Chemistry, energy, Fusion, LENR, Nuclear Cold Transmutation, physics, technology

Russian Federation to publicly recognise LENR (Cold Nuclear Transmutation) an official science… ‘Toska’ :'(

“I had a Russian translator.”
“What happened?”
“Well… I took her out on a few dates, kind of crossed the ‘professionalism’ line so to speak… she won’t be translating for me again! As well as not seeing me at all. Don’t think she actually translated anything for me.” 😀
“What about the one before that?”
“Oh that was a Russian guy!… yeah had a few drinks and got into a punch up over something… … either way I seem to get physical with my Russian translators! I may as well just learn the bloody language myself.”

Sochi recently hosted the 25th Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning Conference.
Synthestech Participates in the 24th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation in Sochi
1_kHi5OL5Rs3MMVr1IWYMYNQ.jpg

The always delightful and amusing Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project was lucky enough to attend, and has provided numerous video summaries and uploaded some of the presentations from the event (Russian to English translation required).

In summary, what this shows me is the fact that Russian scientists take this topic extremely seriously compared to the rest of the world. Historically, Soviet scientists where at the forefront of such research, and I believe there is much historical research, experiments and data yet to be either released, discovered or translated in English (like many other things from The Cold War!).

The rumour circulating the LENR (Cold Nuclear Transmutation) community in Russia is the Russian Federation are going to officially recognise it publicly as an official science (interesting).

My initial thoughts are:-

– Go team Russia! (I’ll post an article from Synthestech entitled ‘Achievements of Russian scientists that can change the world: from the cradle of LENR to modernity.’, detailing the beginnings and history of LENR research in Soviet Russia, it’s successes and it’s current research today)

– The experimental evidence is in plain sight for the entire world to see that this phenomena is real! I believe (as many in Mills’ camp, such as Brett Holverstott) that what  is being witnessed, observed and experimentally verified by such researchers and scientists (excess heat, unknown chemical compounds etc.) is actually ‘hydrino’ catalyst reactions taking place. They have the results, results from the past sixty years, but no-one except Mills I believe, has provided a sound theoretical model to explain such results (anomalous heat, excess heat)

I’M ALSO TERRIBLY EXCITED AT THE RESEARCH INTO BALL LIGHTNING! 😀

(and I’m also rather jealous at the Russkies for having scientists with balls, openly researching such phenomena, and a Government willing to support research… and they have the most amazing women! REAL WOMEN!… Toska!)

 

Sochi Program and coming recognition of CNT as an official science in Russia

The program for the 25th Sochi Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning conference looks to be stellar with some power speakers, and Alexander Parkhomov is rightly headlining with his 225 day test.
Also Anotoly Klimov is intimating a seismic shift in acceptance.

Russian scientists taking LENR seriously – accepting and researching strange radiation

THIS PRESENTATION IS EFFECTIVELY DESCRIBING ‘HYDRINO’ REACTIONS!
Leonid Urutskoev discounts Nuclear Cold Fusion, and Nuclear Fission reactions, but provides a well documented and experimentally observed case that states unequivocally  a CHEMICAL process is taking place!

Presentation slides

Further videos from Bob Greenyer detailing the historic event can be found on The Martin Feischmann Memorial Project YouTube Channel.
(If there’s any Russian translators out there in the UK! :D)

Achievements of Russian scientists that can change the world: from the cradle of LENR to modernity.

People who with their discoveries destroy foundations of the society, have long been perceived as “strange and other-minded”. They aroused fear, their proofs and works were thrown to pieces by theorists and “modern minds”. There have also been a few followers who repeated experiments with the same or even greater success, moving the science to new horizons.

If we turn to history, we will find more than one confirmation of the wild desire of a crowd to reject everything unknown. As the well known saying goes “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”. And in those moments when science was standing on the very threshold of discovery, there have always appeared people nearby, unable to accept the fact that nature and its riddles are much wider than the common human perception abilities. Thus, many scientific discoveries have been buried together with the experimenters, and the modern scientists have to scrape up all the knowledge acquired in the past and repeat experiments of great Russian scientists and researchers, spinning the wheel of progress to unprecedented speeds.

The first discoveries in the field of cold nuclear transmutation were made by Russian scientists in the last century. One of the innovators in nuclear physics was Mikhail Solin, in 1976 when these events were taking place in Ust-Kamenogorsk city, he was a young engineer-physicist.

Charged by authorities with a mission to smelt and purify a very large batch of zirconium, Mikhail Solin witnessed a strange behavior of furnace and the metal in it, which completely contradicted all the knowledge that he had gained and tested over the years. It also did not correspond to the known phenomena in physics and chemistry in general. The power consumption of the furnace was sharply reduced, and in the central part of the melt a red-hot cone was formed. After that the cone disappeared in the alloy, forming a well similar in shape. This phenomenon was cyclical in character and occurred several times. Due to the coincidence of special circumstances, Solin witnessed transmutation. According to the plan, the workshop manager ordered to set a record mark in metal smelting (as a result of this, the mass exceeded a certain critical level) and beat the previous volume record. Usually, when smelting zirconium, only small electric furnaces were used. An equipment of such size was used for the first time.

As one would expect, after a year of Solin’s theoretical work followed by another successful experiment, filmed on camera by an invited camera-man, people “from above” closed down the new laboratory, reminding the young engineer that it was a workshop, not a laboratory.

russ
Mikhail Solin, author of 9 pioneer inventions, patent owner

But, despite the reluctance of management to participate in the sensational discovery, Solin continued his work and came to the following conclusion:

  • The new quantum nucleonic reactor (as Solin called it) functions as a volumetric resonator-accumulator of electromagnetic energy, which results in high efficiency — up to 85% (efficiency of a nuclear power plant is 35%);
  • As a power equipment, the known electronic furnace is used, which is 1000 times cheaper than a conventional nuclear reactor;
  • As energy fuel, environmentally friendly material, in particular zirconium, is used instead of the radioactive uranium and plutonium;
  • The simplicity of the equipment design and implementation of technological processes, reliability and ease of the power plant operation, high efficiency lead to a significant reduction in the cost of the generated electrical energy.

russ1

Apart from this, Mikhail Solin made another discovery. During a nuclear transmutation there occurs not only a colossal energy release, but also some chemical elements transform (transmute) into others. As a result, the Solin’s work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Researches and he received a Grant №96–03–34216а.

