“Power Determination and Hydrino Product Characterization of Ultra-low Field Ignition of Hydrated Silver Shots” (New Brilliant Light Power Paper)

Thanks to Sam for sharing a link to a paper from Brilliant Light Power which describes experiments performed by the company.

Title: “Power Determination and Hydrino Product Characterization of Ultra-low Field Ignition of Hydrated Silver Shots”

Authors: R. Mills, Y Lu, R Frazer

Here is a selection from the Abstract.

Hydrated silver shots comprising a source of H and HOH catalyst were ignited by passing a low voltage, high current through the shot to produce explosive plasma that emitted brilliant light predominantly in the short-wavelength 10 to 300 nm region. Based on Stark broadening, the initially optically thick essentially 100% ionized plasma expanded at sound speed and thinned to emit EUV and UV light. The peak power of 20 MW was measured using absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250 times the applied energy. Synchronized high-speed video and spectroscopic recording of the plasma emission and the measurement of the applied ignition power over time showed that plasma persisted even after the ignition power decayed to zero.

From the conclusion:

Hydrated silver shots comprising only 65 moles H2O produced a shockwave that was equivalent to about 10 times more moles of gunpowder (0.6 millimoles). Water and silver have no known chemistry and the ignition voltage did not exceed 20 V; yet the ignition of the hydrated shots produced an extremely powerful detonation wave further validating the hydrino reaction as a new energetic power source. Since there are no gaseous products, a likely mechanism is coupling of the massive amounts to EUV radiation to air to cause superheating akin to the mechanism of nucleardetonation where X-rays serve the role of the EUV radiation of comparable peak power density (e.g. 20 WM/7.6 X 10-6 liter = 2.6 X 1012 W/liter in the presented hydrino reaction case).Similarly, the hydrino reaction may be the source of the shockwave of lightning discharges in atmospheric water vapor.

The full paper can be read here: http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-120517d.pdf

It’s a very long and detailed paper, which includes numerous images including diagrams of the experimental equipment.

  • Gerard McEk

    Detonation, shockwaves. It seems that Mills walks another track then he was going using a continuous process with his silver pump in a graphite dome. Results are impressive though. COP of 250. I hope he will soon show an aparatus that has practical use (such as heating houses) and can be proven by independent entities.

    • tlp

      This is not about the product (SunCell) they are developing, but scientific research about hydrino reactions. Of course these are related, as SunCell is based on hydrino reactions.
      I think this is a continuation of an earlier report and test setup, where they recently added shockwave measurements, and got quite remarkable results: Water is 10 times more explosive than gunpowder!

  • Brokeeper

    With 10 times more explosive power than gunpowder could evolve into a new pollution free internal combustion engine with light-to-electric conversion storage to supply ignition source and electric needs. A side effect however would be an increase noise pollution. I have no idea, though, what that design would look like if it is possible.

    • Arnd Rosemeier

      The energy density of gunpowder is surprisingly low compared to something like diesel. Its about a factor of 15. The thing about gunpowder is that its easy to release all that power at once, but the energy density isn’t that great. So diesel would still be better than 10 times gunpowder.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Anyone have AVERAGE power in vs AVERAGE power out over a 1 minute period of a test. Peak power out as stated above, which might only last nanoseconds, doesn’t tell us anything about COP or economic usefulness.

    (But it is possible there is new physics here. However. I’m still trying to figure out 5 years later if Mills has anything economically useful.)

    • Ryan

      I’m hoping he is right. I’m hoping others and their projects are right as well, from Rossi to the smaller fusion groups working to get aneutronic fusion working to the ones working on even weirder stuff. I’m also hoping discoveries like this get followed up with and seen if it goes anywhere. http://www.sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices If scaled up even a cm squared, at the power they are suggesting (10 microwatts per 10 microns squared), at a near atomic level of thickness, would generate a lot of power. If you layered it into a 3 dimensional cube then the power it could produce is magnified that much more. Note, they aren’t claiming it is a certainty on this but from what I read in the article it is worth investigating at the very least as a potential simple, stable power source.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Can you or someone else on this forum help me out with a pointer to the average power consumption vs. power produced by a Mills device?

