BLP news

[GIThruster]

Interesting that it appears this is the first time Mills has published in a peer reviewed physics journal.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q8005267210x3568/

good find. will be interesting to see what response it kicks up.

I spent a little time searching for scholarly reviews of the paper and have found nothing yet, which is very surprising given the sheer number of enemies hydrino theory has. There are a lot of citations in French journals but my French is too many years out of practice to be useful here. There are some American blogs following, but they're all doing what often happens here--pontificate without any real detail or knowledge of the subject.

Its actually amusing to see how angry people get over the subject when they don't have the tools to judge. As many of the bloggers note--it really does rival the inquisition attitude in the stuffiest sorts of religion.

The paper was published 4 months ago, and I can't find a single credible review. Seems very odd. . .

[rcain]

...
The paper was published 4 months ago, and I can't find a single credible review. Seems very odd. . .

not so odd i think. Mill's and his 'Hydrino Theory' has received a pretty critical response on this board. People are reticent to be seen engaged anyways in such 'doubtful' ideas, lest they should harm their own reputations.

but credit to Mills and Lu for going to press and putting it to the acid test. That took some courage, imo.

[GIThruster]

Dr. Peter Jansson, Rowan University:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfjOIoPw ... r_embedded

[parallel]

I think the example above illustrates that it doesn't matter how good the measurements are, if you don't believe the reaction will happen, it will be ignored.
Small wonder that Rossi doesn't think it will be possible to convince the consensus scientists and just concentrates on selling product.

The argument against BLP is "I don't believe the measurements because they don't they sell product." The argument against Rossi is "Selling the product means nothing, where are the measurements?"

[GIThruster]

I think the example above illustrates that it doesn't matter how good the measurements are, if you don't believe the reaction will happen, it will be ignored.
Small wonder that Rossi doesn't think it will be possible to convince the consensus scientists and just concentrates on selling product.

The argument against BLP is "I don't believe the measurements because they don't they sell product." The argument against Rossi is "Selling the product means nothing, where are the measurements?"

I think it's worse than that. In Rossi's case, I believe he has no explanation for the effect he claims to use. I'm still not sure about this and haven't followed the LENR thread very closely so please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I'd heard, he was still claiming to have results he could not thoroughly explain (which is one reason I don't take him too seriously.)

With BLP, the situation is almost the reverse and much more dire. Mills is telling us that quantum theory is wrong. That's a very hard pill to swallow. Imagine yourself a physicist. You keep the company of physicists, and most of what you've been taught formally, would turn out to be wrong. You've all be handling and using the theory, and gotten results consistent with observation for decades, and this upstart who is NOT a physicist comes along and claims basically that EVERYONE has been wrong.

Now indeed, revolutions in science occur in just this sort of way, and we ought to look at the evidence, but phonies make these sorts of claims perhaps 10X as often as there are scientific revolutions, and it is easier, both intellectually and emotionally, to simply discount and discard the upstart.

Like I've been saying, Mills would get the reception he has, were he right or wrong. There are almost no objections to his actual theory. 99.999% of the objections are to the consequences of his theory.

[parallel]

GIThruster,
Rossi says he has a theory for how it works and will publish it "soon." I have no reason to think he has figured it out as many bright people have tried and failed, but the jury is still out. Rossi claims his theory has allowed him to increase the output of the E-Cats.

With BLP, I really don't care if Mill's theory is wrong, the fact remains that Rowan U. has apparently duplicated BLP's results. The pseudoskeptics don't give BLP credit for that. Do you dispute their measurements?

Edit added. No question there are a lot more "inventions" that don't work than those that do. So there is little credit for saying a new invention won't work. The trick is to spot those that do.
I suspect the standard model is wrong. That electrons are more like waves (as per Meade) and perhaps that is what makes finding a theory to cover LENR so difficult.

[GIThruster]

With BLP, I really don't care if Mill's theory is wrong, the fact remains that Rowan U. has apparently duplicated BLP's results. The pseudoskeptics don't give BLP credit for that. Do you dispute their measurements?

Not at all. In particular, I like the controls over the experiment, that they run the system with and without the special mix and record the results. The amount of heat being generated seems to be beyond doubt, and beyond what any possible reactants could account for given normal chemistry. It's only through some novel explanation one can account for all the heat measured, and that novel explanation precedes the design of the experiment itself. The entire process has been highly predictive and certainly seems to follow the best sorts of scientific design and protocols.

I'm certainly not ready to say Mills' theory is correct, but there is now so much evidence for this one needs to be quite ignorant to contend otherwise.

[tomclarke]

With BLP, I really don't care if Mill's theory is wrong, the fact remains that Rowan U. has apparently duplicated BLP's results. The pseudoskeptics don't give BLP credit for that. Do you dispute their measurements?

Not at all. In particular, I like the controls over the experiment, that they run the system with and without the special mix and record the results. The amount of heat being generated seems to be beyond doubt, and beyond what any possible reactants could account for given normal chemistry. It's only through some novel explanation one can account for all the heat measured, and that novel explanation precedes the design of the experiment itself. The entire process has been highly predictive and certainly seems to follow the best sorts of scientific design and protocols.

