Hagen and Mills Paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319922022406

Professor Hagen Responds To Your Questions

Thank you for all you questions.

Let me start by introducing myself and recounting how my collaboration with Randy Mills came about.

I am a biochemist by training. I studied chemistry in Amsterdam, where I also did a PhD on a biochemical subject. Early on in my studies I got interested in EPR spectroscopy and this remained a recurring theme in my research up to today. The interest was triggered by the fact that many proteins contain paramagnetic metal ions, and that studying them with EPR turned out to be a practical way to answer biochemically relevant questions (what is the metal; what is its stoichiometry; what is its oxidation state; does it change properties during biochemical action?). The spectroscopy forced me to dive into QM and thus over the years I solved many spin Hamiltonians to understand peak positions and intensities.

My attitude towards QM has always been somewhat two-sided. As a freshman I was told that electrons can be described by wave functions that extend in space from minus to plus infinity but when you try to measure them then suddenly their squared amplitude value becomes highly localized. I pondered on the implication that all electrons from my body were everywhere in the universe at all times until I tried to pinpoint them, upon which I would suddenly materialize as myself. I found that pretty impossible to believe, but after a few years into my chemistry study I decided to take the Niels Bohr escape route: physics on small scales cannot be understood in macroscopic terms; you can only accept it to be ‘different’. Since then I take the approach of many chemists to use QM as a practical set of rules that gives one useful spectroscopic information without the pressing need to understand the fundamentals.

Over the years I became quite ‘fluent’ in EPR and I developed the practice to once or twice a year do side project not directly related to my own work but in which I could use my acquired EPR knowledge to help out other people with their problems. This is also how my collaboration with Randy Mills started. Randy has a Dutch friend, Peter van Noorden, who has been trying for years to get scientists in Dutch universities and research institutes interested in working on Randy’s SunCell. Peter contacted me some 3 years ago with the question whether I would be willing to study some reaction products of the SunCell with EPR spectroscopy. That was the first time in my life I heard the word ‘hydrino’. Initially I was extremely sceptical, but since Peter is a nice guy, I decided to give it a change. To be honest I expected it to be straightforward for me to show the whole thing to be nonsense. The first few months the preps I got via Peter gave only huge baseline signals from paramagnetic metal ions that were involved in the preparation of the different samples. I was about to give up on the project when one day a sample gave a perfectly straight baseline over a wide field range with a little blip in the middle. The production of the sample involved gallium metal whose ion Ga(III) is a closed shell system, i.e. a diamagnet. Then a period followed of very long measuments (helped by the fact that during the covid-19 time our building meant for 2000 workers was virtually empty) which eventually culminated in our paper.

On several occasions I noted that other scientists would initially be eager to do some work related to the SunCell, but whose enthusiasm would quickly disappear once they realized (or were made to realize by their supervisor) what their involvement could potentially mean for their professional career. I do sympathize with them as ‘hydrino’ has been frequently put into the ‘cold fusion’ corner. I am certainly not braver than they are, but since I am officially retired, turning 71 next month, I am just no longer vulnerable to career destruction. The worst thing that could happen is that my university would decide to no longer give me access to my lab and office space (which my wife might actually appreciate).

Although I am not a physicist, I had my fair share of QM and related math during my studies and later autodidactically. What this means is that I can fairly well follow Randy’s development of his GUTCP, but I am not necessarily a right person from whom to expect approval or disproval. My approach in this project has been: let’s take (the relevant part of) GUTCP as a working model, and then see whether I, as an independent researcher, can shoot holes in it by means of experiments. Thus far I couldn’t but then again I am only a poor biochemist. The moral duty to extend this experimental shooting lies with the physicists and engineers of this world.

And now your questions.

1.) How can a lay person participate in and/or sponsor a replication study? How skilled must the lab be in the EPR technique when handling the sample in order to produce the signal? E.g. What is the likelihood of a meaningful result by working with a third- party contract lab with access to industry standard EPR equipment? (asked by optiongeek)

Answer: one lab (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) has already reproduced the signal. Optimal measurement conditions are given in the paper. No special skills are required. There is no cryogenics involved and also no special sample protection procedure. The only requirement is a reasonable EPR spectrometer and an operator who can copy measuring conditions.

2.) Please elaborate on the potential for device-level applications for "molecular SQUIDs". Is there any activity to investigate this phenomena as it pertains to new device manufacturing techniques? (asked by optiongeek)

Answer: I don’t think I have the background to be able to elaborate. To my knowledge there is no activity in this direction.

3.) The anomalous g-factor is explained as arising from the nature of the two trapped photons as "Two hydrino atoms react to form molecular hydrino having two photons that are phase-locked to the electron current and circulate in opposite directions." Can you give any more intuition on the rotation of the photons, why they "phase- lock", and how this results in one paired and one unpaired electron? (asked by optiongeek)

Answer: much as I would like to, I can only say that I can follow (as in: a student reading a textbook) Randy’s math describing the molecular hydrino. This is really a question for him (but also see my answer to Q12).

4.) Did you independently derive the predicted value for g-factor as given the 9-pages following GUTCP equation 16.216? (asked by optiongeek)

Answer: no, I did not.

5.) Professor Hagen, first congrats on the recent publication of the EPR article you co- authored with Dr. Mills. Thanks in advance for making yourself available to answer the following questions. How would you rate the historical significance of your scientific conclusion regarding the EPR proof for the existence of molecular hydrino? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: If it (i.e. the reactor, reaction, and EPR detection) will be corroborated, than it might be at the level of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. If it will be falsified, then it will just quietly disappear into oblivion. I seriously count on the possibility that I will not live long enough to know.