We should also mention Anatoly Vachaev, professor of Department of Thermophysics and Energy Systems at Magnitogorsk Mining and Metallurgical Academy (Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University). In the course of experiments on electric discharge in water, Professor Vachaev managed to obtain a plasmoid resembling a small ball lightning. This plasmoid possessed amazing properties:

russ2
Vachaev’s reactor

1. It initiated self-sustaining synthesis reaction of elements in water.
2. The reaction was accompanied by electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of tens of megahertz and power of tens of kilowatts.
3. During synthesis, excess electrons were formed, which must be directed to the external load.

After stabilization of plasma with the help of launching, the installation (Vachaev called it “Energoniva”) was disconnected from the power unit and it could keep working for days.

 

russ6
“Energoniva” by Anatoly Vachaev

After the official presentation of Energoniva, all the newspapers were released with breaking headlines like “Russian scientists have learned to extract electricity and chemical elements from dirty water!”

One could expect that the Russian scientist would receive universal glory and recognition, but everything turned out in a different way. Vachaev was bothered by envious rivals and those protesting against his discovery, thereby leading the scientist to a heart attack.

The powder obtained during the experiment is stored among exhibits of the Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University. Young scientists have tried to recreate the Vachaev installation using his blueprints, but because of the lack of financing, the latest developments of enthusiasts lie buried in dust since the middle of 2016 somewhere in the outskirts of Stary Oskol city.

Much earlier than Vachaev, back in the 1950s, a Soviet designer of low-temperature nuclear installations Ivan Filimonenko discovered an effect of heat generation in an electrode with palladium additives during electrolysis of heavy water.

Among the outstanding achievements of Filimonenko, one can mention the creation of power plants “Topaz-1” and “Topaz-2”, which were used on satellites “Kosmos-1818” and “Kosmos-1819”. Later he developed and created an environmentally-friendly thermoemission hydrolysis power plant, which has no analogues in the whole world.

The operating time of such an installation is 5–10 years without refueling (with heavy water). In the 1960–68’s first encouraging results suitable for industrial applications were obtained. The output parameters of the electric power plant were 200 W, hydrogen and oxygen were obtained, as well as such components as helium 3, 4, tritium, oxygen 16, 17, 18, which indisputably testified the fact of obtaining thermonuclear synthesis at a temperature T = 1150 ° C.

However, instead of rewards for such an important discovery, Filimonenko was dismissed from the power plant “Krasnaya Zvezda” for political reasons, and did not finish the work he had begun.

Currently, there are many scientists engaged in nuclear transmutation and it has not sunk into oblivion, so that our descendants in the distant future will not have to attempt to decipher and recreate the blueprints. Thus, they will be able to use the already accumulated knowledge and experience, apply them in practice and increase efficiency.

 

russ4
Yuri Bazhytov, PhD, organizer of the Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation

Yuri Bazhutov, well known in the LENR sphere for his work, a yearly speaker and organizer of the the 24th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning (RCCNT&BL-24), developed his own reactor called “Fakel”. The power output at “Fakel-2” is 700 %.

Alexander Parkhomov, a regular participant of conferences on RCCNT&BL, presented his paper on “Cold nuclear fusion and a ball lightning” on December 25, 2014 at a seminar at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Alexander Parkhomov managed to replicate the demonstration experiment of Andre Rossi! And to recreate the work of the E-CAT installation, the great Russian scientist used, mostly, some improvised means found in his summer house. Of course, such improvised materials are not enough to build and launch a large-scale, energy-intensive and heat-consuming installation. But the fact remains. All their experiments, both Bazhutov and Parkhomov, recorded on a video tape.

russ5
Alexander Parkhomov, professor, theoretician and experimenter in Cold Nuclear Transmutation

This represents Russian top-notch scientists as genial and surprisingly undemanding. Fortunately, the scientists do not stand still, even without any financial support from state institutions. The list of names of Russian bright minds and their achievements can go on and on — Zatelepin, Klimov, Urutskoev and many others.

But only a few could not only repeat experiments of their predecessors, but also achieve new results in the field of cold nuclear transmutation. As mentioned above, despite the fact that the method of energy generating was slightly different, absolutely all the researchers, apart from efficiency over 1000%, noticed transmutation of one chemicals into others. Moreover, in powder were found not only particles of gold and platinum, but almost the whole Mendeleev’s Periodic Table with different amounts of obtained substances.

Saveliy Kashnitsky, a news writer for “Arguments and Facts”, wrote in December 2009: “So who prevents us from adding to each atom of iron the necessary number of protons and neutrons to turn it into gold? Cold nuclear fusion (transmutation) allows to receive any amount of not only tungsten, platinum or, let’s say, rhenium, which is 10 times more expensive than gold. You can synthesize any elements of the periodic table, including those not discovered yet.”

Maria Curie was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1903 for discovery of Polonium and Radium through cold nuclear transmutation, which did not exist in the periodic table before.
Nowadays, from other scientific groups we can single out the “Synthestech” team, who were not only able to repeat and comprehend all the previous scientific achievements of LENR, but also went further. They have developed their own “know-how”, thanks to which in the nearest future medicine, environmental cleaning, pharmacology and production industry will make a huge step forward. They will accomplish what the whole world community could only dream of 5–10 years ago.

Official Website — https://synthestech.com

Chemistry, cosmology, Dark Matter, Futurism, GUT-CP, hydrino, New elements, particle physics, physics, Randell Mills, technology

1st International Conference On The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics?… Anyone? VIENNA! :D

“Well I’m thinking of TedTalk… meh? Brett Holverstott may be interested.

