Perspective on LENR from a Blacklight Power Investor

This comment came up in the ‘How big a deal is cold fusion thread’, and I thought it was interesting enough to warrant putting in a separate thread. Thanks to ‘Investor’ for sharing his perspective.

Greetings. I am the Blacklight Power investor who posted earlier. I was not so familiar with LENR technologies but I have gone through the processes and have come to some tentative conclusions. In every case I see that the processes are in fact misunderstood hydrino forming reactions previously demonstrated by Mills. This fact is hidden by the interpretation of the reactions as deriving from nuclear fusion.

In all cases the supposed catalysts, secret sauces, pixie dust, or more plainly, electrolyte, is in fact a hydrino forming catalyst long ago identified in BLP papers. The key to hydrino creation is a resonant, non-radiative energy transfer from atomic hydrogen to a catalyst capable of accepting energy equal to an integer multiple of of the potential energy of atomic hydrogen which is 27.2 eV. Relevant Mills papers, available on the BLP website include the following:

a. Commercializable Power Source Using Heterogeneous Hydrino Catalysts,
b. Catalyst Induce Hydrino Transition (CIHT) Electrochemical Cell,
c. Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst.

Going all the way back to Pons and Fleischmann it turns out the their electrolyte was Liithium dioxide. It was identified that Lithium deposits formed on both the cathode and anode. Mills identified Alkali Metal Hydrides such as LiH, NaH, and KH as key catalysts along with many others all having the appropriate energy multiple. Hydrinos are formed by the energy transfer from H to Li under appropriate conditions. Reports indicate that the Rossi and Defkalion processes use a potassium or potassium carbonate. Potassium carbonate was used as the electrolyte in Mills 1991 cell tested at Thermacore. Brillioun appears to be using a more advanced system but already identified by Mills in paper c. above.

How do we know that fusion is not what is driving the measured energy gains? Because these experiments can be designed to yield excess energy with or without fusion products. In fact Mills has written that hydrinos, under the right conditions, have a statistically measurable probability of fusion due to the reduced electron orbit sphere. However the excess energy can be created without any fusion by-products proving that fusion is not the driving source of energy.

Thus all the frustration in finding consistent fusion signatures and also the non optimized experiments that try to maximize fusion while ignoring the real source of the excess energy. Mills has long ago understood what is going on here, hence his continued insistence that this is not cold fusion. This was not due to any fear that he would be tarred with the cold fusion label but rather because he understood that the statistically small fusion signatures were irrelevant to the process. These other firms are really where Mills was years ago but still without any real understanding and hence flying blind so to speak. In the meantime Mills has been seeking to optimize a commercially viable system by finding ways to regenerate the catalysts. Thermal regeneration was thought to be the key but this has now been replaced with regeneration by rehydration – a significant breakthrough. That along with the ability to create a high velocity plasma which can efficiently be converted directly into electrical energy puts him way ahead.

From a broad perspective I do not see this so much as a contest as a wonderful gift to the world. I am actually pleased to discover that these LENR experiments share quite a bit with earlier Blacklight Power experiments.

Reading these pages I get a sense that commenters are picking favorites based upon the mistaken belief that one company will seek to control the energy marketplace. The ideal is that energy production will be liberated from the large corporations and given to the people. I believe that is actually Blacklight’s intention – to widely license and joint venture the technology at very reasonable cost and to encourage new applications and further technical innovation. That model would provide ample return to BLP investors while making energy as widely and cheaply available as possible. If control of, or God forbid, suppression of new energy technology is to come about, its source will not be from BLP or any of these other small firms, but rather governments and the existing powers that control them.

  • Simon

    “Reports indicate that the Rossi and Defkalion processes use a potassium or potassium carbonate. Potassium carbonate was used as the electrolyte in Mills 1991 cell tested at Thermacore”
    Something similar was in the LENR device using nickel (US government contract): Ni+H+K2CO3 (heated under pressure) = Cu + lots of
    heat ,

  • Fortyniner

    Fair enough. Thanks.

