Tom Whipple on the Great Energy Transition of Brilliant Light Power

Tom Whipple has written a new article for the Falls Church News Press, a newspaper in Falls Church, Virgina, about developments in the work of Brilliant Light Power. Tom is one of the very few people writing about BLP or LENR in a ‘normal’ newspaper, so I would guess he is reaching people who don’t normally follow these topics on the dedicated online channels where most of us hang out.

The article is titled The Great Energy Transition: Progress on the SunCell and cab be accessed here: https://fcnp.com/2017/03/13/great-energy-transition-progress-suncell/ Tom is pretty positive about the prospects for the SunCell and notes that BLP is projecting that they will be placing working SunCell prototypes in the second half of this year, and that working units will be available to commercial customers in the first half of 2018. He does admit that these timelines could possible slip, but he is not terribly concerned about that. He writes:

“Delays of weeks, months or even years in getting a product to market will not be significant to the eventual impact of a technology of this importance. Think about the rate at which cell phones took over global communications in the last 30 years. The SunCell clearly has the potential to do the same thing.”

“Once a continuously operating prototype is demonstrated and reported on by the mainstream media, insight into its meaning can begin. Brilliant Light says the current fossil fuel market is on the order of $8 trillion per year. Throw in other sources of energy – renewables, hydro, and nuclear — and we are looking at multiple industries currently generating sales in excess of $10 trillion per year that could disappear.”

In the past Tom has also considered Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat as a potential energy game changer, but he doesn’t bring up the E-Cat here. Maybe that is due to the contention surrounding the lawsuit, or the long wait for E-Cats to hit the market. BLP has already begun a publicity push, by engaging with the public and potential partners, while Rossi is staying fairly quiet during the period of litigation. If the E-Cat is introduced to the general public this year, as Andrea Rossi predicts, and is ready for market as Andrea Rossi predicts, then there may be strong competition between the two groups.

  • sam

    Brilliant Light Power Videos all on Vimeo.

    https://vimeo.com/user26477140

  • sam

    Brilliant Light Power Videos all on Vimeo.

    https://vimeo.com/user26477140

    More videos.
    These troubling.

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/physicist-declassifies-rescued-nuclear-test-films

  • LindbergofSwed

    I think if both Rossi and Mills are right, Mills product is way better.

    • doug marker

      Both products would (will) be brilliant (pun intended). The eCat addresses an equally important opportunity and there is a very big pie to be carved up by any workable ‘new energy’ generator.

      Mills has an apparent advantage in his published theories for how the energy is generated. Some though may argue (Axil) that while the SunCell may work just as Mills is demonstrating, that his Hydrino theory is not yet proven. It is a fair point for Axil to make but IMHO this argument requires a lot more evidence than I have seen put forward against the Hydrino theory.thus far.

      Point here is that either generator will have an enormous market. But, it seems that Mills is doing all the right things today in getting business on-board with a plan. Andrea Rossi, is not yet achieving this same urgent need, but, maybe it won’t matter in the long run. The eCat will certainly have its place when the controversy surrounding it gets resolved.

      Doug Marker

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I respect your opinion which is clearly a result of careful thinking and also agree about many points expressed. From my point of view, however, Mills theory (or rather “theory”) is pseudoscientific and his claimed “hydrino” spectra are not convincing because they could be (if not just wrong measurements) e.g. just normal spectra of multiply ionised hydrogen-like atoms. That said, I cannot discount the possibility that perhaps his device nevertheless works.

        • doug marker

          Fair comment 🙂 – I would not be the one to say you are wrong.

          And, am in no doubt that even if the SunCells do everything claimed of them, there will be many people who disagree that the Hydrino theory is the basis for how they work.

          I am working at better understanding by approaching this from the emergence of dark matter. Can it be shown that hydrinos could form in those early moments of the BB. If they can’t then there is an issue.

          Doug Marker

          • Axil Axil

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYXt3Xu3xI

            String Theory, Entropic Gravity and the Dark Universe – Erik Verlinde

            This Entropic Gravity discribed by the reference above says that there is no particle based dark matter as Mills states. IMHO, R. Mills is backing the wrong horse with his hydrino speculation, or maybe wants to base his hydrino theory on fictitious dark matter theory to cloud the issue knowing that particle based dark matter will never be found..

          • doug marker

            Axil, thanks for this link – good to look at.

