"Method and Details for Creation of a Spectacular Brilliant Light Flash Potentially Resulting from Hydrino Formation" (BLP Replication Effort)

On the Facebook LENR, Cold Fusion and Andrea Rossi page, a poster named Simon Brink, an Australian engineer, has provided a link to a document he has published in which he attempts a replication of the Brilliant Light Power method.

The report by Simon Brink, published in the Journal of Advances in Physics, is titled “Method and Details for Creation of a Spectacular Brilliant Light Flash Potentially Resulting from Hydrino Formation”, and can be read here: http://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/2684/pdf_276

From the Discussion in the article:

This experiment demonstrated production of a significant density of photon emissions from a high current, low voltage pulse, as observed within the visible light range.

Photon energy release from excited H2O following energy absorbsion from the transition of base state hydrogen (also from H2O) to a smaller form of hydrogen (hydrino), as proposed by Mills (2011), could be a possible explanation.
Other possible mechanisms for the visible light photon emission observations could include:

– excitement of electron orbitals in copper (or other elements) to higher energy states by electric current, then the subsequent release of photons during a return to ground state.

– a reduction in the orbital size of excited free electrons moving through the system (as current) as they pass into the high resistance zone between electrodes resulting in a release of photons.

Interestingly, Simon states that he has received from BLP threats of legal action because of his work: “Cease and desist notices. IP infringement”

69 Replies to “"Method and Details for Creation of a Spectacular Brilliant Light Flash Potentially Resulting from Hydrino Formation" (BLP Replication Effort)”

  1. I am starting to get worried about how vicious BLP is acting. They already went after MFMP and had their analysis video taken down for infringement despite that it only used publicly available material. Say what one wills of Rossi, but he at least does not accost the community.

    1. I see only two reasons for their actions, the process is easily reproduced and they are afraid of someone beating them to market or they’re unsure the process works as stated or at all and are afraid of being labeled frauds.

      1. Those are both good points. From what it currently seems, the experiment described here sounds like those electrolysis experiments, which also give off bright visible light though no excess energy.

        1. Definitely. Rossi does seem to have more confidence in his patent(s) than Mills as he doesn’t threaten legal action against anyone attempting replication.

      2. Maybe IH is in cahoots with BLP, and delays E-cat for a BLP head start. Refusal to pay for the 1-yr test attests to that.

  2. I wonder about this ‘High current low voltage’ pulse: the resistance must be low in the extreme to get a high current at low voltage.

    What is the explanation? Temporary superconduction?

      1. That could be the explanation for the Rossi effect and Brillouin also if there is a plasma state between clusters of metal in the LAH under influence of EMF by say a Q pulse. Agree?

        1. Yes, things may come together. The question is though: is it LENR or hydrino’s causing the energy release?

          1. If it is visible light, then the amount of energy per atom being released by electron shell reconfiguration is no different then combustion.

          2. Yes the nucleus is not being changed. Nevertheless is the energy that can be released by the electron, going to a much lower in orbit than the standard Bohr orbits, much higher than standard chemical energy per atom, if Mills theory is right.

          3. The frequency of light so far disagrees, though. Visible light is just 1.2 to 3 eV/atom at max (far red to far blue) while combustion of hydrogen is around 2.6 eV/atom, and so far hydrino formation is claimed to be releasing visible light, which is how photovaltaic cells can be used to harvest the energy. But that puts it on par with hydrogen combustion which, of course, also gives off visible light (fire), not 20x that.

            If hydrino formation is giving off more energy than combustion, and thus more energy than the visible light emitted, then it isn’t simply an electron moving orbitals, which is a process that only gives off photons (and the photons we see are equal with combustion). It would have to be doing more, something that does mess with the nucleus core. It really just looks like “normal” cold fusion, if there is excess energy beyond that being input.

            However. Electrolysis processes can also give off light as we have seen, so the visible light here may be from the electrolysis input energy, and not hydrinos. Then, if hydrinos were giving off x-rays during formation, which the experimentor here may not be set up to detect, that would be the proper energy release to align theory and results.