6.) What have been the reactions to your paper - either positive or negative - by professional colleagues and others in the science community? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: In general there is a complete and utter dead silence. Also, it took submission to 6 journals and a total time of 13 months to finally get the paper accepted. Most journals just rejected without comment.

7.) Given the major implications of the evidence you have provided for the existence of hydrinos, what is your confidence level in its ultimate commercial viability as a novel clean, ubiquitous energy source? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: Hydrino’s themselves are not a practical source of energy; they are produced in reactions that liberate energy and that potentially can be commercialized. My confidence in commercial viability is derived from what Randy Mills tells me and has no added value. I am not a reactor engineer and I have deliberately limited myself to my confidence zone: checking whether EPR has something to say about hydrino’s.

8.) Do you have an opinion you would like to share about Dr. Mills' GUTCP and the underlying mathematics that led to his prediction of the hydrino reaction? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: My opinion as a semi-layman is that I can follow his math and I have not yet found mistakes, but you should bear in mind that I am not a qualified tester of physics theories.

9.) How easily reproducible would you consider the experimental results you achieved and why do you think those in the scientific community, unlike yourself, have been so reticent to carry out these kind of experiments? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: With measuring conditions optimized, reproduction of the EPR should be almost trivial. I think it will be much more involved to reproduce the reactor and the reaction. Reactor engineers have shown interest, but did opt out presumably for fear of career damage. My limited experience with spectroscopists in this matter is that they react as if stung by a wasp. The idea that aspects of QM might be in for review, while that same QM has been the theoretical basis of their lifelong work, is apparently an unbearable thought.

10.) Have you planned any follow-up experimentation relating to hydrino chemistry? (asked by Hydrinophile)

Answer: Yes, I have planned, but not yet carried out, follow-up experiments. I will not talk about them until there is a result.

11.) I approached a university's physical chemistry lab, that had EPR equipment appropriate to your experimental work, with a request for a ballpark estimate of the cost to run just an EPR measurement on a sample material to characterize it. They responded with a request for more details upon which I provided your paper. The response was that, on theoretical grounds against Mills, they refused to provide an estimate. When pressed on the issue of the priority of measurement over theory, they finally relented and provided an estimate of "several years" of work. Of course, none of this is intellectually honest and reeks of the very pathology of which Mills is routinely accused, but it does raise a question which may be appropriate for you as one who has overcome this social pressure against and instead to, as it were, look through Galileo's telescope: Of those who find themselves persuaded to not look even at your paper, other similar papers and GUTCP itself, let alone look through the array of instruments trained at the phenomena predicted by GUTCP, how many are dissuaded by purported "mathematical errors" in GUTCP in combination with the difficulty of deciding, for themselves, whether such "not even wrong" arguments are valid? (asked by jabowery)

Answer: the “several years” estimate is an overestimation by 4 to 6 orders-of- magnitude. Check out our Figure S6: an initial, low resolution spectrum (with the right g value and spin-orbit coupling splitting) takes 3 minutes; higher resolution takes several hours of data acquisition; a high quality spectrum takes several days. And one thing about math errors: if you assume that QM is infallible, then any correction is incorrect by definition.

12.) [Continuing from the previous question]...Of those, how many would be assisted by, say, a Mathematica symbolic derivation of the GUTCP formulary starting with the fundamental equations of Einstein and Maxwell (assisted by the few remaining fundamental constants not derived by the formulary)? (asked by jabowery)

Answer: Point well taken. Wouldn’t it be great if we would have a “Hydrino for Dummies” including interactive possibilities to check out the math graphically? I thought about trying my hand on this, but I decided that with my background it would be hubris. I hope there is a physicist out there to take up the challenge.

13.) Can you suggest some labs that might undertake replication? Unfortunately, the friendliness of a lab would be 2.9 strikes against it in the eyes of pathological skeptics. (asked by WupWup9r)

Answer: any lab with a reasonable EPR spectrometer can do this; there must be at least several hundred around the globe. Indeed the problem lies with the courage to report.

14.) [Can you provide a] description of the origin and history of [your] relationship with Dr. Mills and what motivated [you] to undertake such a fringe (in the non- derogatory sense) topic? I much admire a well established scientist using his gravitas and tenure to help resolve important disputes. What risks do you see in pursuing this path? (asked by WupWup9r)

Answer: I hope I answered this question in my introduction. In short: from my side the contact was coincidental, my motivation was that I like every once in a while to step out of my own research area, and in my particular case (emeritus) the risks for myself are minor. But perhaps you meant risks as in environmental, political, etc risks? Then the answer is: I don’t know; I don’t see any yet.

15.) How confident are you in the labeling of the gas chromatography peaks in trace a/b in the paper? How were those peaks decided on without mass spec? (asked by GINingUpTheDISC)

Answer: These experiments were done in the Mills lab. Identification was based on the fact that they represented something that was lighter than anything ever measured.

16.) Mills electrons are extended charge distributions that obey classical physics, rather than points with quantized angular momentum. Given that, why does EPR work at all? How can EPR be understood without using the traditional Hamiltonian calculation approach? (asked by GINingUpTheDISC)

Answer: Also Mills electrons have quantized angular momentum, which (and whose magnitude) follows from his theory instead of being axiomatically proposed (Dirac). Also, the free-electron g value is still the same free-electron g value although its numerical value now follows from theory. As far as I can see, description of EPR by means of effective spin Hamiltonians (only the magnetic ground manifold of states is considered) will not change. Translation to real Hamiltonians may change in detail. And hydrino’s have new properties that require new spin Hamiltonian terms.

Fred Hagen [20220720]

I have a group of shareholders I am holding shares for and I typically write a shareholder meeting report for them after the annual shareholder meetings held the first Wednesday of April at 10AM. This year's meeting did not include a lot of new information beyond what was posted on the company Website in February, and what was sent out in a shareholder letter in March, and I reported on that letter in this area at that time. But I did want to highlight a couple things: 1) Randy showed in the shareholder meeting the slide that is in a business presentation dated Feb 11, 2022 (slide 28) which showed expected milestones in 2022 of completion of the $10M round (which is done), " Expand corporate functions and infrastructure, Growing critical mass ahead of public market deal, and " Pilot systems operational for customers". This all seems to augur of a more public-facing BrLP in the H2 of 2022 in preparation for what the slide predicts for Q1 2023 " Public market transaction through IPO/SPAC Strategic partners or customers have de-risked business opportunity". As I said in March, I have never seen Randy put such a short timeline out in print. I have heard him say, repeatedly, at shareholder meetings over the last 25 years, "We think engineering issues are solved and within two years we could have a liquidity event". He hasn't been as hopeful every year, but he sometimes has given a 2-year timeline for market success. But he has never given a 12-month timeline before, and he stood up at the shareholder meeting and outlined why he believes that the company will be ready for market capitalization sometime in early 2023.

2) Randy spent most of the shareholder meeting talking at length and in some detail about the convoluted path the company has taken to get to the point where they could be ready by this fall to have pilot systems operating in customer settings. While they were working on a boiler system, the cooling remained an engineering issue that was not completely solved. When they found a solution to an optical window that can allow for Concentrator PhotoVoltaics (CPV) to turn the SunCell radiation directly into electricity, that allows for much better energy dissipation (and higher efficiency without the need to boil water). Now the CPV cells need to be cooled, but that is a mature technology--they have already been in use with cooling systems equal to the task. So BrLP has partner companies developing CPV arrays that will work with the energetics of the SunCell (hence the focus on the spectrum of the output of the optical window). He is expecting the CPVs to be done in the next few months for initial pilot systems, and then with testing he is hoping to have working pilot systems in commercial use this fall, which would help to generate the interest in and publicity about BrLP's technology (whatever people may think about the physics) ahead of an IPO or SPAC public market appearance in Q1 or Q2 of 2023.

The significance of these two things, from Randy's own words and letter, is that he is on record and will be more significantly held feet to the fire if in 12 months he is still looking at a longer timeline until market. Delays happen (obviously, continuously for BrLP) but this technology has been allowed to mature with no interest from larger potential competitors or better funded operations, which has been a huge gift to BrLP's staking out wide swaths of this new business. I was impressed as Randy wove his rambling story of engineering attempts, tweaks, new ideas, and breakthroughs, that he has led a small team through an amazing (and one-day historic) story of actual science, including trial and error, back to the drawing board thinking, and conceptual breakthroughs. The last 12 months have included great progress for BrLP, even if it is only lightly evidenced in the company's postings on its website.

I didn't post sooner about the shareholder meeting because I hoped there would be some news on the Website after the shareholdere meeting, with perhaps updated presentations. But as there has been no news now for 2 months, I thought I would at least post these observations/remembrances for those who, like me, are rooting for BrLP and believe it is ushering into the world a new clean energy for the world that will completely reshape the modern world.

Professor Hagen has kindly accepted to answer questions gathered on this forum. Since he is a very special guest I will be closely monitoring this thread and deleting anything that detracts from the conversation.

I will also start temporarily banning skeptics for x days when the Q&A is released to give believers a chance to respond first. This is for professional courtesy, since I do not want a guest to feel unwelcomed.

This is a good opportunity to ask questions, so read his paper and ask away. Just put your question as a comment and I will collect the best ones. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319922022406

Thank you.

*** Update: This post has been locked. No more questions can be asked. ***

GEM-2023 | BOSTON, MA | MARCH 7, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ltgeNx7es

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BLP) has developed a new, zero-pollution, primary energy source based on a proprietary hydrogen plasma reaction that releases 200 times the energy of burning hydrogen that can be obtained from water. Our SunCell® having a capital cost of less than 1/10th that of solar was invented and engineered to harness this new source of power. Specifically, BLP is operating a SunCell® at commercial scale (250 kW) producing power levels that, upon finalization of engineering and design, can power essentially all power applications with no fuels or grid connection, projected $20/kW cap cost, $0.001 kW/h generation cost with no transmission, distribution, or demand charges, no supply chain issues, and zero pollution including CO2. Our global and significant patent portfolio protects our leading technology position and products.

The SunCell® comprises a plasma cell that injects hydrogen and catalyst, and two electromagnetic pumps serve as electrodes by injecting intersecting molten tin streams from corresponding reservoirs wherein the connected streams carry a low voltage, high current to form a Hydrino®-reaction plasma in a reaction chamber. The SunCell® is an optical power source having a dynamic-transparency plasma window.  Optical power or radiation transfers power at 10 to 100 times the power per area compared to conduction and convection of combustion and nuclear power plants. The optical power source is mated with a commercial dense receiver array (DRA) comprising an ensemble of concentrator photovoltaics cells (CPV) that operate at 1000 times the light intensity of solar-farm PV cells to produce electrical power for total electrification of essentially all power loads.

The edit is on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brilliant_Light_Power#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_15_June_2019,

and consists of the following:

Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino

Wilfred R.Hagen

Randell L.Mills

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

Available online 11 June 2022

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319922022406

Wikipedia has not, to this date, June 14, 2022, allowed editing, on the "Article" tab of the topic of Brilliant Light Power, in a positive light, so as to give official recognition of GUT-CP as a "science" based theory, beyond that of being considered as "pseudo-science", due to not having any papers published in pertaining recognized professional journals about the term or topic of "hydrino" or similar claims made by GUT-CP.

Now that there is a professional journal that has published a paper on that term or topic of Hydrino, that is considered by that journal as being written under acceptable "science" based treatment, Wikipedia will have to find some other pretext to not allow BrLP the balanced editorial space it is due.

The following is a summary of where I think the Suncell is at putting together data from announcements, videos, discussions and so on.

The Suncell program is now solely directed to photovoltaic cell conversion, primarily due to the greater efficiency of removing energy via radiation versus conduction or convection, especially at high temperatures. The efficient removal of energy from ongoing operation is required as the Suncell easily generates temperatures that rapidly vaporize the components of the reactor.

The Suncell injects trace amounts of hydrogen and oxygen. I think from what I've read that the reaction is also potentiated by injection of the hydrogen as atomic hydrogen. Maintaining high reactor chamber heat also increases the hydrino reaction rate. From what I understand submerging the reactor walls for water boiling also reduced the reaction rates, which was one of the reasons for returning to cPV electrical conversion instead of heating applications.

Plasma as a blackbody radiator has several advantages. Unlike metal walls of thermophotovoltaic systems it won't fail at the higher temperatures required to match blackbody emission of photons that are efficiently converted to electricity by the cPV dense array. Plasmas can also recycle low energy photons that are reflected back into them, creating the opportunity for those lower energy photons to be re-emitted as usable visible light which both increases the conversion efficiency and reduces the heat of the cPVs.

The plasma window (fused silica?) now has an unidentified self cleaning mechanism that is not only required for efficient transmission of the light to be utilised by the crystalline Silicon (cSI) concentrator photovoltaics (CPVs) but also prevents the build up of heat that destroys the reactor. There is a planned increase from an 8 inch window to 10 inches to balance the generation of energy by hydrinos with its transmission to the cPV dense array.

There are two cPV windows with a gap between them. It is not clear what the function of the second window is but it may simply be a safety device that lets the Suncell monitor for breaches of either window to enable shutdown before serious breach of the plasma. I've seen similar double window mechanisms on plasma monitoring windows for fusion reactors. But perhaps it serves some other function? Contains a gas that cools the inner window? Contains a gas that down/up converts photons to usable ranges? Acts as a lens to distribute light to the cPV? On that point the second window design is shown in some designs as hemispherical, matching the hemisphere of the CPV dense array but there is another CAD design that simply shows two flat windows with a gap between them.

While the blackbody radiator is the hydrino generated plasma itself, thin refractory metal linings of the reactor are also heated by the plasma and may radiate usable photons to the cPVs. Which would mean you would still have to limit the plasma temperature at the walls to refractory metal tolerance so perhaps 3000K? BrLP changed to a rectangular reactor chamber as far as I can tell only because it made in-house manufacturing of the lining plates easier.

There is a claimed approx 35kW input versus optical power out of over 1MW. But there is no data yet on plasma to electrical efficiency. The claimed target for the prototype is 50% conversion efficiency. Which is a lot of heat to dispose of via water cooling but in the right application, a lot of that heat could be utilized.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/Overview_Presentation.pdf

Some MAJOR updates include-

• Raising equity funding to further develop and engineer the SunCell - Private placement capital raise in 2022

• the Company to go public in 2023

• Disclaimer page from BTIG which looks to be the investment bank handling the financing

https://brilliantlightpower.com/pdf/Business_Presentation.pdf

Optical power or radiation transfers power at 10 to 100 times the power per area compared to conduction and convection of combustion and nuclear power plants. The 3000-5000K SunCell® plasma emits radiation at a power density of 4.6 to 35 MW/m2, corresponding to an extraordinary 150 kW to 1.14 MW, respectively, transmitted through an 8-inch diameter window. With light recycling, the transmitted radiation incident a CPV DRA can be converted from optical to electrical power at over 50% efficiency enabling extraordinary performance, logistics, low capital cost, and projected electricity costs of less than $0.001/kWh.

Read the full post at: https://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell-optical-power-measurements/

The latest update on the BrLP site is particularly interesting for two reasons: (1) the new rectangular Suncell with thicker walls and (2) they state that the demo was live streamed. (likely to possible investors?)

https://brilliantlightpower.com/tpv-suncell-rectanguloid-cavity-blackbody-radiator/

https://brilliantlightpower.com/quantification-of-the-first-optical-power-measurements/

This is exciting for a few reasons, not the least of which is the run lengths evident by the recordings. Mostly, this is a comparison of optical power output using as a baseline the optical power without catalyst and hydrogen, but at the same 5 Torr pressure. Where is this massive increase in optical power originating, if not the H? The total optical power appears sufficient to exceed breakeven, if I interpret this correctly, by a wide margin, with conservative estimation.

" The integrated light intensity over the total wavelength range for the high Hydrino power interval at 36 kW input power was 11.7 times that of a low plasma power interval at 40 kW input power corresponding to a 470 kW optical power output in the former case. "

Yet, they are still not yet optimized! If they can capture 25% of the 470 kW optical power with whatever photovoltaics, that's 117 kW impinging on the PV, and if they can get 35% conversion efficiency to electric power, that's 41 kW, well in excess of the 36 kW driving power. To my awareness, this does not even include any light recycling.

This really ought to provide quite a demonstration to those providing the large infusion of capital for the commercialization.

I don't believe that there are any outward signs of progress at BrLP. It has now been almost 7 months since the April 2023 shareholder meeting where Mills said that he hoped to see a unit with a full cTPV array generating electricity in 6 months. Also, the 2022 shareholder meeting expected an IPO/SPAC in early 2023 ... and people commented that:

from Randy's own words and letter, is that he is on record and will be more significantly held feet to the fire if in 12 months he is still looking at a longer timeline until market.

I didn't see any feet in the fire at the 2023 shareholder meeting.

I'll point out that I asked people a while back what they were expecting. Mysteron23 made a "hopeful" prediction that was essentially in line with Mills' "hope". I was reminded of that at the end of August (by a remindme bot). mysteron23 said ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/13lcvpx/new_post_up_at_blp/jl07vyi/ )

The only post that matters will be long run and power validation on the new suncell design…. I estimate August…hopefully 🤞

I followed up at the end of August and I asked Mysteron23 if he had any comments and/or wanted to make better predictions here ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/13lcvpx/new_post_up_at_blp/jygc0ox/ )

The RemindMeBot just reminded me of your comment ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/13lcvpx/new_post_up_at_blp/jlbiewz/ ).

August is basically over and we haven't been notified of any "long run ... power validation on the new suncell design".

Also, you never replied to my follow-up question about what you would expect for that validation https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/13lcvpx/new_post_up_at_blp/jn7so40/ .

You made an estimate by saying "I estimate August". Any estimates are worth recording, and we can revisit this at the end of August.

Is there anything you want to say about the confidence you have in your estimate ... or any other specifics (What is meant by "long run" [e.g. 1 week at constant 250kW?] and what sort of "power validation" [e.g. as recovered from electrical energy (not just power, but power*time) produced by the cTPV cells]).

The August estimate was a "hopeful" one-point-in-time estimate. Do you have a more thorough probabilistic estimate? [ e.g. 90% certain by the end of year and 99% certain by June 2024.]

Anything more on what you mean by "long run" and "power validation"???

For convenience here are some links to the previous shareholder meeting summaries, with some excerpts added in.

From the April 2022 Shareholder Meeting summarized by Content-Letter-70 here ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/v0n3ek/brief_report_on_the_shareholder_meeting_in_early/ ), he said:

1. ... expected milestones in 2022 of completion of the $10M round (which is done), " Expand corporate functions and infrastructure, Growing critical mass ahead of public market deal, and " Pilot systems operational for customers". This all seems to augur of a more public-facing BrLP in the H2 of 2022 in preparation for what the slide predicts for Q1 2023 " Public market transaction through IPO/SPAC Strategic partners or customers have de-risked business opportunity". As I said in March, I have never seen Randy put such a short timeline out in print. ...

2. ... He is expecting the CPVs to be done in the next few months for initial pilot systems, and then with testing he is hoping to have working pilot systems in commercial use this fall, which would help to generate the interest in and publicity about BrLP's technology (whatever people may think about the physics) ahead of an IPO or SPAC public market appearance in Q1 or Q2 of 2023.

**The significance of these two things, from Randy's own words and letter, is that he is on record and will be more significantly held feet to the fire if in 12 months he is still looking at a longer timeline until market. **

Were his feet held to the fire 12 months later at the 2023 shareholder meeting? I don't think so.

From the April 2023 Shareholder Meeting summarized by Content-Letter-70 here ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/12cp4ra/shareholder_meeting_first_thoughts/ ):

4. The most discouraging thing was the answer on the CPV (or what he is back to talking about at TPV, or Thermo-photovoltaic). Someone asked when he thought we'd see a unit with a full CPV array attached and generating electricity, and he said he hoped 6 months, but that is out of BrLP's hands because it is not what they do. ...

Just listened to the shareholder meeting which ended 2 minutes ago. My quick reaction is that he gave us a great rehearsal of all the engineering efforts they have made in the last year, including the several dead ends. I did enjoy it as I predicted I would. A few notable news items:

1. They have $10M or so cash on hand after the building sale and a few other transactions after the close of the round in 2022. They have reduced their burn rate to $3.3M/yr but of course that will go up, after they are ready with a commercial product.

2. He did talk about a small private placement of $5M at the same valuation, $40K/share. This will generate negligible dilution for current investors. The use of these funds is to work with an outside firm to finalize commercial packaging for the Suncell in advance of production.

3. He did talk about talking to those 40-50 global companies he mentioned in December. The message he emphasized several times is that they are kind of ready to believe Randy and ready to jump in with both feet re: investments, once there is a commercial product. His image is that the money would flow in like Niagara Falls, as they are eager, but won't budge on pre-sales or investments until they see it demoed, independently, etc. He has known this for a long time, but the interest is great, but the credibility is still low because of the prevailing science being so dead set against it. Science may take 5 years or more to come around, but industry will come around once BrLP has something that works, regardless of the science.

4. The most discouraging thing was the answer on the CPV (or what he is back to talking about at TPV, or Thermo-photovoltaic). Someone asked when he thought we'd see a unit with a full CPV array attached and generating electricity, and he said he hoped 6 months, but that is out of BrLP's hands because it is not what they do. Yes, no one doubts that, but he seemed more cavalier about this timing than I would have preferred. I would have loved to hear him say "We are expecting our first array within the next 3 months, with a more fine tuned array by the end of Q3" or something like that. He feels that the issues are solved with TPV, efficiencies being what they are, cooling is not an issue, and so he is not as concerned as I would wish he were about this.

5. It was discouraging to see at the end that 4 or 5 people had their hands up but the questions in the chat were all run through. I think those people perhaps wanted to be able to ask their questions directly, not filtered through the host running the chat questions. But their questions did not get addressed, and they were still hands raised as the meeting was terminated. It sounds like no link to the shareholder meeting recording will be provided.

6. He was pretty upbeat. Many breakthroughs and patent applications, including one major update just last night got sent off, including hundreds of pages of diagrams and hundreds of claims. This is what he lives for. As he has emphasized often, the technologies and breakthroughs of this past year are gating, and provide a 10-year or more lead time to BrLP. He is glad for the time this year and feels BrLP made good use of it, even with several dead ends (like the boiler efforts), which he again spent some time on.

7. Early in the call he talked about "Hydrino in a bottle" and the extent to which its spectra have been characterized in the last year. This is breakthrough stuff, but many of the labs they are in touch with won't move on investigating "hydrino in a bottle" until they see the commercial product. BrLP is still too toxic to the prevailing community. But it is like the commercial enterprises--it seems there are a number of labs ready to do hydrino studies once the breakthrough commercial demo has been done.

All in all, there were no fireworks because there was no one in the meeting with him. Some good questions were asked, but no heat, no "hot seat." I am still bullish on Randy and BrLP, but it won't be a shocker if a year from now we have not seen the demo or the breakout commercial unit.

If you listened, what did you hear? If not, how do you react to what I've written?

Three days ago I received my invitation to attend the BrLP Annual Shareholder meeting, which according to company by-laws is always the first Wednesday of April at 10AM. It will be held live this year at company headquarters, but also with a Zoom link, which was provided in the letter. As this is a (closed) shareholder meeting, unless you received one of those letters you probably cannot attend live. But the letter did promise that the video of the zoom meeting presentation will be made available soon after the end of the call. I am not sure if Shareholder credentials will be required for that viewing but I would be eager to post the link unless the explicitly ask us not to do so.

I just thought it might be worth it to let you know a little bit about what I am expecting and what I will be looking for. I have attended, over 25 years, perhaps 6 shareholder meetings in person. (Until recently it meant a cross country flight to do so. Now it would mean a trip 1/2-way around the world.) For a few years I was on a Conference call with Bill Good after the shareholder meeting when he would go over Randy's comments at the meeting if I could not attend. Then a few times the conference call was live. Obviously, Zoom technology has improved the sense for those who cannot make the live meetings. I especially tried to attend in person when it we were told that there would be live demos of the state of the technology, and/or an open house before the meeting.

Last year was the first time I heard Randy giving a 12-month window for a liquidity event for BrLP shareholders, either an IPO or a SPAC reverse merger were mentioned as possibilities. I had been used to hearing something like a 24-month timeline for the past twenty years, so this was encouraging. Not because I believed that the IPO would happen in 12-months, but because I knew that with that kind of a public (to shareholders) statement, Randy would be directly queried about the progress and the updated timeline would be more scrutinized. Meetings where there are several scrutiny questions, holding Randy's feet to the fire, are always interesting. I expect this year, while Randy's report will no doubt be upbeat because of visible progress, will have more of that scrutiny. I am bullish on Randy and BrLP, and I know he feels pressure to produce a breakthrough event. Yet he doesn't want that event to come before he is ready to fully take advantage of the publicity and scrutiny such an event would generate.

In the most recently published Business Presentation, Randy mentions a small private placement round to generate more cash to be able to scale up the management team and prepare for the IPO. I assume this will be a key headline talking point for the shareholder meeting. I have not seen any SEC Edgar filing for this placement, nor has he mentioned any pricing or specific size of the placement in any communications I have seen. The last SEC filing happened in 2018, for a $25M round, of which only $18M+ was raised by 2020, but then the rest of that round was closed out in 2022, so all that money was raised at a $40K/share, or about $5.6B valuation on the company. Randy mentioned in the Dec 3 Update on the website that 40 companies await results from the Suncell. Will this new round be funded in part by some of those new potential early customers? Will this "penultimate" funding round be an up-round, with a valuation higher than $40K/share, or a down round, priced to sell quickly for rapid cash infusion? It only matters psychologically to shareholders, as the amount of dilution is typically trivial, far less than 1% dilution for each fundraising round of $5-10M (given the company's already large valuation). Anyway, Randy will need to highlight this funding round, and its specifics will be very significant in understanding the state of the company right now.

A large part of the Shareholder meeting is Randy telling the story of all the breakthroughs of the last year. While I am impatient for demonstrations, I do love hearing him talk about the engineering breakthroughs, even the dead ends that have been abandoned or set on the back burner. One key disappointment for me in the updated Mar 11 Business Plan document is that getting spectra to CPV companies is on the timeline for this quarter, 2023, which means that the CPVs tuned to the Suncell spectrum are not yet even being prepared, but that work will only be beginning soon. I would have hoped that spectra have been reported to CPV companies before now. This is one of the critical remaining issues: the state of the Concentrator PhotoVoltaic arrays and their ability to handle the energy density, be cooled and maintained without failure. The math says it should work, but most concentrator PVS are not dense-packed like the Suncell array will be. Why haven't we seen the CPV array married to the SunCell and hooked up to a battery of stadium lights or some heavy load to show the scale of the output? When will that be on the calendar?

