or another. Nothing you can do, will be without detractors, who are believed by many, polarizing any subject conceived by anyone. We have come down to who you believe, who YOU trust as independent. If you come here looking for proof, you won’t find it. Because nothing is provable to many people. For gosh sakes, you know how many people believe the earth is flat?! What independent proof could you ever give them when you think it is already validated? They say it hasn’t been independently validated, just like you on this subject.

  • artefact

    OT: Emdrive

    “New NASA Emdrive paper shows force of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt in a Vacuum and a low thrust pendulum and tests were at 40, 60 and 80 watts”

    http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows-force-of.html?m=1

    • georgehants

      Morning artefact, hope you don’t mind me putting to you a reply I received below which taken literally would make putting up such a link as yours pointless.
      Perhaps you could answer it better than I am able, which was to simply ask for clear independent, conformation.
      ———
      Michael W Wolf
      georgehants
      There is no one independent. There will always be detractors saying
      it is not independent. The whole world is polarized if you have not
      noticed.

      • Michael W Wolf

        George, you missed my point. I didn’t mean literally no one. I more meant there is no way you can prove something when you have detractors always and I mean always claim bias in one form or another. Nothing you can do, will be without detractors, who are believed by many, polarizing any subject conceived by anyone. We have come down to who you believe, who YOU trust as independent. If you come here looking for proof, you won’t find it. Because nothing is provable to many people. For gosh sakes, you know how many people believe the earth is flat?! What independent proof could you ever give them when you think it is already validated? They say it hasn’t been independently validated, just like you on this subject.

  • georgehants

    Michael, of course you are correct in general, but I think taking your view as literal then we are going to be taken in by somebody who stands up and says the Sun does not shine.
    Being aware of your above point simply means being sure that something given as Fact such as Rossie’s claims or BLP’s statement above, must be handled competently such as in the way I suggest above.
    Can you give a better method acceptable to all sane people or by definition nothing can be accepted.
    I think I have made it plain above to counter exactly what you are saying, but this page will continue ad-infinitum consisting of nothing but speculation, hearsay etc.
    In the end you seem to be saying, no George let’s not satisfactorily prove anything, just go on either believing or disbelieving as our characters lead us.

  • Steve Swatman

    One has to admit they throw a good sales pitch.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, sometimes it seem a bit hokey at that industry day, but they are working with their own money. No time for refined sales pitches meant to manipulate people into giving them money.

  • Steve Swatman

    One has to admit they throw a good sales pitch.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yea, sometimes it seem a bit hokey at that industry day, but they are working with their own money. No time for refined sales pitches meant to manipulate people into giving them money.

  • A mate of mine has one of those for cutting metal.

  • georgehants

    Years ago, these pages where full of optimistic comments on the good that would come from Cold Fusion, how it could be a tool for progress, after many false promises of conformation it has become the norm for nothing but speculation as to if any of it is genuine, with views based on incomplete information that makes the whole situation nothing but sad and comical.
    Ridiculous court cases etc.
    Now we have BLP giving a statement of clear Fact —-
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Nothing matters regarding Rossi, BLP etc. etc. except independent verification of their claims at any level above COP 1.
    Then instead of all this depressing repetition of analyses and speculation that takes us nowhere, we could as it should be rejoice in the discussions of progress.
    I cannot take the views of many people, excusing these delays as some kind of normality, I take the simple sane view of sod all the excuses, the World needs this technology, if it is genuine.
    Their should only be one Topic Page, demanding that these people show the Evidence of their claims.
    Just one conformation and the World will explode with Research and investigation despite any attempts by vested interests to slow or stop it. (I think)

    • tlp

      You certainly know that there are plenty of validations.
      But you are complaining that those are not independent.
      Think who could be that totally independent person or instance that is willing to spend time and money to investigate something that gives no benefit to him/them. Only BrLP would benefit from that work.

      • georgehants

        tlp, When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
        That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.
        Our governments spend billions on far less important expenditure.
        One makes one’s choice as to what is more important, sending toys to Mars etc. or improving the lives of every person on this planet.
        Those same governments can easily reward those doing the work.

