Brilliant Light Power Announces ‘First Sustaining Plasma’ in History

Brilliant Light Power has posted videos from their recent Industry Day Event on their website here:

BLP has also posted this Tweet:

100 Replies to “Brilliant Light Power Announces ‘First Sustaining Plasma’ in History”

  1. BLP has made a statement looking like a Fact —–
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Now all it needs is an open, checkable, repeatable demonstration and their “potential” Fact becomes a reality and hopefully all of humanity gains.

      1. William, agreed but after 5+ years of waiting for Rosie to show the sale of anything, the more conventional scientific route of open etc. demonstration I suggest above would be good.
        No need again to give away any secrets, no “experts” necessary, just a number of definitely independent domestic electricians with an Avo, checking electrical power in and electrical power out of whatever solar panels they have around.
        If the electrical output, no matter what the overall COP may be is COP 1+ then we have a winner.
        All the extras such as heat and method are incidental to a genuine, proven, over-unity device.

  2. After studying the video’s I found it is the same story again. They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve. That short time slope is then translated into output power and compared to a continuous input power, outrageous! People ask the right questions in video 4 like ‘Where does the Mega Watts of heat go to?’ They agreed that the test device would vaporize when that kind of power were constantly generated. So today BLP have tweeted that they have ‘sustained plasma’, so why is the test SunCell not vaporized? I just continue to wait for the real proof: a COP>1

    1. “They saw millions of watt output power, but just based on the slope of a temperature curve.”

      “Just” based on the slope of a temperature curve? Perhaps you missed the part where Mills stresses that the slope method, the water calorimetry method, and the spectroscopic method – each a way to determine output power output – were all in essential agreement as to the amount of power generated?

      1. With ‘just’ I meant the short period where a huge power was generated. When they compare it with the average input power of 7.5 kW, the whole story becomes misleading and should not be done in that way. They talked about calorimetry , but didn’t really show that they actually used that. I hope BLP will show that the SunCell actually generates an ENERGY surplus soon. And I hope they do it convincingly, using calorimetry and proper energy input measurements during a longer time.

        1. In case it may be puzzling: Mills likes to emphasize ‘power’ output because frankly that was one of the main shortcomings of previous techniques to extract energy out of the hydrino formation process. The power density was too low.
          I have not yet gone through all the videos from the Industry Day, but a previous demonstration day (in June?) had Mills showing bomb calorimetry of a pellet detonating, and showing clear excess *energy*. The calorimetry was done by an expert in the field.
          So to people following this, the energy surplus of the basic hydrino reaction which would be used in the SunCell is already established. The trick now is harnessing that energy from a working SunCell.

  3. I accept the reduced orbital behavior of the atom below base level as a characteristic of gainful (overunity) technologies, because Holmlid has deminstated it experimentally. Mills is wrong in his interpretation. These compounds and elements which show low electron orbits are described in high pressure physics as metalized hydrides. One of those hydrides is metalized water. Mills calls it HOH.

    I am using Mark LeClair’s name for the metalized water nanoparticle, the Water Crystal. Connecting this subject to LENR, Randall Mills has found that water crystals are the active agent in the SunCell. Mills describes this special form of water as having no covalent chemical bonds. This lack of chemical bonds is a result of charge separation between the positively charged “hole’ core of the nanoparticle and the electron cloud that orbits on the surface of the core of the superconductive crystal.

    In the 1960s, Joe Papp used this process to produce a patented water explosive that could shred 5/8 inch stainless steel pipe. People have been injection HHO into their engines for many years now.×110.jpg

    I beleive Holmlid, high pressure physics, and LeClair about the details of fractional electron orbitals, and not Mills.

    The primary difference between the two interpretations of factional electron orbits is the nuclear nature of the interaction between these collapsed elements and other matter.

  4. What Mills would discover if he set up multiple liquid metal fountains comprised of multiple liquid metal jets that a “Cat” fountains that is powered can ignite a self sustaining plasma reaction in the other unpowered “Mouse” fountains so that they all are also self sustaining.

    This is how I would beat Mills in the marketplace with a high COP Cat/Mouse systems architecture as demonstrated by Rossi.