        I would expect a COP of at least 1.3x average power out/average power in for Mills to be confident in his experiment (as confirmation of whatever else he is seeing). Some earlier estimates that I did indicate that we need COP>5 with heat to electricity convertors (i.e. organic fluid sterling based electric generator) to make a self-sustaining unit. Otherwise, a lower COP unit (i.e. COP 2 or 3) would only have utility as a heater or perhaps as area lighting.

        • tlp

          COP depends If the starting point is hydrogen or water. If hydrogen, then it is about 20000, but typically on These experiments The Fuel is water, and the COP is lower, about 200, as it takes that well known amount of energy to first extract hydrogen from water.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      They used a bomb calorimeter to measure the released heat. See section 2.5 (p. 12 ff.). Input energy for a single shot was determined to be 20 J. On p. 33, they report an output of 200 J per shot. That would give a COP of 10 (electric to thermal).

      Certainly, 180 J excess heat is not very much – you would need 20000 shots to produce 1 kWh. But I guess this was an experimental setup, not yet a commercial reactor.

      • Anon2012_2014

        That’s enough excess energy to warrant further investigation if the calorimetry and input power are reasonably correct. It appears as if there is some unknown effect occurring here — might even be Mills’ hydrinos, although it could be chemical or some other LENR mechanism and that needs to be investigated. As pointed out above in the comments, some interest work on Water Arc Explosions was done by a Stanford undergrad in 2014 that also showed large energy gain (between 1.4x and 33x) before the apparatus mechanically failed. If the device can sustain 5 shots per second — that’s 1 kW continuous average. Even if it can only sustain 1 shot per second, its still a 200 watt device. That’s a sensible amount of excess heat (i.e. you could feel the warmth with your hands) for only 20 watts in.

        If someone independent could confirm the above experiment, it would be a good thing.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          „We need to go carefully through the enthalpies of all possible reactions with those molecular input components to confirm that none of these is sufficiently exothermic to account for 100 to 200 joules for each of the shots.“

          I think they are on the safe side here. Combustion of 80 mg Ag to Ag2O would yield about 23 J. Hydrogen combustion cannot be taken into account since it will be balanced by the required energy for splitting the H2O, and combustion of nitrogen is endothermic.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The only scenario I could imagine is that the electrodes were burnt, provided that atmospheric oxygen was involved. The paper does not seem to indicate that there were significant amounts of air present, though.

          • Anon2012_2014

            And how about something like AgOH, or some enthalpy off the copper electrode? They only purged about 5X the volume of the container, so we also have to look into residual H2+2 O2 -> H2O. And it is also possible that the reduction of an oxide layer on the copper or the silver by the 3% H2 is exothermic.

            It think that the Mills team can repeat the experiment to eliminate those other sources. I like the idea of them building a device that does one shot per second and uses the captured heat energy to expand a piston to do and capture work… Putt Putt Putt engine…

  • Val K

    Looks like Mills is now trying to get attention (and funding, of course) from DoD.

  • HB11 Energy
    Laser Boron Fusion

    This company, headed by Professor Heinrich Hora, promises cheaper fusion power less expensive than coal and in a small package.

    Professor Hora – see – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hora

    Company – https://www.hb11.energy

    “Other advantages: Unlike Deuterium Tritium fusion and fission techniques, the HB11 reaction is sufficiently clean with respect to production of any harmful by-products or radiation. It also has the potential to create electricity directly without the need for a heat exchanger and steam turbine to generate electricity as required for coal or fission nuclear power stations. This will allow power stations to be built with a relatively small capital investment and footprint based on presently achieved extreme laser technology.”

    “We expect to be able to provide energy for about ¼ of the price of coal fired power, without any carbon emissions or radioactive by-products, which will be disruptive to the power industry.

    With the small size and footprint of a HB11 power station, the addressable market is expected to reach further than the power grid to applications such as ships, submarines, large factories or to remote locations such as isolated towns and mine sites.”

    • Gerard McEk

      They seem not having made any progress the last few years, Christopher. Are they having financial/technical problems?

