Who’s Going to the Blacklight Power Demo? [Update: More Q&As With Mills]

Well, the deadline has passed that I was told I would hear from Blacklight Power about getting an invitation to their demonstration on January 28th (next Tuesday), and I haven’t received one, so I won’t be going out to New Jersey. I spoke with Sterling Allan of PESN today, and he told me that hasn’t been able to get an invitation either.

Blacklight Power said the places for the demonstration would be limited, and I’m wondering who will get the ringside seats. Maybe they are more interested in getting potential investors there, rather than getting press coverage. Maybe the press release had a wide circulation and there will be some large media organizations present. I’m wondering if anyone in the readership of E-Cat World will be going. If so, it will be great to get a firsthand report of what goes on there.

Sterling told me that he was informed a video of the proceedings would be posted on the Blacklight Power web site shortly after the demo has been concluded, which will be very good to have.

UPDATE Jan 24th: I thought I would include here some Q & A about the demo with Randell Mills on the Society for Classical Physics board (Thanks to tlp)

1. Is the current prototype capable of continuous combustion, or is this a future goal?

The power source is intermittent. We have ordered a continuous high current power supply that can produce essentially continuous plasma output as the ignition frequency increases.

2. Does the device operate like a piston engine where the combustion cycle needs to be timed correctly or else it will sputter out, or do gaps in the hydrino cycle not matter (e.g. instant on / instant off)?

timing is not critical, and gaps in ignition can be averaged out with power conditioning.

How many watts of power can the current prototype generate in one hour?

Fuel is loaded into the electrodes and the fuel of 10 uL ignites when about 12,000 A is flowed for a fraction of a millisecond. The energy released is more than 1 kJ. Conservatively, the power density is 1 kJ/10E-3 s/10E-5 liter = 10E11 W/liter

With interdigitating gear electrodes and flowing fuel, the power is given by the product of the firing frequency and the energy per ignition of fuel compressed in the nth set of teeth through which urrent is flowed.

“The energy release of H2O fuel, freely available in the humidity in the air, is one hundred times that of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline.” Does this sentence imply a current or future design might simply
> use the humidity in the air as the fuel without need to pump water > through (e.g. maybe a low power laptop battery device that runs on the atmosphere)?

It is a possibility. I have a patent section on using a hydroscopic compound or material to collect H2O from air.

Regarding the H2O fuel having an energy release 100x that of an equivalent amount of gasoline… this statement doesn’t make any sense to me in the context of billions of watts of power being available in a tiny amount (1 cm^3) of water-fuel.

power is energy/time as given above. higher power is dependent on the energy released and the rate that it
is released

At first glance the 100x seems orders of magnitude low. Does this mean that a volume of gasoline equal to 100 x 1 cm^3 (i.e. 100 cubic cm) would generate an equivalent amount of energy (i.e. producing billions of watts of power)?

The power density of the hydrino reaction is 1,000,000 times higher than that of gasoline combustion mainly due to the rate of the hydrino transition reaction being much faster than the rate of gasoline combustion. The other factor is that the hydrino reaction is much more energetic.

“The power is in the form of plasma, a supersonic expanding gaseous ionized physical state of the fuel comprising essentially positive ions and free electrons that can be converted directly to electricity using highly efficient magnetohydrodynamic converters.” 5. What kind of internal pressures are produced when the device is at full theoretical power?

The pressure is typically that achieved in high explosives, but it expands into vacuum into the MDH converter.

6. Unrelated question. Instead of the typical chemical catalyst, could a laser be used to fire photons of the correct energy at the hydrogen atoms forcing a lepton particle production where the lepton would serve as the catalyst, by having the lepton take away the right amount of energy thereby serving as the energy hole?

Pair production occurs at 1.022 MeV. Most lasers are about 1 eV.

  • Omega Z

    BLP’s Demo will likely Not live up to Your Expectations.

    Reason: We’ve become Spoiled by Rossi. Had this Demo been 3- Maybe 4 years ago, We may have said WOW…

    Any Demo by Mills would have to exceed what we have already Experienced. You’ve Fired a Barrett 50 Caliber Rifle. An Airsoft Gun does not impress.