          4. No the hydrino releases EUV that hits the gas in the chamber and heat the gas to high temperatures that radiates visible light. In the tests in the initial phase seen in many experiments there is not much gas to transform the light to visible spectrum and there is dim light but as the gas develops a bright light that saturates the camera develops (A features that people have attributed to BrLP adjusting the cameras). So the light seen is a secondary effect.

          5. What gas that is part of these setups fluoresces with visible light in response to UV? We must put this idea to the test.

          6. Do you happen to have the specs on hand for what wavelength silver vapor absorbs and emits at? I can find nothing but shiny nail polish when I search for it.

          7. Somewhere in the long BLP read for the spectrometry are cool charts showing the energy before and after it is thermalized from high energy to visible. This also shows that initially the vast bulk of the initial energy is down in the region of 40-200nm with exceptionally little in the visible 400-700+nm. After thermalization the energy ends up a good blackbody curve suitable for PV.

            Be carful to understand which spectrometers are being used when, for instance they don’t use the low wavelength during the main demo because thermalization has occurred but the technician knows the factor for the control where thermalization has not occurred. Good practice by the technician because the very low wavelength equipment is exceptional and must be used carefully with special precautions.

            These charts speak to me as I understand spectrometry and the computer integration of spectra peaks and broadband. Very real well done excellent observational science, IMO.

          8. In addition to brilliant silver nail polish Brilliant Light can provide services for sunburn.

          9. Yes, good point. Energy release is depending on the stage and may be between 41 eV and about 1keV, still (E)UV, according Mills. This is nowhere near to the MeV assumed for LENR. I still have doubts if hydrino’s exist. If these are released then I do not want to be near to them, they look too much like neutrons to me. 😉

    1. The BLP technology sounds like just the welding process (or the old technology of making light between two graphite electrodes).
      The welding process uses high current (amperage) at low voltage and creates bright light.
      Something not picked up by anybody in this forum: the atomic hydrogen welding is known to produce some gamma radiation. The welding using atomic hydrogen is apparently no longer used in commercial processes.
      The details are important – is there any excess of energy?

        1. This is using high voltages. A different concept. One of the arguments for the suncell to be a result of hydrinos is the low voltages high current unable to accelerate electrons to the energies seen.

  3. Every person is entitled to do these tests himself and publish about it with reference to IH if needed. I do not see any need for BrLP to act so aggressively. They should be pleased that somebody replicates their much doubted statements and demonstrations.

  4. Let us be honest, the elephant in the room is credibility. LENR is just kookish and not even science to most people. As much as I want to cheer on innovators like Rossi or the people at BLP, the burden of proof is on them to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the claim is in fact true.

    Independent replication is a priceless way to establish credibility. In the case of LENR, people like myself want to see that someone else can acquire their own resources, build a replicant apparatus, and when it is operated properly it shows a positive COP that is beyond a doubt.

    There is a million miles of difference between attempting to reproduce the basic process in order to verify it, and attempting to steal a commercial product in development where the IP has already been filed and partially awarded. It is very counter-productive for the LENR community when people who seek to replicate work are jumped on by IP enforcement efforts. The entire community would benefit by a change of heart and the willingness to cooperate with serious independent researchers. Surely some simple mutual agreement could be reached so IP is acknowledged and protected so replication can proceed.

    1. Mills has more to be afraid of replications in the case where such replication refutes Mills’ claims. The experimental results by Simon Brink, as he describes them, are in the large part, subjective : “bright light” and the like, are not in any way, any kind of analysis that means anything as far as accurate scientific results are concerned. By issuing cease and desist statements Mills may be attempting to forestall further work by others where that work involves tight controls and accurate measurements which may expose that there is nothing to the theory of Mills’ hydrino.

      1. Brilliantlight Power is willing to issue licenses to other parties wanting to do experimental work on hydrino reactions. Doesn’t sit well with your very dark picture of the people at BrLP.