            Doug M

          • Zephir

            Entropic gravity is also bogus and string theory was already disproved with many experiments. This of course doesn’t make hydrino model more or less relevant.

          • Axil Axil

            https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html

            Running away from Einstein

            Something is wrong with the theory of gravity. Please explain what it could be.

    • R V

      That is true.

  • LindbergofSwed

    I think if both Rossi and Mills are right, Mills product is way better.

    • doug marker

      Both products would (will) be brilliant (pun intended). The eCat addresses an equally important opportunity and there is a very big pie to be carved up by any workable ‘new energy’ generator.

      Mills has an apparent advantage in his published theories for how the energy is generated. Some though may argue (Axil) that while the SunCell may work just as Mills is demonstrating, that his Hydrino theory is not yet proven. It is a fair point for Axil to make but IMHO this argument requires a lot more evidence than I have seen put forward against the Hydrino theory.thus far.

      Point here is that either generator will have an enormous market. But, it seems that Mills is doing all the right things today in getting business on-board with a plan. Andrea Rossi, is not yet achieving this same urgent need, but, maybe it won’t matter in the long run. The eCat will certainly have its place when the controversy surrounding it gets resolved.

      Doug Marker

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I respect your opinion which is clearly a result of careful thinking and also agree about many points expressed. From my point of view, however, Mills theory (or rather “theory”) is pseudoscientific and his claimed “hydrino” spectra are not convincing because they could be (if not just wrong measurements) e.g. just normal spectra of multiply ionised hydrogen-like atoms. That said, I cannot discount the possibility that perhaps his device nevertheless works.

        • doug marker

          Pekka, Fair comment 🙂 – I would not be the one to say you are wrong.

          And, am in no doubt that even if the SunCells do everything claimed of them, there will be many people who disagree that the Hydrino theory is the basis for how they work.

          I am working at better understanding by approaching this from the emergence of dark matter. Can it be shown that hydrinos could form in those early moments of the BB. If they can’t then there is an issue.

          But, Pekka, I am very surprised that you can call Mills theory pseudoscience when so many other scientific people don’t see this. Sadly, that statement is about as powerful an insult as can be levelled at an obviously serious researcher. Is this serious ?, not a case of professional competiveness ?.

          Doug Marker

          • Axil Axil

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYXt3Xu3xI

            String Theory, Entropic Gravity and the Dark Universe – Erik Verlinde

            This Entropic Gravity discribed by the reference above says that there is no particle based dark matter as Mills states. IMHO, R. Mills is backing the wrong horse with his hydrino speculation, or maybe wants to base his hydrino theory on fictitious dark matter theory to cloud the issue knowing that particle based dark matter will never be found..

          • doug marker

            Axil, thanks for this link – good to look at.

            Doug M

          • Zephir

            Entropic gravity is also bogus and string theory was already disproved with many experiments. This of course doesn’t make hydrino model more or less relevant.

          • Axil Axil

            https://phys.org/news/2017-03-einstein.html

            Running away from Einstein

            Something is wrong with the theory of gravity. Please explain what it could be.

        • Epi

          If Mills theory is pseudoscientific than how is he able to calculate the structure of complex molecules to a much greater accuracy than QM just with analytic equations and physical constants? I have not seen any discussion about that point.

          Regarding the spectra:
          -there where 3rd parties to do spectral emission measurements (I think with their own equipment) and they got the same results
          -at BLP they always do null-experiments with a chemical compount similar to the active catalyst -> in the null experiments everything is normal and multiply ionised hydrogen-like atoms are no problem and only in the active experiments the measurement fails? I highly doubt that.
          -(Paper-Link at the end) Prof. Conrads had 40 years of experience with plasmas when conducting these experiments (for one year in his own lab) and there was no conventional explanation found and the measurments clearly correspond to the theoretical forecast by Dr. Mills theory; the results where also spectral
          – look at the number of different techniques used to verify the existence of hydrinos, they are not all spectral and they all support Dr. Mills theory

          Dr. Mills uses Newton, Einstein and Maxwell to derive his equations. QM builds on 6 postulates that where optained through measurements and QM is not sure wether reality is a collapse of a wavefunction or just one of an infinite amount of universes. If I was urged to label one of these theories “pseudoscience” I know which one I would choose.