    However, I Believe BLP’s technology will in time become viable, But is as yet several years away. BLP’s Energy technology has also been vetted by outside sources & confirmed. However, I’m not certain that an operational MHD convertor exists at this time other then primarily being Theoretically possible & at some experimental stage. Thus Mills is looking for someone to provide/build a working MHD system.

    Also, Comparing Rossi with BLP isn’t logical.
    Mills works in a University setting with it’s own research approach. A much slower process & many people to answer to with Fund-ers who like paper document trails. Every Step of the Way… Time consuming..

    Rossi is an Edisonian tinker/inventor working more or less in a garage by trial & error. Mostly funded by-self & No one to answer to. Only now does Rossi have to produce Paper Documents, Which is much easier when you have a working mostly complete product to go by.

    Note that I actually became aware of Rossi while following BLP. Thus the Lack of complaints from “ME” about Rossi taking to long..
    Following BLP, Just check in every 6 to 12 months & your good. With Rossi, Skipping a few days can leave you well behind the latest news…

    I would Add This. I have read articles where others have compared R. Mills Theoretical models against Plank constant & some others & Mills process outshines them in precision. By a Lot.
    I think if Mills Device proves out, You will see many in mainstream science look much closer at his work. And I think many changes will be forthcoming. This will lead to many other scientific advances in the future.
    Note it was based on his theories that Mills stated that M.S. had it wrong in the early 90’s. That the universe was not slowing down, but expanding at an increasing rate.
    Another person who thinks outside the Box & ignores the Dogma.

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

      I don’t know, Omega, BLP is claiming, not 6 or 10 but 100 COP. That an attention getter. Also their “non-cold fusion” approach may be an interesting, emerging technology that’s on a parallel track. Mike Mckubre pretty much said there are four horses in the race, Brillion, Rossi, Defkalion and Blacklight. Right now I’m keeping a curious eye on Blacklight.

      In typical M Mckubre fashion, he said If one wins we all win.

      • Omega Z

        Barry-
        This particular BLP device appears to be very much in the development phase.

        Mills when questioned about the Demo being continuous,
        They’ve ordered an electronic Spark output/device that can make it so.
        Leaving in Question as to the Demo showing continuous output.

        And my point is, If this Device was as advanced as indicated-
        Wouldn’t they already have this Electronic Spark device on hand & ready for the Demo..

        Also, Mills is asking others to provide an MHD. To my knowledge, as yet there is no Market ready MHD for converting the output to electricity. Only theoretically possible & maybe prototypes in development process.

        COP>100
        Rossi according to Focardi- obtained COP>200-300 in tests.

        My Opinion is that Mills, Like Rossi occasionally does, Sometimes speaks before he accomplishes. Communicating what he thinks is possible before proving.

        Don’t get me wrong. I think Mills Device may be better then Rossi’s in some respects. But I don’t think it is there yet.
        At Best, he may be Rossi 2010 level. A Couple years to go.

        Besides Barry. I’m a little prejudiced. I want Rossi to prove beyond doubt 1st just so I can see some Antagonists like M.Y. to Eat Crow. 🙂 🙂

        Best way for that to happen is if Rossi is 1st. Not next.

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    Frank, I wonder if you and Sterling weren’t invited was an issue of $. Perhaps the demo is to impress large investors. Just get one of your songs published, make a few mil and perhaps you’ll get an invite.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    A Blacklight Power investor might be inclined to sue if they have the technology they now claim and do not commercialize it.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    An investor in Blacklight Power might be hard pressed not to sue if the device works as claimed.and is not commercialized at this point.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    One way to fool people without getting caught: 1) Say things that are technically correct. 2) Imply things that are fancy but not directly checkable. 3) Make a coherent-sounding story or theory which binds 1 and 2 conceptually together. Repeat 1-2-3 in a cycle.

    • georgehants

      You seem to be describing ninety percent of all official scientific output especially GW etc.
      Most of them don’t bother with your number one, but just make do with two and three.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In my opinion those mainstream scientists who are into such game tend to use the full repertoire. I would think their percentage somewhat lower however.

