BLP news

[MSimon]

MSimon,
Hot fusion work was started fifty years ago and you can't give Rossi another six months?

Neither theory nor plant....

Hot fusion has actual verified experiments. And a theory. No working reactor. The tests made so far over the 50 years conforming to the theory. The problems are of an engineering nature. Things do not behave on a large scale the way they do on a small scale.

BTW I thought Rossi had a customer who was using the plant.

BLP will never get their device to work until they find the missing hydrinos.

[Skipjack]

I love how people compare apples and oranges, when they compare hot fusion to cold fusion.
Mills might have something, but most likely he does not. If he had something, why arent we still seeing any working reactors, demo plants, anything tangible, after all those years? And always the working plant was "just 18 months or so away".
Sorry, but this is what I call vaporware.

[Betruger]

MSimon,
Hot fusion work was started fifty years ago and you can't give Rossi another six months?

Like to make another bet on who will first generate significant, continuous net power out by LENR, Polywell or hot fusion?

LOL!

This is what I don't get about you. Why.... Why in the world would you stake LENR/whatever-it-is research on Rossi. Let someone like (e.g.!) Woodward investigate it. Cut the BS and lies. Let the WORK speak for itself.

I love how people compare apples and oranges, when they compare hot fusion to cold fusion.
Mills might have something, but most likely he does not. If he had something, why arent we still seeing any working reactors, demo plants, anything tangible, after all those years? And always the working plant was "just 18 months or so away".
Sorry, but this is what I call vaporware.

Put up or shut up as ScottL first put it. You can cry foul all you want - pointing this out is exactly what you reproach others with, GIT and Parallel. Mills and Rossi both have made nothing out of ... something.

[tomclarke]

Such proof as there is about LENR can be debated but will not be resolved until a device is sold commercially that actually works.

Parallel, all it needs is one replicable experiment, written up so that all errors can be checked, with results clearly beyond errors. that has not yet happened, but if you are right I'm sure it will soon!

Why fail to support funding for careful science to try replication?

LENR has had lots of funding over the year, and it looks like it will get more on Rossi-fever back.

BLP with 85M and 25 years have not done this careful science. or maybe they have, but it just does not work?

LENR overall has had much more.

How much more money do you want?

You certainly have less proof that it doesn't work than the supporters have that it does. You will never prove a negative.

That is exactly the point. LENR is not a valid scientific theory. Nothing can disprove it because it makes no contradictable predictions.

That should ring alarm bells.

[tomclarke]

I just have to laugh. People here complain that there's no physical evidence until BLP builds a 50 kw thermal reactor. Outsiders still don't believe it so Rowan builds the same reactor, mixes the catalyst independently and runs the experiment as open science for two years. People complain the results aren't published until I point out there are 95 papers published over 20 years. People complain that what Mills has might be a LENR reaction until BLP builds a fuel cell that can't possibly be a LENR reaction. A real chemist with real credentials does a real analysis and comes to the conclusion that BLP ought to be funded for their two scale ups and people here whine that BLP hasn't already done this.

Just seems to me some people here need an enema more than they need to be typing in this folder. No value added with these kinds of posts and you look more and more foolish as time goes on. Whether BLP has what they claim or not, these kinds of childish criticisms are not value added.

The reactors contain chemicals, and react. It is then a matter of careful experiment and theory to determine whether the excess heat is more than chemical.

If they had a useful product, there would be no such ambiguity, because the excess energy would be way beyond chemical.

They don't. And most likely (by a long way) that is because the excess energy is not beyond chemical, when you look more carefully than a Rowan BLP supporter.

[chrismb]

I think the argument has long since gone past validation and has gone into the "put up or shutup" category.

Scott you seem to have your facts backward.... [blaming licencees for not delivering] They sold non-exclusive licenses to others to do that [/blaming licencees for not delivering].

The high-level narcissist is a master of taking credit, whether deserved or not, and shifting blame, whether justified or not. After all, in their minds, they are entitled to all credit for success and since they are without fault cannot possibly be blamed for failure.