    If Rossi can get a system to self sustain and so can Mills then I reason that Mills and Rossi are basically using the same physics.

    1. I think Rossi efect may have something common with hydrino reaction, but it is not the same.
      Lets look at hydrogen consumption:
      SunCell uses about 0.3 mg hydrogen/s when thermal power is 1MW. That means about 90 kg/year.
      Rossi efect fuel was just a few grams in 1 year 1MW test.
      Rossi efect must be at least mostly nuclear, SunCell is non nuclear hydrino reaction.

      1. Compare apples to apples. Rossi’s 1 MW plant uses hydrogen in each reactor subunit. Mills has one unit whereas Rossi has many and Mills produces 5 times the power of Rossi’s reactor.

        Rossi also uses Lithium as fuel.

        1. That’s still a difference of an order of magnitude when divided by 6, even including the lithium. Does anyone know how much lithium a SunCell would consume? That would be apples to apples.

  5. Maximum power 5 megawatts, sustained is 1.2 MWs. Ash is hydrinos as dark matter. Gas feed is 3% hydrogen and 97% argon, an inert gas. Temperature is 6000K, reduced to 3000K by the carbon dome.

      1. That is great if Mills beleives that, because using lithium as fuel would simplify the system a lot.

        Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals.

        There would be no gas tanks, no hydrogen control function, no gas piping…a simpler system all around.

        1. There is free hydrogen everywhere in the air, in form of water. No need to refuel ever. Rossi needs to refuel lithium, and it is not freely available.

          1. Newly formed, ‘nascent’ water inside the SunCell is created when the hydrogen gas combines with a refractive, undisclosed oxide that circulates with the silver. The oxide regenerates itself.

          2. One blogger suggested diatomaceous earth as that secret ingredient. Then when I went to show how that might work another blogger, who seemed be one of the more knowledgeable bloggers, tried to cut me down by stating that is not true that there is no secret sauce. This leads me to a schizophrenic view of what is going on this site. Who is right?

          3. That is propably written in those patent applications not yet public. Though there is certainly a list of possible oxides. And not releived what is the best.
            In those validation reports they tested two or three candidates, but those are sensored out.
            Validators know the secret, but won’t tell.

          4. Easier for first prototypes. Water tank is used in first commercial products, water wapor from air is the next phase.
            All air in Earth contains water.

          5. Keep design simple and cheap. It is hard to extract hydrogen out of water. A hydride contains far more hydrogen per molecule and is released by simply using heat.

          6. Water, water everywhere. Are you joking about the problem with dry air? Take a tank of water for fuel. Refill at the sink or river. Bubble air through it.

        2. “Lithium and hydrogen are both alkali metals”.
          Uh, take a closer look at your statement Axil as you may want to rephrase that a bit. Lithium is an alkali metal element and hydrogen is a gas element, if my old memory serves me correctly…

          1. Hydrogen is in Group 1 of the Periodic Table, because it has the same electron configuration as the alkali metals but true, it differs from metals in a number of ways, but most importantly for LENR, hydrogen can behave like a metal at a pressure of 500 000 atm.
            It may exist as a metal in the interiors of large planets like Jupiter and Saturn and in the Sun and the LENR reaction.

          2. Axil Axil, thanks for clarifying – I now see what you are getting at in this context – Hydrogen can act as a metal under very extreme conditions as could/may occur in LENR reactions…

  6. Mills is very open in describing his technogym far more open than Rossi. Mills is also able to get his ideas patented with no problems. Is that because his theories are based on chemical energy production only? LENR can’t get patents through the system and this has caused Rossi to be tight lipped about his tech.

    Does Mills really beleive in the hydrino or is it a ploy to make his development easier. Maybe Rossi should also claim that his tech is based on the hydrino, then he can get his stuff patented and everybody can understand it in detail. I am sympathetic about the hydrino for that reason…propaganda.

    1. Mills has had tremendous challenges with the patent office! The USPO even withdrew a patent that was granted to Blacklight in 2000 ; a very unusual occurrence. The patent had to do with energy generation via hydrino formation. People like skeptopath Robert Park had undue and unseemly influence there. Hopefully Park will still be alive to see a SunCell in operation.