But I’m thinking The Society For Classical Physics was up and running for fifteen years, Mills has slowly built support and confirmation since the inception, there’s physicists and theoreticians from London to Russia to India to Japan to South Korea to New Zealand to Italy… that are at least open to The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics… some people are hailing it as the greatest scientific work since Newton Principia… they want Standard Model and Quantum in the dustbin of history… organise an international conference!
I’m thinking Vienna! Just to take the piss! 😀 On a number of levels.
(that and the U.S may not let me in)

vienna2

ICGUTP 2018 : 20th International Conference on Grand Unified Theory of Physics
San Francisco, USA
June 6 – 7, 2018

Chemistry, Climate Change, Environment, Futurism, GUT-CP, hydrides, hydrino, HydrinoDollars, HydrinoEconomy, Millsian, Molecular modelling, New elements, physics, Randell Mills, SunCell, technology

Hydrino energy & GUT-CP… WHERE’S SILICONE VALLEY ON THIS? (Dr. Mills presentation at Fresno State, 2017)

“You have to understand something about the United Kingdom at this moment in history… it is not the place for great scientific innovation and big ideas! Long gone are the days of Newton. In fact some of us are comparing it to the beginnings of Nazi Germany (this whole mass surveillance, gang stalking thing is unprecedented in history, and no-ones really saying anything about it)… and with Brexit and the possible effects on the countries scientific activities… most of the UK’s best scientists and theoreticians may be best getting out now.”
What would a Brexit mean for the scientific community?

“Anyway… we where talking about California and Silicone Valley! Silicone Valley has for the past thirty years been the centre for this kind of innovative thinking and world changing ideas… Randell Mills is the greatest scientific mind of our age, he has created a future multi-trillion dollar industry, an unlimited number of future industries… it will effect EVERYTHING from energy, to medicine, to computers, to chemical compounds, to transport and aviation… the space industry! WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS ONE CALIFORNIA?
… I’m coming to Silicone Valley in 2019! … and Virginia!”
(I may have to speak to some people at the US Embassy, because last time I tried boarding a flight to California…  there where some slight problems)

silicone valley

Dr. Mills presentation at Fresno State on February 27, 2017.

Brilliant Light Power presented its Roadshow series event at ABM Industries Irvine, California location on February 28th, 2017. In addition, the Company addressed the updated commercial strategy that was expanded to subsidiaries, the latest timeline, and terms for the availability of access to its latest commercial designs and developments.

Chemistry, DNA, Genetics, GUT-CP, Millsian, Molecular modelling, Randell Mills

Open science effort to evaluate the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) of Dr. Randell Mills(Epimetheus, LENR forum, 2016)

“The first question I had when I decided to evaluate Mills theory with respect to the structure of molecules was: “Where the fuck should I start?”

“DMT molecule! I wish  to create the most powerful and long lasting DMT experience possible… never come back!… like Willy Wonkers ever lasting Gobstopper… but DMT!”

Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) psychedelic drug molecule. Present in t

The following document was posted to LENR forum by user Epemethius, 2016

Open science effort to evaluate the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) of Dr. Randell Mills

Last Update: 28/10/2016 19:12:00

I Contents
I CONTENTS II
II LIST OF FIGURES IV
III TABLES V
IV SYMBOLS VI
V ABBREVIATIONS VII
1 MOTIVATION 1
1.1 WHY TO PUT EFFORT INTO EVALUATING GUTCP AND NOT ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF INTERESTING THEORIES OUT THERE? 3
1.2 GOALS 6
2 SOFTWARE 6
2.1 SOFTWARE TO VIEW THE SCRIPT FILES 7
2.2 SOFTWARE TO USE AND EDIT THE SCRIPT FILES 7
2.3 CREATING A NEW SCRIPT FILE 8
3 EVALUATION RESULTS 9
3.1 EPI´S CONTRIBUTION 9
3.1.1 HYDROXYL MOLECULE 9
3.1.2 WATER MOLECULE 10
3.1.3 IONIZATION ENERGIES OF ONE AND FOUR ELECTRON ATOMS AND IONS 11
3.1.4 IONIZATION ENERGIES OF ALL ATOMS AND IONS UP TO 20 ELECTRONS (WORK IN PROGRESS) 12
3.1.5 EPI´S OVERALL RESULT 12
3.1.6 SOME THOUGHTS ON SOLVING NONLINEAR EQUATIONS IN GUTCP CONTEXT 13
3.2 YOUR CONTRIBUTION 14
3.2.1 PERHAPS THE METHANE MOLECULE (P.524 FF.)… 14
3.2.2 …OR THE GENERIC EQUATIONS FOR ALL ORGANIC MOLECULES (P. 679 FF.)… 14
3.2.3 …OR THE MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION OF THE SOLUTION OF THE 2D WAVE EQUATION UNDER THE CONSTRAINT OF THE NONRADIATION CONDITION (HARDCORE STYLE FOR PHYSICISTS) 14
3.2.4 … 14
4 LITERATURE AND LINKS I

II List of figures
FIGURE 1: BOND ENERGIES OF 415 MOLECULES: GUTCP VS. QM 1
FIGURE 2: OCTAVE GUI OVERVIEW 8

III Tables
ES KONNTEN KEINE EINTRÄGE FÜR EIN ABBILDUNGSVERZEICHNIS GEFUNDEN WERDEN.

IV Symbols
Z Number of protons in the nucleus

V Abbreviations
GUTCP Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics
BLP Brilliant Light Power (Mills company)
NIST National Institute for Standarnds and Technology
QM Quantum Mechanics

1 Motivation

I am interested in new energy technologies and search the web for these kinds of news on a quite regular basis. The article I read about a year ago was quite interesting and so I checked the website of a company called brilliantlightpower (BLP). That is how I stumbled over BLP and its founder Dr. Randell Mills. The material on the website was pretty impressive. Especially Dr. Mills book, the grand unified theory of classical physics (GUTCP), looked pretty awesome: 1900 pages of equations and topics ranging from atomic physics over molecular physics to superconductivity and the origin of gravity. The only problem was that I did not understand a single word and could not get what it was all about. Additionally the internet is full of fancy theories and most of them are complete nonsense. So I decided to check BLP from time to time and see if there are any new developments but didn´t take a closer look. In the course of 2016 BLP released new information on their demonstration days but all they could show was a colourful lightshow. Dr. Mills gave a lot of evidence for his theory in the presentations but I am not familiar with spectroscopy and so I did not get the point. More or less the only thing I understood was that graph:

millsian
Figure 1: Bond energies of 415 molecules: GUTCP vs. QM

I found this pretty impressive and thought that someone on this planet must have tried to debunk Mills theory as fraud just by showing that Mills faked this graph. If Mills really achieved the accuracy shown in this graph this would be an overwhelming indication for the correctness of his theory. So I searched the web but did not find a single evaluation of these claims. There were some forum threads with the content quality of “Mills is a crackpot, LoL”. So this was a dead end.