          https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-g4mV1NrSAhVElCwKHRtmCXAQFggmMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F231144490_Emission_in_the_deep_vacuum_ultraviolet_from_a_plasma_formed_by_incandescently_heating_hydrogen_gas_with_trace_amounts_of_potassium_carbonate&usg=AFQjCNGGGJG_m_Y3UXKIGPxoa0Qtdt0Odw

          • Zephir

            /* how is he able to calculate the structure of complex molecules to a much
            greater accuracy than QM just with analytic equations and physical
            constants?*/
            He still uses experimental constants, like the binding energies. The real properties of molecules are more sensitive to these constants than the existing models, so that his derivations may look better – but they’re actually just better fitted to real observations. The direct observation of molecules with tunneling and atomic force microscope already disproved the naive aspects of Mills quantum theory like the spherical orbitals. This doesn’t mean, that some other aspects cannot be more insightful, than the mainstream physics. Mills is very clever and diligent guy, but he is also quite ideological and schematic regarding his theories. He tends to adjust reality to his ideas.

          • Epi

            “He still uses experimental constants, like the binding energies.”
            What this sentence implies is not true. He calculates the binding energies as I said with analytic equations and fundamental constants only but he uses the experimental values in the following equations. When I recalculated two molecules I only used the calculated values and the error still was extremly low. For one part of the energy sum that gives the binding energies he simply uses the experimental values, but he also gives a way of calculating this energy and shows how to do this with a simple example – I could not expand this on more complex situations on my own. But even if he did not achieve to calculate this part of the binding energy this would not invalidate the claim, that no curve fitting is taking place.

            “the direct observation of molecules with tunneling and atomic force microscope already disproved the naive aspects of Mills quantum theory like the spherical orbitals.”
            I don t think so. I never saw a discussion about the influence of the measurment error distribution on the shown pictures and I am 100% sure that no one put effort into interpreting the results with respect to GUTCP. So there is no disprove yet but open questions.

            Like the one with tunneling. You simply state that there is no tunneling in GUTCP -> tunneling is observed -> GUTCP is wrong. But that is not true. Look for tunneling in GUTCP and you will find some first discussions about this phenomenon.

          • Zephir

            /* He calculates the binding energies as I said with analytic equations
            and fundamental constants only but he uses the experimental values in
            the following equations.*/

            We discussed it already in extensive way. For example, in Mills theory the orbitals are spherical, so you cannot derive for example the geometry of sp2 or sp3 hybridizations. In Mills model the water molecule should be linear, because he claims the same shape for all atoms.

          • Axil Axil
          • Mark Underwood

            “We discussed it already in extensive way. For example, in Mills theory the orbitals are spherical, so you cannot derive for example the geometry of sp2 or sp3 hybridizations. In Mills model the water molecule should be linear, because he claims the same shape for all atoms.”

            Zephir why not read the GUTCP for yourself. While atomic orbitals are spherical, the same is not true of molecular orbitals; they are ellipsoid. See for instance, starting at page 694, the closed form formulae from which Mills successfully predicts bond angles, bond energies and internuclear distances.

            Also, see Millsian.com for more graphic detail.

          • Zephir

            They’re not even ellipsoid and Millsian is load of BS.

            https://buonocof.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/orbitals_pd1.jpg

          • R V

            His system of complex molecule calculations can use existing binding energies but he can also calculate those from first principles which he has done for a host of simpler systems.

    • R V

      That is true.

  • doug marker

    For anyone wondering …

    1) Who is Tom Whipple – http://www.postcarbon.org/our-people/tom-whipple/

    2) Where is Falls Church ? – 4.2 Miles from McLean Washington DC (CIA)

    Useful heads up !.

    Doug Marker

  • doug marker

    For anyone wondering …

    1) Who is Tom Whipple – http://www.postcarbon.org/our-people/tom-whipple/

    2) Where is Falls Church ? – 4.2 Miles from McLean Washington DC (CIA)

    Useful heads up !.

    Doug Marker

  • piper

    More, and less expensive electrical energy, will allow cost reductions in the production of other energy resources. More energy will be used; but, all of the energy resources overall will become less polluting. Eventually hydrocarbons will not compete with SunCell. The basic principles behind the SunCell (patented) will be in the wild down the road.

    Displacing hydrocarbons as a fuel resource will follow an Innovation S-Curve likely 3 to 4 decades start to finish.

    http://innovajourney.blogspot.com/2012/05/s-curve.html

    • Omega Z

      ->”S-Curve likely 3 to 4 decades start to finish.”