  7. In my time at looking at nuclear reactor design, one key competitive advantage is power density. The more power that a reactor can produce with the smallest input of structural material makes the highest power dense reactor the winner.

    The pebble bed reactor never appealed to the electric utilities because it was a low power dense contraption. Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,

    Mills will beat the pants off of Rossi with his 20 watt Quark nonsense. Who wants to buy a megawatt reactor the size of a shipping container when a reactor the size of a breadbox will serve.

    Mills has the edge in this race.

    1. If both Mills and Rossi are correct in their work and claims, Mills would win overall due to the method of energy capture. 35% PV concentrators over very high temperature surfaces avoid need for turbogenerators (which are not very efficient even at 1 MW levels). In addition, the direct heat waste can do what LENR can do in more compact space, while also supplying the electricity. However, for small systems (e.g., <30 kW), and where the lower quality heat are well used, the e-cat quarkX may well be the cheaper choice.

      Mills work is not yet final. The dome evaporation problem may limit max temperatures, and a method like used in Halogen lamps may be needed to avoid coating the PV.

    2. “Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant
      construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,”

      And yet when the ITERs of the world put up super complex and super costly power producing units(to be realized some time in the future: at least 5 years to show continuous plasma using large inputs of power, not self sustaining as yet… ?) who is being convinced of the minimal plant construction? Is it really political lobbying, cronyism, promises to be kept despite the too long time and inertia of the size of the project? Something does not add up like a proper government oversight would seem to allow for.

      1. A change in attitude

        I am now an ardent admirer of Mills who has solve most of the issues inherent in high power density LENR reactor design. I love high power density in a reactor.

        Mills can get top of the line power density out of just hydrogen fuel without melting down the reactor, something that Rossi has been trying to do for years now.

        The liquid electron idea is great and its implementation is even better. An miracle upon miracles is the self driven plasma reaction that can last for minutes without input stimulation. No one would have ever imagined that this astounding feat was even possible.

        And most satisfy trait of all, Mills is completely open and will explain how is tech works.

        Rossi on the other hand has sacrificed power density for 5 sigma. He has cut his power density by a factor of 1000 to keep his reactor from early destruction. Low reactor power density paves the road to system failure.

        Mills can improve power density even more by adding CAT/MOUSE based multi electrode operation. Mills can add magnetic protection to his structure to produce a hot fusion/LENR hybrid design with huge power density…a 100 megawatt reactor in a breadbox.

        1. A lot of people are now criticizing Rossi for down-scaling power density for safety, reliability, packaging, and other engineering constraints. Why is that a problem? The ONLY “people” that currently require megawatts of power are corporations, and they demand it for dirt cheap, but will not redistribute it for dirt cheap. The SunCell as it’s currently conceived does absolutely nothing to remove the choke-hold private interests have on the commons as far as energy supplies (and finance, and defense, and soon air and water) go, and Mills has made clear he has no particular interest in accessing the domestic market for a long time.
          I’ve been very impressed with Mill’s work for at least 5 years now, both theoretical and experimental (and I seem to recall something cutting edge from way back in terms of light, nearly 20 years ago-’98 or so?) and applaud him all the way, especially if he’s played some of the big-money evildoers and not given away the store- but I don’t see any small SunCells at the $1000 price point within 20 years, while Rossi is talking next year for light commercial (and domestic whenever it happens due to certification difficulties).

  8. What’s the hold up? People like me have watched BLP, now BrLP, for over 15 years, and understand the delays. Perhaps you could either 1) inform yourself or 2) pretend the technology doesn’t exist and put up another windmill.

    1. From the beginning, Mills has tried to extract energy from chemical means. Now that he is going nuclear, he is making good progress. The moral, get the system to work and don’t be tied to theory.

      1. If by ‘chemical means’ you mean energy from electron orbital energy differentials, then yes Mills is extracting energy by chemical means. Nuclear? No. Mills is clear that it is not nuclear, and the evidence is clear that it is not nuclear. So why are you saying it is nuclear?

        Mills shared recently has gone as far as using deuterium instead of normal hydrogen to see if it it made any difference in the reaction. There was no appreciable difference.

        Mills is very tied to theory, and he has repeatedly affirmed that his progress this far has been due very much to advances in theoretical understanding.