In the beginning of September 2016 I read that a former student assistant at BLP called Brett Holverstott released a book about Mills and his theory. I saw my chance to finally understand what Mills is all about and read it. It is an awesome book that not only covers the history of GUTCP and BLP but also gives insight into the philosophical and human aspects of science. The most important point of this book for me was the core idea of Mills theory. And it wasn´t even (purely) Mills own work. It was the work of a Professor called Herman Haus Mills met when he was at MIT. It is basically about the question if it is possible to accelerate a charge in a way that it does not radiate energy (if you don´t know what I am talking about read the Wikipedia articles on Bremsstrahlung and the nonradiation condition). Prof. Haus showed that this is possible and Mills took this nonradiation condition and applied it to electrons circling around the nucleus. From this starting point he derived step by step the structure of atoms, molecules, subatomic particles and more or less all known physics. And everything was derived just on the foundation of Newton, Maxwell, special relativity and conservation of energy and spacetime. What impressed me the most was that all these equations were so straight forward that one human being was capable of deriving them (in the timespan of 25 years).

But all the simplicity, beauty and “straight forwardness” of a theory is worthless, if it does not describe reality correctly. On the one hand we have 1900 pages of equations from a single guy who claims that he has surpassed the physics of the last 70 years and on the other hand we have…hmm. What do we have on the other hand? There are some people with a certain reputation on Wikipedia that say that GUTCP is fraud. But these are just pure statements and I did not find a single argument of them that stood longer in the room than one minute.

I was so fascinated by the underlying idea of Mills theory and the possible implications for all mankind that I decided to prove or disprove it on my own. I tried for a few days to understand the underlying math but I failed hard. Then I tried to find somebody skilled in the art to do the math for me but that also failed. Finally I had the idea to apply the salami tactic: if a problem is too big to solve it as a whole cut it in slices. The most promising starting point for me to cut this really huge salami into pieces was the GUTCP volume about the atoms and molecules. The equations did not look that evil and there is an undisputable experimental database as an independent “ground truth”. There are very complex molecules out there and if Mills theory has flaws it would never ever be possible to calculate the structure of these complex molecules correctly. So this little open science effort is all about using Mills equations to compute a growing number of molecules with a growing complexity until it is obvious if Mills theory is able to describe their structure correctly or not. It is about producing solid evidence/data and not just endless blah blah on internet forums.

I invite everyone who is curious, capable of using equations and a calculator and who has some spare time left to join me and contribute. Contribute a calculation script and write a few words about the results in this document so that the discussion about Mills shifts from pointless opinions to solid facts. Upload your results as a response to this forum thread.

1.1 Why to put effort into evaluating GUTCP and not one of the hundreds of interesting theories out there?

I cannot give my opinion on this question in a few short sentences so I am going to use many long ones:

In the early 20th century physicists had a hard time to figure out an atomic model where the positive charge of the nucleus is in the centre with the electron somewhere around it (that is what they found out through experiments). But the basic and really hard questions were: where and what is the electron? If it would stand still it would fall into the massive nucleus. If it would orbit the nucleus it would have been under constant acceleration and would therefor lose energy in form of radiation and then fall into the nucleus. The physicists of that time could not make proper sense out of it and so they took the pragmatic way: they took the observations of the experiments and postulated the properties that fit their models. First Bohr postulated that electrons can just fly around the nucleus on special orbits and electrons on these special orbits don´t radiate. Ten years later Schrödinger postulated that the electron obeys a special wave equation. Don´t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with postulating physical properties. There are many postulates in physics that we just have to take as given by the gods (Newton, Maxwell,…), but we have to judge them carefully by two and a half measures:

1) How well does my equation/postulate describe the experiments conducted so far? If it explains them all  proceed with 2.

2) How good is the predictive power of my model? What new aspects of our physical reality does my model predict and how do I have to perform new experiments to validate my model? If my models makes some fancy predictions and the validation experiments are positive  proceed with 2.5 (Microsoft Word says that 2.5 is 3).

3) Occam´s razor: if there are two models which perform equally well on points 1) and 2) then take the simplest model with the least variables and assumptions.

And with these two and a half measures things start to get interesting. Now in the backwards view quantum theory is a pretty successful theory. It could explain many phenomena and made some accurate predictions and so points (1) and (2) are well covered. But if a different theory could be found which performs equally well on points (1) and (2) quantum theory would have a really hard time. And that is because of occam´s razor. Many physicists worked tens of years to get rid of the most obvious flaws in QM: They struggled with the interpretation of their equations. They struggled to calculate the simplest parameters of atoms and molecules. They struggled to get rid of the infinitys in their equations. And even today it is a pain in the ass to calculate molecules with the Hartree-Fock algorithm. QM is complicated, it contradicts our physical perception of the world, it is incompatible with special relativity and so on (see GUTCP p. 5 ff. for a few more details). If occam´s razor had another alternative it would cut QM into pieces immediately.

But how could a new theory stand against 70 years of research and experiments? If you would evaluate a new theory in the order (1), (2), (3) there will be no new (and perhaps better) theories in the future of mankind, because a (typically) small group of people would have to go through all major experiments and derive every equation from their new idea. This small group would need to do a great fraction of the work thousands of physicists did over a span of 70 years. That is definitely not possible. That is why I am suggesting a different approach to evaluate a new theory. I call it “justified trust increase” . It is an iterative process and I hope this evaluation of Mills theory is going see many iterations.

1) Judge a new theory by occam´s razor. If it is simpler, uses less postulates and “feels” better take a closer look. (“Justification” step)

2) Take a small subset of the new theory and validate it against experiments.

3) Check if your first impression and the claims of the “inventors” hold while evaluating the small subset of the theory.

4) Proceed iteratively with steps 2 and 3 and build up trust into the new theory. (“Trust Increase” step)

5) If your trust reaches a certain level try to find other interested people to join the “trust increase” process of steps 2) and 3)

6) If your trust and that of the other interested people reaches a new level try to convince people with specific domain knowledge and reputation to look deeper into that theory  they won´t stop immediately because you are able to counter most of the objections with arguments and experimental proof.