  5. BLP has not the slightest basis for threatening anyone from doing scientific research. Under what law would they even consider that as faintly possible? Mr. Simon Brink should publish a complete and repeatable description of his experiments. And, thank you Mr. Brink! The very reason that patents must include a recipe is so that their effect can be verified by others, not to prevent them from doing so. The COMMERCIAL application of any such device is what is protected by intellectual property law.

    1. This is from 2008. I don’t think that Mills suncell is the same approach. As I understand this result although correct could be challanged as having a normal physics explanation. I really don’t know what’s true if this is a proof of hydrinos or not. Just that the approach was stashed due to good reason and BrLP started to focus on the suncell approach in stead. There is 5 new validations done. The researchers in the recent newsflash although a bit affiliated with BrLP speak warmly and I’ve seen posts claiming that the validations is very convincing. Currently we can’t have a scientific understanding of if this is true due to the secrecy. Validations of tests like done here in the storyline with proper scientific verification of COP would be awesome. Although it is against Mills will to let the public have any such strong proof atm why the Leagal mussels shown – Mills do want to stay under the radar – he state that view explicitly in the video. It’s kind of weird though: why not be completely off the radar and keep everything secret, that one beats me.

    1. That’s somewhat outdated. See Madey v. Duke University. One may use IP without permission only for “amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry.” Even paying for a lab assistant would be questionable under this regime.

      1. Here’s some information regarding that case:

        “The Federal Circuit again limited the experimental use exception two years later in Madey v. Duke University. Madey, a research professor at Stanford University, owned a patent to two free electron lasers. He then brought the lasers with him to his new position at Duke University. Duke University continued to use the equipment after Madey resigned. The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement ruling that because Duke was a major academic institution in the business of research and education, the lower court should determine if the educational purpose was in the scope of the exception. On remand, the lower court found that even though the use of the patented invention was for educational purposes, it was still at least in part in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose and therefore did not qualify for the exception.

        Based on the Madey decision, it appears that the Federal Circuit precludes experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit research organizations including federal laboratories, research foundations, and research hospitals. Further, these cases render any use of the patented invention for testing, designing around a patent, or in pursuit of scientific knowledge too closely related to business interests to be infringement. The only remaining scenario where the experimental use exception may be used is in the case of an individual’s general interest without any intention to profit. Even in this scenario, the use must only be de minimis, small-scale tinkering.”


        1. Education is a commercial pursuit. That is what was being limited along with those imposed on continued research for COMMERCIAL purposes. Purely scientific (i.e. “philosophical” experimentation is NOT restricted by Madey v. Duke!

  6. Let’s think about this, shall we. Mills has invented a device that can be carted around and plugged into the wall (any wall, not just the ones at his lab) that will vaporize heavy tungsten in seconds. Before an audience of apparently knowledgeable engineers. How is this a bad thing?
    Mills has not been taking shortcuts on the proof. But people need to actually read the proof he’s provided instead of naysaying it.

  7. The H-bomb is also proof that a lot of energy can be made, fusing hydrogen. We are now more than 40 years looking to control this in such a way that we can use it. I hope Mills’ finds a method to tame his fire.

  8. Problem is, none of these cases are infingement. MFMP’s video was clear “fair use” simply talking about publicly published material. They are being just too aggressive right now.

  9. Charles, you really have no basis for any of these assertions. Please go back and read the validation work more carefully. You can start with the most recent press release.

  10. This is enthusiast but heavily non-scientific proclamation. It depends on the careful measurement of heat, not the effects, whether the actual energy production has been achieved. In particular, the water vapor gets extremely reactive with metals in higher temperatures (many seemingly stable metals explode with water at high temperatures) – so that without exact measurements Mr Mills looks rather delusional scam artist than serious researcher.

    During years his methods of alleged hydrino production continuously shifted from UV radiation over glow discharges into high current low voltage arc – the only one connecting line of his experiments was always just the loud claim of hydrino production.