  • stefan

    I think that the hydrino discussion is really not appreciating Mill’s theory.

    I skimmed the internet and nothings of substance claims it’s wrong. There are
    harsh words out there about Mill’s theory but does not have any substance if one
    knows a little math and can read Mill’s book and counter argument.

    In all, internet put Mill’s in a very bad light, which he really does not deserve and it paints
    the world in a shameful colors, Mill’s really is our time’s Einstein.

    At worst we will as time goes replace the QM with Mills theory and Mill’s will get a Nobel
    price for his work. At best the hydrino is as well a physical reality and we will have another
    player in the energy fields.

    Please note that the hydrino is really just a small part of his theory, the bulk of his calculations
    is magnificent and explains many hundereds of physical measurements. Of cause he might as well
    be wrong from time to time. but that is not the bulk, it’s some corner cases.

    The hydrino theory can at worst be a mathematical solution to his theory that by some reason is not stable
    or attainable due to some extra condition that he misses. It is interesting to note that with relativistic quantum
    mechanics a hydrino can be found, but is dismissed as nonphysical due to some singularity. The question is if it is possible
    to remove the singularity by combining solutions (like taking infinity – infinity) and get something physical. Now it is clear
    that if this state is physical it have properties that normal stable states does not have and it is really not easy to achieve it
    and if achieved it will be a looked solution, just as the nuclear energy is locked in.

    Folks!, LENR people should not downplay Mill’s as we do, we should embrace his theory and use it to explain how LENR can happen!

    /Stefan

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The relativistic hydrino has energy some hundred eV (of order electron rest mass). Mills’ hydrino has energy of some hundred eV. Despite the same name, they are thus different things because there of the 1000-fold difference in energy.

      In my opinion the strongest argument against both types of hydrinos is that they would interact with X-rays, nuclei and such because although compact, they would still be composed of charged particles. Thus if they would exist and not be extremely rare (especially if dark matter would be composed of them), we would have seen their spectral signatures in the X-ray sky for example. An X-ray quantum of suitable energy could make a hydrino into normal hydrogen again and be absorbed. The absorption would be visible as a local depression (absorption line) in otherwise continuous astrophysical X-ray spectra.

      The inner electrons of ordinary elements are analogous to “hydrino” states. There the compactness is simply due to the larger charge of the nucleus. Each transition among such low lying electron states is seen as an X-ray spectral feature.

      • stefan

        What does a singularity solution mean. It basically means that the wavefunctiion’s bulk is located at the proton.
        And the proton is assumed a singular point. No nuclear physics is associated with the relativistic solution and the actual solution depends on what happen at the nuclei What I mean is that the solution and math from the relativistic solution has to be further analyzed. Also we have a problem with math taking infinity from infinity, all things can happen and we cannot judge that solution. I think that we cannot say what is right solution: Mills, QED, Klein Gordon.

        If taken the path of QED, the time dependent solution probably has to be constrained to avoid a singular solution e.g. to much interaction with the nucleus. Therefore it is not unlikely that the energy from a suitable ray will be sucked up by exiting the nuclei in stead of exiting the hydrino electron. This is speculative but an argument that you really need to dive further in order to actually say anything with some kind of certainty.

        My 2c

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Mills has stated in a recently posted video interview that UV/X-ray signatures which could be interpreted as transitions between hydrino states have been observed in the sky. But as you outline, these spectral signatures could possibly be explained in another way. This would have be to clarified as well for the spectra that have been measured in the experiments, especially considering the role of the catalysts. However, I don’t know if Mills has already addressed this question.

  • Pedro

    I just saw the UPDATE to the article with the Q&A with MIlls…. I find the answers bluntly and shockingly evasive! Question: How many Watts can the current prototype generate in one hour, Answer: mumble, mumble. I prefer AR’s reply “can’t tell” hundred times over Mills mumble, mumble.

    • deleo77

      I don’t think Mills is a great communicator and he has seemed to do nothing but slowly walk back the sensational press release he put out last week.

