BLP news

[Giorgio]

Giorgio, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. If you understood how science works, you'd know this. I think we have nothing else to discuss.

You can spare me that "Philosophy of Science" crap. It might probably be considered interesting from a 6th grader, but won't work on me.
I'll quote you Feynmann on this issue: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”

Do yourself a favour, throw away those philosophy books and try to understand what proof in science really means and how it should apply to scientific claims.


Edited to fix typo.

[GIThruster]

Giorgio, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. If you understood how science works, you'd know this. I think we have nothing else to discuss.

You can spare me that "Philosophy of Science" crap. It might probably be considered interesting from a 6th grader, but won't work on me.
I'll quote you Feynmann on this issue: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds”

Do yourself a favour, throw away those philosophy books and try to understand what proof in science really means and how it should apply to scientific claims.


Edited to fix typo.

Okay. We're done now, right?

[chrismb]

So, where is the error in the examiner's equations, and why was no objection raised against the examiner's analysis?

[GIThruster]

So, where is the error in the examiner's equations, and why was no objection raised against the examiner's analysis?

Chris, I'm sorry but I didn't read it. Cut and paste the points at issue, tell me what you're saying and I'll see if I can respond. I don't see an issue coming from a refused patent request, be it rightly or wrongly refused, in light of the fact they have so many other patents, demonstrated quite easily by the fact they're selling licenses.

So what was the issue with examining a refused patent? I'm happy to grant such things exist without looking.

[chrismb]

I took a while digging out those patent sheets and then turning them into jpegs for you to see. Please look back up and see the equations the examiner has worked out for Randell, marked as 'Appendix C' in the document.

Have you read that document that I took the trouble to find for you to read?

[Giorgio]

I took a while digging out those patent sheets and then turning them into jpegs for you to see. Please look back up and see the equations the examiner has worked out for Randell, marked as 'Appendix C' in the document.

Have you read that document that I took the trouble to find for you to read?

Of course not. That's science, not philosophy.
Why should he care about such futile issues when we have Mills word that all is working fine.

Bha...

[GIThruster]

Chris, please excuse that I did not understand the prima facia value in the doc you posted. Yes, indeed this is a decent argument you make.

Without more time than I have, I would refer you to this doc, bottom of page 10 and top of page 13:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/Rowa ... rt2009.pdf

and note again, the chemists doing the work are saying that Ni cannot account for the heat generated by these experiments. This doc is dated after the issuance date of your find. Especially note in the conclusions on pg.13 "we do not see significant amount of other elements that could play a role in the synthesis. Accordingly, we have ruled out the role of other elements in these reactions."

It would certainly be interesting to follow how this dispute has proceeded.

Good find.

Tell me if I'm characterizing the arguments properly: the patent examiner is saying that a Ni reaction can occur and account for the heat generated. The Rowan examiner is saying that because there is insufficient Ni found in the reactants, no Ni reaction could have occurred. Is this correct?

Both these statements are now more than a year old--so pretty recent but there ought to have been a lot of discussion of this since. It would certainly be worthwhile to see where this has developed to.

[chrismb]

I am not familiar with NMR science to be able to determine the significance of those results.

Why you would want to put KHCl into an NMR to check if there is some odd type of hydrogen in a H(1/4) sub-orbital bond?

I mean, isn't normal KHCl readily soluble? So all you'd need to do is dissolve the stuff, and you'd get KH*Cl precipitating out.

Why use an NMR machine, when all you need is a glass of water?

[GIThruster]

You're asking the wrong guy but I generally operate on the principle of charity, presuming that PhD chemists know what they're doing and why. I think we'd need our own chemist to answer your question.

Can you post the link to the patent doc you have posted above? I'd like to forward it to Dr. Jansson and see if he has the skinny on how this has developed.

[Giorgio]

Good find.

Tell me if I'm characterizing the arguments properly: the patent examiner is saying that a Ni reaction can occur and account for the heat generated. The Rowan examiner is saying that because there is insufficient Ni found in the reactants, no Ni reaction could have occurred. Is this correct?

Do you actually realize that the examiner is linking for his rebuttal to the EXACT link that me and other posted and that these are the very same arguments that few posts ago you called "ignorant"?

In effect, you take the word of the ignorant over the word of the informed because it suits you, and you call that "proof"?

And now you call the very same arguments as "pretty interesting" and a "good find"?

You are really giving out the impression that you are posting in support of BLP just for the sake of it and without really following what's being posted in the thread at all.

[icarus]

You mean like making it up as he goes along .... well, golly-gee--gosh.

[GIThruster]

Good find.

Tell me if I'm characterizing the arguments properly: the patent examiner is saying that a Ni reaction can occur and account for the heat generated. The Rowan examiner is saying that because there is insufficient Ni found in the reactants, no Ni reaction could have occurred. Is this correct?

Do you actually realize that the examiner is linking for his rebuttal to the EXACT link that me and other posted and that these are the very same arguments that few posts ago you called "ignorant"?

In effect, you take the word of the ignorant over the word of the informed because it suits you, and you call that "proof"?

And now you call the very same arguments as "pretty interesting" and a "good find"?

You are really giving out the impression that you are posting in support of BLP just for the sake of it and without really following what's being posted in the thread at all.

No Giorgio. You linked to an ignorant blogspot with no real math and worse, a bunch of guesswork, then called it "proof".

The trouble is you don't understand what "proof" entails and you wave the word around as if it were somehow useful when it's not. Science doesn't ever provide proof. That's not how science works, despite what you may believe.