        1. Rathke’s comment on the SunCell

          Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”

          When a conceptual model is built, it is only as good as the predictions that it makes. Applying Mills theory to just one system is a limited way to test the applicability of that theory to explaining what is going on in nature.

          When evaluating a theory, the wider the differences are between systems that the theory purports to explain, the better the chance that the theory approaches truth.

          A theory is like a ten thousand piece puzzle. Each system that the theory is intended to describe is a puzzle piece. If the theory can fit together all 10,000 systems into a connected anf coherent whole, then the theory is a valuable one.

          But the selection and characterization of systems to analyze, the systems that reflects the theory as a valid system representation, is where the analysis of a theory fails.

          Here is a system that produces overunity power like the SunCell. It operates at t about the same temperature using an arc discharge. And operates in a water environment.

          Can the hydrino theory explain how this system works? If not, why not?

          By the way, it produces transmutation products. The system must be changing the atoms what enter the reaction which is generating energy.

  9. About a week ago, Dr. Jonathan Phillips posted the following (in part) at the Society of Classical Physics Yahoo group:

    As an expert on plasmas I can testify that prior to BLP presentation there was never a ‘self-sustaining plasma’ anywhere on earth. Even the plasma created by the ‘bomb’ locally only lasts a few shakes. To maintain a plasma it is necessary to create charged species (generally starts with a spark) that can absorb energy from an applied field of some kind. The ‘steady state’ charge concentration then gets very, very hot by adsorbing field energy. (The ‘steady state’ concentration is actually quite low as charges have a short ‘half-life’ as they are removed as soon as they reach a wall via diffusion. At steady state each charge, on average, ‘replaces’ itself via an ionization interaction with a neutral before it reaches the wall.) In turn, that energy is transferred to neutral species. (Notably, the neutral species never become as hot as the charged species, so there is a 2nd Law of Thermo basis for the energy transfer.) In the absence of a field (spark) the electrons/protons (‘ambipolars’) are quickly lost to the walls. There is no longer a means to absorb energy from the field, and the plasma dies. No energy in, no plasma. There is no neutral-neutral interaction, in pre CQM theory, that generates any energy. In all prior earth generated plasmas the ‘turn off’ process takes less than a second. A charged species at 100K degrees doesn’t take long to diffuse to the wall….In the BLP demo there is no field once the ignition is turned off. There is no energy input to the plasma of any kind! The plasma in a pre-CQM world should die immediately. Yet, there is clearly a plasma in the demo that does not cool significantly for at least one minute!

    1. Morning artefact, hope you don’t mind me putting to you a reply I received below which taken literally would make putting up such a link as yours pointless.
      Perhaps you could answer it better than I am able, which was to simply ask for clear independent, conformation.
      Michael W Wolf
      There is no one independent. There will always be detractors saying
      it is not independent. The whole world is polarized if you have not

      1. George, you missed my point. I didn’t mean literally no one. I more meant there is no way you can prove something when you have detractors always and I mean always claim bias in one form or another. Nothing you can do, will be without detractors, who are believed by many, polarizing any subject conceived by anyone. We have come down to who you believe, who YOU trust as independent. If you come here looking for proof, you won’t find it. Because nothing is provable to many people. For gosh sakes, you know how many people believe the earth is flat?! What independent proof could you ever give them when you think it is already validated? They say it hasn’t been independently validated, just like you on this subject.

  10. Michael, of course you are correct in general, but I think taking your view as literal then we are going to be taken in by somebody who stands up and says the Sun does not shine.
    Being aware of your above point simply means being sure that something given as Fact such as Rossie’s claims or BLP’s statement above, must be handled competently such as in the way I suggest above.
    Can you give a better method acceptable to all sane people or by definition nothing can be accepted.
    I think I have made it plain above to counter exactly what you are saying, but this page will continue ad-infinitum consisting of nothing but speculation, hearsay etc.
    In the end you seem to be saying, no George let’s not satisfactorily prove anything, just go on either believing or disbelieving as our characters lead us.

    1. Yea, sometimes it seem a bit hokey at that industry day, but they are working with their own money. No time for refined sales pitches meant to manipulate people into giving them money.