      But, I am not as pessimistic as some here about the demo next week. I still give it a 50/50 chance that Mills does something that causes the larger scientific community to perk up and take notice. He has invested decades and millions of dollars into his theory, and he has continued to attract additional investors along the way. It is easy to write off investors and being gullible and naive, but you can take it to the bank that the people writing the million dollar checks have done more homework on Mills than anyone else.

      On Tuesday Mills does not need to talk about a product that will be coming to market later this year. What he does need to show is a reaction that will back up his theory and offer scientists a new form of energy to study. He needs to show independent verification of his reaction, and he needs to allow multiple researchers the opportunity to replicate it. Cold fusion (and I know Mills doesn’t want to call it that), needs it’s second Pons and Fleischmann moment, because the first one in 1989 failed. Scientists rushed to replicate it and could not. So it’s still about the science. If Mills can offer a cold fusion type reaction that can be easily replicated, he will win the Nobel Prize and be celebrated around the world. Will he do that on Tuesday? I know it’s a long shot, but I hope so.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    From a logical point of view, we might consider the following three parameters, which can either be true (1) or false (0):

    T. Mills’s theory.
    R. Sufficient performance of the reactors.
    E. Economic success.

    Then there are basically 6 options, if we exclude long-term economic success if the reactors don’t work as expected:

    T R E
    1. 1 1 1
    2. 1 1 0
    3. 1 0 0
    4. 0 1 1
    5. 0 1 0
    6. 0 0 0

    In the first three cases, Mills would get almost certainly the Nobel prize. Economic success is indicated only in two cases, namely 1 and 4. It seems clear that case 1 would be the optimal one. But what would you do if you had the choice between case 2-3 or case 4? The answer will show you if you are (or have the making of) a thoroughbred researcher.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That doesn’t implicate a judgment, of course. Option 4 would be more attractive for inventors of an Edisonian type. If that option would be the only way to save the energy problems of the world – assuming that nobody else will do it –, it would be morally correct to go without the Nobel.

  • Lukedc

    Dejavu…. Mr Mills
    We have seen this all before.

  • SteveW

    I agree, the only thing certain is their is no certainty in what’s going to happen on the 28th. .

  • Oceans2014

    We can be certain that this Demo will be a FAIL, as we are almost certain the only reason for their announcement was that Rossi recieved funding and was making serious progress, BlackLightPower has recieved 80 Million in funding with nothing to show, BlackLight was forced to come out with a public statement, we fully expect the Blacklight Demo to be a FAIL.

    • bachcole

      Remember that members of this forum are all experts in practical epistemology. We are not just a bunch of greedy and hope-addicted venture capitalists. Randell Mills may be able to fool the foolish, but he won’t be able to fool us. Since it is MEASURABLE results that we require, and since he admits that he does not have an MHD, then he won’t have measurable results. This does not necessarily mean that he has nothing. But he does have nothing at this point that will get me to dance in the streets and tell all of my friends. At least that is my projection. I will wait patiently.

    • SteveW

      That’s fine, but don’t include me in your we.

    • artefact

      “FAIL” is not a fitting word for Rossis first demo. Did he say “I am now going to convince YOU with this demo” I guess the demo did what it was supposed to do.

    • Donk970

      While I’m not as cynical as you seem to be I do agree that this demo is probably because of Rossi. It’s probably because BlackLight’s investors were threatening to pull out unless there was some evidence that BlackLight could go to market before Rossi does. It seems to me that if the MHD part of this was relatively straight forward to do it would have made a far more convincing demo to turn the thing on and start producing electricity with no inputs. The fact that this thing is going to need 12K Amps at what one assumes are relatively high voltages to produce this plasma will make the whole demonstration pretty suspect if it’s just producing plasma. The claim will be that the plasma is just due to the input power and not any sort of hydrino reaction. At this stage of the game it takes really cool heads to bring something like this home.

  • JDM

    Perhaps the plasma from the BLP demo can be used to pump a laser…that could be used to ignite a HF reaction. CF as an enabler for HF. Can we get some taxpayer funding here for HF research?