      More like->S-Curve of 6 to 8 decades start to finish. It all comes down to economics. A simple way to understand it is- how much can you afford to pay in house payments without over extending yourself and still meet all your other obligations. Transitioning to a new energy source will be the same way.

      • US_Citizen71

        It depends on how big a power plant needs to be and how much it costs. If you could get even a third of the watts per cubic meter that can be generated from a portable petroleum powered generator at even three times the cost in initial investment then all bets are off. It will be the factory owners in control of the spread of the technology, not the power cartels. That is if it isn’t suppressed or highly regulated.

  • Omega Z

    ->”S-Curve likely 3 to 4 decades start to finish.”

    More like->S-Curve of 6 to 8 decades start to finish. It all comes down to economics. A simple way to understand it is- how much can you afford to pay in house payments without over extending yourself and still meet all your other obligations. Transitioning to a new energy source will be the same way.

    • US_Citizen71

      It depends on how big a power plant needs to be and how much it costs. If you could get even a third of the watts per cubic meter that can be generated from a portable petroleum powered generator at even three times the cost in initial investment then all bets are off. It will be the factory owners in control of the spread of the technology, not the power cartels. That is if it isn’t suppressed or highly regulated.

  • jimbo92107

    “Think about the rate at which cell phones took over global communications in the last 30 years. The SunCell clearly has the potential to do the same thing.”

    Not the same thing at all. Everybody knew cell phones worked. In stark contrast, I do not know that SunCell is not a scam. In fact, it fits the profile of a con job. Withholding engineering specs and not allowing independent verification or replication will do that to a new, unproven technology.

    • Jas

      Mobile phone research was not repressed. There was no trouble getting patents. What industries did mobile phones threaten?

      • jimbo92107

        Your suspicions of dark conspiracies do not provide positive proof that LENR is real.

        Show me a product, just one.

        Show me a reliably repeatable experiment, just one.

        • Jas

          “Dark Conspiracies” The repression is the lack of funding from goverments. The Refusal to grant patents. The lack of coverage in the MSM. The Peer review system. The paid Trolls who discredit the research. Must I go on?

          • jimbo92107

            Ever seen one of Rossi’s Quarks in action? Personally?

            Didn’t think so. Let me know when you do.

      • jimbo92107

        The land line industry. So sad…!

  • Leonard Weinstein

    So far the concentrator PV cell array has not been used with the SunCell and issues of economical total waste heat removal and avoidance of evaporation coating of the PV cells not demonstrated. The final cost of the cooled concentrator PV cells also has not been determined to be reasonable. While these do not prevent operating systems to be made, cost and actual long term run performance is far from demonstrated, and may be more limiting than expected. Most local applications (individual homes, transportation, small businesses, etc.) would only need a relatively small unit and cost has to be low to be practical. I had previously mentioned that something like the Halogen light bulb process, with an intermediate high temperature glass or fused Silica globe around the emitting surface is likely needed for very long term operation, and I have not seen this idea mentioned. Graphite actually evaporated more than Tungsten at the very high temperatures being considered (despite the higher melting point), and even Tungsten evaporates enough to be a long term problem without this process. I would guess that intermediate sized systems (100 kW to 1 MW electrical) are much more likely to be the only practical versions initially due to economics, but even these would be very helpful to have. Advanced designs and economy of scale in production would likely expand this, but over several decades. I do not think the cost of power would be nearly as low as Mills claims, but even if it is only slightly lower than present, and has the major advantages of independence from power lines and distribution systems, and from fuel sources, would be of great value.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    So far the concentrator PV cell array has not been used with the SunCell and issues of economical total waste heat removal and avoidance of evaporation coating of the PV cells not demonstrated. The final cost of the cooled concentrator PV cells also has not been determined to be reasonable. While these do not prevent operating systems to be made, cost and actual long term run performance is far from demonstrated, and may be more limiting than expected. Most local applications (individual homes, transportation, small businesses, etc.) would only need a relatively small unit and cost has to be low to be practical. I had previously mentioned that something like the Halogen light bulb process, with an intermediate high temperature glass or fused Silica globe around the emitting surface is likely needed for very long term operation, and I have not seen this idea mentioned. Graphite actually evaporated more than Tungsten at the very high temperatures being considered (despite the higher melting point), and even Tungsten evaporates enough to be a long term problem without this process. I would guess that intermediate sized systems (100 kW to 1 MW electrical) are much more likely to be the only practical versions initially due to economics, but even these would be very helpful to have. Advanced designs and economy of scale in production would likely expand this, but over several decades. I do not think the cost of power would be nearly as low as Mills claims, but even if it is only slightly lower than present, and has the major advantages of independence from power lines and distribution systems, and from fuel sources, would be of great value.

