Maybe BLP does have a real phenomenon, even if Mill's theory is not the correct explanation for it.JohnP wrote:The most amazing thing about BLP is their staying power. Mill's theories were examined and debunked years ago. His book about quantum this or that contains numerous errors and passages lifted wholesale from textbooks. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Mills is loaded with hot air and has had nothing substantial verified in all this time (did I just read 20 years?). Why the local State's Attorney didn't shut his behind down years ago, I don't know, they must be understaffed.
BLP news
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes well, that's entirely possible, now isn't it?
The reaction people give Mills has much less to do with him than it does with ourselves. If he were to turn out to be correct, then pretty much everyone else would be wrong. . .just the same situation our Dr. Johan Prinz faces.
The rhetoric about plagerism, poor science, hot air. . .is just that, hot air. Got nothing to do with the work at BLP over the decades. If you're rational at all (and there are plenty who are not, whenever they consider BLP) then first thing is deal with the data. It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that the work at Rowan is somehow flawed, or that all the people involved were guilty of experimenter bias. That's just a nutty grasping at straws.
If you honestly think that sort of response is rational, then I have to ask, what would count as convincing evidence to you? That's just silly.
The reaction people give Mills has much less to do with him than it does with ourselves. If he were to turn out to be correct, then pretty much everyone else would be wrong. . .just the same situation our Dr. Johan Prinz faces.
The rhetoric about plagerism, poor science, hot air. . .is just that, hot air. Got nothing to do with the work at BLP over the decades. If you're rational at all (and there are plenty who are not, whenever they consider BLP) then first thing is deal with the data. It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that the work at Rowan is somehow flawed, or that all the people involved were guilty of experimenter bias. That's just a nutty grasping at straws.
If you honestly think that sort of response is rational, then I have to ask, what would count as convincing evidence to you? That's just silly.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Right. The past CEO of Johnson and Johnson is involved in a fraud. The past CEO from Westinghouse is involved in a fraud. All these guys on the board that truly does read like a Fortune 50 company, are involved in fraud. They just decided to risk all their reputations for board jobs that apparently have never paid a thing to this point.
I think you need to find better criteria for evaluating evidence. The fraud theory makes no sense to me. It's just what people tell themselves to cope with the angst that we may be on the verge of a paradigm shift. None of the details surrounding the BLP story smack of fraud and the fraud theory is completely incapable of coping with the evidence at Rowan, unless you want to extend the charge with no evidence, and say all these profs at Rowan are guilty of fraud as well.
It's just a silly argument, IMHO.
I think you need to find better criteria for evaluating evidence. The fraud theory makes no sense to me. It's just what people tell themselves to cope with the angst that we may be on the verge of a paradigm shift. None of the details surrounding the BLP story smack of fraud and the fraud theory is completely incapable of coping with the evidence at Rowan, unless you want to extend the charge with no evidence, and say all these profs at Rowan are guilty of fraud as well.
It's just a silly argument, IMHO.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Difficult to say if these things are fraud. This Mills character probably actually believes he is doing something genuine. I'll happily call it a 'self-deception'.GIThruster wrote:Right. The past CEO of Johnson and Johnson is involved in a fraud. The past CEO from Westinghouse is involved in a fraud. All these guys on the board that truly does read like a Fortune 50 company, are involved in fraud. They just decided to risk all their reputations for board jobs that apparently have never paid a thing to this point.
Meanwhile, if the probity of these CEO's, &c., is beyond question, then it simply means they are victims of this self-deception, rather than perpetrators. But a deception it is. Self-, intended-, criminal-, whatever.....
From wiki;GIThruster wrote: they have a whole bundle of patents, 58 issued and more than 100 pending.