7) Hope that a critical mass builds up to spread out the knowledge into the scientific community.

I got a bit off-topic on the last page so I try to pull us back on the right track. You should take a closer look into GUTCP because:

• Judging GUTCP and QM with occam´s razor gives a great victory for GUTCP. It is a theory which builds upon the well-known laws of electrodynamics, special relativity and conservation of energy. The only additional postulate is the conservation of space time when GUTCP explains what mass is.

• The electron in GUTCP is a real particle with a physical extend. In contrast to the point assumption of QM it has no infinite charge densities etc.

• It is compatible with special relativity.

• …

There are many other points why GUTCP is superior to QM and a list is given in GUTCP p.5 ff. Of course we cannot judge the descriptive (1) and predictive (2) power of GUTCP right now because there are only few evaluations of GUTCP out there. I tried to find the arguments of the critics mentioned on the BLP Wikipedia site. They are more or less non-existent and can be counter argued in a few sentences. Nobody of the nobel laureate critics took a deeper look. The arguments are basically everywhere of the same quality: ”What? Your theory predicts electron orbits below the ground state? Are you nuts?” And that´s it. If anybody knows a real critical evaluation of Mills work please let me know and give a link somewhere here in the document.

If Mills theory is correct the reward for mankind is great:

• Cheap and distributed energy through hydrino power

• The ability to solve the structure of all molecules exactly  this is huge for the development of medicine or material science (perhaps one day Mills theory speeds up the search for medicine that cures your cancer – and yes, I really think that this is an valid argument)

• Explanation what mass is

• Opening space for mankind through anti-gravity (fifth force)  – ok I admit that this is speculative because Mills just performed one experiment so far

Summing it all up, putting effort into this evaluation is worth the trouble. Not just because of the hypothetical “great for whole mankind” propaganda but also because it is great fun. If Mills is successful with his suncell all our work will get surpassed by thousands of physicists within two weeks. But if he screws up again to bring a product to market our effort could be relevant.

1.2 Goals

The goal of this effort is to get the task of evaluating Mills theory to a different level. A level where everyone (my mother excluded) can understand the results and, even better, create the results. The “normal” scientific evaluation process would start with solving the 2D wave equation under the constraint of the nonradiation condition just as Mills started his journey. But how many people on this beautiful planet can do that? In that case we would have to rely on the experts. But experts are humans and the best example is Andreas Rathke, known for his “proof” that GUTCP is wrong (see Wikipedia). What Wikipedia does not say is that Rathke erroneously used the 3D wave equation and even with this he made a sign error. He explained in an online forum, that he just wrote this paper to prevent ESA to put time and money into the evaluation of Mills. And that are the experts we rely on.

We are lucky that Mills put 25 years of work into this so we can use the more user friendly equations to see if his theory gives valid results.

The goals in condensed form:

• Get the evaluation task to a level where everyone can contribute, understand and interpret the results

• Increasing the number of evaluated molecules, atoms and equations to increase trust into GUTCP, or to show that it is wrong

• Implement the generic equations for all organic molecules (GUTCP p.679 ff.)

The last point is a huge one. If we could accomplish this, the question if GUTCP is far superior to QM regarding the structure of atoms and molecules is definitely answered.

2 Software

There already is software for calculating molecules with Mills equations on the website of Mills [MIS] in the form of excel spreadsheets and the Millisan software package. The excel spreadsheets have the drawbacks that you cannot read the equations properly, you don´t know where the used equations come from and there are many “magical” numbers in them. The Millisan software seems to be quite powerful, but we cannot look into it to see if there are any cheats and so it is useless for our evaluation purposes.
So the goal is to use a software environment that is usable by people who don´t (or barely) know how to program and that is free of charge. It also has to allow us to follow every calculation line by line and give room for comments. Octave (or the pricy matlab) is great for that purpose. Octave takes the script line by line and interprets/calculates it just like you would do, if you would type in the equations by hand.

2.1 Software to view the script files

If you just want to read the script files with all the equations and comments without having the ability to run the scripts I recommend using the free editor notepad++ [NOTE++]. The script files have the file ending *.m (m for matlab). If you open them with notepad++ the content gets coloured according to the language rules so that you can better distinguish between comments and calculations. It is way better to read the skripts with notepad++ than with a simple text editor.

2.2 Software to use and edit the script files

To run the script files you need Octave or Matlab. Octave is for free and can be downloaded here [OCTA]. For simple calculations no toolboxes are required. If you need more functionality for your calculations (such as symbolic solvers for differentiating/integrating symbolically etc.) you can look through the toolboxes/packages page here.

Just install or unpack (depends on the version you download) Octave and you are good to go. For a tutorial on the first steps with Octave with GUI I point you to this youtube video. This should give you an idea of how to start it and use the scripts. Actually it is pretty easy: In the Octave GUI you have a GUI area called “filebrowser”. There you go to the file path of the script files (the *.m files) you unpacked to your hard drive (1). There you should see a file called “MAIN_Start_From_Here.m” (2). Doubleclick to open it in the “editor” part of the Octave GUI (3). There you can press “save and run” (4) and all calculations are processed and printed to the command window (5) which you reach by changing the tab from “Editor” to “Command Window”. To see all printed lines you have to press “f” (forward) several times, because Octave just prints as many lines as fit on one Command Window screen. I chose to just print my results to the Command Window, but you can also write it to a file (.csv,.txt) with the file i/o functionality of octave (eg. csvwrite()).

2.3 Creating a new script file

If you want to create your own script file you just have to click on (6) “new script” and save it with the desired name. Than you can start on your own or you copy some of the lines from my script files. The most useful things from my scripts are the physical constants and the code for solving nonlinear equations using the function fzero().

The other way of creating your own script file is to go to the windows explorer, copy and paste one of the script files, rename it, open it in the Octave editor and delete all unnecessary stuff. It is pretty straight forward.

To get most of the results regarding the molecules you don´t need many complex operations. Most equations are covered by basic mathematical operations (+,-,*,/,sqrt(),…). It is more or less as simple as using a calculator.

