Brilliant Light Power Q2 Update

Brilliant Light Power has posted its second quarter updated on the BLP website here:

Some of the highlights mentioned are:

The Advanced SunCell® design has been completed and patents filed, and that engineering is progressing well.

They have added engineers to complete the SunCell® prototype

They are seeking corporate partners with whom to develop a commercial SunCell®

They are also working on a new SunCell® design. “We have been focused on a much more advanced design that has the capacity to generate arbitrarily high power with much less complex systems that should have a significant impact on the time to commercialization,” and describe Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Generators which they have tested in prototype, and state that they have shown “large scale feasibility”

A short video of the MHD generator has been posted on Youtube here:

They state that the

  • Mylan

    Seems that, like at any point in time, a BLP commercial product is around two years away.

    • David_Kaiser_39

      That’s why it is zero

      • cashmemorz

        If past performance is any indicator of future performance then the Suncell should work as well as the other devices developed. You have looked at the other items that Mills and his associates have made a long time ago and are in full use by many users? If you haven’t, then one can understand your doubt filled remarks. I have many refernces to what those other items are, how very long those other items took to get from prototype to engineering to fully developed and sold versions. If these first items are any indication of Mills’ abilities in rewriting physics then the other future items, that have reached proof of principle and are into prototype mode will revolutionize not only physics, but the way people do things in many areas. Please don’t aslk me what those items are. Just admit you are talking from ignorance or have an agenda to protect. If you are honest with yourself and your fellow men, then I will tell you everything your heart desires to know so much. But the question really is, do you even want to know?

    • Ken

      Two years away since 1991.

  • Max Nozin

    I have a feeling that mood has improved since Q1 report. New calc.shows drop in capital cost per kw to $30 dollars.
    The biggest concern is new Energetic Materilas line of business. Instead of a generator we will get GROB – grandfather of all bombs able to circumvent nuclear non proliferation treaties but be 10x powerful than conventional.

    • Anon2012_2014

      It appears to me to be naturally proliferation resistant assuming the effect is valid; i.e. a poor bomb.

      • Max Nozin

        Why is that? O
        Order of magnitude more powerful that conventional plus with absolutely safe compunds – DB. I.e. dream bomb.

        • Anon2012_2014

          Except to make an explosion you need a lot of power (spark). It makes the device big to get much power out. Further, the explosions are typically for very small total amounts of energy. Lots of little sparks doesn’t do much for the bad guys.

      • Axil Axil

        A 6 inch 5/8 inch thick stainless steel pipe destroyed by 10 drops of LENR based fuel

        • Bob Greenyer

          This image is in ‘O Day’

        • Anon2012_2014

          And exactly who’s experiment is this? (Not BLP — fuel doesn’t come in drops.) I am not sure what we are looking at and if the energy didn’t come from a chemical or other conventional energy source. I also don’t know the temperature of the metal at the failure point as SS weakens before melting.

          • artefact

            It is from a demo that Papp did in the desert to show the power of his fuel.

          • Anon2012_2014

            i.e. it has nothing to do with BLP and LENR as we know them today. I was responding (in the negative) to the original poster who said that BLP’s spark based effect could make a cheap WMD. I wish to stay on topic and not talk about Papp unsubstantiated demonstrations.

          • Axil Axil

            Papp’s Cannon Demonstration

            Joseph Papp stories are legendary
            and they add to the allure and
            mystery of his efforts, so much so
            that they are hard to believe. But
            one such story about the Papp cannon
            was filmed and witnessed by a
            handful of impartial observers.
            Papp decided to add a cannon to his
            collection of hardware to show all
            those that were interested in what
            he could really do. So on one early
            crisp sunny Sunday fall morning
            in October 1968, Papp trooped out
            to the desert with six or eight engineers
            from the Navy and TRW with
            a homemade cannon, powered by
            his invention.

            For this show, Papp decided to pull
            out all the stops that usually kept
            his engines docile and well controlled
            in the engine application
            and scaled up his technology to its
            maximum power potential.
            The barrel was four feet long, four
            inches in diameter, made of a three
            foot length of 3-inch schedule 50
            stainless steel pipe (0.6 inch wall
            thickness) anchored and totally
            encased in a heavy one-foot thick
            reinforced concrete containment

            The breech was loaded with just
            10cc’s of Papp’s “inert” noble gas
            mix. For the breech, he used a spare
            cylinder head from one of his engines;
            for a projectile, he machined
            a piece of steel.