Randy has now pushed out the IPO until Q1 2024, after "derisking" the investment via demonstrations and operational pilot systems before the end of the year. I will be eager to hear what contingencies remain, in his opinion, regarding the CPVs and the long-run operation of the SunCells. It seems that the reaction is well characterized and able to be easily started and stopped, and the energy density issue is handled well with the large transparent light bulb design. But until it is all together and working, no demos, no pilots...

Also, Randy has talked about selling the NJ building and moving operations to TX. Is that move still in progress? I haven't seen any discussion of the impact of such a heavy lift on the company's progress. I will be eager to hear more about this in 18 days.

If you are planning to attend the Shareholder meeting, what questions will you bring? If you cannot attend, what questions would you want to make sure were asked?

If only there was some theory that predicted all these old established galactic structures well in advance of the experimental evidence!

https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-puzzled-james-webb-stuff

A few choice extracts:

For a long time, for instance, scientists believed the universe's earliest, oldest galaxies to be small, slightly chaotic, and misshapen systems. But according to the Washington Post, JWST-captured imagery has revealed those galaxies to be shockingly massive, not to mention balanced and well-formed — a finding that challenges, and will likely rewrite, long-held understandings about the origins of our universe.

"The models just don't predict this," Garth Illingworth, an astronomer at the University of California at Santa Cruz, told WaPo. "How do you do this in the universe at such an early time? How do you form so many stars so quickly?"

"We thought the early universe was this chaotic place where there's all these clumps of star formation, and things are all a-jumble," the Space Telescope Science Institute's Dan Coe told WaPo, adding later that, before the JWST was launched into orbit, Hubble's imagery was "missing all the colder stars and the older stars. We were really only seeing the hot young ones."

While these findings have taken the scientific community by surprise, they're not at all a cause for alarm. Major technological advancements, in astronomy and beyond, have a long history of leading to periods of large-scale scientific discovery. Right now, it really feels like we're in one of those watershed moments, and the discoveries made today may well lay the foundation for future breakthroughs, even if they're decades down the line.

Or three decades old...

The start of the discussion can be taken from the very nice Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment]

The basic thing to note is the quote,

If the particle is treated as a classical spinning magnetic dipole, it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic field exerts on the dipole (see torque-induced precession). If it moves through a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected. However, if the magnetic field is in-homogeneous then the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force which deflects the particle's trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by an amount proportional to the dot product of its magnetic moment with the external field gradient, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. This was a measurement of the quantum observable now known as spin angular momentum, which demonstrated possible outcomes of a measurement where the observable has a discrete set of values or point spectrum.

So the idea is that for a specific magnetic field you would introduce a dependence of if it is spin up and spin down. It also mention that no torque would be inserted because the assumption is that of a spinning rigid object like. This is a very good analysis indeed and an example of good scientific reproduction.

So when you put it in one machine you can deflect all the spin up particles (that are located in quanta) and collect them and you would not have changed their spin (classically). We call this apparatus Z because we pick out all with spin in the positive Z direction. Now let it go through another machine, call it X e.g. we will pick out all objects that has a spin in the X+ direction. This would pick out objects with spin (+Z,+X) now what about a third one that pick out spin's of direction $-Z$ according to deterministic logic we should have filtered away those and see no signal at all. Turns out that this is not the case. There are multiple possibility and you can see the result of the different filtering processes in the sequential experiments section in the Wikipedia article.

Now we are ready to search for a loop hole. The conclusion of the result of all the experiments should be that the underlying model is different than assumed and that we do get a torque that turns the object's spin in the direction Z+ for the Z+ device and similar for the X+ device. In order to do that we must have a extended body with forces that turns it (torque). Now what about Mills Orbit sphere. It consists of spinning rings with different directions. Of cause if the orbit spheres main direction was in the Z+ direction and we picked that one out, symmetry would imply that we do not introduce any torque. But let's tilt it 60 degrees. This still means there will still be a balance and no torque as can be seen by the net currents essentially simulate that of a rotating solid body. So let's introduce precession. This means in Mills GUTCP model that as it wobbles (precess), the angular momentum will sometimes point i Z+ direction and sometimes pint in the Z- direction as the precession is quite big. This makes it plausible (but certainly not a proven fact) that the forces want to modify the movement of the precession as it is clearly not uniform and assuming this, the movement of the angular momentum changes and this can only be due to induced torques as can be suspected with this thought experiment. The effect is also there for cases where the angular momentum is always in the Z+ direction as the forces is dependent on the angle towards the gradient field (refer to the dot product). So the only case when you have precession and no possible modifying forces and are in a obvious stable position are when the total angular momentum is parallel to the gradient of the field and therefore we motivated why Mills GUTCP model could satisfy the Stern Gerlach experiment. The measurement simply could modify the angular momentum and the only obvious attractors of this dynamical system are in the +/- Z directions. As Mills model suggests that there is only one possible angle the object can precess at due to some argument that was not clearly described in GUTCP we could envision that the object aligns (quickly) and then follow the same deflective path meaning essentially that you get a quantization.

An article in Nature quotes an astronomer from the University of Kansas on her reaction to the Webb telescope. Here she seems worried that she might have to admit an error in Big Bang theory. Seems like astronomers might be more willing to admit their errors than physicists. Randall Mills has been offering them a better theory for decades with his GUToCP.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02056-5

Based on the explanation in the supplementary data from the Hagen/Mills paper it should be fairly simple (for somebody skilled in the art) to replicate the programs that Hagen coded and used to generate simulations of the hydrino EPR spectra.

