New Developments at Brilliant Light Power (UPDATE: New Video, Jun 22 )

UPDATE (Jun 29, 2016)

Thanks to Byron McDonald for commenting about this today. The below video has been posted on YouTube by Brilliant Light Power. The description explains:

“Five independent validators using four cross confirming methodologies, two absolute spectroscopic and two thermal techniques using a commercial calorimeter and a heat exchanger on the SunCell, have established that the power demonstrated in this video is megawatt level with about 8 kW total input. The vapor is boiled off silver metal having a boiling point temperature of 3924 °F.”

Thanks to Pelgrim and others for pointing out recent activity at Brilliant Light Power. Posted here is a video that has been posted on YouTube yesterday along with this explanation:

“There are very interesting new developments at BrLP. The first run of a new approach that we started about a month ago is shown in the above video. The power can be extraordinary, bursts of millions of watts in a volume of a coffee cup. Cell meltdown including the thick tungsten electrodes can occur in seconds (see photo at http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma…). Five independent validators using four cross confirming methodologies, two absolute spectroscopic and two thermal techniques using a commercial calorimeter and a heat exchanger on the SunCell, have established that the power demonstrated in this video is megawatt level with about 8 kW total input. The vapor is boiled off silver metal having a boiling point temperature of 3924 °F.”

BLP CEO Randell Mills wrote in one of the comments:

“The source of hydrogen fuel and catalyst to form hydrinos is water. A commercial enabling fuel injection system and other new features were tested in this demonstration. In the past, megawatt bursts lasting only several milliseconds with a frequency of about 1% or less of the run time were observed. Now, the power is constant. Currently, the engineering issues are solved towards a 250 kW electric device.”

There will be a demonstration held at BLP headquarters in New Jersey on June 28th for approved guests.

  • R V

    All that ‘spin connection’ stuff is highly contrioversial and no one buys it except the ECE guys.

  • R V

    Mills and team have isolated, identified and measured the di-hydrino gas. It’s smaller than hydrogen but not like a neutron.

    Why would it in principle be any different from the other noble gasses?

    It should float to space like hydrogen gas does.

  • James Wood

    I would suggest someone with the necessary skills look to the Engineering Model derived from the ECE approach to general relativity. (See AIAS: http://www.aias.us/Books/PECE.pdf for a summary of this theory) The Engineering Model derived from the equations of Cartan differential geometry constructed in a separate paper also available at this site demonstrates equations identical to the Maxwell equations. However, the scalar and vector potentials constructed contain additional terms. In particular, a scalar and vector construct called spin connection (related to the Christoffel symbols which are derived from Elie Cartan’s version of differential geometry which contains torsion as well as curvature. General Relativity does not contain torsion.

    Mill’s boundary condition excluding radial components should be used to solve these equations to find the implications for the orbitsphere. The two derivations for the orbitsphere could then be compared. The spin connection so to speak is a direct expression of the geometry of spacetime and would, in principle, allow chemical reactions which depend on the orbitsphere behavior to be manipulated through the spin connection.

    Since Mill’s has also produced software to demonstrate the implications of the orbitsphere for chemistry from the standard Maxwell equations it may be relatively easy to introduce the spin connection into this software and determine graphically the implications of various spin connection geometries for the orbitsphere and dependent chemical reactions.

    Altering the spin connection by various means would change the local character of space-time affecting the chemical reactions within the relevant volume of space since orbitsphere behavior and geometry would be different. This would imply that chemical reactions are dependent on the local character of the space-time environment. There would be a new chemistry for each different local space-time as identified by the chosen spin connection geometry.

    Someone should prod Mills and the AIAS group into a collaboration to explore these implications. The nature of the hydrino may well be further explored. Furthermore, currently inaccessible orbitspheres of other molecules may be discovered, made accessible, and their stability under standard conditions determined. Whole new fields of chemistry of exotic compounds, both stable and unstable, could be called into being.

    • Axil Axil

      Doesn’t the action of catalysts work under this assumption? The catalysts change the nature of the space in which the chemical reaction is operating.

      • R V

        The action of the catalyst has nothing to do with the principles of general Relativity so no, it doesn’t work under than assumption.

        No, catalysts do not ‘change the nature of the space in which the chemical reaction is operating’.

    • R V

      I’m slightly familiar with AIAS. There is no relationship to Mills’ work.

  • Axil Axil

    Maybe the hydrino is an effect and not a cause. Maybe the hydrino is caused by something more fundamental that affects the nature of matter and how matter behaves, a cause that changes the rules of the road in chemical behavior, a cause that is produced by certain catalysts, a cause that effect the nature of space time so as to distort quantum mechanics into new ways of operating. Maybe that cause is also what is fundamental to LENR.

    • R V

      You’re taking a step towards Mills but still trying to save LENR. Apply the principle of Occam’s Razor.

      • Axil Axil

        For awhile now, I have though that R. Mills has not seen the whole picture. This concentration on”effect” has stopped Mills from producing useful results for the last 20 years. Viewing effect as cause is pervasive in LENR. Mills is a good experimentalist. Looking at his data and ideas just requires selectivity,

        • R V

          His theory and data are entirely consistent. It’s hydrino’s, not LENR.

          • Axil Axil

            What produces the hydrino? For example, in the Fractional quantum Hall effect

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

            Hall conductance shows a factional chance as a result of a change in a strong magnetic field. The reason for this is the creation of the composite fermion, a electron/magnetic quasiparticle. The magnetic field produces quasiparticles that change the nature of the electron.

            A strong EMF field could be changing the nature of the electrons in the presence of a catalyst that is producing a magnetic effect to form hydrinos which might be composite fermions.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermion

            The magnetic flux quanta could result in a modification of electron orbitals as Mills observes. But the cause is an applied magnetic field, the hydrino is the effect of that magnetic field.

            • R V

              There are no big magnetic fields in Mills’ experiments. The hydrino is caused by the hydrogen atom losing energy and shrinking. It’s just a small hydrogen atom. It still has the mass of hydrogen. It’s not a composite fermion particle.

              You are assuming all sorts of conditions in Mills’ data that are simply not the kind of experiments he is doing.

              • Axil Axil

                There are only 4 forces in nature. When Mills says that the energy is transferred between the catalyst and the electron, which one of these forces is involved? Or has Mills invented a new force?

                • R V

                  Electromagnetism, like in all chemical reactions.

              • Axil Axil

                A indicator of the presence of magnetism is the presence of RF emissions. The RF is produced by a nuclear magnetic resonance processes, This RF and transmutation are signs of LENR activity.

  • R V

    Also, the energy balance of Mills’ devices and tests are so large he is not concerned about closing the loop at this point in time.

  • R V

    The answer to 1) is yes, but it depends on which hydrino state the hydrogen atom ends up in which depends on the catalyst. In the current results, the hydrogen is in the H(1/4) state which yields 204 ev per atom. Mills has worked out this entire field of hydrino chemistry.

    The answer to 2) is yes, they are almost completely inert. Generally they bind to each other and form an inert gas which is the present case is H2(1/4) which is to H(1/4) atoms bound and will float off into space just as H2 gas would. Under certain circumstances a hydrino atom can bind to a compound. Yes, Mills has made some compounds with hydrino atoms bound.

    The answer to 3) is partly answered above but they do have a larger fusion probability but not enough by many orders of magnitude to make a practical fusion device because the degree of size reduction is not near what muons can do which is a factor of 200 leading to muon enhanced fusion.

    Mills discusses all these issues in his books which are available for free download at his website.

    • Zeddicus23

      RV,
      Thanks for your reply. Your answers make sense (or at least are consistent with Mills’ theory). The issue of the hydrino compounds is an interesting one, especially since we haven’t heard much about this. Based on what you wrote, it would appear to be difficult to isolate/incorporate a reasonable number into a compound.

      • R V

        Mills talked a lot about compounds about fifteen years ago but now seems focused on energy generation. When Mills proves his case to the world I think all those things will be revisited.

        BTW, one interesting possibility is rocket fuel with something like a hundred times the kick for the same mass. Think what we could do with that!

  • R V

    People can argue about the theory but I think the hydrino will be accepted as a fact of nature eventually. Too much evidence. But perhaps the QM crowd will attempt to ‘own’ it by incorporation it into standard QM theory. At that point I won’t care. We’ll all have hydrino power.

    • Axil Axil

      It seems that the SunCell gets its power from this HOH molocue that he has discovered. Any info on it from Mills would be interesting and important in understanding the SunCell.

      • R V

        The HOH is just the catalyst. The energy comes from the shrunken hydrogen atoms called hydrino atoms.

  • R V

    But, even though I am a huge Mills supporter, his statements must be parsed very carefully. His idea of a continuously operating closed system and my idea may be different. While I find Mills statement technically true, sometimes the actuality seems a bit less than I envisioned.

  • R V

    No doubt QM is useful and has successfully calculated some things to high precision. But that would likely also be true of any theory that was the best they had up to that point.

    It’s also always the case, by definition, that a new theory at first is in opposition to the field. Physics is not a consensus science done by polls.

    BTW, QM is not one theory but many theories. The stuff about it being the most accurate theory is hype for the masses. Of course a lot of physicists buy into the hype too. It’s based on a couple of QED calculations to about ten places. Interestingly, my QM dictionary shows that the error bars on the experimental data and the uncertainties in the calculated numbers actually do not overlap. That means to experimental error, the theoretical numbers do not match the theoretical numbers. So they back off on the decimal claims. Also, those few calculations are done with immense labor, and an astronomical number of terms and I think a few fudge factors too.

    So, those tens of thousands of physicists can indeed all be wrong. It’s happened many times before.

    • Axil Axil

      I would like your opion on a new post, “A simplified theory of LENR”

      • R V

        I don’t have a thorough background in LENR so my opinion would not be that valid.

  • tlp

    Mills recent comment about PV conversion efficiency:
    We have designs for cells that optimally operate with the spectrum of 3000K blackbody, others designed for 3500K. The emissivity of W is non-linear favoring emission of visible light, and we plan to use infrared filters/reflectors that will significantly increase the conversion efficiency.

  • tlp

    Most of this presentation is old, I just pointed below what is new.
    COP of 188 and closed SunCell video are the most important.

    Of course it is a known fact that quantum mechanics is wrong, classical physics of Maxwell, Einstein and Mills rules!