            Papp filled the cylinder head with
            his gas mix from five separate
            flasks and hooked up the power.

            Then Papp hit the start button.
            “We heard this tremendous explosion.
            It was a low rumble, like
            a bass sound,” one witness there
            said. The projectile jammed halfway
            up the barrel and ripped the
            cannon in half. The back of the gun
            flared open like a stainless steel tulip
            strewn with metal fragments.

            The concrete containment was
            mostly blasted into the air as a
            cloud reduced to rubble and dust. It
            also punched a crater about 3-feet
            in diameter and about 3-feet deep
            into the rocky desert hardpan and
            the 1-foot thick platform of plywood
            and 2×8 planks upon which
            all rested was reduced to a shower
            of splinters.

            The cannon, like everything else
            that Papp did, was patented. This
            official validation of a LERN technology
            is unprecedented.



          • Anon2012_2014

            Papp’s effect was interesting but we will never get enough details to run a scientific examination of his experiment — because he died. Anyone else who knows enough to recreate the experiment and demonstrate the inner workings sufficient that we (the public community) can accept or reject the hypothesis is welcome. In the interim, it remains the stuff of legend.

          • Axil Axil

            the stuff of legend was tested by the US patent office and passed that third party test upon which a patent was awarded.

            “His last two-cylinder engine finally
            ran, on June 18, 1981. A videotape
            of that demonstration was sent to
            the patent office to validate the
            new engine’s patent application. It
            was granted. And even more, the
            patent office was so impressed that
            it nominated his engine as one of
            the year’s best patents, but consistent
            with his strange ways, Papp
            refused to participate in the award

          • Anon2012_2014

            OK Axil. Build one, or get someone at a UC to build one and publish. I don’t see any experiments on Papp’s device now. Last time they sent Feynmann to observe, Papp arranged for the device to blow up killing an observer. I don’t see any science in Papp. It’s off topic.

          • Axil Axil

            Papp is one of the few people who has cracked the secret of producing the LENR fuel. The others are Rossi, me356, and LION. Parkhomov, ECCO, and Mizuno are others. Holmlid could be another, but Holmlid has not applied his tech to producing reactor fuel. I think that R Mills might be another but he does not understand it.

          • Anon2012_2014


            I divide the world into those things that there is sufficient testable evidence to know is likely true so that we the world at large have built experiments to prove them; and those things that we have insufficient evidence to know if they are true or not that we have not publicly tested. At this stage, Papp, Rossi, and Mills are in the insufficient public evidence area. Papp is gone — he is just a small amount of corroborating evidence for new models; i.e. the probability of LENR being true given what we have learned from Papp publicly only goes up maybe 0.1%. Rossi and Mills remain hidden but I am hopeful that both will provide evidence. In the hidden current phase of their work with little snippets of information being released, they are supply maybe 2% each of support to the world at large. LION’s work is being done in the open today although we have not yet seen the experimental results. Now that work provides maybe 5% probability boost, but it could easily go to 100% within three months. I value the open science evidence of Parkhomov, Mizuno, and Holmlid much higher. They will publish their results.

          • Axil Axil

            Suppose that what you want or expect is not what is happening? Where does that leave you?

          • Anon2012_2014

            I _want_ all of LENR to be true. My rational expectations are based on evidence.

          • Axil Axil

            Evidence of what? Papp’s engine produced force without producing any heat. According to your expectation, the Papp tech goes unrecognized as a overunitiy energy source. LENR only produces heat in very exceptional conditions. Your expectations of heat production as a indicator of LENR is off the mark. The good engineer will take the LENR reaction as it is and use it to do what it will do, not what you expect it to do. Science is the exploration of reality as it is, not what you expect it to be.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Axil, I have no expectations of new science or not. I have sufficient intellectual humility to know that I have no idea. You are putting thoughts to my persona that are not my thoughts.

            But I do need evidence to evaluate hypotheses. Papp doesn’t have a paper written by a third party qualified scientist or engineer testing the machine of which I am aware. If you know of one, please let me know so I can evaluate the evidence myself.

          • Axil Axil


            The Papp Engine: Dynamometer Test Footage

            The US patent office sponsored a similar third party dyno test performed in 1983 upon which the patent of the engine was granted.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Do you have the analysis report on the third part test?