        • tlp

          Try to tell your covernment that they should spend on this. Guess what kind of an answer you would get? Probably no answer. Why? Because all their scientific advisors are dismissing this.
          This situation is hopefully changing next year, as this is becoming more and more clear to bigger audience.
          Patent rejections and Wikipedia controlling skeptics have delayed that acceptance and thus slowed down this development.

          • georgehants

            tlp, I am stating clear Facts not saying that I alone can change things.
            That in a democracy is the responsibility of all people.
            I give my Factual view and people either agree or disagree based on their motivation.
            Regarding your above reply and the continuous repetition that there are validations, there are no open validations of Cold Fusion of any kind that an organisation such as MFMP can follow to confirm such a report. (so far)
            Why do people keep repeating false information.

          • tlp

            Not cold fusion, hydrino reactions have been validated, and those latest are presented in Dr. Janssons video talk. Except one, that was not allowed to be presented and published, because of some covernment institution.

          • georgehants

            tlp, we are talking about an open, repeatable conformation of any over-unity energy source and you have branched off to a completely irrelevant point.
            Show those Hydrino’s producing a open repeatable over-unity power source and then your reply would make sense.

          • tlp

            I just did that. Those are perfectly valid validations.

          • georgehants

            tlp, please put up a link to an open repeatable report that can be followed by anybody skilled in the art to demonstrate an over-unity device.

          • tlp
          • georgehants

            tlp, I do not need to read the report you have given based on the Fact that if it contained all the information necessary for an open repeatable demonstration for over-unity then these pages would be screaming that Fact to the World.
            Those on page far cleverer than me would be shouting out loud that over-unity is confirmed.
            So either all these clever people have not read your link or they find such an open repeatable conformation to boring to bother saying anything.

          • tlp

            First you ask a link, and then don’t bother to read those papers. At least you should watch dr. Janssons videotalk from brilliantlightpower.com/demonstration-days
            and also those other videos.

          • georgehants

            tlp, thanks for chat, your logical reply to my last reply would have been useful but you avoided it completely.
            Best.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Where is the money to make all these units George? Mills can’t get his theory accepted even with validation. He needs to make a working prototype to get more money to sell test units. Which in turn will generate the money needed to produce commercial units. I know you hate capitalism, but without it there would be no money to discover anything new. Why can’t you get it into your head? Capitalism is LENR’s only hope. Period. If the last 27 years haven’t proven that to you, nothing will.

          • georgehants

            Michael, read my comments, I have answered your question but the answer does not suit you so you rant off with complete rubbish as if it where Fact.
            ——–
            “Capitalism is LENR’s only hope.”
            That is an opinion that you are quite entitled to but in no way a Fact, you are simply unable to see any further than a corrupt and inefficient system that you blindly take cannot be improved.
            Good bye

          • cashmemorz

            If not the existing capitalistic system, then in what way, that is currently available, could Mills, Rossi or anyone else bring LENR-like tech to fruition? Would you not agree that there must be a viable way to do this? Just throwing their data into somebodies lap would seem fool hardy. Data given that way could easily find its way into the hands of those that have less than clean hands, hands that are even greedier than those that are producing the data. Complaining about the current way of doing things is fine if a better methodology is proposed. Without such a proposition, complaining is meaningless. Please propose a better system or methodology or whatever it is you have in mind that you think will work better.

          • towerofbabel

            We would be wise not to throw around the words capitalism and socialism without thinking through the actual complexity entailed in their use. It leads to meaningless posturing.

          • TVulgaris

            Capitalism is NOT the source of wealth. It’s not even A source of wealth. Correct your thinking.

          • TVulgaris

            So what is MFMP?
            You keep repeating over and over your views and opinions as Factual (your usage)- whether or not I agree and share those opinions (it so happens I do), they are not fact, but opinion.
            NONE of these technological revolutions

            will make the slightest impact on the suffering of the world if they are rigidly controlled (as is clear many players in the field are jockeying for position to effect) by the same oligarchy that really controls the world’s banking and energy-“production” sectors.