    • cx

      I wonder if it can be used in spacecraft propulsion

  • Gerard McEk

    Let us do some calculation, based on figures given by Mills in his PESN interview ‘Randell Mills explains upcoming Blacklight Power demo’ and the press release. Each fuel pellet releases 10 kJ of energy. For releasing that he has only 100 joules available (COP 100) to start a plasma with an electrical spark. He does this with a current of 12000 Amps. To get such a current through the pellet you need at least 10 KV (assume ~0.8 Ohm resistance). Because of the available energy of 100 joules, the discharge pulse cannot take longer than 0.8 micro sec. With these short times and high currents induction of the electrical circuit plays a major role, so the voltages required will be much higher, I assume somewhere between one hundred thousand and million volts. Examining the BLP apparatus should reveal considerable insulators and high voltage equipment.
    Now, have a look to the pellets. Assume they are just made of water and have a volume of 0.08 cm3, about 0.08*10-3 kg. To evaporate this you need about 0.08*10-3 * 2.9*10+6 = 232 joules (heating from 0 C). In other words, you cannot evaporate the pellet totally with 100 joules, maybe a part. The rest must occur with the following hydrino conversion. A considerable part of that conversion energy will be needed to ionize H and O to drive the not yet existing megnetohydrodynamic converter. However, the resulting DC current pulses should be measurable and this should be demonstrated to make his claim plausible.
    These are some thoughts which occurred to me in advance of the demo. Let us wait and see what is demonstrated.

    • tlp

      Mills has answered again some questions, for example:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1659
      “Fuel is loaded into the electrodes and the fuel of 10 uL ignites when
      about 12,000 A is flowed for a fraction of a millisecond. The energy
      released is more than 1 kJ. Conservatively, the power density is 1
      kJ/10E-3 s/10E-5 liter = 10E11 W/liter

      With interdigitating gear electrodes and flowing fuel, the power is
      given by the product of the firing frequency and the energy per
      ignition of fuel compressed in the nth set of teeth through which
      current is flowed.”

      So some of your estimates/calculations are quite close. Why do you think 10KV is needed?

      • Gerard McEk

        I did this calc just to get a feeling for what Mills is saying. 0.8 Ohm is not much if you consider the whole circuits where 12 KA flows, including the pellet. My concern is more the induction of the circuit (in micro Henries) and the time you need to get a current of 12 KA. Maybe the external voltage source does not cause the 12 kA, but the resulting plasma due to hydrino conversion?

  • georgehants

    In just a few days all the speculation can end and we can actually talk about the demonstration and it’s possible meanings based on known Facts.
    In the meanwhile does the below report of Facts have any connection with the reasons why science has failed so badly regarding Cold Fusion and so many other subjects.
    Perhaps if we spent a little time speculating on this problem it may help to avoid these terrible crimes.
    Sorry to be serious but one reads Lipton’s Biology of
    Belief, he said that one third of medical deaths where caused by the misguided use of drugs that have different effects on many parts of the body.
    I found it hard to believe the number was so high.
    Then as happens so often, this morning the below link turns up
    All
    this because science refuses to look at the obvious, reductionist
    science is not the answer, the body and mind are Holistic, but the Dogma just goes on and on.
    Counting the hidden victims of medicine
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar…|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UuI30ftFBkg

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      When talking on non consensual science, I think you get good points, but be careful.

      My vision is that both consensual and fringe science mix two opposite problems : theory and experiments, and react to disbelief with denial instead of curiosity.

      What is annoying me in many fringe science is absolutely not that they claim experimental results. Even unbelievable results, should be treated seriously. Replication should be tried seriously, artifacts should be searched and detailed, frauds should be searched and proven, doubts should be discussed and should be reason to continue (not to ignore).

      The problem on both sides is that there is too much theory.
      The mainstream use theory to reject evidences without looking at them.
      The fringe propose theory that does not match other evidences, to justify their results.
      In both case experiments are tweaked to match the theory,and interpretation is tweaked to match the theory.