          • Axil Axil


            The affidavit is shown in this video. I have seen the original held by Bob Ronner.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Axil, I am looking for a research paper or report with what (self) claims to be scientific rigor on the device, even if self-published on Arxiv. An affidavit or video doesn’t provide all the detailed and footnoted information.

          • Axil Axil

            Like all the other manifestations of the LENR reaction, the science has not been set down in a rigorous way. I think I can now render the theory in detail, but writing research papers is not my trade. I would like to partner with you in generating such a paper.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Not true. About half of the LENR manifestations are published in one form or another, i.e. Parkamov, Brillouin, and Pon and Fleishmann. True this limits us to what we can get to the published knowledge base, but it is so much more efficient for the science if we can know what we know collectively. It is my sincere wish that we could get the other half to publish with sufficient openness on their experimental details to replicate what they see so that we (global society i.e. civilization or humankind) can build this technology. I have read before what Papp has left us and it is lacking for repeatable validation — no one knows how to do it. That makes it far less useful to society as we cannot build on it. Assuming Papp had something, there is far too much guess work to bring it from Papp’s private knowledge into the sphere of social (scientific) knowledge. In that conditional (that he had an innovative breakthrough) his death taking the knowledge with him is a social tragedy. If in the same conditional, Dr. Rossi takes his private knowledge to his death, it is the same social tragedy.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Has someone here gone through their current public validation to see

    1) energy content (joules) put into the apparatus over some time period, say for the 3 seconds of operation in the video; including chemical potential reactants

    2) energy output coming out of the apparatus whether as heat or electricity.

    I see high power output for short periods, but integrated power through time makes a useful device.

    Lastly of note their report says that they raised $20 mm at $6 billion validation. This makes BLP a Unicorn by definition; and also by definition, assuming their prior valuation was around 100 mm, they have diluted those who didn’t invest in this round by around 60x. All is reasonable assuming the experimental device has hard third party reproducible evidence of energy out/energy in >> 6 for some amount of energy large enough to rule out experimental error.

    • Brent Buckner

      I think your dilution calculation is off. The shares created in the new round would represent an aggregate of 3.33% of the company ($20,000,000/$6,000,000,000) so those who owned before the new round would see very little dilution.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Buckner — you are correct. The early investors have a paper gain of 60x

    • David_Kaiser_39

      Who made a 6 billion validationฺ Thats ridiculous. Which company did this valuation? I can do the same by consulting my glassball. If This invention proves to be legit, it’s going to be trio! If not, zero. So unless they don’t have proof for the excess heat, I mean with facts. Then the value is zero!

      • Brent Buckner

        See page 11 of the presentation; it states: “Last year we successfully raised $20M at a $6B market capitalization.” Apparently whoever paid out that $20 million did so valuing the company at $6 billion.

  • Dr. Mike

    There doesn’t seem to be much new from their first quarter report. The emphasis appears to be on the new unproven MHD reactor rather than on completion of either the thermal or CPV SunCell, although work is continuing on their development. The key factor missing from this report is that one might have expected some results on the continuous operation of a SunCell prototype by now. It wouldn’t be surprising if there were many additional engineering problems incurred when the SunCell is attempted to be run in a continuous mode at high temperatures. A key question is: will the thermal and CPV designs be discontinued in favor of the MHD development in the future?

  • Jas

    I remain hopefull that BRLP will get something out in 2018 however I find their statements less convincing and less reliable. We were told in their roadshows that all engineering challenges had been resolved. That certainly isnt the case.
    Now they are making similar statements. I certainly believe Mills and co have the potential but take their statements with a pinch of salt.

  • causal observer

    Page 6, Novel Compounds
    “Exhibit unknown magnetic properties”
    Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

  • Gerard McEk

    It seems indeed that the PV-development has less priority now. It was an odd direction anyway. To use it to its full extend you should be able to lid the PV panels directly with the strong extended UV light without the graphite dome. But that wasn’t possible. Another method for generating electricity is better, but the proposed one is completely new in this design. It requires a plasma to run, I just wonder how that integrates with the SunCell. Yes, I saw the pictures, but I have no idea how it works. If I were Mills, I would go for a conventional route and prove that the SunCell produces 500-800 times the energy it uses continually. That has still to be proven. Making electricity should be a second or third step in the development.