  • Zephir

    In recent time an observations of clusters of alleged dense hydrogen were reported by Holmlid and others, which could be way more real – but they’re also way less stable and they decay in minutes. Their formation requires an energy – it doesn’t produce it. If the formation of hydrino would release so much of energy, it would be actually very stable mater and dominant in our Universe – so that we could see hydrino everywhere, in planets and inside the meteorites and so on instead of hydrogen. Which we canot see – so I don’t think, that the hydrino theory is real In addition, his technology should be easy to replicate – no secret ingredient is here so far. The scientists should therefore attempt for its replication – no matter if they believe in hydrino stuff or not. Why?

    In recent time many similar plasma energy production methods emerged (Energoniva, Chernetski, John Kanzius or Petros Zografos devices), not to say about many claims of overunity during cavitation of electrolysis of water. These technologies involve water vapor plasma and/or high frequency discharge and they look independent each other, so that they’re definitely worth of attention by itself. If Randall’s technology works, such an outcome could invalidate all his patents, which are based on hydrino theory – so we could get his technology for free.

    • R V

      ‘Which we cannot see…”

      Well, if you define that something cannot exist you will never see it. You will also interpret data as consistent with what you
      already ‘know’ exists regardless if it’s correct or not.

      There is massive evidence for hydrino’s but people ignore it.

      • Zephir

        /* There is massive evidence for hydrino’s but people ignore it. */

        Which one?

  • Zephir

    In recent time an observations of clusters of alleged dense hydrogen were reported by Holmlid and others, which could be way more real – but they’re also way less stable and they decay in minutes. Their formation requires an energy – it doesn’t produce it. If the formation of hydrino would release so much of energy, it would be actually very stable mater and dominant in our Universe – so that we could see hydrino everywhere, in planets and inside the meteorites and so on instead of hydrogen. Which we canot see – so I don’t think, that the hydrino theory is real In addition, his technology should be easy to replicate – no secret ingredient is here so far. The scientists should therefore attempt for its replication – no matter if they believe in hydrino stuff or not. Why?

    In recent time many similar plasma energy production methods emerged (Energoniva, Chernetski, John Kanzius or Petros Zografos devices), not to say about many claims of overunity during cavitation of electrolysis of water. These technologies involve water vapor plasma and/or high frequency discharge and they look independent each other, so that they’re definitely worth of attention by itself. If Randall’s technology works, such an outcome could invalidate all his patents, which are based on hydrino theory – so we could get his technology for free.

    • Amack

      Zephir it is the stable and dominant matter in the Universe. According to Mills it is dark matter which dwarfs the amount of visible matter in the Universe. Which is also why you can’t see it once formed. And once formed on Earth it will be lighter than air and will escape to space. But you can see the energy released as it is forming and if you can trap it in a getter, you can analyse it using several standard techniques that show rotational and vibrational peaks that don’t match known matter.

      I agree that scientists should attempt replication. For whatever reason, they just won’t. So we sit back and wait for Mills to trundle out a fridge sized box and hook it up to an electricity meter…

      • Zephir

        I wish Mills success for good of all of us, but I don’t think, his device produces an energy with forming of hydrino. I’m not even still convinced, that the SunCell really generates some surplus of energy, because the trivial calorimetry is still missing in existing presentation. But like you said, we can wait for Mills’s result – or we can attempt for replication of his technology at least at small scale. Frankly, the later option would be the best support of Mills ideas, which he could get.

    • R V

      ‘Which we cannot see…”

      Well, if you define that something cannot exist you will never see it. You will also interpret data as consistent with what you
      already ‘know’ exists regardless if it’s correct or not.

      There is massive evidence for hydrino’s but people ignore it.

      • Zephir

        /* There is massive evidence for hydrino’s but people ignore it. */

        Which one?