  11. Years ago, these pages where full of optimistic comments on the good that would come from Cold Fusion, how it could be a tool for progress, after many false promises of conformation it has become the norm for nothing but speculation as to if any of it is genuine, with views based on incomplete information that makes the whole situation nothing but sad and comical.
    Ridiculous court cases etc.
    Now we have BLP giving a statement of clear Fact —-
    “Brilliant Light Power, Inc has created the first sustaining plasma in the history of science.”
    Nothing matters regarding Rossi, BLP etc. etc. except independent verification of their claims at any level above COP 1.
    Then instead of all this depressing repetition of analyses and speculation that takes us nowhere, we could as it should be rejoice in the discussions of progress.
    I cannot take the views of many people, excusing these delays as some kind of normality, I take the simple sane view of sod all the excuses, the World needs this technology, if it is genuine.
    Their should only be one Topic Page, demanding that these people show the Evidence of their claims.
    Just one conformation and the World will explode with Research and investigation despite any attempts by vested interests to slow or stop it. (I think)

    1. You certainly know that there are plenty of validations.
      But you are complaining that those are not independent.
      Think who could be that totally independent person or instance that is willing to spend time and money to investigate something that gives no benefit to him/them. Only BrLP would benefit from that work.

      1. tlp, When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
        That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.
        Our governments spend billions on far less important expenditure.
        One makes one’s choice as to what is more important, sending toys to Mars etc. or improving the lives of every person on this planet.
        Those same governments can easily reward those doing the work.

        1. Try to tell your covernment that they should spend on this. Guess what kind of an answer you would get? Probably no answer. Why? Because all their scientific advisors are dismissing this.
          This situation is hopefully changing next year, as this is becoming more and more clear to bigger audience.
          Patent rejections and Wikipedia controlling skeptics have delayed that acceptance and thus slowed down this development.

          1. tlp, I am stating clear Facts not saying that I alone can change things.
            That in a democracy is the responsibility of all people.
            I give my Factual view and people either agree or disagree based on their motivation.
            Regarding your above reply and the continuous repetition that there are validations, there are no open validations of Cold Fusion of any kind that an organisation such as MFMP can follow to confirm such a report. (so far)
            Why do people keep repeating false information.

          2. Not cold fusion, hydrino reactions have been validated, and those latest are presented in Dr. Janssons video talk. Except one, that was not allowed to be presented and published, because of some covernment institution.

          3. tlp, we are talking about an open, repeatable conformation of any over-unity energy source and you have branched off to a completely irrelevant point.
            Show those Hydrino’s producing a open repeatable over-unity power source and then your reply would make sense.

          4. tlp, please put up a link to an open repeatable report that can be followed by anybody skilled in the art to demonstrate an over-unity device.

          5. tlp, I do not need to read the report you have given based on the Fact that if it contained all the information necessary for an open repeatable demonstration for over-unity then these pages would be screaming that Fact to the World.
            Those on page far cleverer than me would be shouting out loud that over-unity is confirmed.
            So either all these clever people have not read your link or they find such an open repeatable conformation to boring to bother saying anything.

          6. First you ask a link, and then don’t bother to read those papers. At least you should watch dr. Janssons videotalk from
            and also those other videos.

          7. tlp, thanks for chat, your logical reply to my last reply would have been useful but you avoided it completely.

          8. Where is the money to make all these units George? Mills can’t get his theory accepted even with validation. He needs to make a working prototype to get more money to sell test units. Which in turn will generate the money needed to produce commercial units. I know you hate capitalism, but without it there would be no money to discover anything new. Why can’t you get it into your head? Capitalism is LENR’s only hope. Period. If the last 27 years haven’t proven that to you, nothing will.

          9. Michael, read my comments, I have answered your question but the answer does not suit you so you rant off with complete rubbish as if it where Fact.
            “Capitalism is LENR’s only hope.”
            That is an opinion that you are quite entitled to but in no way a Fact, you are simply unable to see any further than a corrupt and inefficient system that you blindly take cannot be improved.
            Good bye

          10. If not the existing capitalistic system, then in what way, that is currently available, could Mills, Rossi or anyone else bring LENR-like tech to fruition? Would you not agree that there must be a viable way to do this? Just throwing their data into somebodies lap would seem fool hardy. Data given that way could easily find its way into the hands of those that have less than clean hands, hands that are even greedier than those that are producing the data. Complaining about the current way of doing things is fine if a better methodology is proposed. Without such a proposition, complaining is meaningless. Please propose a better system or methodology or whatever it is you have in mind that you think will work better.