    • Job001

      Nah, the required proof is financial performance. Most old school scientists have proven themselves confused or biased or corrupt or ignorant and thus unable to objectively evaluate the truly excellent spectroscopic and caloric data. These old school scientists also show they cannot evaluate simple energy balance data, which has been provided by even simple bomb calorimetry and were done.

      When the energy data is showing 200-500 times or 500-800 times as you referenced, no more sophisticated energy balance studies are required, the data is overwhelmingly positive! Therefor, it is a financial proof required, nothing less!

      • Gerard McEk

        That maybe so in theory, but in practice Mills hasn’t proven long term continuous operation, with or without conversion to heat or electricity yet. The route Andrea Rossi is taking is a lot more viable. I believe he is far away from a working SunCell and putting effort in electrical conversion just takes attention away from that fact!

        • Job001

          So it resolves into “What is the optimum Mills percent skepticism?” We know that 0% and 100% are equally absurd! Were we equally ignorant(Who knows?) a 50% skepticism could be defended. Were excellent spectroscopic, reasonable caloric data, good funding, and a theoretic basis all absent we could assume a reasonable skepticism of 75%, however these are all available, so a reasonable skepticism of 25% can be defended, IMO.

  • causal observer

    I wonder if people may have unrealistic expectations on innovation progress because so much innovation has been in the form of software applications. The thing about software is that you can ship it if it provides “some” additional value (buggy, non-performant, but still automates something in an economically useful way). Businesses will pay for it in that condition and use it for the incremental competitive benefit. Then the software developers can add improvements and ship those on a regular basis, until the architecture runs out of capacity for change.

    It’s not possible to do that with hardware. Can’t be “buggy”. Can’t be routinely upgraded. And can’t be non-performant in comparison to the product life-cycle of other the competition. And when you ship one architecture you have to be willing to live with it for a long time. It’s much harder and more expensive to retool hardware to the next level architecture.

    So the hardware makers like Rossi, Mills and Godes have to aim for something that has a high minimum level of quality and performance.

    The PV approach of BLP always seemed like a stretch from an engineering perspective. I’m glad to see they have an angle on the MHD approach. Their claim that they can get to market faster with MHD makes sense, considering the difficulties of PV.

    Similar for Rossi. Suppose he had gone full commercial with the original “E-Cat in a container”. Where would he be now, tied up in maintaining and improving that? So today he has a different version of the problem: go with the 1KW QX or wait until the 10KW or 100KW is proven?

    On the other hand:

    “Sometime the cards ain’t worth a damn,
    if you don’t lay ’em down and play ’em”.

    • Exactly.

    • Piper

      Almost all technology we take for granted had roots in first applications; which, required constant tweaking by an observer/operator. People involved with using a technology innovated in piecemeal fashion over many decades to make improvements. From the current perspective, the history of development successes appears as a series of obvious steps compressed into a linear narrative—head slapping obvious to the casual pundit demanding instant results.

      Take MHD power generation for example. This has roots in Faraday trying to extract the electrical potential from flow of the Thames River in 1832. Practical development began a hundred years later in the Westinghouse Labs experiments of the 1930’s. Further decades of development worldwide contributed to technically feasible MHD electrical generation methods by the 1990’s.

      MHD was sidelined by the Combined Cycle Brayton and Rankine turbines compounded for maximum energy extraction from fuel. The turbines were a known cost, had a track record of successful development, and were an easier sale when seeking financial backing for a plant project. Commercial MHD development went dormant, yet aerospace and military projects were still viable due to potential applications. NASA Glenn near Cleveland is active for hypersonic applications for example.

      Very little real information is available from an operation patterned similar to Kelly Johnson’s development bureau. Mill’s operation appears to adhere to Kelly’s 14 rules and practices for success. This arrangement does limit synergy, the lack of details made available outside the working groups, inhibiting any outside participation. It can lead to group-think, with a not-developed-here attitude leading to a missed or delayed opportunity.

    • Axil Axil

      Rossi when with the QX to solve the issues that you raise. The QX is disposable and costs less than a penny to manufacture. The QX can be upgraded as a power unit at low cost. It is equivalent to the fuel rods in a nuclear plant. The heat exchanges, coolant circuits, turbines and the like all stay in place, just the heat elements change. The year long demo taught Rossi this lesson and he came up with the QX to resolve this issue.

  • Max Nozin

    Why he singles it out into a sparate of business then? Energetic materials. I am totally happy to be completely wrong with this.
    First attend nuclear pile at first also didn’t look like somethig you can drop from a bomber.