  • Zephir

    This research isn’t new and it doesn’t even require a silver catalyst. Water arc explosions were first described in 1907 by John Trowbridge of
    Harvard University, though the phenomenon was not studied in detail until it caught the interest of Peter and Neal Graneau in the mid-1980s (Graneau and Graneau, 1985). By discharging a high-voltage capacitor through around 100 mL of water, the Graneau team was able to expel the
    water from a dielectric cup. At the time, the Graneaus conjectured that the arc discharge generated high- pressure steam within the water which expanded rapidly and resulted in the

    observed explosions. Measurements in Graneau and Graneau (1985) and Hathaway and Graneau (1996) indicated that water arc explosions were unusually strong. The history includes work by Trowbridge in 1907 as noted below; also Frungel in 1948 and 1965 papers; and Gilchrist and
    Crossland in 1967. About the same time as Graneau’s publications, we also find a publication by Azevedo of MIT – 1986. YT Videos Water Drop Trigger Apparatus, Max Spark
    Rate Demo

    For example at this blog and videos (1,

    2) we can find the results of Stanford Plasma Physics Lab – as we can see, the net explosion energy exceeded the input pulse energy in EVERY shot observed. In

    shot 1, the measured explosion energy even exceeded the total energy stored by over 200%.

    Compare also Richard Hull’s research. With 50 J of input energy, the quantity of fog produced was of the order of 0.75 g of water. To dissociate

    this amount of water into oxygen and hydrogen would require 10 kJ of energy. Hence the fog explosion is unlikely to be caused by electrolytic dissociation of water molecules. Without this dissociation, the most likely source of the explosion energy is that stored by
    hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. This bond energy is said to be equal to the latent heat of evaporation, and therefore could contribute up to 2200 J/g (1, 2, 3).

    For further reading: The Mysteries of Fog (Graneau, P., & Graneau, N. (1985). Electrodynamic explosions in liquids. Applied Physics Letters, 46(5), 468,

    Graneau, P., Graneau, N., Hathaway, G., & Hull, R. (2000). Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy. Journal of Plasma Physics, 63, 115-128), see Graneau
    e.a. – Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electrical input energy – 2000.pdf
    (364.3 kB), Powerful-water-plasma-explosions.pdf (313.59 kB), GraneauEditorial94.pdf
    (178.4 kB), P4.pdf (320.36 kB)

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I’m afraid that we will 🙂

  • HS61AF91

    ” … the hydrino reaction may be the source of the shock wave of lightning discharges in atmospheric water vapor. … ” Mother nature knew all along!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Then again, it may not.

      • HS61AF91

        Guess I should have postulated, Mother nature may have known all along. Well, we’ll see, with nail biting anticipation, what is going to replace burning for energy. Remember sometime ago learning that people speculated on harnessing lightning.

    • bfast

      I was reading recently, I think elsewhere, that nuclear products have been detected in lightning. It’ll all weave together when the dust settles. The Brilliant Light reaction and LENR must be two sides to the same coin. I am sure we’ll find lots of such reactions in nature.

  • tlp

    They have been doing two separate research experiments lately, shockwave measurements added to an old experiment explained in this research paper, and then that new hydrino creation method shown in the latest video. That research paper has not been published yet.

  • tan

    They used a bomb calorimeter to measure the released heat. See section 2.5 (p. 12 ff.). Input energy for a single shot was determined to be 20 J. On p. 33, they report an output of 200 J per shot. That would give a COP of 10 (electric to thermal).Certainly, 180 J excess heat is not very much – you would need 20000 shots to produce 1 kWh

  • Anon2012_2014

    An independently confirmed COP of >1.3x which appears in the above linked paper on Table 1, page 37 around 2x would prove the science. (Ref in the above link to: Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-120517d.pdf )

    We prove this is not chemical enthalpies of formation of reactants and then anyone else does it in their university bomb calorimeter, and we are done — proof solid of excess energy from something (either hydrino, LENR, conventional fusion in water blast experiments), that can be done on a small scale. I think that the Mills technique could be manufactured into a machine if the COP can be improved from 2x to 6x and if we can recapture some of the heat or light with at least 50% efficiency to make back into electricity. Sounds exciting — small scale pellet fusion or hydrino interaction. If we can get some of you physical chemists to prove the model and then anyone at a university to duplicate, it would be great.

  • Gerard McEk
  • sam

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.