In 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved Blacklight's patent application 09/009,294 entitled "Hydride Compounds" after an initial rejection, and gave it US patent 6030601 . The fee had already been paid, but it hadn't still reached the stage of final issuance. The company was later granted US patent 6024935 "Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures". An outside request from Robert L. Park[45] prompted Director Group Director Kepplinger to review this new patent himself, and he expressed concerns about the patent's theoretical basis, the existence of fractional quantum numbers, and noticed that the patent application, 09/009,294, had the same theoretical basis. He contacted another Director, Robert Spar, who also expressed doubts on the patentability of the patent application. This caused the USPTO to withdraw from issue the patent application before it was granted and re-open it for review, and to withdraw four related applications. This prompted Blacklight to sue in the US District Court of Columbia, saying that withdrawing the 09/009,294 patent after having paid the fee was contrary to law. In 2002 the District Court concluded that the USPTO was acting inside the limits of its authority in withdrawing a patent over whose validity it had doubts, and later that year the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ratified this decision.[46][47] The current status of US patent 6024935 is unclear, and it is still listed as a granted patent in the USPTO website.[48]
In March and April 2008, Blacklight Power had four UK patent applications relating to models and apparatus based on hydrino theory refused by the UK Intellectual Property Office. The decision was based on "the experimental evidence provided and the acceptance of the theory by the physics community generally", which led to the conclusion that the theory "was probably not valid", and therefore that the inventions were not "capable of industrial application" as required by UK patent law.[49] In November 2008, the UK Patents Court overturned the rejection of the four patents, ruling that they should only have been rejected if the theory was clearly invalid (rather than probably invalid) and remitted the case to the Patent Office for reconsideration.[50][51] In June 2009 a hearing officer at the UK patent office found that a full investigation with the help of an expert in GUTCQM wouldn't have a reasonable prospect of finding it a valid theory, and rejected the patents again.[52]"
Can you name several of these 58 patents, please, so I can look them up.... You say I should read stuff.... so give me the patent numbers for me to read.
Bernard Madoff used to be chairman of the NASDAQ stock market.... Sometimes a bad apple can indeed be well credentialed -- sparkling credentials do not magically prove absence of fraud (or delusion).GIThruster wrote:All these guys on the board that truly does read like a Fortune 50 company, are involved in fraud?
Nor does it suggest the presence of fraud (or delusion). It is simply not relevant.
What is relevant is how well documented the claimed phenomena is, the adequacy of experimental controls, the experience of the observers,
the independence and objectivity of the observers, the repeatability of the claimed phenomena, etc. Pons and Fleishman were well intended, but the spectacular nature of the claims evidence proved to lack easy repeatability... Was it fraud? No. Yet whatever it was they were seeing entirely failed to live up to their claims.
Last edited by Enginerd on Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thruster - This is the sense of "fraud" that I meant. Deception. I was going to say as well, it doesn't matter if they actually believe it themselves (though incredible after so much uncontested refutals of their faults, fundamental math flaws in their literature not the least). I'm not angry; upsetting science is great. But P & Fleishman carrying on their cold fusion the way Mills & co have for so long, that's wouldn't be defensible.chrismb wrote: Meanwhile, if the probity of these CEO's, &c., is beyond question, then it simply means they are victims of this self-deception, rather than perpetrators. But a deception it is. Self-, intended-, criminal-, whatever.....
Well, to be fair to Johan, overturning the Cooper pairs theory of SC is relatively modest next to fractional electron states.The reaction people give Mills has much less to do with him than it does with ourselves. If he were to turn out to be correct, then pretty much everyone else would be wrong. . .just the same situation our Dr. Johan Prinz faces.
IEEE nuked Mills last year.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear ... t-or-not/2
The data says it's extremely unlikely they are producing "hydrinos" as no one else seems to be able to replicate this.If you're rational at all (and there are plenty who are not, whenever they consider BLP) then first thing is deal with the data.
My bet has been they are transmuting nickel (a known reaction) or getting some other form of LENR that is mildly interesting but not a real power source. I'd love to be wrong here but it's very very very unlikely that Mills' theory is substantially correct. If BLP were publicly traded I'd short them to zero.William H. Green, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT, says that the BlackLight concept is ”inconsistent with experiment,” because many people have made sodium hydride before without seeing it decompose into sodium and an anomalous form of hydrogen.