  • Val K

    Supposing, the Hydrino reaction is real and Randy Mills does possess the know-how to produce “unlimited energy from water”. What else does he have? Underdeveloped technology to produce thermal energy, which has not even proven to work reliably over extended period of time. SunCell, being invented several years ago went through a number of iterations, with one problem emerging after another (such as rotating gears, melting/evaporation of the tungsten electrode, inability to melt silver). Obviously, this technology (if exists) still requires a lot of development, numbers of iterations, with subsequent verification, tuning, and validation. It would be prudent to concentrate on the development of this technology to the point it becomes a commercially sound product, relying on conventional (although far from ideal) means to convert thermal energy into electricity. This would separate the power conversion from the product development issues. However, Dr Mills and BLP stubbornly take another approach trying to develop fancy, but conceptually problematic and technically challenging power conversion systems for the SunCell, which design has not being finalized yet. So, now all bets are on the all-ceramic advanced SunCell design with MHG for power conversion. Looks like I need to buy more popcorn.

    • Bob Greenyer

      IMPO – the ‘melting/evaporation’ was neither in the conventional sense and one cannot draw energy yield conclusions from it. I also think that the brightness of the light is more due to a special kind of ionisation than more traditional bulk body temperature related ionisation.

      Most ceramics become conductors at high temperatures – research ‘Nernst lamp’

      On the assumption that this is another technology working in the same universe as all the others that show similar effects, then I suspect that he will have transmutations and extremely difficult material science challenges to contain the active agents.

      Thinking “ooo – it is high temperature, lets use Graphite, molybdenum, tungsten, ceramics etc” is IMPO just is not facing up to the potential reality of this technology.

      Look what LION does to Carbon (that starts life as diamond) it just makes it disappear (from its original location) and you can forget about silicon based PV cells.

      • Dr. Mike

        One argument for the SunCell not working in the same universe as say Rossi’s E-Cat technology is that the claimed energy density for the SunCell is only about 500 times that of burning hydrogen. The SunCell would require a fairly high hydrogen flow to maintain a 3000K graphite surface temperature. Also, I don’t recall Mills observing any transmutations. The brightness of the light coming from the graphite as observed by the human eye can easily be explained simply by the fact that a blackbody at a temperature above 2000K or so emits a lot of light in the visible spectrum. I’m don’t believe there is any need for a special ionization to explain a SunCell’s brightness.

        • Axil Axil

          Regarding: “Also, I don’t recall Mills observing any transmutations”

          Mills shoud send the tungsten he used as an electrode in his initial SunCell designs to MFMP for a look.

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

          • Dr. Mike

            It would be a good idea to take a look at what remained of the electrodes. Engineers could not have “seen” a power density, however they could have seen the effects of what they assumed must have been a high power density. Perhaps they did observe an event with a really high temperature?

      • causal observer

        Your comments suggest that you believe there is a single form of enegy being released by these different approaches. That sets a high hurdle for proof, or even to wrap a set of observed patterns around. Maybe hydrinos are real and their energy release processes produce different effects than EVOs. The one ring to rule them all is an attractive idea, one might even say precious, however, Nature may have more pathways than we are comfortable imagining.

        • Axil Axil

          Maybe what Mills believes is hydrinos is actually ultra dense hydrogen.

          Remember SAFIRE. The tungsten in that pure double layer hydrogen plasma was vaporized in nanoseconds.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Oxidation takes many forms.

        • Dr. Mike

          I think that it would be best to investigate all of these phenomena independently, then see if the underlying physics ties them together. It certainly doesn’t hurt to look for commonality as long as this search doesn’t adversely affect the direction of the experimental process toward reaching an understanding of the phenomena.

  • cashmemorz

    Who are you and what exactly are you up to? Pretending ignorant or just really ignorant? Ie. NASA has an airplane designed around LENR. why would they do that? I’ll tell you why. Because it takesabout thirty or more years for revolutionary tech to take hold. LENR is not just something like fire, it is neutron based power involving heat. If it has taken ITER and other hot fusion type projects from the 1960’s till(55 years+!) now to just begin getting results, why should anything similar be any faster?
    Here is how it is progressing:

    Other military references to LENR

    US NAVY SPAWAR LENR patent: 2013

    US NAVY seeks to license their LENR tech and to engage in collaborative research

    Also, why it is taking so long for hott fusion to get going:
    Solar abundance of elements not expecte to be associated with the long heldmodel of the Sun:

    Then look at what a major contributor to ecat. com has found in the literature concefning LENR:
    Gregory Goble
    Apr 2, 1:32 PM
    I have been researching the NASA GRC/PineScie/Vantage Partners LENR energy group working with the
    SPAWAR/JWK/Global Energy Corporation (GEC) LENR energy group.

    I wanted to understand the relationship between NASA Glen Research
    Center and the U.S. Department of Defense. I discovered they have a
    strong relationship and that NASA GRC is particularly well suited to
    merge all NASA and Department of Defense LENR energy technology
    groups’ applied engineering and market entry efforts. Quote:
    “…synchronizes activities at the world-class installation to
    support critical research and development for NASA, the Department of
    Defense and commercial industry to advance space exploration and
    global aeronautic leadership.”

    It is an interesting coincidence that the SPAWAR/JWK/GEC LENR group filed their patent the
    same year that Brigadier General Stringer arrived at GRC.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    John H. Glenn Research Center

    Lewis Field, Cleveland, Ohio 44135

    BIO – David L. Stringer

    David L. Stringer is director of Plum Brook
    Station in Sandusky, Ohio, a 6,400 acre remote test site 50 miles
    west of Cleveland, for the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Appointed
    to this position on February 18, 2007, Stringer synchronizes
    activities at the world-class installation to support critical
    research and development for NASA, the Department of Defense and
    commercial industry to advance space exploration and global
    aeronautic leadership.

    Stringer retired from the United States Air Force on January 1, 2007, as a Brigadier General. He was
    the first maintenance officer assigned to the 4477th Test and
    Evaluation Squadron, which flew three types of Soviet aircraft to
    prepare American aircrews for combat. Stringer commanded a squadron
    in England and a group in Italy before his final assignment as
    commander, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Arnold Air Force
    Base, Tennessee. He was stationed six times overseas for a total of
    12 years and supported the 1995 air war over Bosnia as well as the
    1999 Kosovo War in the Balkans.

    Stringer holds a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and a Master
    of Arts in history from the University of Alabama. He was one of 12
    selected annually in the Department of Defense to attend Harvard’s
    John F. Kennedy School of Government as a National Security

    Stringer is a published author, cited in numerous professional publications and journals, including the Wall Street
    Journal and Aviation Week and Space Technology. His awards include
    the University of Alabama’s award for research and writing and many
    defense awards. – end quotes

    One year later the patent for the JWK/GEC reactor was filed (2008) “A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor”
    WO2009108331A2 – Publication date: Dec 30, 2009 – Priority date: Feb
    25, 2008 Inventors: Lawrence Parker Galloway Forsley, Jay Wook Khim –
    Applicant: Lawrence Parker Gallow Forsley

    Also in 2008

    2008 DoD Grant (2013 patent) “Deuterium Reactor”
    US20130235963A1 – Filed: Mar 12, 2012 – Publication date: Sep 12,
    2013 Inventor: Pharis Edward Williams Original Assignee: Pharis
    Edward Williams $25,000 was received in 2008 from NSWC, Indian Head
    Division, to design experiments, review reports, and analyze data.
    The experiments verified heating using powdered/granulated fuel.

    A year later the JWK/GEC/Defense Intelligence Agency LENR report (2009)

    2009 November Defense Intelligence Agency DIA-08-0911-003 Technology Forecast: “Worldwide Research on
    Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance”
    Quote, “LENR power sources could produce the greatest
    transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the
    transition from horsepower to gasoline power.” -end quote Prepared
    by: Beverly Barnhart, DIA/DI, Defense Warning Office. With
    contributions from: Dr. Patrick McDaniel, University of New Mexico;
    Dr. Pam Mosier-Boss, U.S. Navy SPAWAR/Pacific; Dr. Michael McKubre,
    SRI International; Mr. Lawrence Forsley, JWK International; and Dr.
    Louis DeChiaro, NSWC/Dahlgren. Coordinated with DIA/DRI, CPT, DWO,
    DOE/IN, US Navy SPAWAR/Pacific and U.S. NSWC/Dahlgren,VA.

    Also we have these from 2009… a busy year for U.S. government LENR.