          11. We would be wise not to throw around the words capitalism and socialism without thinking through the actual complexity entailed in their use. It leads to meaningless posturing.

          12. So what is MFMP?
            You keep repeating over and over your views and opinions as Factual (your usage)- whether or not I agree and share those opinions (it so happens I do), they are not fact, but opinion.
            NONE of these technological revolutions

            will make the slightest impact on the suffering of the world if they are rigidly controlled (as is clear many players in the field are jockeying for position to effect) by the same oligarchy that really controls the world’s banking and energy-“production” sectors.

  12. Michael, I call nobody Evil, I have in no way implied anything is “bull crap” except the continued delays costing the World dearly.
    Don’ try and blame me for anything that happened to Mills etc. I am completely open-minded on every subject and fully encourage any out of box thinking.
    Your whole reply is just an ad hominem personal attack on somebody giving a Factual assessment of the situation that you and others disagree with for your own reasons.
    In future please stick to the Facts of my comments and I would be very happy to defend any of the points I make.

    1. George, you wrote, “When the whole World is suffering and in need of this discovery you put
      forward ridiculous capitalistic reasons to justify it’s delays.
      That is your right but please do not include me in such selfish, greedy, ridiculous thinking.” George, what you are implying is evil. And that is a fact.

      1. Michael, you are suggesting that it is a Fact that capitalistic concerns are not delaying Cold Fusion etc.
        That is a completely naive suggestion.
        I do not wish to talk with you any further as some body that again interprets a solid Fact as Evil to cover-up their own inabilities to discuss Truth.

  13. The hold up is money. Mills has done well with the money he had to work with. The engineering is so complex, the establishment hasn’t even attempted it. Anyone who has, had their careers ruined. What Mills has accomplished is a miracle and you don’t even realize it. Because you want one for yourself, you’ll attack a man you should be praising.


    The is nothing new under the Sun

    The SunCell is very close to the Safire system. In Safire, DC current is passed through a ball of hydogen and after a time, bursts of power up to 10 megawatts spring forth on the surface of the hydrogen ball. The interesting thing about Safire is that helium 3 is produced from hydrogen when these bursts occur.

    I predict that the SunCell will produce electrons from sub atomic disintegration of nuclear matter such has been seen in another like system, the plasmaton.

    The hydrino cannard is politically beneficial but it is not truth; it is not how the SunCell works.

    1. Well, Axil Axil, it seems to me your present position adheres too arrogantly to “old school” to be able to maintain an “open mind” about the frontiers of science, especially Mills hydrino canard. Not to be insulting because I admire your non-observational science knowledge depth.

      Mills position may be describing phenomena in words ill fit with past science “tyranny of words” and thus he likely deserves considerable Approbation he gets. However, such is totally typical of observational science breakthroughs, and thus the necessary distrust of old school science models on the frontiers of science research.

      Consequently, what experimental observation(not BS old science models) do you have for making such authoritarian pronouncements? Defend yourself, my friend, as an experimental observational scientist!

      1. Quantum mechanics and the superatom

        In LENR, yes, what Mills is now doing is LENR, there is a special case that applies. This case is beyond the standard definition of the atom, a standard case in which QM always applies. In LENR a superatom forms where a cluster of atoms joins together in a coherent aggregation. A Bose condinsate produces a superconductor based atomic formate where electrons orbit the positive superatom core at very low levels. The way that light interacts with this configuration is unlike what happens with standard atomic structure. The electrons orbit close in to the positive core of the cluster and this leads to very high frequency light generation when photon transition energy occurs.

        Mills mistakes the Superatom state with the standard state of the atom. He rejects QM because he sees how QM cannot predict what the photons will do in their interaction with the superatom. Simply put, Mills is mixing concepts and applying data he is seeing in one context to the standard concept that science most often works under.