They seem to have almost zero press this year: http://www.blacklightpower.com/press.shtml
I'm guesssing the ride is just about over.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
come on... STEORN is in a while different (lower) league.Giorgio wrote:I do hope not only to bite, but to cut my tongue. Nothing will make me more happy than claims by BLP, Eestor or Steorn (among the many) to be right. It will mean a completely new world of physics to be discovered and analyzed.AcesHigh wrote:really, all the luck to the guys at BLP. I am skeptical of their claims, but I DO HOPE to bite my tongue!
Unfortunately the more time passes, the bigger is the possibility that this new world is existing only in those guys brains......
first... its a perpetual motion machine. BLP and Eestor are not perpetual motion... just extremely efficient.
second... it seems BLP and Eestor are at least explained with science, even if they got things wrong. Steorn is never explained, it was never demonstrated. It was not made by guys with degrees in engineering, chemistry or anything like that. It was made by two webdesigner guys.
Judging from the original link- slide 10or 11. The process seems straight forward, just like many chemical reactions. BUT, where are the Hydrinos? If you take hydrogen, and with a catalyst, somehow make the electron drop to a lower energy state than what is generally considered to be the ground state and this is an endothermic reaction, then net energy might be possible.
Why is there no hydrino end products to measure. If it converts back to a accepted ground state hydrogen atom, there would be no net energy gain.
As far as hydrinos existing in the solar corona (and serving as a mechanism to heat the solar corona). They should be easily detectable by spectroscopy. There are various hydrogen spectral lines (at least two- Hydrogen alpha and beta lines). Where is the line for hydrino spectral line?. Besides, there are magnetic mechanisms that probably explain the corona heating.
Further, if hydrogen can drop an electron below the ground state, I would expect any other element to also do so. There would be a whole zoo of unexplained phenomena.
Electrons can approach closer to the proton. But it takes a lot of energy input to do so, and apparently there are quantum mechanic reasons why there are no intermediate steps in a stable atom. A neutron star is an example where the electrons have 'dropped' to a condition closer to the proton (sort of) It is called a Neutron. Neutron stars are well accepted cosmic entities (black holes are more problematical). Their behavior and characteristics and the requirements for their formation are well known. If a hydrino star exists, where are they? They would be intermediate in size between a white dwarf and a neutron star, and they would be easily observable (bright).
The only dodge I can see (or not see) is that hydrinos, for some unknown reason becomes a ghost particle. Who knows, maybe that explains the dark energy problem in cosmology. Of course, that would require a complete reworking of the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe. Or, wait, perhaps hydrino formation from the primordial soup is what powered inflation!
What I'm getting at is that the existence of hydrinos would have an impact on many things on both the small and large scale. It should be easily measured. You would think they would be widely incorporated into observations. Claiming that a special man made catalyst is required is a possible dodge, but I am extremely skeptical.
Dan Tibbets
Why is there no hydrino end products to measure. If it converts back to a accepted ground state hydrogen atom, there would be no net energy gain.
As far as hydrinos existing in the solar corona (and serving as a mechanism to heat the solar corona). They should be easily detectable by spectroscopy. There are various hydrogen spectral lines (at least two- Hydrogen alpha and beta lines). Where is the line for hydrino spectral line?. Besides, there are magnetic mechanisms that probably explain the corona heating.
Further, if hydrogen can drop an electron below the ground state, I would expect any other element to also do so. There would be a whole zoo of unexplained phenomena.
Electrons can approach closer to the proton. But it takes a lot of energy input to do so, and apparently there are quantum mechanic reasons why there are no intermediate steps in a stable atom. A neutron star is an example where the electrons have 'dropped' to a condition closer to the proton (sort of) It is called a Neutron. Neutron stars are well accepted cosmic entities (black holes are more problematical). Their behavior and characteristics and the requirements for their formation are well known. If a hydrino star exists, where are they? They would be intermediate in size between a white dwarf and a neutron star, and they would be easily observable (bright).
The only dodge I can see (or not see) is that hydrinos, for some unknown reason becomes a ghost particle. Who knows, maybe that explains the dark energy problem in cosmology. Of course, that would require a complete reworking of the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe. Or, wait, perhaps hydrino formation from the primordial soup is what powered inflation!
What I'm getting at is that the existence of hydrinos would have an impact on many things on both the small and large scale. It should be easily measured. You would think they would be widely incorporated into observations. Claiming that a special man made catalyst is required is a possible dodge, but I am extremely skeptical.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Dave,TallDave wrote:Well, to be fair to Johan, overturning the Cooper pairs theory of SC is relatively modest next to fractional electron states.The reaction people give Mills has much less to do with him than it does with ourselves. If he were to turn out to be correct, then pretty much everyone else would be wrong. . .just the same situation our Dr. Johan Prinz faces.
IEEE nuked Mills last year.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear ... t-or-not/2
The data says it's extremely unlikely they are producing "hydrinos" as no one else seems to be able to replicate this.If you're rational at all (and there are plenty who are not, whenever they consider BLP) then first thing is deal with the data.
My bet has been they are transmuting nickel (a known reaction) or getting some other form of LENR that is mildly interesting but not a real power source. I'd love to be wrong here but it's very very very unlikely that Mills' theory is substantially correct. If BLP were publicly traded I'd short them to zero.William H. Green, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT, says that the BlackLight concept is ”inconsistent with experiment,” because many people have made sodium hydride before without seeing it decompose into sodium and an anomalous form of hydrogen.
They seem to have almost zero press this year: http://www.blacklightpower.com/press.shtml
I'm guesssing the ride is just about over.
Sorry but your post is all wrong. One minute cursory glance of the pseudo-IEEE web site demonstrates that the journalism is just wrong. Mills' work dates back far further than this unnamed journalist (worry when people refuse to sign their work) says.
FYI, there have been lots of people posit the experiments at Rowan are merely transmuting nickel (whatever that means) but the actual study done at Rowan says that is not possible.
Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one. If you can't be bothered to look at the situation, why would you tender an opinion? Just seems like a severe act of ignorance.
BLP is long from dead or dying. These last 2 years they're accelerating their sales. Looks to me anything other than time run out. Rather, the evidence has mounted to such a degree, that despite the lookers on who posit in ignorance about how what's there cannot work--it is working, ever more each day.
Just pay attention, Peeps! It ain't "transmutation" of nickel, or anything else modern chemistry can explain.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Well, if you see them only under the technological point of view you are right, they are on different leagues.AcesHigh wrote:come on... STEORN is in a while different (lower) league.
first... its a perpetual motion machine. BLP and Eestor are not perpetual motion... just extremely efficient.
second... it seems BLP and Eestor are at least explained with science, even if they got things wrong. Steorn is never explained, it was never demonstrated. It was not made by guys with degrees in engineering, chemistry or anything like that. It was made by two webdesigner guys.
For me anyhow I consider them on the same boat for the following reasons:
All got quite a lot of money from investors.
All went through change in business models and products
All are on the market with their claims from many years without having delivered anything to date.
It's hard for me not to consider them similar.
Again, if one of them will ever deliver something I'll be happy to cut my tongue and serve it to that company guys on a silver plate with mashed potatoes and choice of sauce.
Errr..... not at all... BLP is a perpetual motion machine because it generates energy from nothing and outputs 'waste' hydrino hydrogen.AcesHigh wrote:first... its a perpetual motion machine. BLP and Eestor are not perpetual motion... just extremely efficient.
If this hydrino hydorgen has a differential energy state to 'normal' hydrogen then you should be able to generate yet more energy from this. Back to hydrogen, with energy coming out all the time?
BLP is a dS<0 device, as proposed, but it has hidden that fact behind the notion of a speculated hydrogen-hydrino vector.
By now there must be tons of this hydrino stuff kicking around, if they've generated net energy in these experiments of theirs. All they have to do is ship some of this hydrino 'exhaust' to non-believing labs (I mean, what else have they done with it?), and the job is done and BLP gets a big tick!
This hydrino stuff is, supposedly, going to have an energy level some 15keV/nucleon below that of normal hydrogen. So it should be inert in any chemical reactions (that can only supply a few eV). In fact, it should resemble a neutron, except for the fact that it doesn't decay back to a proton and electron on the usual 20 min half-life that solo neutrons do.
Where's the hydrino, GIT? I wanna get some and do some experiments on it.