[GIThruster]

If they had a useful product, there would be no such ambiguity, because the excess energy would be way beyond chemical.

They don't. And most likely (by a long way) that is because the excess energy is not beyond chemical, when you look more carefully than a Rowan BLP supporter.

Tom, with all due respect, I dunno where these wild assertions you make come from. They're obviously contrary to the facts. The study at Rowan in 2008 was very clear and specific, that the energy released from their reactor was well beyond what could be generated by any normal chemical reaction. A host of profs signed off on the report, many from the chemistry department who all asserted no standard chemical reaction could account for even a couple percent of the energy generated. these chemists purchased and mixed what went into the reactor and analyzed what came out and put their enviable reputations on the line when they signed off that NO normal chemical reaction could account for the energy released.

I don't know what you think is convincing evidence, but the claims you're making are certainly counter-factual. This comment you've posed over and over about what is not in evidence is completely wrong.

This is why I have to laugh at people who continually want to move the bar and the standard for what is noteworthy evidence--because no matter how much evidence some people have, they'll pretend they don't have what they want or need. Just seems laughable to me.

Look too at the ridiculous statements aimed at discrediting. . . .the comments about Rowan not being a credible school by a moron referring to the program that was there 30 years ago, rather than the current program that is all world-class engineering and science. And when the Harvard group did their study and signed off, there were comments about them. Now we have MIT and Cal-Tech people and again no matter what they find, unless it supports the status quo position, its demonized.

The people here often sound more like a cult or religious sect than a group of science oriented people. "Don't confuse me with the facts. . .my mind is made up."

[chrismb]

Rowan are not a well-known research university. ..

Just so, but ....Rowan's stated intent, is to become the nations's number one engineering institution.

Notable alumni:
Jessica Boyington, Miss New Jersey USA 2006

• • • 

• • • Engineering credentials, par excellence....
      (Even has fusor beams coming out of her ears!)

[seedload]

Tom, with all due respect, I dunno where these wild assertions you make come from. They're obviously contrary to the facts. The study at Rowan in 2008 was very clear and specific, that the energy released from their reactor was well beyond what could be generated by any normal chemical reaction. A host of profs signed off on the report, many from the chemistry department who all asserted no standard chemical reaction could account for even a couple percent of the energy generated. these chemists purchased and mixed what went into the reactor and analyzed what came out and put their enviable reputations on the line when they signed off that NO normal chemical reaction could account for the energy released.

Let's not overstate what Rowan said. They said things like "While this initial analysis is not intended to conclusively validate BLP’s lower energy hydrogen hypothesis our conclusions clearly are not in conflict with it."

Things like, "In  conclusion,  the  experimental  work  carried  out  at Rowan  University  in  the  Departments  of Engineering  and  Chemistry confirms  independently  the  empirical  findings  of  BLP  with  respect to anomalous  heat  generation  and  chemical  analysis.   BLP  attributes the anomalous heat generated to the formation of an unusual state of hydrogen during  these  reactions, what they have named 'hydrinos'."

And things like, "These  results  are  supportive 
of the possibility of having lower electronic states of hydrogen"

And, "This report has revealed BLP proprietary recipes that demonstrate consistent heat gains from what their scientists state are the result of the formation of lower energy hydrogen."

It is NOT glowing acceptance of BLP and the Mill's hydrino theory despite how you characterize it.

I don't know what you think is convincing evidence, but the claims you're making are certainly counter-factual. This comment you've posed over and over about what is not in evidence is completely wrong.

This is why I have to laugh at people who continually want to move the bar and the standard for what is noteworthy evidence--because no matter how much evidence some people have, they'll pretend they don't have what they want or need. Just seems laughable to me.