3 Evaluation results

The evaluation results are grouped by the names/nicknames of the people who contributed. Results can be all sorts of evaluations that aim to prove or disprove GUTCP or analyses of the work of other contributors. The “open science” nature of this evaluation effort asks for a critical and open mind regarding the results obtained here. We (at the moment I ) work for free and we are an anonymous bunch of interested people from the internet. So no guarantees are given. Check the results for yourself and report errors and bugs.

3.1 Epi´s contribution

I gave an introduction on my motivation in the first section so I just want to add a few minor things here. In my view the strongest argument for Mills theory is that he just needs fundamental physical constants and equations derived from first principles. So one of my primary goals is to create calculation scripts that only use fundamental physical constants. The problem with that is that Mills uses all kinds of real valued numbers he derived in an earlier chapter. So every time I encountered such a “magical” number I had to find the derivation and implement the equation for that value. There are still some integer values in the equations (factor of 2 or ¾ etc.) but that is totally normal when dealing with physical equations and they cannot be used to “fit” a function to a given value. I still have one real valued number for the vibrational energy of oxygen in my scripts because Mills does not give the exact equation in the “water” chapter. I found the generic equation but I am still not capable of using it, so I decided to use the value from NIST – hopefully I get rid of this value sometime in the future.

Another point I want to mention is that Mills always refers to books or papers when he compares his results with experimental values. I don´t have these books and I am not going to buy/borrow them. Instead, I try to find an online source. This is a practical solution but I don´t get an independent source for experimental values in all cases.

3.1.1 Hydroxyl molecule

The first question I had when I decided to evaluate Mills theory with respect to the structure of molecules was: “Where the fuck should I start?” Over 1000 pages of equations alone in the molecules section of Mills book and constant references to the preceding 200 pages were quite a chunk to chew on. I was lucky to find an evaluation [PAYN] of the hydroxyl molecule on Mills homepage. It is the work of a guy called Philip Payne who got paid by BLP for an “independent” analysis. So my first step became much simpler: take the same molecule as Payne did and try to repeat his results. That had the benefit not only to evaluate the equations for the hydroxyl molecule but also check one of the many “independent” reports on BLP´s website for validity. The first three evenings I spent on trying to solve a nonlinear equation and progress was non-existent (see 3.1.6). After I cracked that nut it became much easier but progress was still slow. That was because I had the goal to eliminate all “magical” numbers that are neither physical constants nor integers (or integer fractions).

The bottom line is, that I get the same (or nearly the same) results as Payne and Mills get:

Ionization energy of oxygen: 13.606eV (0.00079% rel. error compared to Mills and 0.091% rel. error compared to experimental NIST value.

Internuclear distance (O-H): 9.714e-11m (0.1782% rel. error compared to experimental NIST value)

Vibrational energy: 3701cm^-1 (0.979% rel. error compared to NIST value)

Bond dissociation energy: 4.4248eV (0.3248% rel. error compared to Mills literature value (the value I found had a large standard deviation and I could not make sense of the way temperature comes into play))

3.1.2 Water molecule

I chose water as the second molecule I wanted to take a look at, because it is pretty similar to the hydroxyl molecule but has some different energetic properties because of the added H atom. My expectation was, if Mills theory is derived from first principals as he claims the equations used to calculate the water molecule must be similar to the hydroxyl equations. If Mills had to cheat to get faked values he must have altered the equations to a big extend or at least added some real valued factors. So the task was not only to compare the calculated values to experimental values from independent sources but also have a look if Mills uses the equations in a “consistent manner”.

What should I say? He passed both tests. Calculating the water molecule was completely analogous to the hydroxyl molecule. It was in fact that similar that I immediately had the thought of identifying the differences and derive a set of more general equations for a set of atoms and molecules so that one just have to give some values describing the structure of the molecule one wants to calculate and then just pass these values to the general equations. It was a few days later that I stumbled over p. 679ff. where Mills did just that. And he claims that these equations are valid for all organic molecules no matter how complex they are. I consider these generic equations as the “holy grail” of this evaluation effort but understanding and implementing these equations will take more time than I have at the moment. But what I can say is that the equations given for hydroxyl and water are (at least from the first and second impression) subsets of the generic equations.

Internuclear distance: 9.7139e-11m (Mills gives a literature value of 9.7e-11m – I did not find an online source but it is the same as for the hydroxyl molecule)

Bond dissociation energy: 5.1118eV (the experimental value is 5.1116eV)

Bond angle of water: 106.241° (0.22839% error compared to Mills value which is quite large – perhaps I made a minor error somewhere – the experimental value is hard to determine and varies depending on the source because it is varying with temperature and other surrounding molecules – the ideal (theoretical) quantum mechanical solution is 104.48° according to Wikipedia)

3.1.3 Ionization energies of one and four electron atoms and ions

One important value in Mills framework (and of course in chemistry) is the ionization energy of atoms and ions. While calculating the hydroxyl and the water molecule the ionization energies of H and O are needed. In the chapters for hydroxyl and water these values are given with reference to the chapter where Mills calculates them. The equations are quite interesting, because you have only a single equation for a given number of electrons with the parameter Z (number of protons). So I put a loop around this single equation and increased the number of protons with each iteration by one. The result is a list of ionization energies for one atom and different ions like table 10.2 on p. 218. Mills gives the equations for atoms and ions from one to twenty electrons and I took the two equations for one and four electrons and implemented these.

One electron (1 to 34 protons) and four electrons (5 to 29 protons):

I get the same results as Mills (1 electron: max rel. error for Z=34 is 0.000103%, 4 electrons: max rel. error for Z=29 is 0.00085792%)

• The agreement between these calculations and the experimental values found here [IONE] is remarkable and exactly as Mills claims in the corresponding tables

• I compared all values for one electron and some values for four electrons: the experimental values Mills gives in his GUTCP are exactly the same as in my wikipedia source – not a single digit was different.

• I could replicate the calculations as well as the experimental values to 100%: No fitting parameters used – just fundamental constants

When I first compared my calculations with the experimental values I sat in front of the computer screen staring at it for at least half an hour – I was completely stunned. I then checked what you need to do in QM to get these results. I found that you have two possibilities to get these values:

1) Take a set of simple equations with fitted parameters for different scenarios as described here.