  11. Based on the USPTO Patent Term Calculator, Mills’ patent “Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures “, expired on January 26th, 2016 (assuming there were no Patent Term Extensions or Patent Term Adjustments).

  12. Mills has NO case unless he can prove that Mr. Brink intends to compete with him or in any other way use their patented material for commercial purposes.. Stop trying to cloud the lines of free science, the courts have clearly NOT done so.!

      1. I hope that by that he actually means that he will not publish the results of his further work in order to avoid ruinous court battles. When he has developed his work to a commercial level he will be able to find partners who would be in a position to counter such legal suppression attempts.

  13. Patent infringement ONLY occurs in commercialization, there is absolutely no restraint on research. A legal threat against research in such a matter is in fact a crime.

    1. Does that mean an individual may make something using a current patent as long as it’s not made for the purpose of selling it?

      1. The answer often centers around another question… are you by virtue of what you are doing somehow denying the patent holder of their own benefit. If they do not have anything on the market, and you are not marketing anything, you are not, in fact, infringing.

        Of course, a sufficiently wealthy company could wrap you up in legal mumbo jumbo for months or longer even with a meritless set of claims.

  14. /* though Mills has produced much more measurement data than either */

    The hydrino formation has no logics in it, it actually contradicts the dense aether model. In the omnipresent vibrating environment the particles cannot gain energy when collapse into fractional quantum states at free vacuum, they would consume it instead. These fractional quantum state could somehow survive at the surface of matter, but after then then must be also destroyed, when the matter gets evaporated.

    1. Zephir, you should learn about Mills’ model before criticizing. Collapsing a hydrogen atom to a hydrino is equivalent to a satellite going to a lower orbit. Less energy is required, which has to go somewhere. So it’s released to the catalyst resonantly and subsequently as EUV continuum radiation as the catalyst is ionized.

      1. I think I do understand the Mills model better than others and I think that the fundamental quantum state exists from good physical reason: the vacuum is dynamic environment and it does prohibit the slowing of neverending motion at the quantum scale. If something moves more slowly in it than the fundamental quantum state, it just gets kicked with vacuum fluctuations into this quantum level again. If the atoms could gain energy by their further collapsing, they would already do it in stars and another environments, which have lotta hydrogen under pressure.

        1. Two things. First, hydrogen does not gain energy by collapsing. It loses energy and comes into a lower energy, stable hydrino state. Second, the hydrino’s electron is not moving more slowly that hydrogen’s electron, rather it is faster. Specifically the superconducting current loops making up an electron’s 2D surface are moving faster.

          1. The vacuum is like the stormy sea. The proton is boat and the electron is a floater attached to this boat by Coulombic force. Due to energy of waves the floater will have tendency to separate from boat once it approaches to it too closely. From the same reason the momentum of electron rises, once we attempt to restrict its motion to a narrow space – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about it. I cannot exclude, that the subquantum levels are possible, but they should be metastable and as such rich of energy.

          2. Oh yes, I know the analogy well. The problem of course is the stormy sea is calculated to have over 10^100 as much gravitational mass as what is observed cosmologically. (Fittingly, it is called the vacuum catastrophe.) And lets not forget that as the universe expands, it is magically creating all that new space energy out of nothing. So I hope you can see in part why some people like myself and optiongeek have no problem tossing things like the HUP overboard into the sea instead.

          3. Zephir – HUP is magical. Physics has been held back by magical thinking for over ninety years. Dispel the magic. Don’t believe in magic because someone else (who was just as confused as you) tells you something must be true. Discipline yourself to use words that describe only things that your own experience tells you are real. Wake up!

  15. The water vapor is very corrosive at high temperatures and molybdenum isn’t even very stable at the air: it does form a volatile oxides, so it merely evaporates in arc at air. These effects may look impressive but they still don’t imply one watt of free energy.

  16. I didn’t know that was an aspect of the nature of the license, interesting. Still, a licensed party must be able to benefit somehow from the work they put into hydrino technology. I wonder how.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *