New Brilliant Light Power Patent Application for Power Generation Systems

Thanks to artefact for providing this link to a new patent application that has been published on the US Patent and Trademarks Office site: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20160290223.PGNR.&OS=dn/20160290223&RS=DN/20160290223POWER

The title is “Power Generation System and Methods Regarding Same.”  Here is the abstract:

A solid fuel power source that provides at least one of thermal and electrical power such as direct electricity or thermal to electricity is further provided that powers a power system comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos, (ii) a chemical fuel mixture comprising at least two components chosen from: a source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst; a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; reactants to form the source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst and a source of atomic hydrogen or atomic hydrogen; one or more reactants to initiate the catalysis of atomic hydrogen; and a material to cause the solid fuel to be highly conductive, (iii) at least one set of electrodes that confine the fuel and an electrical power source that provides a short burst of low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to forming hydrinos, (iv) a product recovery systems such as a condenser (v) a reloading system, (vi) at least one of hydration, thermal, chemical, and electrochemical systems to regenerate the fuel from the reaction products, (vii) a heat sink that accepts the heat from the power-producing reactions, (viii) a power conversion system that may comprise a direct plasma to electric converter such as a plasmadynamic converter, magnetohydrodynamic converter, electromagnetic direct (crossed field or drift) converter, direct converter, and charge drift converter or a thermal to electric power converter such as a Rankine or Brayton-type power plant.

I have to say that on scrolling through this document, it’s a rather daunting patent to read. Randell Mills, BLP’s CEO, is listed as the inventor and he is a very prolific writer when it comes to describing his ideas. The patent application is long, detailed and complex and would take a lot of time and background knowledge to make sense of it.

There is an underlying assumption in the patent about the existence of hydrinos (hydrogen in a lower energy state), which is a controversial proposal from the perspective of mainstream science. There are over 400 references to hydrinos in the patent application, and they form the basis of Randell Mills’ theoretical work. It will be interesting to see if the patent office is receptive to the idea.

  • Zephir

    This is an result of high current arc, especially at presence of water vapour which would oxidize every metal readily. You should learn a bit about Mills technology.

  • tlp

    BLP has shown many prototypes, latest two weeks ago.
    Oct 26th they will show the current version. Step by step closer to the final product, to be released early next year.

  • Wholewitt

    Not really possible in many cases such as software code and would it actually help if a computer CPU was handed to the Patent Office? Many mechanical and electrical designs are built to prove and refine the design before patent application. A lot of inventions are just used by a company with no patent application, many engineers see this. If a patent is applied for, the rights go to the company.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Hydrogen atoms can be imaged, does Mills have a picture of a Hydrino?

    https://youtu.be/4G7sq5GVhos?t=30

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Gee, the worlds record is about 40%. High grade space satellites are in the 20% range – commercial panels are below 20% – so I don’t know where these magic solar panels will come from – but such high conversion rates for solar panels are not common at all. If such high output of heat is being generated, then BLP has really commercial ready plug in replacement modules for coal and even nuclear reactors at the outputs and heat levels they claim.
    So it seems to be a losing game to go with electoral output as opposed to heat output. No question that PV’s are great due to no moving parts, but it seems a waste to only obtain a 20% conversion rate unless some lower cost PV panels exist with higher conversion rates.

  • tlp

    That error is probably due to rounding issues in those calculations.

  • Rene

    The subsidy business by governments is a well understood technique to promote new technologies. The fossil fuel industry is quite mature and self-monetizing, so yes, it is long past time to drop its subsidies. Photo voltaics are approaching the point where the question of continuance of its small subsidies is timely.
    But, the elimination of all government subsidies to help nascent tech grow is a great plan to losing ground in this country to other countries.

  • R V

    This isn’t LENR or related to LENR at all.

  • R V

    Probably 30% first generation and 40% later. Waste heat can be used but is actually more costly to do in many cases.

  • R V

    It was Bob Park, former spokeman of the APS (American Physical Society) and Peter Zimmermann who worked at the State Dept. that illegally interfered with Mills’ patent applications. Examiners have full legal authority to grant applications and the two working it did but were yanked off the case by outside political influence.

  • MorganMck

    Thanks for this. I think she is right about the future though very optimistic on the timing. The pacing element will probably be manufacturing cost.

    • cashmemorz

      Everything with cost starts with the cost of the energy used to make the thing. Labor costs are based on paying a wage to make an acceptable decent life style. That costs of the labor in that light is based on cost of things traced back to the energy to make them. So when the energy cost of all things become based on LENR energy costs then all things will be that much cheaper. Competition will drive the price to an equilibrium based on LENR energy costs.

    • Omega Z

      Not very but extremely overly optimistic…

      However, maybe one just has to think that way in order to move forward. It all starts with a dream.

  • Eyedoc

    Do the LENR patent application attempts seem to be accelerating, or is it just my optimism?

  • Rene

    It is the claims that matter in a patent or patent application. The description are helpful notes to understand the claims. I have never before seen a patent application whose claims have been massively chopped up. This thing had 404 claims of which 33 remain. The now first claim (106) is basically a reciprocating engine fueled by water, atomic hydrogen and ignited by high voltage. There is no claim of LENR, no claim of over-unity. The rest of the claims narrow the scope to specific actions, though I have to love the bold claims that the frequencies can range from 0.1Hz to 10GHz and currents range from 100A to 1,000,000A. That is so broad that it will get challenged again by the examiners. So, though this describes something that appears specific, the broad operating parameters of frequencies, input power levels, etc. do not teach much of anything other than making for a very spectacular Rube Goldberg style of piston engine.
    Also: this is a patent application – not yet a patent.

  • MorganMck

    If you really think that a government subsidy is a “market force” I doubt we could could have an intelligent dialog on this subject. And do you really think that a government subsidized price is a “true” price? Perhaps you are saying that these prices are “real” in that they actually influence buying decisions. I think everyone could agree with that ( a truism), but so what. In my view, that is the problem.

    BTW, it is oil prospectors not “extractors” that get the subsidies, but I’m not not in favor of those either. Get rid of all of them.

    As to trying to compensate for the “social cost” of one energy source over another, there is so much subjectivity, graft, corruption and politics in the process that you could never hope to get it “right” or even define what “right” is. In any case, if you think that oil has a excess social cost, tax oil, don’t subsidize something else. That has the government picking winners and losers, something they are notoriously bad at.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, first the planet not melting fast at all. We just gone through a 18 year pause in warming – and during the last 18 years we output the same amount of CO2 as about the previous 75 years. (in fact most of our industrial CO2 output has occurred during a time in which no
    global warming occurred!).

    You can download the government temp data and do the math yourself. How to do this is outlined here:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/10/el-nio-shortens-the-pause-by-just-one-month/
    I will also save some peanut gallery response by stating you don’t cherry pick some arbitrary point in the past and go forward using a simple grade school slope. You start from NOW or TODAY and use a least squares regression and start going back year after year. You can go
    back year after year – you have to go back 18 years to find warming! (how people attempt starting from today and going backwards is cherry picking a time point is beyond me!).

    As for BLP, the only “curious” question here is why use light to solar panels conversion? Why not produce heating devices? All of that light energy can be used as heat. It seems every few years
    BLP changes their story and design as to how they going to harness this energy.
    Prior to using solar panels, their design was similar to MHD nuclear reactors
    (you use high speed particles passing a coil to produce electricity from those
    moving particles).

    I wish BLP all the best, and hope they have what they claim. But why go with
    20% efficient solar panels when you can just use the heat? I will admit that electricity
    is a great goal, but I would think FIRST applications would be industrial
    heating applications. Such application of energy is far more practical. It
    really begs the question why solar panels when they claim such large energy
    gains.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • R V

    There may be a glut of solar panels available. They may be free for a while. But in the long run how can one beat getting energy on demand from water?

  • R V

    There is a long history between Mills and the USPTO. They have granted some and rejected others. The most infamous case occurred about 15 years ago when a patent was granted, the fee paid, and the patent published by the USPTO yet when a rather influential critic got wind of it, that person complained directly to the USPTO and the patent was pulled. Mills sued and still lost.

    When the hydrino is validated by mainstream science the USPTO will have to review the past rejections and make things right. They should also issue a profound apology.

    • Omega Z

      If they were to make it right, i.e. reinstate the patent, it would run for 20 years from time of reinstatement.

      Note on Rossi’s patent that was delayed by the patent office, was extended by about 18 months to offset the delay caused by the patent office.

  • Zephir

    I don’t think that the hydrino experiments are extraordinarily dangerous. They could be dangerous, if they would generate some energy.

  • MorganMck

    “a world with rapidly decreasing solar panel costs”

    Call me when governments do not have to subsidize PV Solar any longer to make it competitive with other energy sources. That will be a good indication that they finally have arrived as a truly competitive source.

    • US_Citizen71

      Ring! Ring! Google the solar projects being bid for in Dubai.

    • Rene

      Call me when the fossil fuel industry stops receiving government subsidies.

      • R V

        You call me when you stop driving around with cheap gas or taking commercial flights.

        • Rene

          Aha, so you *do* believe in subsidies, just only the ones you like? That explains the inconsistent stance, thank s for the clarification.

    • what’s your number because un-subsidized solar in some locales is already half as costly as natural gas.

      “It’s for a planned sprawling solar farm for a utility in the Middle East.

      A shockingly low price for energy from solar panels was
      recently bid during an auction for a solar farm near the city of Abu
      Dhabi, according to a report in solar trade publication PV Magazine.

      A consortium of the Chinese solar panel maker and project builder JinkoSolar and the Japanese developer Marubeni put in a bid to build a
      large solar panel farm near the sun-rich city for a jaw-dropping 2.42
      cents per kilowatt hour.

      That’s by far the lowest solar panel farm bid out there. A few ultra
      low-cost large solar panel farms have recently achieved around 4 cents
      per kilowatt hour, and earlier this year the previous record bid for a
      solar panel farm in Chile was 2.91 cents per kilowatt hour.

      In comparison, in the U.S. average costs for energy from all types of new sources, like gas and coal, can cost between 5 and 6 cents per kilowatt hour. So getting to under 2.50 cents puts solar panel farms in an entirely new category and makes it competitive with fossil fuels.”

      http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/world-record-solar-price-abu-dhabi/

  • tlp

    Rapidly decreasing solar panel costs are also deacreasing SunCell cost, as solar panels are biggest cost of SunCell.

    • Byron McDonald

      So you imply BLP will drop its price / kw/h in response? Perhaps. More likely to me is BLP will concentrate on its niche at its required margins in order to grow to industrial scales of economy.

      • MorganMck

        Don’t you think that governments should subsidize BrLP prices? That would bring their cost down.

  • georgehants

    Could I ask, does such a patent have any value if it does not contain information sufficient to replicate some measurable process worth patenting.

  • Zephir

    It’s just intuitive insight over already existing formal models. These connections are quite well known in certain circles (spectroscopy physicists). My intention is serve as a devil advocate of neither Mills, neither mainstream physics. There is still possibility – however remote – that Mills could find some new source of energy with using of less or more fringe model. The history of physics is full of such a semi-accidental findings. Today the inquisitiveness of mainstream physics is way too much constrained by its own theories. What we lack today most is the willingness to do exploratory experiments and every such an attempt is precious from this perspective. And Randell Mills managed to concentrate quite large resources for it, it would be a pity to silence him – maybe he still does useful cold fusion research unwillingly.

    • R V

      That’s fine but get your facts right beforehand.

  • Greg Leonard

    Weird
    ‘a source of H2O catalyst or H2O catalyst’
    Did he mean D2O for the second one?

    • tlp

      No, a source of H2O catalyst is different from H2O catalyst. It can be some chemical combound from where you can get H2O out. In fact in latest SunCell development version they are not using plain water anymore, but some combound.

      • cashmemorz

        A blogger several days ago mentioned “Diatomaceous earth” as the other part in the catalyst. The catalyst is what makes the process turn on. Diatomaceous earth has fine granularity containing nano occlusions for the hydrogen to get trapped in (nuclear active environment=NAE: from Storms). Without that third ingredient the process does not produce abundances of light, basically is COP<1.

        My personal understanding of how the hydrino forms is in reference to the balance of
        forces between the orbital of the electron and the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum
        that act as the balancer of forces that prohibit the orbital from going
        lower than what is usually accepted as the lowest orbital. What I see
        the NAE doing is squeezing the hydrogen atom re its lowest orbital with
        reference to the walls of the NAE while at the same time the walls of
        the NAE provide a Casimir effect to the energy of the quantum vacuum.
        The effect is to lower the total energy of the vacuum in the NAE to be
        lower than outside the NAE. Since the distance between the walls of the
        NAE are at the correct measurement to allow the Casimir effect to occur
        then the hydrogen atom trapped in the NAE experiences less of the
        balancing force that normally keeps the lowest orbital at its usually
        found distance from the nucleus. The electron, not feeling the usual
        balancing force to stay away from the nucleus is able to fall towards
        the nucleus until it settles to a lower orbital that is at another,
        lower balance of forces between what the nucleus allows and what the now
        lower energy of the vacuum allows. Therefore the newer orbital
        characterized by Randell as the orbital of the hydrino.

        Edit: this effect, as Randell has provided, looks like it may be used as a gateway to the
        negative energy required for the Warp Drive of Harold G. "Sonny" White
        and Miguel Alcubierre Moya at NASA

        • R V

          It’s nothing as weird as your source claims. And there is no relation to Sonny White’s speculations. Mills is not working on nor are his theories applicable to anything like a ‘Warp’ drive.

  • Zephir

    /* I have to say that on scrolling through this document, it’s a rather daunting patent to read. */

    It’s still quite brief with compare to first Mills U.S. Patent 6,024,935 from Feb. 15, 2000 with 499 claims recognized… Note that the 154-404 claims were “canceled”: the patent office attorney probably asked Mills to fuck-off…

  • Epi

    I am working on an evaluation of Mills theory regarding its capability to give accurate values for the structure of atoms and molecules. I hope I can share it in 2-3 weeks. In preparation of my results forgive me that I have to criticize the wording of your second last sentence.

    The basis of Mills theory is not the hydrino. The hydrino is just one of many predictions of his theory. The basis is the nonradiation condition. Read the wikipedia article – it is quite interesting. Mills just did what Goedecke speculated in 1964.

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

    • Frank Acland

      Thank you for your critique. I look forward to reading your evaluation of Mills.

    • Zephir

      The nonradiation condition is neither complex neither controversial. Some electron transitions are so-called “forbidden”, because the spherical orbitals don’t radiate the energy so easily, like the elongated ones (which can work like common antennae). So that once the both source, both target of electron transition are spherical orbitals, then the corresponding energy transition gets very low probability, which manifest itself with weak or very subtle line in spectrum. These lines are typical for lanthanides, where the free electron transitions are already occupied with elongated f and d-orbitals.

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

      Actually the most strictly spherical orbitals are these ones of hydrogen, which contain only one electron, which therefore cannot interact with another ones.

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525131707.htm

      So that Mills assumes, that the subquantum states of hydrogen would be stabilized just by the lack of other options for radiation. But I don’t understand this line of logics, once the hydrino states are believed to be way more stable and energetic, than these normal ones. Such an orbitals don’t have to be stabilized at all.

      • Zephir

        BTW The belief, that the hydrogen orbitals look like thin spherical shell at the top of Tesla coil (which is designed so just with respect to minimizing of energy loses by radiation) is apparently reflected in belief of Mills in orbital structure of atoms and his Millsian software. This strange software models all orbitals like the thin shells in quite abstract and nonphysical way.

        In this case Mills got it completely wrong, as the various intensity of spectral lines is given just by fact, that these orbitals have variable shape predicted with quantum mechanics and they radiate energy from one to another less or more willingly. And the spherical shell models cannot explain more complex geometry of molecules, like the angled hydrogen bonds of water, which are source of many water anomalies.

        • Epi

          You state that Mills theory is not able to describe certain effects, but you are not proving it. I dont know exactly what quantum physical effect you refer to, but from page 132 to 153 Mills gives his view on line broadening and lamb shift.

          Funny that you mention water. I am currently calculating the parameters of this molecule with Mills formulars. The bond angles are the last step, but I already have the result for the bond dissociation energy. Mills model has a relative error of 0,003% compared to the experimental value I found on wikipedia.

          What I want to say: before making absolute statements you should be absolutely sure they are right.

          • Zephir

            The model of spherical shells cannot explain angles of chemical bonds, which depend on quantum model of electron orbitals in form of spatially resonating waves. Spheres are just symmetric objects which can attach randomly or in sterically driven positions.

            http://www.millsian.com/images/molecules/H2O_med.png

            Why the water molecule isn’t linear in the above picture?

            • tlp

              Why don’t you read the Book? In pages 484-485 (GUTCP Sep 2016 edition)
              bond angle of H2O is calculated, 105.988 deg.
              Experimental value is 106 deg., so quite close match.

            • Epi

              I cannot answer the “why” of your question. What I can say is, that yesterday I calculated the bonding angle with Mills equations and got 106,24° which is pretty much in range of the experimental value.

              The other thing I can tell is, that the kind of formulars I used were not special for water, but the same as for the hydroxyl radical I calculated earlier. He gives a “generic” algorithm for calculation of organic molecules from p.679 to p.699 and I can tell that the equations I used are the same as given there, but with the given values for bond order etc. The generic equations are a bit hard for me and I dont have the time to implement these.

              To give you a heads up: In the equations Mills gives there were just fundamental constants. No fitting factors. If the generic equations work for all organic molecules as Mills claims I cannot tell. But what I can tell is that these equations were used to calculate many properties of water and the hydroxyl radical to great accuracy. I did not find one single false statement of Mills so far. More to come in 2-3 weeks.

              • tlp

                Have you noticed that bond angle of H2O calculation I pointed below, page 484/485?
                That calculation results 105.998

            • R V

              Now I know you obviously haven’t read Mills. Most molecular shells in Mills theory are not spherical. They are prolate surfaces.

            • Mark Underwood

              3 points define a plane, so of course the water molecule will be ‘linear’. The plane is somewhat tilted in the picture, that’s all.

        • R V

          I doubt you’ve actually read through Mills theory. You can download his books for free from his site. The second volume answers your objections to Mills’ orbitals.

    • R V

      Goedecke anticipated it but Haus, whom Mills knew, basically derived the Geodecke from scratch in a different form that Mills is quite partial to. Mills took a class from Haus at MIT.

    • R V

      Notice that the Wiki site does not mention Mills. They have been extremely unfair on the page that does talk about Mills allowing only critical references and always removing supportive data.

  • Curbina

    A skim read reveals at once that this patent application took more than two years To be published and during this process more than a two hundred and fifty of the original claims were cancelled, therefore this document has already a history of struggle behind It.