  • georgehants

    Years ago, these pages where full of optimistic comments on the good that would come from Cold Fusion, how it could be a tool for progress, after many false promises of conformation it has become the norm for nothing but speculation as to if any of it is genuine, with views based on incomplete information that makes the whole situation nothing but sad and comical.
    Ridiculous court cases etc.
    Now we have BLP giving a statement of clear Fact —-
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Nothing matters regarding Rossi, BLP etc. etc. except independent verification of their claims at any level above COP 1.
    Then instead of all this depressing, constant repetition of analyses and speculation that takes us nowhere, we could as it should be rejoice in the discussions of progress.
    I cannot take the views of many people, excusing these delays as some kind of normality, I take the simple sane view of sod all the excuses, the World needs this technology, if it is genuine.
    There should only be one Topic Page, demanding that these people show the Evidence of their claims.
    Just one conformation and the World will explode with Research and investigation despite any attempts by vested interests to slow or stop it. (I think)

    • tlp

      You certainly know that there are plenty of validations.
      But you are complaining that those are not independent.
      Think who could be that totally independent person or instance that is willing to spend time and money to investigate something that gives no benefit to him/them. Only BrLP would benefit from that work.

      • georgehants

        tlp, When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
        That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.
        Our governments spend billions on far less important expenditure.
        One makes one’s choice as to what is more important, sending toys to Mars etc. or improving the lives of every person on this planet.
        Those same governments can easily reward those doing the work.

        • tlp

          Try to tell your covernment that they should spend on this. Guess what kind of an answer you would get? Probably no answer. Why? Because all their scientific advisors are dismissing this.
          This situation is hopefully changing next year, as this is becoming more and more clear to bigger audience.
          Patent rejections and Wikipedia controlling skeptics have delayed that acceptance and thus slowed down this development.

          • georgehants

            tlp, I am stating clear Facts not saying that I alone can change things.
            That in a democracy is the responsibility of all people.
            I give my Factual view and people either agree or disagree based on their motivation.
            Regarding your above reply and the continuous repetition that there are validations, there are no open validations of Cold Fusion of any kind that an organisation such as MFMP can follow to confirm such a report. (so far)
            Why do people keep repeating false information.

          • tlp

            Not cold fusion, hydrino reactions have been validated, and those latest are presented in Dr. Janssons video talk. Except one, that was not allowed to be presented and published, because of some covernment institution.

          • georgehants

            tlp, we are talking about an open, repeatable conformation of any over-unity energy source and you have branched off to a completely irrelevant point.
            Show those Hydrino’s producing an open repeatable over-unity power source and then your reply would make sense.

          • tlp

            I just did that. Those are perfectly valid validations.

          • georgehants

            tlp, please put up a link to an open repeatable report that can be followed by anybody skilled in the art to demonstrate an over-unity device.

          • tlp
          • georgehants

            tlp, I do not need to read the report you have given based on the Fact that if it contained all the information necessary for an open repeatable demonstration for over-unity then these pages would be screaming that Fact to the World.
            Those on page far cleverer than me would be shouting out loud that over-unity is confirmed.
            So either all these clever people have not read your link or they find such an open repeatable conformation to boring to bother saying anything.

          • tlp

            First you ask a link, and then don’t bother to read those papers. At least you should watch dr. Janssons videotalk from brilliantlightpower.com/demonstration-days
            and also those other videos.

          • georgehants

            tlp, thanks for chat, your logical reply to my last reply would have been useful but you avoided it completely.
            Best.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Where is the money to make all these units George? Mills can’t get his theory accepted even with validation. He needs to make a working prototype to get more money to sell test units. Which in turn will generate the money needed to produce commercial units. I know you hate capitalism, but without it there would be no money to discover anything new. Why can’t you get it into your head? Capitalism is LENR’s only hope. Period. If the last 27 years haven’t proven that to you, nothing will.

          • georgehants

            Michael, read my comments, I have answered your question but the answer does not suit you so you rant off with complete rubbish as if it where Fact.
            ——–
            “Capitalism is LENR’s only hope.”
            That is an opinion that you are quite entitled to but in no way a Fact, you are simply unable to see any further than a corrupt and inefficient system that you blindly take cannot be improved.
            I take it you personally gain from the system, you may find it enlightening to consider those that definitely do not.
            Good bye

          • cashmemorz

            If not the existing capitalistic system, then in what way, that is currently available, could Mills, Rossi or anyone else bring LENR-like tech to fruition? Would you not agree that there must be a viable way to do this? Just throwing their data into somebodies lap would seem fool hardy. Data given that way could easily find its way into the hands of those that have less than clean hands, hands that are even greedier than those that are producing the data. Complaining about the current way of doing things is fine if a better methodology is proposed. Without such a proposition, complaining is meaningless. Please propose a better system or methodology or whatever it is you have in mind that you think will work better.

          • towerofbabel

            We would be wise not to throw around the words capitalism and socialism without thinking through the actual complexity entailed in their use. It leads to meaningless posturing.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, well tell George as he has a habit of it. I am just defending.

          • TVulgaris

            Capitalism is NOT the source of wealth. It’s not even A source of wealth. Correct your thinking.

          • TVulgaris

            So what is MFMP?
            You keep repeating over and over your views and opinions as Factual (your usage)- whether or not I agree and share those opinions (it so happens I do), they are not fact, but opinion.
            NONE of these technological revolutions

            will make the slightest impact on the suffering of the world if they are rigidly controlled (as is clear many players in the field are jockeying for position to effect) by the same oligarchy that really controls the world’s banking and energy-“production” sectors.

          • MorganMck

            And if/when governments do allocate any funds to LENR/GUT related activities who will do the actual research and development? If they are actually government employees, the chances are they will be second or third rate players with slow and substandard results (as is the case with almost every single government performed activity). If they subcontract it to a private concern (with profit motive and salary motivated employees) the results will be much better. I know we are all frustrated with the rate of development and commercialization of these technologies but pretending that government ownership of same would yield a better result is foolhardy and denies real world experience. Think DMV.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Please George, you’re killing me. tip is right. If you think it is bull crap, don’t waste your time here. If you don’t, stop the criticism people trying to change the world. If it was easy, you and I would be doing it and only in our minds would it be confirmed. BLP is doing all the things to bring this to market. Mills’ tried to show us he had a new energy source. His character was assassinated. He threw in the towel and took this root. Far be for us to tell him he is evil because he didn’t do it our way. And yes, you implied he was evil. I don’t blame him for thumbing his nose at the traditional roots to discovery.

          • georgehants

            Michael, I call nobody Evil, I have in no way implied anything is “bull crap” except the continued delays costing the World dearly.
            Don’ try and blame me for anything that happened to Mills etc. I am completely open-minded on every subject and fully encourage any out of box thinking.
            I have answered your “bringing to market” point above.
            Your whole reply is just an ad hominem personal attack on somebody giving a Factual assessment of the situation that you and others disagree with for your own reasons.
            tlp, I have shown to be in error, if you wish to carry on trying to say that there is an open repeatable report anywhere, that can be followed by those skilled in the art to show an over-unity device, please pick up from where I have shown that such a report does not exist.
            In future please stick to the Facts of my comments and I will be very happy to defend or if shown in error Factually, concede any of the points I make.

          • Michael W Wolf

            George, you wrote, “When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put
            forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
            That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.” George, what you are implying is evil. And that is a fact.

          • georgehants

            Michael, you are suggesting that it is a Fact that capitalistic concerns are not delaying Cold Fusion etc.
            That is a completely naive suggestion.
            I do not wish to talk with you any further as somebody that again interprets a solid Fact as Evil to cover-up their own inabilities to discuss Truth.
            Goodbye.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Not as much as socialists concerns have delayed cold fusion. And that is a good point. You complain about capitalist greed delaying it, when the socialist group think arrogance and greed is the big reason we don’t have it in the market yet. The only time I see capitalism not working is when socialists get their dirty hands on the gears of capitalism.

          • TVulgaris

            You’re both full of shit protesting the faults of ideal economic systems, when neither has control of the fascist oligarchy we’ve live in (it just wears the pleasantly bland mask of consumerist complacency) for the past 70 years. It doesn’t matter whether the government is USA or USSR or UAE, it’s owned.

          • Michael W Wolf

            fascist oligarchy, that’s it.

    • David L

      I use to be like that too, constantly reading all the new information and having nothing but optimism. I am still optimistic but I kept my optimism by not investing too much of my time here and on super cheap energy technologies in general. See if you build up a HUGE expectation and if it doesn’t deliver on time then you get frustrated and either loose hope or end up demanding proof. I tamed my hope and still have kept my hope because I didn’t build unrealistic expectations. That’s my experience.

  • georgehants

    Michael, I call nobody Evil, I have in no way implied anything is “bull crap” except the continued delays costing the World dearly.
    Don’ try and blame me for anything that happened to Mills etc. I am completely open-minded on every subject and fully encourage any out of box thinking.
    Your whole reply is just an ad hominem personal attack on somebody giving a Factual assessment of the situation that you and others disagree with for your own reasons.
    In future please stick to the Facts of my comments and I would be very happy to defend any of the points I make.

    • Michael W Wolf

      George, you wrote, “When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put
      forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
      That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.” George, what you are implying is evil. And that is a fact.

      • georgehants

        Michael, you are suggesting that it is a Fact that capitalistic concerns are not delaying Cold Fusion etc.
        That is a completely naive suggestion.
        I do not wish to talk with you any further as some body that again interprets a solid Fact as Evil to cover-up their own inabilities to discuss Truth.
        Goodbye.

  • Michael W Wolf

    The hold up is money. Mills has done well with the money he had to work with. The engineering is so complex, the establishment hasn’t even attempted it. Anyone who has, had their careers ruined. What Mills has accomplished is a miracle and you don’t even realize it. Because you want one for yourself, you’ll attack a man you should be praising.

    • Chris Marshalk

      I’ve not attacked a man in my statement but I see what you mean. TIME will tell if this is real.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/08/the-possible-lenr-reaction-occurring-in-safire-axil-axil/

    The is nothing new under the Sun

    The SunCell is very close to the Safire system. In Safire, DC current is passed through a ball of hydogen and after a time, bursts of power up to 10 megawatts spring forth on the surface of the hydrogen ball. The interesting thing about Safire is that helium 3 is produced from hydrogen when these bursts occur.

    I predict that the SunCell will produce electrons from sub atomic disintegration of nuclear matter such has been seen in another like system, the plasmaton.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2250-The-Possible-LENR-Reaction-Occurring-in-SAFIRE-Axil-Axil/?postID=35741&highlight=safire#post35741

    The hydrino cannard is politically beneficial but it is not truth; it is not how the SunCell works.

    • Job001

      Well, Axil Axil, it seems to me your present position adheres too arrogantly to “old school” to be able to maintain an “open mind” about the frontiers of science, especially Mills hydrino canard. Not to be insulting because I admire your non-observational science knowledge depth.

      Mills position may be describing phenomena in words ill fit with past science “tyranny of words” and thus he likely deserves considerable Approbation he gets. However, such is totally typical of observational science breakthroughs, and thus the necessary distrust of old school science models on the frontiers of science research.

      Consequently, what experimental observation(not BS old science models) do you have for making such authoritarian pronouncements? Defend yourself, my friend, as an experimental observational scientist!

      • Axil Axil

        Quantum mechanics and the superatom

        In LENR, yes, what Mills is now doing is LENR, there is a special case that applies. This case is beyond the standard definition of the atom, a standard case in which QM always applies. In LENR a superatom forms where a cluster of atoms joins together in a coherent aggregation. A Bose condinsate produces a superconductor based atomic formate where electrons orbit the positive superatom core at very low levels. The way that light interacts with this configuration is unlike what happens with standard atomic structure. The electrons orbit close in to the positive core of the cluster and this leads to very high frequency light generation when photon transition energy occurs.