        1. Sounds like “Tyranny of words” confusion between the two sides that reminds one of “Lighter than air” for airplane discovery or “Cold Fusion” for LENR or “Earth Centered” for non-Copernican model, or “Evolution” for Darwin, “Artificial Intelligence” for alternate computing, or “Accelerating Expansion” before big bounce universe model, or “Hydrino” for superatom, or “Red shift” for distance alone or “quantum” for ‘we don’t really know’ or etc.

          1. I spend time looking at as many systems as I can to put the puzzle pieces together. I have referenced Safire already. One sure clue to LENR, is transmutation. If the SunCell produces transmutation then it is a LENR based system. For a fuller perspective on my thinking

            See Post Axil 001


    2. It is exactly how the SunCell works, multiple tests prove it’s the hydrino. It’s not LENR, it’s not nuclear, it’s simply hydrino. Spectra exactly match the transitions and energy to hydrino, not some mythical LENR process.

      1. Regarding tests for LENR in the SunCell as follows:


        “Cold fusion is not theoretically possible. It is easy to disprove nuclear reactions in the SunCell in that switching from hydrogen to deuterium does not change the power in the same manner as with the combustion of hydrogen isotopes.”

        There are LENR systems that use protium and systems that use pure deuterium, but there is no LENR systems that use a 50/50 mix of protium and deuterium.

        The LENR test that Mills should have performed is a 50/50 mix of hydrogen isotopes, I understand why this is the case. When Mills SunCell does not function on the 50/50 hydrogen isotopic mix, I will explain.

  15. That “very very low power” comment was about one of those validation runs that last 30 minutes, using the old design with tungsten electrodes and non refractory materials, April or May this spring.

    1. Sorry, but I think I’m right. Go back and listen to video #4 (not 5 like I said above) from 21:00. You’ll hear that the validation test runs a few months ago lasted no more than a few seconds before vaporizing the electrodes. The current system with the liquid electrodes runs for hours, but with only occasional bursts of high energy, ergo at a very low power level.

  16. Great thanks to Mills for is GUT-CP theory and its SunCell. But we all know another ‘Sustaining Plasma’: the wood fire! Like the SunCell, it needs a light import of matter to continue the existence of plasma. But the wood fire is not in the history, linked to writing. It existed before.

  17. You’re both full of shit protesting the faults of ideal economic systems, when neither has control of the fascist oligarchy we’ve live in (it just wears the pleasantly bland mask of consumerist complacency) for the past 70 years. It doesn’t matter whether the government is USA or USSR or UAE, it’s owned.

  18. Only for projective intelligence, something the US electorate (and nearly the entire world, as far as I can tell) commonly lacks. Any who DO have it are shouted down and marginalized, especially if they use rational methods of projection with reasonably hard data.

  19. It’s a moment in history. LENR types are jealous and try to redefine Mills’ work but they should just accept both theory and experiment show the superiority of the hydrino hypothesis.

  20. Just look at the video on this sustained plasma story:

    There are sections of two minutes ignition off, then two minutes ignition on, then 2 min off again, all the time in plasma mode, over 5000K. It is not any occasional bursts anymore, but it had to be during those validation runs this spring, specially during that 30 minutes run that they asked about and Mills answered to that question.

    1. It is very encouraging. But the video you link is far from definitive. The description is largely legalese, and it equivocates a bit. (For something supposedly this earth-shaking one would think RM would have taken care to put it better.) There are no calibrations or specifications. You’re interpreting the colors and intensities you see a certain way, but they might amount to something big or not much at all. For example there’s a big intense flash after ignition, but there were brief flashes before ignition. What were they? We don’t know. How intense is “really bright” in the video? We don’t know.
      I stand by my take on what was said in video 4, but of course eagerly await the triumphant denouement, which would be the CPVC-clad Suncell cranking out 100KWe

  21. Thanks, that makes sense. Something to look forward to in a few months. Mills did mention some additional validation work as well. We will see what for that will take.

    This Yahoo Group has such a terrible UI it is hard to follow if you are not used to it. Even Vortex is better. Seems like they would graduate to a more advanced forum technology now.

Leave a Reply

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