  • Zephir

    /* how is he able to calculate the structure of complex molecules to a much
    greater accuracy than QM just with analytic equations and physical
    constants?*/
    He still uses experimental constants, like the binding energies. The real properties of molecules are more sensitive to these constants than the existing models, so that his derivations may look better – but they’re actually just better fitted to real observations. The direct observation of molecules with tunneling and atomic force microscope already disproved the naive aspects of Mills quantum theory like the spherical orbitals. This doesn’t mean, that some other aspects cannot be more insightful, than the mainstream physics. Mills is very clever and diligent guy, but he is also quite ideological and schematic regarding his theories. He tends to adjust reality to his ideas.

    • R V

      His system of complex molecule calculations can use existing binding energies but he can also calculate those from first principles which he has done for a host of simpler systems.

  • doug marker

    It is always interesting to hear differing points of view on scientific matters. It is also a reality that in as little as one word, any commentator can seek to discredit someone else’s scientific ideas and descriptions (e.g. just use the word ‘pseudoscience’ – no other commentary is needed – so it seems – that one works conveys a plethora of criticisms).

    In following the ‘for and against’ arguments re LENR, and re the Andrea Rossi eCat(s), and re the MIlls’ Hydrino theory, and the Mills SunCell, it has become obvious that it is impossible for most people to know who speaks with the greatest authority and clarity. The issues are typically far to complex for even the cleverest minds to claim they know best. It seems there is always another clever mind who claims to know better.

    What can be learned from all these discussions is that most people are passionate about what they believe and many are willing to express their passion to various levels of intensity, and, that is generally a good thing. Passion usually drives achievement. But it can also cloud the reality.

    The bottom line for all these inventions is
    a) Does it work ?
    b) Does it benefit anyone ?
    c) Is it affordable ?
    d) Is it practical ?

    We can add to this list another issue that is less critical but when understood allows for potentially greater exploitation (i.e. cavemen didn’t need to know the theory of fire)

    e) Exactly how does it work ?

    Doug Marker

  • doug marker

    (This post was triggered by someone using the word pseudoscience in an earlier post to this thread)

    It is always interesting to hear differing points of view on scientific matters. It is also a reality that in as little as one word, any commentator can seek to discredit other peoples scientific ideas and descriptions e.g. just use the word ‘pseudoscience’ – no other commentary is needed, so it seems. That one word conveys a plethora of criticisms and put-downs.

    If I were to use the word ‘pseudoscience’ to describe someone else’s theory/ideas/whatever, It would also be implying that anyone who believes or supports the points being challenged, is deficient in logic or intelligence or analytical ability, in that they appear to not have the ability to grasp why it is pseudoscience. What a powerful word this is!.

    In following the ‘for and against’ arguments re P&F Pd-D, LENR Ni-H, and re the Andrea Rossi eCat(s), and re the MIlls’ Hydrino theory, and the Mills SunCell, it has become obvious that it is impossible for most people to know who speaks with the greater authority. The broad issues are typically far to complex for even the cleverest minds to claim they know best. It seems there is always another clever mind who claims to know even better.

    What can be learned from all these discussions is that most people are passionate about what they believe and many are willing to express their passion to various levels of intensity, and, that is generally a good thing. Passion usually drives achievement. But it can also cloud the reality and obfuscate the bigger picture.

    The bottom line for all these inventions is
    a) Does it work ?
    b) Does it benefit anyone ?
    c) Is it affordable ?
    d) Is it practical ?

    We can add to this list another issue that is less critical but when understood allows for potentially greater exploitation (i.e. cavemen didn’t need to know the theory of fire)

    e) Exactly how does it work ?

    Doug Marker

    • Pat

      I saw the Rossi versus Darden argument over in the LENR forum – it has thousands of comments – too much alas to follow.
      Can you briefly, if that’s even possible, tell me what that huge commentary is about?

      • doug marker

        Pat, I have kept out of it because I consider that debate a waste of time.

        The court will decide if IH has a legitimate defence against Andrea Rossi’s claim that they owe him $89 million.

        Almost all the comments in that forum are IMHO both time wasting and irrelevant. It is a place for some people pursuing a pastime of ineffectual debate. I doubt the judge is reading any of their posts nor cares. Neither will the jury when they are in place (I suspect the law prevents anyone involved as a judge or jurist being allowed to read such commentary. Am sure my country’s laws are strict on this).