    2009 thru 2010 NASA-LaRC SpaceWorks Contract
    (applied engineering)

    Quote: “SpaceWorks conducted separate vehicle design studies evaluating the potential impact of two
    advanced propulsion system concepts under consideration by NASA
    Langley Research Center: The first concept was an expendable
    multistage rocket vehicle which utilized an advanced Air-Augmented
    Rocket (AAR) engine. The effect of various rocket thrust augmentation
    ratios were identified the resulting vehicle design where compared
    against a traditional expendable rocket concept. The second concept
    leverage Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), a new form of energy
    generation being studied at NASA LaRC, to determine how to utilize an
    LENR-based propulsion system for space access. For this activity, two
    LENR-based rocket engine propulsion performance models where
    developed jointly by SpaceWorks and LaRC personnel.” -end quote

    See: “SpaceWorks Advanced Concepts Group (ACG) Overview”
    October 2012 PowerPoint presentation, page 31.

    2009 Navy Patent “Excess enthalpy upon pressurization of nanosized
    metals with deuterium” WO2011041370A1 – Original Assignee: The
    Government Of The United States Of America, As Represented By The
    Secretary Of The Navy – Inventor: David A. Kidwell – Priority date:
    Sep 29, 2009 – Publication date: Mar 31, 2011 – GRANT issued: Nov 10,
    2015 – The present application claims the benefit of United States
    Provisional Application Serial No. 61/246,619 by David A. Kidwell,
    filed September 29, 2009 entitled “ANOMALOUS HEAT GENERATION FROM

    Finally, in 2010 Kidwell and the Navy file a LENR fuel patent. “Metal
    nanoparticles with a pre-selected number of atoms” US 8728197 B2 –
    Original Assignee: The United States Of America, As Represented By
    The Secretary Of The Navy – Inventors: Albert Epshteyn, David A.
    Kidwell GRANT issued: May 20, 2014

    LENR means ultraLow Energy Neutron Reactions

    Before nay saying, find out if your opinion reflects reality.

    Thank you for your attention.

    • HAL9000

      Mills routinely claims to have a product, not a research tool. His product has a history of slipping into the Next Great Thing, which then morphs again just when it is ready to be productized (“We are SOOO close!”). The argument is not about LENR research, nor its future; it’s about consistently making misleading statements for the purpose of prolonging an investment stream while searching for a way to manipulate LENR into a useable product. Thank goodness this is not the norm in the rest of the LENR community (cough).

      • cashmemorz

        Sorry thatI replied as if you were referring to LENR.
        My rebuttal to your point is still the same. Mills and his predecessor, Herman Haus, an MIT electronics engineering professor, was the first in 1986 to finish developing a fully functional device based on the model of the electron that MIlls also developed from first principles of classical physics. The device is the Free Electron Laser that the US military had been trying since the 1960’s to get made. No one was able to use the quantum wave mechanical model of the electron to apply it in this project with any success. So Haus single handedly used Maxwells equations, Einstein’s Special Relativity, the Stern Gerlach experiment and similar classical sources and redid the electron as a classical model. This is the model Haus was able to use to bring the FEL to full development . The first item that Mills developed and put out into the market was a molecular modeler (“Millsian”® 2012) that, compared to any similar modeler which is based on QWM, is at least a hundred times faster(within a few minutes for results of almost any size or complexity), easier to use, more accurate, runs on a personal computer instead of on mainframes, has thousands of users, since 2012.

        Here are two users listing the Millsian on the Curriculum Vitae on the site LinkedIn
        Philip Payne
        Principal Scientist Princeton University

        Trans-Dimensional Physics

        Dates Employed Jul 2013 – Present

        Employment Duration 4 yrs 10 mos

        Location Sunnyvale, CA

        While consulting with Blacklight Power (now Brilliant Light Power) in 2010
        I demonstrated that a novel electronic structure theory (GUTCP)
        proposed by R. Mills and his collaborators accurately and rapidly
        computes structures and heats of formation at zero degrees K for
        diverse molecules. The essence of Millsian theory is the assertion
        that electrons and photons are alternative embodiments of an
        underlying quantum topology.

        I am continuing to investigate the relationships between Millsian theory and principles
        of quantum topology, fractal replication, and stochastic regulation
        that occur in natural science. One outcome of this work could be
        software for real temperature dynamical simulation of complex
        nanotechologies, e.g., molecular machines ,clean energy systems, or
        complex biological assemblies.