        Mills mistakes the Superatom state with the standard state of the atom. He rejects QM because he sees how QM cannot predict what the photons will do in their interaction with the superatom. Simply put, Mills is mixing concepts and applying data he is seeing in one context to the standard concept that science most often works under.

        • Philip James

          Thank you. That was a very nice description. Gives me some pointers to go read about.

        • Job001

          Sounds like “Tyranny of words” confusion between the two sides that reminds one of “Lighter than air” for airplane discovery or “Cold Fusion” for LENR or “Earth Centered” for non-Copernican model, or “Evolution” for Darwin, “Artificial Intelligence” for alternate computing, or “Accelerating Expansion” before big bounce universe model, or “Hydrino” for superatom, or “Red shift” for distance alone or “quantum” for ‘we don’t really know’ or etc.

          • Axil Axil

            I spend time looking at as many systems as I can to put the puzzle pieces together. I have referenced Safire already. One sure clue to LENR, is transmutation. If the SunCell produces transmutation then it is a LENR based system. For a fuller perspective on my thinking

            See Post Axil 001

            below

        • R V

          Mills mistakes….No, rather you are mistaken.

    • R V

      It is exactly how the SunCell works, multiple tests prove it’s the hydrino. It’s not LENR, it’s not nuclear, it’s simply hydrino. Spectra exactly match the transitions and energy to hydrino, not some mythical LENR process.

      • Axil Axil

        Regarding tests for LENR in the SunCell as follows:

        STATEMENT BY RANDELL MILLS

        “Cold fusion is not theoretically possible. It is easy to disprove nuclear reactions in the SunCell in that switching from hydrogen to deuterium does not change the power in the same manner as with the combustion of hydrogen isotopes.”

        There are LENR systems that use protium and systems that use pure deuterium, but there is no LENR systems that use a 50/50 mix of protium and deuterium.

        The LENR test that Mills should have performed is a 50/50 mix of hydrogen isotopes, I understand why this is the case. When Mills SunCell does not function on the 50/50 hydrogen isotopic mix, I will explain.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/08/the-possible-lenr-reaction-occurring-in-safire-axil-axil/

    The is nothing new under the Sun

    The SunCell is very close to the Safire system. In Safire, DC current is passed through a ball of hydogen and after a time, bursts of power up to 10 megawatts spring forth on the surface of the hydrogen ball. The interesting thing about Safire is that helium 3 is produced from hydrogen when these bursts occur.

    I predict that the SunCell will produce electrons from sub atomic disintegration of nuclear matter such has been seen in another like system, the plasmaton.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2250-The-Possible-LENR-Reaction-Occurring-in-SAFIRE-Axil-Axil/?postID=35741&highlight=safire#post35741

    The hydrino cannard is politically beneficial but it is not truth; it is not how the SunCell works.

    • Job001

      Well, Axil Axil, it seems to me your present position adheres too arrogantly to “old school” to be able to maintain an “open mind” about the frontiers of science, especially Mills hydrino canard. Not to be insulting because I admire your non-observational science knowledge depth.

      Mills position may be describing phenomena in words ill fit with past science “tyranny of words” and thus he likely deserves considerable Approbation he gets. However, such is totally typical of observational science breakthroughs, and thus the necessary distrust of old school science models on the frontiers of science research.

      Consequently, what experimental observation(not BS old science models) do you have for making such authoritarian pronouncements? Defend yourself, my friend, as an experimental observational scientist!

      • Axil Axil

        Quantum mechanics and the superatom

        In LENR, yes, what Mills is now doing is LENR, there is a special case that applies. This case is beyond the standard definition of the atom, a standard case in which QM always applies. In LENR a superatom forms where a cluster of atoms joins together in a coherent aggregation. A Bose condinsate produces a superconductor based atomic formate where electrons orbit the positive superatom core at very low levels. The way that light interacts with this configuration is unlike what happens with standard atomic structure. The electrons orbit close in to the positive core of the cluster and this leads to very high frequency light generation when photon transition energy occurs.

        Mills mistakes the Superatom state with the standard state of the atom. He rejects QM because he sees how QM cannot predict what the photons will do in their interaction with the superatom. Simply put, Mills is mixing concepts and applying data he is seeing in one context to the standard concept that science most often works under.

        • Philip James

          Thank you. That was a very nice description. Gives me some pointers to go read about.

        • enantiomer2000

          Ultimately I just want him to release a SunCell in the market that generates megawatt scale electricity, but according to Dr Mills presentations, his GUTCP has massive predictive capabilities for physical phenomenon such as molecular binding energies, bond angles, etc for hundreds of molecules. He also predicted the expansion of the universe before it was discovered. You seem pretty sure of yourself. You should post on the Society for Classic Physics some of your critiques. I am sure he would be happy to respond. I would be interesting..

        • Job001

          Sounds like “Tyranny of words” confusion between the two sides that reminds one of “Lighter than air” for airplane discovery or “Cold Fusion” for LENR or “Earth Centered” for non-Copernican model, or “Evolution” for Darwin, “Artificial Intelligence” for alternate computing, or “Accelerating Expansion” before big bounce universe model, or “Hydrino” for superatom, or “Red shift” for distance alone or “quantum” for ‘we don’t really know’ or etc.

          • Axil Axil

            I spend time looking at as many systems as I can to put the puzzle pieces together. I have referenced Safire already. One sure clue to LENR, is transmutation. If the SunCell produces transmutation then it is a LENR based system. For a fuller perspective on my thinking

            See Post Axil 001

            below

        • R V

          Mills mistakes….No, rather you are mistaken.

    • R V

      It is exactly how the SunCell works, multiple tests prove it’s the hydrino. It’s not LENR, it’s not nuclear, it’s simply hydrino. Spectra exactly match the transitions and energy to hydrino, not some mythical LENR process.

      • Axil Axil

        Regarding tests for LENR in the SunCell as follows:

        STATEMENT BY RANDELL MILLS

        “Cold fusion is not theoretically possible. It is easy to disprove nuclear reactions in the SunCell in that switching from hydrogen to deuterium does not change the power in the same manner as with the combustion of hydrogen isotopes.”

        There are LENR systems that use pure protium and there are systems that use pure deuterium, but there is no LENR systems that use a 50/50 mix of protium and deuterium.

        To test for LENR, the LENR test that Mills should have performed is a test that uses a 50/50 mix of hydrogen isotopes. I understand why this isotopic hydrogen mixing is non functional for the LENR reaction. When a test of Mills SunCell does not function on the 50/50 hydrogen isotopic mix, I will explain why such a failure is the case.

        If the 50/50 mix does work in the SunCell, I will look into the details of hydrino theory as the mechanism that underpins how also erstwhile LENR systems work. There can be only one reaction mechanism for the over unity production of energy.

  • tlp

    That “very very low power” comment was about one of those validation runs that last 30 minutes, using the old design with tungsten electrodes and non refractory materials, April or May this spring.

    • nferguso

      Sorry, but I think I’m right. Go back and listen to video #4 (not 5 like I said above) from 21:00. You’ll hear that the validation test runs a few months ago lasted no more than a few seconds before vaporizing the electrodes. The current system with the liquid electrodes runs for hours, but with only occasional bursts of high energy, ergo at a very low power level.

      • tlp

        Listen again, they vere talking about validation runs, one validator reported 30 minutes run, check those slides also.

  • Great thanks to Mills for is GUT-CP theory and its SunCell. But we all know another ‘Sustaining Plasma’: the wood fire! Like the SunCell, it needs a light import of matter to continue the existence of plasma. But the wood fire is not in the history, linked to writing. It existed before.

    • R V

      True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  • Great thanks to Mills for is GUT-CP theory and its SunCell. But we all know another ‘Sustaining Plasma’: the wood fire! Like the SunCell, it needs a light import of matter to continue the existence of plasma. But the wood fire is not in the history, linked to writing. It existed before.