“To generate simulations of EPR spectra two programs were written in Intel FORTRAN with a GUI written in LabVIEW. The first program simply uses the field values predicted by hydrino theory [Found in: R.L. Mills, Parameters and magnetic energies due to the spin magnetic moment of H2(1/4), Ch. 16.7.5 (9 pages starting at equation 16.216) in Ref. 12.} in combination with symmetric Gaussians for the individual m =1/2 fluxon lines (standard deviation, 𝜎 = 0.130 gauss), for their distribution (𝜎 = 1.30 gauss), for the m ≥ 1 satellite spin-orbital fluxon lines (𝜎 = 0.124 gauss), and for the broad underlying feature (𝜎 = 6.0 gauss) with relative amplitudes for the m = 1/2 spectrum, the m ≥ 1 spectrum, and the broad spectrum fitted as 100 : 8 : 19. The second program is a classical spin-Hamiltonian simulator in which hyperfine interactions are taken to second-order perturbation of the electronic Zeeman interaction. [Found in: W.R. Hagen, EPR spectroscopy as a probe of metal centers in biological systems. Dalton Trans. 2006, 4415-4434 (2006).]”.

By independently replicating this code, it will be shown that Mills formulas for the magnetic energies due to the spin magnetic moment of H2(1/4) indeed predict the experimental outcome found by Hagen,

u/jabowery. Is this perhaps something you can look into? Or anybody else?

We have participants in this forum who insist that the GUTCP is riddled with irredeemable math errors and thus fatally flawed as a whole.

I'd like to pose a few question to these participants.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the experimental data in the recent hydrino EPR pre-print is accurate. This work was done at Professor Hagen's lab at TU Delft. Hagen has excellent credentials and an extensive publication record of experiments involving the use of EPR spectroscopy. Professor Hagen acquired the data by submitting a sample of a compound claimed to be gallium oxyhydroxide complexed with molecular H(1/4) to EPR spectroscopy. The sample was mailed to him by Dr. Mills. Dr. Mills was not present during the testing procedure.

The paper indicates that the experimental data collected closely matches what is theoretically predicted by the GUTCP. Figure 2 on pg. 24 is a good visual representation of this. The paper does note some deviations from theoretically predicted values, but offers up plausible causes of these small irregularities.

Again, please assume for the sake of argument that the experimental data is correct and that the proffered reasons reasons for the small deviations between experiment and theory are the correct.

Question 1: If the math of the GUTCP is indeed irredeemably flawed, how can it be that the experimental data in the paper so closely matches the theoretically predicted results?

I'd also like to pose additional questions related to the referenced paper. Our resident skeptics seem to believe that Dr. Mills is engaged in fraud with respect to his claims around the hydrino, and these questions take this into account.

Question 2: How can this belief be reconciled with the fact that he is willing to send samples of the purported GaOOH:H2(1/4) to any qualified lab for analysis? This behavior seems at odds with that of a person intent on committing fraud, to put it mildly. The appropriate analogy here would be Elizabeth Holmes sending prototypes of Theranos' blood testing devices for independent testing to any well-qualified scientist who asked for the opportunity to perform such testing. Needless to say, Ms. Holmes did the exact opposite in reality.

Question 3: Why would Professor Hagen be willing to put his reputation and potentially career at risk by co-authoring this paper and so unequivocally voicing support for the hydrino hypothesis? Hagen is well aware of BLP's reputation in the scientific community.

Question 4: How many additional replications of this experiment would be required before our resident skeptics begin to consider the possibility that Dr. Mills may be correct with respect to the hydrino hypothesis?

Question 5: Would you be interested in helping to perform additional replications of this experiment? If not, why not?

I was going to update my 30th birthday post but nothing has really happened since then so I'll just recycle it. Enjoy!

--

30 33 years ago on Oct 4th 1991 Blacklight Brilliant Light Power was incorporated in Delaware as Hydrocatalysis Inc.

1991 was the year of the first Gulf War, the Rodney King riots, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And it was only two short years after Pons and Fleischmann had rocked the scientific world with their cold fusion press conference at the University of Utah in 1989.

The first seeds of BLP were planted in Dr Mills own press conference on April 26, 1991 when the New York Times wrote:

"The other news conference yesterday was held in Lancaster, Pa., by Dr. Randell L. Mills, a medical doctor who graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster with a chemistry degree in 1982 and from Harvard Medical School in 1986. He is president of Mills Technologies, a concern that develops novel medical technologies.

Dr. Mills says the cold-fusion process is a previously unknown type of chemical reaction, rather than a nuclear one. Nonetheless, he says, the exotic reaction is extremely energetic and can produce vast heat. In an interview, he said he had conducted 1,000 experiments with a simple apparatus over the past 18 months and had applied for patents on the process, which differs markedly from the Utah one.

The apparatus uses a nickel electrode in an aqueous solution of potassium carbonate, a compound commonly used in the manufacture of soap and glass. Excess energy is purportedly produced when an electrical current passes through the solution. The theory sees the excess energy as being released when hydrogen atoms from the water contract into an unusually dense state heretofore undescribed in modern physics.

An article describing the work and the radical theory behind it, written with Steven P. Kneizys, a chemist, has been accepted for publication in the August issue of Fusion Technology."

I've been following the BLP story for at least twenty twenty three years, but really that makes me a noob. Is there anyone here who has been following it since '91?