        Another user is:

        Wangshen Xie
        Quant Trader at Tower Research Capital
        Tower Research Capital

        University of Minnesota
        Computational Modeling

        Company Name Millsian Inc
        Dates Employed Jul 2008 – Feb 2010

        Employment Duration 1 yr 8 mos
        Created machine learning models for the prediction of physical properties.
        Designed the data analysis tools for large bioinformatics dataset.
        Implemented the optimization, Monte Carlo and other numerical methods.
        Designed the data structure using object-oriented design.
        Performed data analysis of the molecular simulation data.

        Millsian Software

        Millsian Software
        MILLSIAN 2.0: a molecular modeling software for structures, charge distributions, and energetics of biomolecules.(Report)

        The Suncell is Mills’ second device to be ready for market this year, 2018 or 2019.

        Third item is the ash from the Suncell: hydrinos=H1/4(4 levels below ground state of its electron) used for making virtually indestructible plastics.

        To attest to the power and acceptance of the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics, there are university courses. The first to offer classes and lectures for study of the theory:
        German university (Einhoven)evaluation and introductory course for the GUT-CP

        The second to offer a lecture and to develop a fifth device, an antigravity device:
        Massey University in New Zealand, introductory lecture by Senior Lecturer, Huub Bakker:

        A lecture by Dr. Mills at Fresno State U Smittcamp Honors College Colloquium. Introduced by Eric Tilton:

        Eric Tilton(profile from LinkedIn)
        Owner and CEO MJT Technologies LLC

        Fifth device is to incorporate the Suncell, anti-gravity device and hydrino plastics => flying saucer similar tin function to what
        “aliens” and “UFO’s” use
        patent for the device:
        Patent WO1995032021A1 – Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force

        Other corroborated predictions, such as for the state of the universe, how devices that work according to physics attributed to
        QM, actually work when examined according to the predictions of the GUT-CP

        The physics at work in the Double Slit Experiment according to the GUT-CP

        A more accurate and more elegant model of the Universe based on reality based physics of the GUT-CP, where the universe is eternal in time and oscillatory in its trillion year cycles in space(1988)

        The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation experiment produced a graph with three peaks, page 70/77:

        Tunneling Diode effect:
        “The electron as a real extended particle, each of size equal to
        its de Broglie wavelength has its potential energy gained as the
        particle traverses the barrier that is cleared; even though its
        initial kinetic energy was less than the barrier height. Energy
        conservation is obeyed at all times. Tunneling arises from physical

        Similar classical explanations for the following devices claimed
        to be based on quantum mechanics:

        Band gap in Transistor of the Conductor-type in semiconductor bond
        of band:Page 1282 GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Book-Web-121517
        Book Downloads and Streaming

        SQUID(Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) Page

        The Bose-Einstein condensate(BEC) is incorrectly interpreted as a
        single large atom having a corresponding probability wave function of
        quantum mechanics. Since excitation occurs in units of ћ in order of
        to conserve angular momentum as shown previously for electronic
        (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational (Chapter 12), and
        translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose-Einstein statistics
        arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), this
        state comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted
        classically using known[classical] equations [110]. As in the case of
        the coherent state of photons in a laser cavity (Chapter 4), the
        coherency of the BEC actually disproves the inherent Heisenberg
        Uncertainty Principle (HUP) of quantum mechanics[QM] since the atomic
        positions and energies are precisely determined simultaneously.
        Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising molecules in
        addition to atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero-order
        vibration in contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics
        underlying Bose-Einstein statistics was covered in the Statistical
        Mechanics section.

        The Aspect Experiment at Bell Labs

        The Aspect Experiment-No
        Spooky Action at a Distance

        BookDownloads and Streaming

        There is more to Mills then meets the proverbial eye. That is why it is best to research what you do not understand. Otherwise opinion remains just opinion

        • HAL9000

          I will be delighted to post a review of Mill’s Sun Cell powering my Tesla Model-S if, and when the Sun Cell comes to market, complete with the (patented) anti-gravity feature referenced in your text. I cannot wait to see the expression on Elon Musk’s face when I fly my Tesla with Sun Cell over his house 🙂

          • tlp

            There will be almost nothing left from Model-S, no big batteries needed, no conventional electric motors, so better convert some old classic ICE car.

          • Omega Z

            Tesla Model-S will have by that time be the Model-Q and to see Elon Musk’s face or to fly over his home will require a trip to his Mars Colony. 🙂

          • HAL9000

            Good one.

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