      I AM FED UP WITH THEORY…
      STICK TO THE MEASUREMENTS !

      when measurements are solid and undeniable, you can discuss on theories…
      You can also in parallel try to make a business without waiting for a perfect theory, just sticking to phenomenological models.

      • Anonymous

        I think the reason there is nothing to sell is because there have not been any sales or marketing people working on these technologies. They should probably have been there from day on together with a lot of other kinds of human resources that can add indirect value.

        A sales person does not need a nail and a hammer, he uses his thoughts, his body and his voice to create value

        What if some of these hundreds of thousands of dollars thats been used on lab equipment would have been spent on putting up a sales company and running it for X amount of year – the added total value that would have contributed to Cold Fusion over the years….

        Its possible we could have been 10x further, 100x further or 1000x further through a small investment 20 years back.

        Theory is not enough

        Devices is not enough

        Sales is not enough

        Everything have to come together but when stopping to look in the rear mirror ….

        Sales should have been the nr 1 focus – not theory – not engineering

        ???

        • SteveW

          I’ve yet to see anything close to a commercially viable product in lenr. I can’t think of a better way for a company to go broke than to release a product that isn’t commercially viable and expose your IP. I’.m sorry but your comment is just over the top ridiculous.

  • jousterusa

    Thinking back to the Pons-Fleischmann press conference in March 1989, I recall that most of the world press was there. The coverage occurred in the world’s most important publications, and in the case of newspapers, it was usually on the front page. Beside it, in many cases, was the story of the Valdez oil spill, a perfect counterpoint. I have always believed the two were related.

    In any case, I also spoke to my friend at BlackLight, and I have not heard back, either. This is not the Republican or Democratic national convention, where bona fides are rigorously studied and almost everyone is let in at some level, so I wasn’t expecting a quick, automated response. It may still be coming. Yet, to console myself if I was not invited or couldn’t afford to go, I thought that I should wait for the promised second demonstration when the magneto-whatchacallit is created and electricity generation can be demonstrated. Saying that it will or would be is hardly a substitute for demonstrating that it is. I would also remind everyone that Dr. Mills is famously cantankerous at times, and though while gracious normally, he does not suffer fools nor slights gladly. He may well be averse to granting a space to someone who represents a publication like this one, where Andrea Rossi has recently expressed strong doubts about the project, and which is named after the competitive device – which also lack a magneto-whatchcallit.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “Andrea Rossi has recently expressed strong doubts about the project”. I don’t recall Rossi having stated something about BLP. Someone asked him if he believes in hydrinos and he said no, but that’s a different thing. Also there are two types of hydrino ideas around with 1000-fold difference in energy, one is Mills and the other some mainstream science speculative thing, and it is not clear which one Rossi was referring to in his answer or maybe both. BLP was not mentioned in the question. Usually Rossi abstains from commenting competitors’ work.

  • GreenWin

    Fascinating to watch preemptive disparagement here. It appears to be based on little more than an algorithm designed to support the failed method that strangled cold fusion in 1989. There are few who can ‘splain why BlackLight has for over twenty years, no investor complaints. To the tune of some $80M in VC and private capital (and likely $$$M in black projects.)

    So, let’s consider. Why are there no investor lawsuits? Why do we have multiple verifications from major, independent sources of the BlackLight process? Why are there highly connected “retired” military officials on the BlackLight Board? Are we too invested ourselves to connect these dots?

    Or do we wish to continue the fabrication that this “world” is anything more than a BS Holodeck similar to Starship Enterprise? The precocity of this sets lasers on “stun.”

    • Fortyniner

      BLP may well have been able to satisfy investors (for whom the claims and the rendered images and animations were no doubt intended) but it unfortunately became rapidly apparent that Mills does not yet have anything approaching what was seen in the press release, i.e., a functioning reactor of enormous power c/w ultra-efficient MHD generator. I think that much of the hostility being displayed on this blog arises from the gap between the claims and what it now seems will actually be demonstrated – a single-event release of heat inside a completely closed apparatus, the significance of which could well be inconclusive in some respect. So far this seems rather too similar to the promises (and renders/animations) frequently produced in support of hot fusion research.