    • R V

      True, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  • TVulgaris

    Only for projective intelligence, something the US electorate (and nearly the entire world, as far as I can tell) commonly lacks. Any who DO have it are shouted down and marginalized, especially if they use rational methods of projection with reasonably hard data.

  • R V

    It’s a moment in history. LENR types are jealous and try to redefine Mills’ work but they should just accept both theory and experiment show the superiority of the hydrino hypothesis.

  • R V

    It’s a moment in history. LENR types are jealous and try to redefine Mills’ work but they should just accept both theory and experiment show the superiority of the hydrino hypothesis.

  • MorganMck

    Does anyone know if BrLP plans to “close the loop” and run the SunCell for an extended period w/o external power source once the CPVs have been integrated into the system? I would think this would be quite convincing to many observers that the SunCell and GUTCP are worth a hard look.

    • Epi

      Somewhere on their site is a business presentation where a time schedule is shown. Closing the loop is their no. 1 priority after the integration of the CPVs. Mills also confirmed this yesterday on the SCP forum.

      • MorganMck

        Thanks Epi. That will be exciting and could open a lot of minds (and doors) to the SunCell and GUTCP. Based on the current BrLP openness and Mill’s commitment to maintain it, I would guess we will probably get eyes on such a demo (webcam?) when they are ready to perform it. It would be great to have the event monitored by an independent third party at their location (MIT?).

    • Epi
      • MorganMck

        Hmm. This link does seem to lead anywhere relevant to the question. Could check it.

        • Epi

          This link brings me to a conversation where someone asked this:
          “Is there a way to mount an incontrovertable benchtop demo that is purely self-powered?
          Perhaps start it with a battery, then disconnect and remove that once it’s running powering an obvious load?”

          and Dr. Mills answered this:

          “That would be the field trial unit that we are building. “

          • MorganMck

            Thanks, that makes sense. Something to look forward to in a few months. Mills did mention some additional validation work as well. We will see what for that will take.

            This Yahoo Group has such a terrible UI it is hard to follow if you are not used to it. Even Vortex is better. Seems like they would graduate to a more advanced forum technology now.

        • artefact
    • TOUSSAINT francois
  • tlp

    Just look at the video on this sustained plasma story:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBheBH9eio

    There are sections of two minutes ignition off, then two minutes ignition on, then 2 min off again, all the time in plasma mode, over 5000K. It is not any occasional bursts anymore, but it had to be during those validation runs this spring, specially during that 30 minutes run that they asked about and Mills answered to that question.

    • nferguso

      It is very encouraging. But the video you link is far from definitive. The description is largely legalese, and it equivocates a bit. (For something supposedly this earth-shaking one would think RM would have taken care to put it better.) There are no calibrations or specifications. You’re interpreting the colors and intensities you see a certain way, but they might amount to something big or not much at all. For example there’s a big intense flash after ignition, but there were brief flashes before ignition. What were they? We don’t know. How intense is “really bright” in the video? We don’t know.
      I stand by my take on what was said in video 4, but of course eagerly await the triumphant denouement, which would be the CPVC-clad Suncell cranking out 100KWe

  • Zavod

    If you believe this then Moller has flying car for you.

  • Zavod

    If you believe this then Moller has flying car for you.

    • MorganMck

      Wow – brilliant analysis.

  • artefact
  • MorganMck

    Thanks, that makes sense. Something to look forward to in a few months. Mills did mention some additional validation work as well. We will see what for that will take.

    This Yahoo Group has such a terrible UI it is hard to follow if you are not used to it. Even Vortex is better. Seems like they would graduate to a more advanced forum technology now.

  • TOUSSAINT francois
  • John Galt

    Damn….. I am at a loss with my now primitive Quantum Mechanics schooling…….so I remain highly skeptical with respect to the hydrino concept….. unless I can reason through each mathematical step…..But my hunch is that “hydrinos” are a figment of someones wild imagination until proven otherwise…… In the Extreme Green Agenda world I would be called a denier.