        If indeed the 1MW plant works as Andrea Rossi claims it did, then IH can only be ‘playing games’.
        What games ? – well here are some ideas – 1) slow Andrea Rossi down while some other player moves ahead (international recognition, impact on the value of other IH ip & patents), 2) settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, 3) just proceed with the original deal when they are ready.

        An issue that I see though: – is this case ( AR vs IH) merely about: ‘did Andrea deliver his part of the deal’ or can this case be turned into a defense by IH that there is no provable theory that the eCat works ( which there isn’t) therefore IH might argue that the science has not been proven so Andrea Rossi can’t deliver no matter what. Put another way, Is there an obligation on Andrea Rossi to deliver proof of the eCat process as well as the target performance ?. If yes then IH may have a defense.

        If the latter argument becomes the driver of this court case then IH may use it to get off the hook. But, if the case is argued based on Andrea Rossi meeting his part if the agreement irrespective of the science and theory for the 1MW plant, then IH may just have to pay up.

        What we cannot forget is that this is a jury trial – I doubt any of them will have indepth science backgrounds. It is only going to be about who met the contractual obligations & who didn’t & if someone didn’t then why ?.

        Doug Marker

  • Jas

    Mobile phone research was not repressed. There was no trouble getting patents. What industries did mobile phones threaten?

  • Carl White

    “Once a continuously operating prototype is demonstrated”

    This is the point to start getting excited. Still too early now.

  • Zephir

    /* He calculates the binding energies as I said with analytic equations
    and fundamental constants only but he uses the experimental values in
    the following equations.*/

    We discussed it already in extensive way. For example, in Mills theory the orbitals are spherical, so you cannot derive for example the geometry of sp2 or sp3 hybridizations. In Mills model the water molecule should be linear, because he claims the same shape for all atoms.

    • Axil Axil
    • Mark Underwood

      “We discussed it already in extensive way. For example, in Mills theory the orbitals are spherical, so you cannot derive for example the geometry of sp2 or sp3 hybridizations. In Mills model the water molecule should be linear, because he claims the same shape for all atoms.”

      Zephir why not read the GUTCP for yourself. While atomic orbitals are spherical, the same is not true of molecular orbitals; they are ellipsoid. See for instance, starting at page 694, the closed form formulae from which Mills successfully predicts bond angles, bond energies and internuclear distances.

      Also, see Millsian.com for more graphic detail.

  • Jas

    “Dark Conspiracies” The repression is the lack of funding from goverments. The Refusal to grant patents. The lack of coverage in the MSM. The Peer review system. The paid Trolls who discredit the research. Must I go on?

  • piper

    Mills mentions discussions with foundry / smelting operations in video from Irvine, Ca roadshow presentation.

  • piper

    Mills mentions discussions with foundry / smelting operations in video from Irvine, Ca roadshow presentation.

  • MorganMck

    Randell Mill’s evidently gave a talk at Fresno State University as a part of his last road trip tour that addresses the state of the SunCell:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00&feature=push-u&attr_tag=W8vgCH22AOAo-Is4-6

    • MorganMck

      The presentation slides here are the same as the other roadshows, but of course Dr. Mills has a lot of ad hoc in his actual words. The audience appears to be mostly physics and engineering students so the Q&A (starting at the 1 hour mark) is quite different from the other venues.

      A couple of nuggets I noticed. He mentions they are currently integrating the computer control module and that two firms are developing the CPVs. He mentioned one of the firms is Boeing Spectralab who builds CPVs for spacecraft. I assume the other is still Masimo.

      He also mentioned plans for a smaller SunCell unit in the 10KW range which could be used for individual residences and other smaller applications not requiring the 150KW unit in prototype development now.

      Mills is still talking field trials this year and commercialization launch in !H 2018. Says the “heavy lifting” is done and they do not see any show stoppers as of now (of course you never do until you do).

      • R V

        But probably field trials of heaters, not generators. Mills casually mentioned that the heater product will be first a couple of weeks ago but I didn’t note that was mentioned in the recent ‘Roadshows’.

        • MorganMck

          Yes that came after the shows. Most of us thought there would be engineering delays in the prototype which have occurred in cpv integration. To his credit mills has decided to get heater versions going now rather than wait. The suncell-h should be sufficient to demo the disruptive nature of tgi tech if it is as claimed by mills.

    • Peter Lang

      I really want to see commercial units soon. I am tired of the drama around these things.