  • Daniel Maris

    Good post. BLP have a big, big credibility gap. For all Rossi’s faults, there is at least something like a connected narrative with periodic confirmations from credible sources. With BLP there seems to be a lot of theory and a lot of claims and rather disconnected confirmations.

  • Fortyniner

    Not my field, but wouldn’t you expect various EUV emissions arising from Bremsstrahlung events within an arc-driven plasma, anyway? Plasma devices are used to deliberately generate radiation in this waveband, e.g., Or are we talking a very specific wavelength with sharp cut-offs above and below?

  • Gerard McEk

    Frank, I tried to get some information from the Tunder Fusion Corporation (see below).
    The good thing is that I got a quick answer, the bad thing is that I had to reveal my credentials. I believe it is better that you do this and make a thread of it.
    [email protected]
    On 2/10/14 9:30 AM, Gerard McEk wrote:
    Dear Lady, Sir,

    Recently I saw your “Dragon III” video on YouTube. In we have been discussing your process, but it seems no new information is available since this video two years ago.

    Questions are:
    Do you still exist?
    Do you commercially produce the Dragon III?
    What is the COP of the Dragon III process?
    Can you enlighten the (nuclear) process you are claiming?
    How is Silica being formed?
    Is it possible to run the Dragon III using its generated energy, without connecting it to the grid once started?

    I look forward to receive your reply.

    Kind regards,

    Gerard McEk

    Thanks for your interest. I would love to answer your questions but you have to identify yourself since we are in the process of completing our filing for trading our stock and …. I am approached by all sort of weirdos and whaakos I am sure you are not.


    PS. If you saw the videos you must have seen that I am a man.

    Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli
    CEO and Chief Scientist
    150 Rainville Rd, Tarpon Springs, FL 34689, U.S.A.
    Tel. +1-727-688 3992
    Web site
    Connected web sites

    • jonnyb

      Well done for trying

    • ecatworld

      Hi Gerard — I emailed Mr. Santilli a few weeks ago and said he couldn’t provide me with any answers for public consumption because they were preparing to file their stock for public trading. Seems like they are still in that process.

      • Gerard McEk

        Santili included some leads to more information about the background of his process. I did not examen the content yet.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is exactly what also crossed my mind. Mills produced impressive theories, but the actual practical prove has not come to light despite considerable funding. How much funding does one need to show that he is right? Unfortunately he needs to fund it himself as the scientific community does not believe in his theories. Mills should have found a way, like Brillouin and Rossi to convince an industrial partner, but his proves were obviously not that convincing.

    • GreenWin

      Mills’ live demo featured calorimeter and spectrographic measurements using state of the art equipment. The data confirms evidence of a highly energetic anomaly in hydrogen indicated by UV/soft X-ray spectral signature. Mills was asked about past commercial products. Mills replied (my perspective) he has found increasingly better ways to catalyze the hydrino transition state over the last ten years, and elected to follow that evidence, rather than build a commercial device. Should he have announced commercialization before it was a business commitment? Probably not. But, there are no investor complaints which leads one to believe they are confident in his work, and or are receiving value from their investment. It is a privately held company so, there is little to go by except the lack of investor dissatisfaction.

  • Paul

    Great post! It is too early to say if there is a connection among hydrinos and an E-Cat reaction, but I guess no, due to many differences, regarding the amount of combustible, the type of byproducts and the energy density. So, they could be both revolutionary and eligible for a Nobel price in Chemistry (for hydrinos discovery) and in Physics (for Rossi effect), once provided a good theory behind (this is not the case for E-Cat at the moment and for the foreseble future),

    • GreenWin

      Paul, just curious… Why in your estimation do most commentors in this program refer to the Nobel as a “price?” Is this some kind of algorithmic syllogism? An example of programmer’s humor? Or is it moribund condescension toward human recognition of achievement?? Finally, should we change the name to The X-Price, just to be consistent?

  • optiongeek

    Thanks, Steve, it does seem like a catalyst that accepts 27.2 eV is a common theme among every example of a working LENR reactor. That seems like an important observation and makes a prima facie case that resonant transfer is a key component for LENR. Are there any counter-examples of a LENR catalyst that hasn’t been previously identified by Mills as a resonant transfer catalyst?