But you're not a scientist, are you? You're a technician of some sort. Most engineers don't have to have any idea of how science works. Some of them certainly do, but you're not one of them, are you?

[Giorgio]

No Giorgio. You linked to an ignorant blogspot with no real math and worse, a bunch of guesswork, then called it "proof".

Right, that blog was so ignorant and guessed that the patent examiner had to report it in his rebuttal as an evidence... you have a weird idea about the definition of the word ignorant.

The trouble is you don't understand what "proof" entails and you wave the word around as if it were somehow useful when it's not. Science doesn't ever provide proof. That's not how science works, despite what you may believe.

Laughable. I believe in scientific method the way Galileo, Bacon and Newton did, which clearly is not the way Mills and you see science.

But you're not a scientist, are you? You're a technician of some sort. Most engineers don't have to have any idea of how science works. Some of them certainly do, but you're not one of them, are you?

Neither are you, so what?
You do not need to be a scientist to be logical, but you need to be logical if you want to be believed as a scientists. Send this to Mills, maybe he will get an hint out of it.

[GIThruster]

Giorgio, I really don't want to continue to have trouble with you.

I rejected your statements because they were wrong. Your insistence, for example; that BLP needs to generate electricity was really out of touch with the scientific process. It's a silly, childish requirement that says you don't understand science. What is required rather, is for BLP to have a continuous process, one where their supposed catalyst is thermally replenished just as they say, so that we can see whether this is a continuous process with commercial application, or if it's something else, like a Raney Ni reaction, or a LENR reaction (or both.)

In order to build a reactor that physically removes the solid chemical catalyst for rejuvenation and then return it to the process, you're looking at tens of millions of dollars in R&D. BLP can't do that. That's why instead, they're furnishing as much evidence as possible and selling licenses to those who can build their own commercial applications, like energy utilities both here in the US and overseas.

So what's the bother? It's these utilities who have paid rock bottom prices for commercial licenses that we need to be waiting on. Surely, whatever they paid was little compared to what future utilities will pay if the process ever goes commercial. It's in BLP's vested interest to sell these early licenses cheap, so others will put in the time and money to demonstrate a commercial application. That's all done now, and what we really need to wait on is the construction of these commercial reactors.

Note: these utilities have continued to purchase said licenses, even AFTER the patent above was denied and the Raney Ni controversy ensued. It is therefor only fair to presume this issue has a simple answer--one we're not aware of, or that is explained by the doc I referenced and the fact no Ni is consumed in the reaction.

As to the patent doc. . .I sent Dr. Jansson a query on it. I'll let you know if I get any real info back. Fact is though, it appears the question is already dealt with from the chemists at Rowan. It appears there is no evidence of Ni consumption in the reactor, so a Raney Ni reaction cannot be the cause of the heat generated. We'll hopefully know more if I get word back from Dr. Jansson.

Final last thought: it is really your approach to this issue that I object to most. I thoroughly object to vilifying persons you know nothing about. I object to casting castigating conjectures against real scientists doing real research because it suits your predispositions. I object to you acting as if the fact BLP has changed their business model is somehow noteworthy with regards the veracity in reporting. I object that you don't seem to have any clue as to what is valuable evidence, and what is not, and yet you pronounce judgements concerning the issue as if from some papal bull.

If you want to think clearly on these issues, first is, you need to understand how science works. For that, you can pick up almost any undergraduate text on philosophy of science. Understanding phil of sci is what makes the difference between a real scientist, and a mere technician. You're a technician.

[Giorgio]

GIThruster,

What is required rather, is for BLP to have a continuous process, one where their supposed catalyst is thermally replenished just as they say, so that we can see whether this is a continuous process with commercial application, or if it's something else, like a Raney Ni reaction, or a LENR reaction (or both.)

From my first post my point has been that BLP has to show a continuous process, with continuous heat generation and regeneration of catalyst.
Now finally you agree on this point, and this is a good start.

I think we can also agree that once you have any continuous source of extra heat is a cheap issue to prove generation of electricity, and any undergrad can make a set up with few K$, so also this is not anymore an issue that should bother you.

What you are pointing at now is that the main problem is the regeneration reactor.
Well, I DO HOPE that BLP already has such a working device, otherwise I wonder on what experimental results their claims are based upon.

If they do, than is trivial to connect it to a working model. I'll tell you more, it does not even have to be a continuous process. Offline batch reprocessing is common and standard practice in power/chemical industry and will not invalidate the demonstration at all.
Just prove that you can reprocess and reuse it.

Note: these utilities have continued to purchase said licenses, even AFTER the patent above was denied and the Raney Ni controversy ensued. It is therefor only fair to presume this issue has a simple answer--one we're not aware of, or that is explained by the doc I referenced and the fact no Ni is consumed in the reaction.

I do not know what type of experience you have, but you have little clues on how business world really works.
The utilities company are not purchasing anything until now. All what they did is just to sign an agreement to use BLP technology when (if) BLP will deliver it. NO MONEY was payed to BLP. And no money will ever be payed to them until they prove their technology.
This is a point you need to have clear if you want to understand why in the real business world is so important to have an actual working prototype of what you are trying to sell.

I'll skip on the rest of your childish remarks as they bring nothing useful to this discussion. I'll just point you to one issue. I am neither a scientist nor a technician. I am a businessman with scientific knowledge. I am the one scientist and technicians need to convince if they want to make money from their idea and bring them to market.
You and BLP are clearly failing at this.