BLP news

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:17 pm

Earthtech has tried to duplicate the BLP process several times, all with a null result.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:55 pm

for reference, here are Earthtech's results/attempts - all unsuccessful (many would say, unsurprisingly). however, there do seem to be citings of some sucess elsewhere - eg. @Westinghouse and elsewhere - although i havent read all the details, it seems quite likely that those were using Mills's own equipment, with independent observers on-site - hardly the same thing as fully replicated/replicatable results.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/mills/mills1.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/blp/prelim.html

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run3.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run4.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run5.html

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:39 pm

GIThruster wrote: If you're not interested in the truth and want to talk about beauty queens at Rowan, please spare us all your blather.

Whatever you can use as a diversion from a specific question, you use. Amazing.

I cannot find any patents. You say there are 58. Just state one, and I am sure the others will come up. You're the one saying there are 58. It is impossible to prove a negative, I can hunt all day for a patent and not find one, but you are still able to claim there are some. That might be true, but the only way to prove such a thing is true is to come up with evidence against the contrary position, which in this case means you post a patent number.

C'mon, just post it!... and links to Rowan's outputs that you say I'm not reading. I WANT TO READ THIS STUFF. But you'd rather tell me I'm not looking than point to where I can read it!?!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:40 pm

Can everyone please post a post which simply says "Give us an issued patent number!". We need a long list of constant badgering of GIT for him until he comes up with the goods.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:12 pm

rcain wrote:for reference, here are Earthtech's results/attempts - all unsuccessful (many would say, unsurprisingly). however, there do seem to be citings of some sucess elsewhere - eg. @Westinghouse and elsewhere - although i havent read all the details, it seems quite likely that those were using Mills's own equipment, with independent observers on-site - hardly the same thing as fully replicated/replicatable results.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/mills/mills1.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/blp/prelim.html

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run3.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run4.html
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/bl ... /Run5.html

Ah, thank you.

I seem to recall there were one or two other outfits that tried this as well, university chemistry or physics departments. As I recall, they didn't have quite as much notes. I think I happened upon them via a Slashdot discussion or something similar years back. I don't have a link, sorry, but nice work finding this one.

Independent replication is everything in science. It's the empirical foundation of the epistemological method of science.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:15 pm

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:15 pm

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:15 pm

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:19 pm

It's more tricky to find rejected patents, but I guess I have found one, and this pretty much sums it up.

(I like the bit where he says "Thus, it is now obvious that...")

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:36 pm

i've found a list of links to other BLP 'verification' experiments/results -

http://hydrino.org/lab-reports.html

haven't read them all yet, but a quick glance at the one from Westinghouse suggests that they have observed H-binding energies consistent with those expected for a proposed 'Hydrino' bond.

good find above Chris. noting well the line:

This {patent application} is not pursuasive because the reaction between Hydrogen and Raney Nickel (used in the applicant reactor...) is known to produce a highly exothermic recombination of Hydrogen atoms released from its surface, after being chemisorbed thereto...

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/some ... -well.html

seems some fairly simple control experiments would have sorted this out one way or the other (Mill's claims its a factor theyve already discounted, but i've yet to see that work)

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:48 pm

kurt9 wrote:Earthtech has tried to duplicate the BLP process several times, all with a null result.

No, EarthTech tried once, over a decade ago because Hal Puthoff thought his ZPF theory might explain the excess energy. They did not however consult with BLP nor get any power out. Dr. Eric Davis at Earthtech consulted with Dr. Peter Jannson at Rowan when they set up their calorimetry because Eric wanted to be sure they did it correctly. It is much, much more complicated than you'd guess. I was a fly on the wall during those discussions so I can tell you first hand that Earthtech and Eric were both entirely satisfied with Rowan's cal work.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:02 pm

chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote: If you're not interested in the truth and want to talk about beauty queens at Rowan, please spare us all your blather.
Whatever you can use as a diversion from a specific question, you use. Amazing.

I cannot find any patents. You say there are 58. Just state one, and I am sure the others will come up. You're the one saying there are 58. It is impossible to prove a negative, I can hunt all day for a patent and not find one, but you are still able to claim there are some. That might be true, but the only way to prove such a thing is true is to come up with evidence against the contrary position, which in this case means you post a patent number.

C'mon, just post it!... and links to Rowan's outputs that you say I'm not reading. I WANT TO READ THIS STUFF. But you'd rather tell me I'm not looking than point to where I can read it!?!

Now see that, you were able to find stuff all by yourself.

Honestly Chris, I cannot imagine why you think the patents much matter. They're a very small issue. Stuff does not need to work at all to get a patent, so the existence of a patent is in no way evidence except that someone spent the time and money to get one.

But FYI, this is the 5th or 6th time you wanted something (most often a patent) and thought I had an obligation to waste my time looking for it. I don't and you're utterly deluded to think I'm obligated to pursue your issues, obsessions. misdirections, distractions, or need to pee.

I just don't care. If you want something I have handy, fine; but if you don't get what you want, don't whine about it. Just go find the stuff yourself. You do not direct my time, effort or research.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:02 pm

GIThruster wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Earthtech has tried to duplicate the BLP process several times, all with a null result.
No, EarthTech tried once, ... They did not however consult with BLP nor get any ..

the notes ive seen from Earthtech (1997 ish, linked above) suggest:
a) they did between 3 and 6 separate runs (not one) - all unsuccessful
b) they requested guidance/help from Mill's (BLP) who refused to help or even respond.

maybe theres more to it, but either way it seems a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:10 pm

rcain wrote:
GIThruster wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Earthtech has tried to duplicate the BLP process several times, all with a null result.
No, EarthTech tried once, ... They did not however consult with BLP nor get any ..
the notes ive seen from Earthtech (1997 ish, linked above) suggest:
a) they did between 3 and 6 separate runs (not one) - all unsuccessful
b) they requested guidance/help from Mill's (BLP) who refused to help or even respond.

maybe theres more to it, but either way it seems a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

6 runs is not much for a serious experiment. It was however just ONE experiment, it was unfunded, and EarthTech got a null result. Since they did the work without instruction, that's not hard to understand and doesn't really mean anything.

FYI, without written permission, it is illegal to do a scientific replication of something once the patent has been issued. Once the patent is pending, it is a violation to do research without a research license. Research licenses don't generally cost anything. They're not sold like commercial licenses. They are however required if you want to do a replication.

Even a short note can be considered a research license. So for example, if you want to do an MLT replication, you should ask Paul March or Jim Woodward and get written permission, since they own the patent on the MLT. If you don't ask permission, and you do the replication, and you get no result--that result isn't worth anything, because first off you've shown you didn't have the communications to know what you were doing in the first place.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm

GIThruster wrote:Stuff does not need to work at all to get a patent, so the existence of a patent is in no way evidence except that someone spent the time and money to get one.

If something doesn't work, and all someone has done is push a load of words through, then you're saying you can patent an idea. This is false.

I don't think the patents matter very much. What I am interested in is the comments from the examiners, who are usually extremely well-acquainted with the field, as demonstrated here by Stephen Kalafut. Where do you say he's made the mistake in his equations, then?