2) Use the Hartree-Fock algorithm which searches iterativly the energetic equilibrium state of the atom according to QM – that is computational demanding and also uses some “magic” parameters.
Mills equations have fundamental constants only, are computationally simple and give great results in terms of accuracy. Always keep in mind occam´s razor.

3.1.4 Ionization energies of all atoms and ions up to 20 electrons (work in progress)

The ionization energy is a very important parameter for the generic equations Mills gives in his GUTCP. So a first step on the way to a generic calculation framework is a function that calculates these energies. I found that you just need 3 major and a few minor equations to accomplish this. It is three major equations because from 1-20 electrons you have three settings of outer shell electrons: atoms with outer S-orbital, 2p-orbital or 3p-orbital. I hope I have the results by Christmas.

3.1.5 Epi´s overall result

I could successfully verify that Mills equations work for hydroxyl, water and the ionization energies of one and four electron atoms/ions exactly as he claims. I did neither find a single false statement nor a calculation error nor a fitted parameter. His remarkable claim that his theory just needs fundamental constants and equations derived from first principles holds as far as my evaluation goes. There also was no part of his derivations where I got suspicious of an abnormal use of farfetched explanations. Up to now using Mills equations “feels” like everything I encountered during my electrical engineering studies.

If his “derivations from first principles” are mathematically correct I cannot judge and for that I am going to wait for a physicist to take a deep look into the guts of GUTCP . But in my view even my few results (6 parameters of 2 molecule + 60 ionization energies) make a strong case for the correctness of Mills underlying assumptions and his mathematical derivations. I cannot imagine a scenario where Mills constructed a false and fraudulent theory just using fundamental constants and getting all these values right by coincidence. That definitly is not plausible. For me there is only one remaining question: is his theory a better description of reality than QM? If we somehow achieve to implement the generic equations for the structure of organic molecules and can show that Mills claims still hold, even this fundamental and huge question is answered to 100% (from my point of view). And the great thing is that we neither need a large hadron collider nor other expensive equipment. We just need to read and understand given equations and hack them into a computer (+ weeks or months of our time *cough*). I think that this is pretty awesome!

3.1.6 Some thoughts on solving nonlinear equations in GUTCP context

As I mentioned earlier I had some trouble to solve a nonlinear equation needed for nearly all molecular calculations. I looked up what algorithms are available in Octave/Matlab and because you can write the equation in the form f(x)=0 the best choice is the function fzero() which searches in a local interval a value for x so that the function f() becomes zero. When I used fzero for the problem at hand it always gave errors and I could not get rid of them. So I looked for other algorithms. I read, that it is possible to convert the problem f(x)=0 to a minimization problem just by taking the square of function f and searching for the local minimum: min f²(x). There are powerful algorithms for that task called “Sequential Quadratic Programming” (SQP). There is a sqp function in octave and so I tried this approach. I did not get an error but the results were far off the real value. I had the feeling that this is because of some numerical problems regarding first and second derivatives used in sqp algorithms. So I imported a symbolic toolbox to octave to symbolically get the first and second derivative of f(x). That worked quite well but the result was still 10% off and I could not increase accuracy. That´s when I thought of the good old plotting of f(x) and searching for the result by hand/eye. At first I could not plot the function because in some intervals the function has complex values – and that is when I realized why fzero() did not work in the first place: it could not handle complex numbers. And so I arrived at my final solution:

1) Write a function f(x) that returns “NotANumber” whenever f(x) becomes complex.

2) Plot f(x) and look for a small interval were f(x) crosses the zero line. Make sure there are no complex values in this interval.

3) Use fzero() for f(x) in this small interval to get the final result.

And that procedure worked like a charm. It also has the advantage, that I have visual confirmation, that there are no other real valued solutions and Mills just took the best fitting one.

3.2 Your contribution

3.2.1 Perhaps the methane molecule (p.524 ff.)…
3.2.2 …or the generic equations for all organic molecules (p. 679 ff.)…
3.2.3 …or the mathematical derivation of the solution of the 2D wave equation under the constraint of the nonradiation condition (hardcore style for physicists)
3.2.4 …

4 Literature and links

[HOL16] Brett Holverstott: Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy
[MIS] http://brilliantlightpower.com/molecular-physics/, oct. 2016
[NOTE++] https://notepad-plus-plus.org/download/v7.1.html, oct. 2016
[OCTA] https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/download.html, oct. 2016
[PAYN] http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/PayneOHRadical.pdf , oct. 2016
[IONE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)#WELhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page)#WEL, oct. 2016

Article, Chemistry, Environment, GUT-CP, hydrino, Randell Mills, SunCell, technology

Super (supa?) controversial Brilliant Light Power aka Blacklight Power claims to be generating bursts of megawatt power and claim independent validation (June – 2016)

“The problem in the UK is, most grown adults cannot even spell ‘super’… no seriously. I’m not joking!… A shit load of grown adults in the United Kingdom spell ‘super’, ‘supa’… … and you expect them to understand this? :/
Pehaps we shud get ar best and britest minds at Oxfud onto it!
There’s solicitors, working in the British judicial system, who have somehow managed to acquire law degrees, that are fucking illiterate!

Anyway this was the first article that alluded me to ‘hydrino’ energy and Dr Mills, June 2016… and I’ve been obsessed with ever since.”
“The commercial potential for SunCell® technology is enormous. The promise of a cheap, clean and unlimited source of electric power is on the verge of commercialization. SunCell® components are based on well-known technologies from electrical lighting, photovoltaic, semiconductor, refractory and aerospace industries, and use widely available materials. What is new is Brilliant Light Power’s theoretical and experimental breakthroughs, protected by patents and proprietary know-how. Albert Einstein is looking down, smiling: I told you so, He does not play dice”, said Former World Bank manager Gerhard Pohl.

bril

Super controversial Brilliant Light Power aka Blacklight Power claims to be generating bursts of megawatt power and claim independent validation

brian wang | July 13, 2016 |
Here is the press release and videos of supercontroversial Brilliant Light Power aka Blacklight Power. They are like the energy catalyzer. They claim new power. Brilliant Light power claims hydrinos exist. Hydrinos are a new form of hydrogen theoretically predicted by Dr. Mills and produced and characterized by BLP. Hydrinos are produced during the BlackLight Process as energy is released from the hydrogen atom as the electron transitions to a lower-energy state resulting in a smaller radius hydrogen atom. Brilliant Light has solved the theory, confirmed Hydrino reaction products by many analytical techniques, and identified Hydrino as the pervasive dark matter of the universe. Mills claims that Hydronos are fractional orbital hydrogen. This goes against the quantum nature of hydrogen for standard physics.