  • Sandy

    “The hafnium controversy is a debate over the possibility of ‘triggering’ rapid energy releases, via gamma ray emission, from a nuclear isomer of hafnium, 178m2Hf. The energy release is potentially 5 orders of magnitude (100,000 times) more energetic than a chemical reaction, but 3 orders of magnitude less than a nuclear reaction.”

    Can the energy that is supposedly released by hafnium be compared to the energy that Mills claims is released by protium during the formation of a “hydrino”?

  • Gordon Docherty

    In looking at LENR and Hydrinos, it may well not be a question of which is the more fundamental theory, but rather, whether there is a more fundamental effect – expressed as a source or Quelle theory (Quelle is German for source) of which LENR and Hydrinos are but manifestations.

    Anyone following the Hydrino and LENR developments for long enough have probably also come across work in the Zero Point field and the interesting effects surrounding “Casimir cavities” – so named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir. Now, the Casimir force is something that even Wikipedia admits to as being real.

    Now, although a few years old, the blog of one “froarty” (exact identity unknown):

    and articles reached from that blog:

    sees Hydrinos, LENR reactions and ZPEnergy capture (as per Haisch and Modell’s patent) as a relativistic effect, after work done by Jan Naudts (who “squares” (sorry for the pun) the contradition inherent between the Klein-Gordon equation of the hydrogen atom, which allows for a low-lying eigenstate,
    called the hydrino state, with square integrable wavefunction and the corresponding
    spinor solution of Dirac’s equation, which is not square integrable – this was mentioned elsewhere on this site as a reason why Hydrinos “can’t” exist even though experimental evidence says otherwise,), another name that may be familiar to those who have been following these developments with interest.

    So, the real Quelle effect may well be down to the relativistic effects resulting from the constricted space geometry Casimir cavities causing changes in the “time” dimension, which appear to us from the outside as if many reactions have occurred near simultaneously, while from the inside they appear to be happening at their usual much slower rate… this would also finally explain the mystery of why (and how) catalysts actually work, that is, why a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst suddenly “speeds up”, something that has been, until now still ultimately a mysterious process…

    • GreenWin

      I think Fran is or was a Lockheed engineer. His take on relativistic hydrino is interesting. Suggesting the below ground state simply appears that way due to relativistic frame changes.

  • blanco69

    I was wondering when the LENR and Hydrino theories would be squashed together. On one side, from Mills there’s plenty of theory but no substance. On the other side there’s plenty of substance but no real theory. Personally, I prefer substance but I guess we’ll see. Rossi claims to have a theory out this year and he doesn’t believe in Hydrinos. Somebody will have to be proved wrong.

    • jonnyb

      Rossi seems to have backtracked a bit on his theory (I think from what I have read, please confirm) maybe he has read Dr Santilli’s work. I still think Hydrinos below ground state will not float up to the atmosphere but will be more dense, and Santilli has aether in his theories so they are likely to be nearer the truth. Anyone who thinks Mill’s theories are good should read Santilli’s as well.

      • Fortyniner

        I had that thought (increased density) but was completely unsure of my ground. It does intuitively seem though that hyrdrinos would (a) be inert – not even able to form h2 (as opposed to H2) molecules, (b) be able to approach one another closely before repulsive forces generated by the fractional-energy electron stopped them, forming a relatively (perhaps very) dense gas or perhaps even a liquid when pure, and (c) be able to ‘slip between’ other atoms and molecules and so penetrate the ground and gradually fall towards the core. I’ve always felt that the idea of an aether was abandoned too hastily.

        • jonnyb

          Protium below ground state should be dense, however at this low energy level it would be another state of matter, at the moment unknown, at least by mainstream science. It would have weird properties, like no friction etc. I suspect if it really does exist then it may be the aether, filling voids etc. neither rising, falling, just being. Lots of good theories out there I’m sure one of them is close.

