Hello Jed The theory of R.Mills corrects a crucial flaw in the current atomic model. In R.Mills theory the electron is not described as a pointsource but as an extended current which flows in such a way that stable solutions of the Maxwell equations arise which correspond to the normal quantum levels. In case a catalysts is used the normal groundlevel of the neutral hydrogen atom can be destabilized and the electron can reach fractional quantum levels, thereby forming a hydrino and releasing excess energy.
As a consequence of this new atomic theory of R.Mills all the strange effects in the current quantum theory (like spooky action at a distance, multiversums etc) disappear. Everything becomes calculable. This is ofcourse very intriguing. What is more intriguing is that normally when a theory predicts all kinds of impossible effects (like the current quantum theory) one would go back to the drawing board and look what is wrong. Not in the case of current quantum theory. This is a very strange psychological mechanism. Almost nobody can imagine that QM is indeed wrong, because it is more than 100 years old so it must be right. R.Mills has done many experiments in which he tried to increase the yield of the hydrino reaction to commercial levels. It has cost him many years to reach that goal . >From the outside it looks inexplicable what he was doing but it becomes >logical when you know more about the situation. It is like running a Manhattan project with a few people. To sort out all pathways within this new hydrogen technology is a enormeous task. The systems R.Mills developed until 2013 had an excess power density of only 0.5 W/cm3 plasma. In these old systems the plasmavolume was only a few cm3 and less than 0.1% of the hydrogen atoms which were present in the reactor were transformed into hydrinos during interaction with catalysts. I was present when these experiments were done at a technical university in the Netherlands. These plasma experiments showed light and heat emission but not comparable to the system that was developed last year. In the last year Blacklightpower succeeded to increase the power density enormously (by E8) by running a very high currentpulse through a water based solid fuel (10,000Amps for 0.1msec at a voltage of 5). The current prevents the charge buildup which normally occurs when a catalyst interacts with atomic hydrogen. Because the yield of the catalytic reaction is so much higher it will be much easier to commercialize this powersource. The power emission is for more than 90% in the visual and EUV part of the spectrum. Only 10% of the power is released as kinetic energy. Peter van Noorden From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 4:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: Why is it that a company like BLP, with a published theory . . . a permanent headquarters and a published schedule and timeline - gets kicked around like frauds Anyone can have a theory. A theory plus $23.25 will get you 36 Hershey Bars at Amazon.com. BLP does have a timeline. They have set many deadlines since 1992. But they have missed every deadline as far as I know. They keep changing their methodology. They have cried wolf many times. They have spent tens of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it. So their track record is not good. However, I do not know anyone who accuses them of fraud. BLP should follow through on one methodology that produces continuous heat. They should do a demonstration that easily convinces people. Perhaps they could have done this with their original 1992 technique. Perhaps it could not be made into a practical source of energy for some reason, but they should have made a good demonstration out of it. The present demonstration is not convincing to me because the reaction is so brief and because bomb calorimetry is tricky. And yet .... A company like DGT, with no published theory, zero validations, no endorsements - in fact 2 endorsements against it, no professors working on it, 1 fraudulent demonstration with intentional fraudulent measurements, no prototypes (wait ... 1 mythical hyperion prototype), no permanent office address and no schedule and timeline whatsoever - gets praised and its imaginary technology gets mentioned in this forum as it it was real. I and many others have pointed out these problems with DGT many times. So, most people here are not giving them a free pass. I still stop short of saying the demonstration was definitely fraudulent or intentionally fraudulent, but on the other hand I uploaded the paper by Gamberale saying that. I do not know whether they are fraudulent because I'm not a police detective and I do not have the power of subpoena. They seem suspicious. I would not do business with them. - Jed