  • MorganMck

    The presentation slides here are the same as the other roadshows, but of course Dr. Mills has a lot of ad hoc in his actual words. The audience appears to be mostly physics and engineering students so the Q&A (starting at the 1 hour) is quite different from the other venues.

    A couple of nuggets I noticed. He mentions they are currently integrating the computer control module and that two firms are developing the CPVs. He mentioned one of the firms is Boeing Spectralab who builds CPVs for spacecraft. I assume the other is still Masimo.

    Mills is still talking field triala this year and commercialization launch in !H 2018. Says the “heavy lifting” is done and they do not see any show stoppers as of now (of course you never do until you do).

    • R V

      But probably field trials of heaters, not generators. Mills casually mentioned that the heater product will be first a couple of weeks ago but I didn’t note that was mentioned in the recent ‘Roadshows’.

  • doug marker

    Pat, I have kept out of it because I consider that debate a waste of time.

    The court will decide if IH has a legitimate defence against Andrea Rossi’s claim that they owe him $89 million.

    All that comments in those forums is IMHO both time wasting and irrelevant.

    If indeed the 1MW plant works as Andrea Rossi claims it did, then IH can only be ‘playing games’. What games ? – well here are some ideas – 1) slow Andrea Rossi down while some other player moves ahead, 2) settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, 3) just proceed with the original deal.

    A problem that I see though – is the case is merely about did Andrea deliver his part of the deal or can this case be turned into a defence by IH that there is no proveable theory that the eCat works ( which there isn’t) therefore IH argues the science has not been proven.

    If the latter argument becomes the driver of this court case then IH may get off the hook. But, if the case is argued based on Andrea Rossi meeting his part if the agreement irrespective of the science and theory, then IH may just have to pay up.

    Doug Marker

  • Peter Lang

    it should be possible to use solar emitted hydrinos for energy too. a device to capture and restore them to hydrogen maybe

    • R V

      There are two flaws in that statement. First, hydrino’s are not emitted by the sun but are generated in the solar corona but would not be available here on earth. Second, hydrino’s are not a power source, the transition of hydrogen to hydrino is the power source.

  • piper

    Update: For those fervently wishing for a process-heat? source unencumbered by a PV electrical conversion sub-system, a comment from R. Mills reveals such an arrangement is in the works.

    https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/12057

    • R V

      The SunCell with CPV conversion is still the main product in development but they are realizing that a heater only product could be operational quicker and thus start generating revenue.

      I am disappointed that Mills appears to be willing to let the schedule slip another six months for the generator but getting a heater out within the original schedule for field trials is still possible.

  • R V

    The SunCell with CPV conversion is still the main product in development but they are realizing that a heater only product could be operational quicker and thus start generating revenue.

    I am disappointed that Mills appears to be willing to let the schedule slip another six months for the generator but getting a heater out within the original schedule for field trials is still possible.

  • R V

    There are two flaws in that statement. First, hydrino’s are not emitted by the sun but are generated in the solar corona but would not be available here on earth. Second, hydrino’s are not a power source, the transition of hydrogen to hydrino is the power source.

  • Zephir

    I wish Mills success for good of all of us, but I don’t think, his device produces an energy with forming of hydrino. I’m not even still convinced, that the SunCell really generates some surplus of energy, because the calorimetry is still missing. But like you said, we can wait for Mills’s result – or we can attempt for replication of his technology at least at small scale. Frankly, the later option would be the best support of Mills ideas, which he could get.

  • Veblin

    The Great Energy Transition: Another Milestone for the SunCell
    APRIL 14, 2017
    By Tom Whipple
    https://fcnp.com/2017/04/14/great-energy-transition-another-milestone-suncell/

  • Veblin

    The Great Energy Transition: Another Milestone for the SunCell
    APRIL 14, 2017
    By Tom Whipple
    https://fcnp.com/2017/04/14/great-energy-transition-another-milestone-suncell/

  • Steven Jaynes

    Saying ““Delays of weeks, months or even years in getting a product to market will not be significant to the eventual impact of a technology of this importance. ” sounds like snake oil. I want to see unencumbered data. The data WILL drive out the speculation!

  • Steven Jaynes

    Saying ““Delays of weeks, months or even years in getting a product to market will not be significant to the eventual impact of a technology of this importance. ” sounds like snake oil. I want to see unencumbered data. The data WILL drive out the speculation!