      This perception is not helped by the now-apparent exclusivity of the ‘demo’ and the fact it will be only be available to ‘outsiders’ in the form of a video released after the event, with all the uncertainty this will introduce. If such a demo had been carried out on its own and in real time, without the preamble of massive claims and virtual devices, it would probably have been far better received. It seems a bit unfortunate that this isn’t the case, but hopefully in a few days we may yet see another milestone in the path to clean energy.

  • bachcole

    I do not think that we are going to know squat within a week. The only way that Mills can create measurable energy is with an MHD, and he doesn’t have that working yet, or so he says, and I believe him on that count. So I expect just one more big mystery. Consequently, my expectations are sort of hovering around zero right now; sort of like having to flick the fuel gauge to see if it really is on zero or if there is any hope fuel left at all.

  • Bob

    There are two possibilities;-
    Either,
    1/. It’s all a load of horse feathers and the demonstration will only be in front of the already convinced and faithful followers,,
    or
    2/. It’s a really big breakthrough and they don’t want the demonstration to be tainted with the likes of people who rate magic magnet motors as the next big energy revolution.
    ———
    I have previously taken BLP as being all horse feathers but I must admit I was impressed with the fact that the work was being done in association with a known university, and also impressed with the qualifications of some of the people involved.
    They appear to be real qualifications genuinely obtained from real universities.
    They also say they understand the science behind their device.
    Although that’s no guarantee they have anything which works, at least it indicates some degree of transparency, verification and accountability to the operation.
    In any case, we will know which it is within a week, so it’s not too long to wait.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      My impression (i can be wrong for sure) is that :
      – their PET theory is bogus, and destroy their credibility
      – they have real experimental results (that they INTERPRET as proof of their theory)

      my impression is that in fact they have the good old classic LENR and a bogus theory.

      I’m ready to be surprised, but I don’t expect it.

  • NT

    Sorry about the no ticket shutout Frank,

    A big let down for yourself and all of us here, that’s for sure!
    This is looking more and more like a closed door investors only setup – their world supporters, like us peon bloggers, getting shutout is almost shameful at best. Still hoping they show something of substance to whomever gets to attend and it somehow becomes public knowledge.

    Really disappointed and now am agreeing with DM’s read on this…

  • Anonymous

    There is a possibility that BLP does not want to associate themselves to much with LENR community
    The company is getting great press everywhere and they are proactively stating that its is not a Cold Fusion Related Technology neither a Nuclear Reaction.

    As I understood from the little I read they claim this is a Chemical Reaction

    What do I know… not much… just a thought

    Buck – one could also add to your list the LENR talk at NASA and The Cold Fusion 101 Introduction course at MIT Next Week

    There has been a lot of buzz –
    Even here on this page there has been a increased level of activity

    Peswiki have also announced quite a few rumors about different technologies

    Hopefully the year will continue as this – something good hopefully come through with so much in the pipeline

    • Fortyniner

      Now I know how lepers feel… Perhaps the site merchandise should include a large handbell!

      • Anonymous

        Fortyniner – I am sure you are not the only one 🙂
        CF faces a huge very serious public relations image problem.

  • Buck

    This news points me in one direction: the news coming out just prior to New Years triggered a jumping on the band wagon.

    IMO, Brillouin shared the information about their S. Korean partnership in a hasty fashion. The news about the DOE opening the door to small funding $$ for LENR research seems to have been triggered by the then new information about the Rossi-Cherokee-China connection. BLP, with its history of catching the wave with the cycle of promises-investor funding-missed promises-drop out of sight, saw the writing with all the recent news. They came out with a splashy 10MW device promise with a demo. And now all off that excitement is being guided to a controlled conceptual demo and lecture.

    Frank, I think your suggestion that BLP is focused upon investors is likely true. However, if the demo is a complete ground shaking surprise, I can live with that. Only that sort of demonstration will pull BLP out of the gutter as far as I’m concerned.

    • Daniel Maris

      I agree.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well, given my expectation of the BLP demo is now set at zero, I am not really too concerned about it. If something amazing follows…well, we’ll see.