The SunCell® was invented and engineered to harness the clean energy source from the reaction the hydrogen atoms of water molecules to form a non-polluting product, lower-energy state hydrogen called “Hydrino” wherein the energy release of H2O fuel is 100 times that of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline at an unprecedented high power density. The compact power is manifest as tens of thousands of Sun equivalents that can be directly converted to electrical output using commercial photovoltaic cells.
bril1

bril2.png
bril4.pngbril3

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BrLP) announced today that it has continuously generated over a million watts of power from a new primary source until the cell vaporized from the intense heat. The power released by the conversion of hydrogen atoms from water molecules in to a lower energy form called “Hydrino” or dark matter is manifest as brilliant-light emitting plasma wherein the light is uniquely and extraordinarily essentially all high-energy light in the extreme ultraviolet. Using four cross-confirming methodologies, five validators have confirmed over a million watts of plasma power developed by BrLP’s so-called SunCell® at power gains of over 100 times the power to ignite the Hydrino reaction, and at power densities higher than any previously known energy source. Dr. Randy Booker, physics professor and former Physics Department Chairman at University of North Carolina-Ashville said, “The power was measured using two optical power measurements involving three sophisticated spectrometers calibrated against a National Institute of Science and Technology traceable standard and two thermal methods involving a commercial calorimeter and the rate of the rise of the water coolant temperature of the SunCell®. All four methodologies cross-confirmed the production of megawatt scale power that was continuous in the case of the SunCell® with spectacular commercial potential. Moreover, the unique and characteristic spectrum from the optical tests of essentially purely high energy light emission over a predicted range confirms the hydrino reaction as the source of the power.”

BrLP subsequently held an invitation demonstration event on June 28, 2016 for about 50 guests from industry and academia wherein BrLP presented live demonstrations of the enormous power density and power gain by multiple methods. BrLP also presented an engineered SunCell® prototype having no moving parts that it believes is capable of producing 125 kW of electricity. BrLP anticipates having field trials in 2017 supported by several current engineering firm and manufacturer partners. It comprises refractory materials capable of the intense heat wherein the SunCell’s® enormous power density heats a blackbody radiator to incandescent temperatures to produce the effect of thousands of halogen light bulbs, and the light is converted to electricity with so-called concentrator photovoltaic cells that receive the light from the blackbody radiator and operate at incident light intensities of over one thousand times that of sunlight. Details of the SunCell®, the BlackLight Process, the video and slide presentation from the June 28, 2016 demonstrations, background theory, journal publications, and other support materials are available on the BrLP webpage (http://brilliantlightpower.com).

BrLP presented live demonstrations of the enormous power density and power gain by multiple methods. BrLP also presented an engineered SunCell® prototype having no moving parts that it believes is capable of producing 125 kW of electricity and is planned to be launched for initial commercialization in 2017.

The power is in bursts of millions of watts in a volume of a coffee cup. Cell meltdown including the thick tungsten electrodes can occur in seconds as shown in the above photo. 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.

BrLP’s safe, non-polluting power-producing system catalytically converts the hydrogen of the H2O-based solid fuel into a non-polluting product, Hydrino, by allowing the electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus. The energy release is over 200 times that of burning the equivalent amount of hydrogen with oxygen. Due to this extraordinary energy release, H2O may serve as the source of hydrogen fuel to form Hydrinos and oxygen. Moreover, the SunCell® is compact, light-weight and autonomous with a projected capital cost of 1% to 10% that of any other form of power. The anticipated cost is so low that BrLP intends to provide autonomous individual power for essentially all stationary and motive applications untethered to the grid or any fuels infrastructure. Dr. Mills announced, “This is the end of the age of fire, the internal combustion engine, and centralized power and fuels.”

“The commercial potential for SunCell® technology is enormous. The promise of a cheap, clean and unlimited source of electric power is on the verge of commercialization. SunCell® components are based on well-known technologies from electrical lighting, photovoltaic, semiconductor, refractory and aerospace industries, and use widely available materials. What is new is Brilliant Light Power’s theoretical and experimental breakthroughs, protected by patents and proprietary know-how. Albert Einstein is looking down, smiling: I told you so, He does not play dice”, said Former World Bank manager Gerhard Pohl. Dr. Joseph Renick, former Chief Scientist at Applied Research Associates added, “It is understandable why even the best of scientists have difficulty taking seriously that which has been accomplished by Dr. Mills and his team at Brilliant Light Power because of how completely it transforms our understanding of atomic and molecular structure, dispels of all the strangeness associated with quantum theory so cherished by quantum physicists and chemists and then to boot delivers to mankind a new source of essentially unlimited inexpensive clean energy. The novel techniques, materials and processes developed by BrLP in the last few years are making this new source of energy a reality for all of mankind. The rest, however painful it will be for many in the natural sciences, will follow.”

One of the validators, Bucknell Professor Dr. Peter Mark Jansson PE remarked, “An objective review of the progress BrLP has made over the past decade in the development of their proprietary hydrogen-based technology indicates that they have achieved an understanding of the fundamental parameters that must be controlled to create a sustainable and energetic reaction of their atomic hydrogen fuel and catalysts. They have made landmark progress in creating demonstration devices that prove the concept of their generation technology with promise of becoming continuously operating prototypes in the near future. The creation of these consistently replicable experiments where input power is multiplied by 65 to 150 times is a remarkable achievement. The input power for these respective experiments was 8.02 kW and 10.45 kW with corresponding output power peaks reaching as high as 521 kW and 1.56 MW. Although these energy bursts were on the order of 1 to 3 minutes in duration I was able to observe a more continuous, sustainable reaction experiment that lasted over 7 minutes, other validators were able to observe operating SunCells® for over 30 minutes in duration.” Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Material Science, added that from his independent tests he finds “the developments truly impressive and extremely important. I believe that the technology is amenable for making large-scale devices as easily as a portable one. This is what makes it very attractive.”

SOURCE – Blacklight power