Look too at the ridiculous statements aimed at discrediting. . . .the comments about Rowan not being a credible school by a moron referring to the program that was there 30 years ago, rather than the current program that is all world-class engineering and science. And when the Harvard group did their study and signed off, there were comments about them. Now we have MIT and Cal-Tech people and again no matter what they find, unless it supports the status quo position, its demonized.

The people here often sound more like a cult or religious sect than a group of science oriented people. "Don't confuse me with the facts. . .my mind is made up."

Don't exaggerate the facts in order to try to make up my mind.


BTW - Rowan is a fine school. It has certainly improved over the years due to a HUGE donation. Not quite first rate even in the state (Princeton, Rutgers, NJIT). I mean, who has ever heard of someone siting Rowan as validation of anything except in this case. Regardless, I was kinda joking about Glassboro State reference. I visited a friend at Glassboro when I was in college. It was fun. Couches got burned, the Police came and chased crowds of kids around, all kinds of hell broke out, the news called it a riot, and we had a great time. That friend is delivering pizzas now, 25 years later. Go figure. But Rowan has certainly improved since then.

[seedload]

Rowan are not a well-known research university. ..

Just so, but ....Rowan's stated intent, is to become the nations's number one engineering institution.

Notable alumni:
Jessica Boyington, Miss New Jersey USA 2006

• • • 

• • • Engineering credentials, par excellence....
      (Even has fusor beams coming out of her ears!)

Ms. Delaware 2006.

OMG, this is great! Epstein from Welcome Back Kotter! He even became a professor at Rowan! That is actually kinda cool.




Of course, my school boasts Chuck Barris on it's list, so I should talk:)

[GIThruster]

It is NOT glowing acceptance of BLP and the Mill's hydrino theory despite how you characterize it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about anyone accepting Mills' theory. I don't even accept Mills' theory. Before you even begin to look at the consequences of the evidence, you need to have a firm handle on the evidence. No one at Rowan, or Harvard, or MIT, or Cal-Tech is going to stick their neck out and say they believe Mills' theory. I certainly am not going to and I haven't pressed anyone here to do so nor ever offered anything like that sort of argument or conclusion.

All I've said is "here is the evidence. . ."

And yes, Rowan is a completely different place than Glassboro was. I grew up in NJ and we all made fun of Glassboro. It was a "teachers college" and as such, pandered to educators and the worst academic standards one could have. $100 million later there is a very different story, including huge new science and engineering facilities, new staff, grant monies from places like NIAC, etc. Even the housing has exploded. Rowan is slated to be folded into the Rutgers state university program soon. NJIT is not even comparable as it's a technical institute, not a university. Rowan is certainly far in advance of the Ramapo state college, however.

[chrismb]

It is NOT glowing acceptance of BLP and the Mill's hydrino theory despite how you characterize it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about anyone accepting Mills' theory. I don't even accept Mills' theory. Before you even begin to look at the consequences of the evidence, you need to have a firm handle on the evidence. No one at Rowan, or Harvard, or MIT, or Cal-Tech is going to stick their neck out and say they believe Mills' theory. I certainly am not going to and I haven't pressed anyone here to do so nor ever offered anything like that sort of argument or conclusion.

All I've said is "here is the evidence. . ."

• • • • really?

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.

Yes. The process can be used for any element for which a suitable catalyst can be found. The theory does predict that in some circumstances, a catalyst will come in contact with an element under the very low pressure and otherwise special conditions necessary for a fractal energy state to be obtained, and in Mills' book you'll find discussion of this.

[chrismb]

they have a whole bundle of patents, 58 issued and more than 100 pending.

From wiki;

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.

[chrismb]

Try to bear in mind that BLP does not need to post this info any longer. It is years since they were looking for investors. They are now selling licenses so they don't need to worry about convincing people 5 years after the fact.

• • • Why pay for endorsements, then?

impressive endorsements:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technolo ... n-reports/

[chrismb]

I never said anything about anyone accepting Mills' theory. I don't even accept Mills' theory.

• • • but you do say..

It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that the work at Rowan is somehow flawed