  • Sanjeev

    That’s nice. But what are you guys waiting for ? More theory or more 3d graphics or more papers?
    The last straw is going to be a product, however crude and small. I don not see your investments getting turned into a product, as years and decades go by. Why is Mills trying to do everything himself?
    Is Mills afraid that if he makes real partners to produce a useful generator, his fountain of investment will dry out?
    The engineering is best handled by engineers who are actually in the field and get their hands dirty everyday. They know best and are fast. Same for production. There are big manufacturers who can roll out millions of products in a short time.
    Just spread your know how far and wide. Sign any agreements you like. Even if 90% of them default, you will still end up as a Trillionaire.

  • jousterusa

    You write, “along with the ability to create a high velocity plasma which can efficiently be converted directly into electrical energy puts him way ahead.” Conversion to electricity is not trivial, and it has not yet been demonstrated by Mills or Rossi.

    • Omega Z

      Someone in Rossi’s camp tried to produce Electricity with the Hot Cat. That’s all I know. Zero info of the outcome…

      • jousterusa

        How do you know that’s not just a rumor? They would need a MHD, too, of course, and they’ve never indicated they’re working on one…

  • NT

    Investor your quote, “if suppression of new energy technology is to come about, its source will not be from BLP or any of these other small firms, but rather governments and the ‘existing powers that control them’” – Yes Investor, this is my BIGGEST worry as LENR moves forward to commercialization. We can pretty much assume who will be first to get the cake and who will be left with the crumbs. Lets hope with the internet and open sourcing, that game will not play out to any great extent…

  • LENR G

    Investor, would you agree that Blacklight’s core energy release process (hydrino creation) is of such a high magnitude that it should be easily commercializable? Is Blacklight making a mistake trying to engineer around that reaction with a system involving plasma to energy conversion (MHD but not easy) and reconstituting the charges to make it a closed system?

    Couldn’t and shouldn’t Blacklight outsource or partner such engineering challenges to companies better positioned both in terms of expertise and resources to take the core reaction and harness it as electricity, heat and various vertical markets?

    Wouldn’t it be easy to demonstrate and prove this core reaction to 3rd party scientists and engineers of these partners? Blacklight could simply license the technology. Where are Blacklight’s industrial partners — should we be expecting a flurry of announcements?

    Isn’t it even a matter of national, economic and environmental security and any delay in propagating the technology intolerable?

    If Blacklight’s technology is not being aggressively pursued by licensees say by summer, shouldn’t we conclude that Blacklight is perpetually seeking investment dollars for R&D and will never relinquish their technology — real or not — and will never actually commercialize it?

    Wouldn’t this mean that Rossi/Industrial heat are still in the lead even if they are triggering fusion using hydrinos by accident or on purpose? They have higher energy release, enough control for industrial products and a commitment to get to market ASAP.

    • jousterusa

      That was a very cogent set of observations and a very pertinent bunch of querstions. Let’s hope we get a genuine answer.

    • HiggsField

      “Couldn’t and shouldn’t Blacklight outsource or partner such engineering challenges to companies better positioned both in terms of expertise and resources to take the core reaction and harness it as electricity, heat and in various vertical markets?”

      I strongly second this view. I would go further and petition DARPA to issue development contracts. There must be a myriad of ways to capture the energy released by these reactions. America should and needs to own this technology. Advancements in semiconductors and telecommunications have powered this country forward since the early 80s. This could keep America on top of the innovation ladder for the next 30 years.

      It’s time to put things into high gear and do things in a more parallel fashion.

  • Christopher Calder

    The hydrino theory is interesting because it would explain the dark matter mystery, but it has a long way to go to be accepted as fact.

    • GreenWin

      Thanks to “Investor” for this overview of Mills’ and LENR current work. Mike McKubre seems to place Mills in the LENR mix regardless of theory. Randy’s below ground orbitsphere and DGT’s elliptical electron orbit occupy a similar space IMO. The production of He4 commensurate with excess heat in electrochemical cells is well documented in ENEA experiments. The recent BLP demo confirms there is huge energy w/o significant nuclear products in the SF-CIHT mechanism. Capturing that energy as an electrical current remains the challenge.