I'm certainly not ready to say Mills' theory is correct, but there is now so much evidence for this one needs to be quite ignorant to contend otherwise.

The problem is that chemistry is complex. There in principle can be many effects in which binding hydrogen into lattices releases energy which is not accounted by a standard reaction. Nor do I think chemists (I am not one) would want to exclude such effects on theoretical grounds. Possibly a good chemist would immediately say things the Rowan people have left out of their energy budget. The Rowan experimental data and calculations have not (to my knowledge) been published in a peer reviewed chemistry journal. I wonder why not?

So while I agree there may be some interesting chemistry here, or may just be mistakes, moving from that to a new and (theoretically and experimentally) problematic theory of quantum mechanics is a big ask.

[Giorgio]

GIThruster,
Rossi says he has a theory for how it works and will publish it "soon." I have no reason to think he has figured it out as many bright people have tried and failed, but the jury is still out. Rossi claims his theory has allowed him to increase the output of the E-Cats.

Rossi claims many things, the problem is that he has yet to prove a single one of his claims.

With BLP, I really don't care if Mill's theory is wrong, the fact remains that Rowan U. has apparently duplicated BLP's results. The pseudoskeptics don't give BLP credit for that. Do you dispute their measurements?

I have given plenty of examples of side connections between Rowan U. researchers and BLP. This can in no way considered an independent test.
Their measurements have lot of holes and their final results is open to many claims. This is why they never attempted to publish their paper.

Edit added. No question there are a lot more "inventions" that don't work than those that do. So there is little credit for saying a new invention won't work. The trick is to spot those that do.

Actually no, the trick lies in having an invention that works. So far I have seen none.

I suspect the standard model is wrong. That electrons are more like waves (as per Meade) and perhaps that is what makes finding a theory to cover LENR so difficult.

The standard model might as well be wrong, but until someone will offer a working prototype of a machine based on a different model (or on an unknown model), the standard model is all what we have and we just have to stick to it.

Edit: Spelling fix

[tomclarke]

I suspect the standard model is wrong. That electrons are more like waves (as per Meade) and perhaps that is what makes finding a theory to cover LENR so difficult.

How about you give the standard model the same "benefit of the doubt" you give Rossi?

Except that in the case of the standard model there is no credible alternative yet.

Whereas the theory that says Rossi has nothing is supported by much evidence.

It beggars belief that you should have this pathological dislike of our (maybe imperfect) best guess so far about subatomic physics, and yet credit a populist with an engaging personal manner, no knowledge of physics, and no credible demo, with likely having invented a device whose principle of operation requires physics as we know it to be rethought.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

It beggars belief that you should have this pathological dislike of our (maybe imperfect) best guess so far about subatomic physics, and yet credit a populist with an engaging personal manner, no knowledge of physics, and no credible demo, with likely having invented a device whose principle of operation requires physics as we know it to be rethought.

I find Meade considerably more persuasive than you.

Your elitist put down of Rossi is what I most dislike about your posts. You say Rossi has no knowledge of physics
I wonder what you will write if he wins a Nobel prize. Undeserved because he doesn't have a PhD?

ps. I see many references to peer reviewed papers on LENR has been reported recently but I suppose you are too busy to look at them.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

We already know what you think. Why not write something new for a change?

As Tamarin, the MIT guy said.

“Rossi said he was not ready for a full academic investigation of his technology because he doesn’t yet have full patent protection,’’ Tamarin said. “That’s consistent with it not working, but it’s also consistent with it working very well.’’

http://bostonglobe.com/business/2011/11 ... story.html

[GIThruster]

I have given plenty of examples of side connections between Rowan U. researchers and BLP. This can in no way considered an independent test.
Their measurements have lot of holes and their final results is open to many claims. This is why they never attempted to publish their paper.

I don't want to be drawn into another pissing contest over BLP, but I will say that:

a) the connections between Rowan and BLP are public, obvious and not cause for concern nor castigation. There is no evidence the people involved have been swayed inappropriately but rather, it's foolhardy to suggest the researchers at Rowan would sacrifice their careers by doing flawed or slanted analysis. Especially people like Dr. Jansson, whose BS is from MIT and PhD is from Cambridge; would not risk his career for the sake of promoting BLP and to suggest this is pretty reckless.

b) The measurements at Rowan have no "holes" If you think so, you should report them. The fact the calorimeter can measure virtually 100% of the electrical energy put into the experiment is astonishing and provides superb scientific control.

c) The results are indeed open to interpretation. This is why Rowan does not state they believe in Hydrinoes. They merely note there is more energy being generated than can be explained through normal chemistry and conclude there is a "novel" reaction here. It is unlikely several tenured professors would risk their careers by stating that a standard chemical reaction cannot account for the energy found, if as Tom has suggested, they had not covered all the possibilities.

d) We don't know why the papers were not published, nor that they will not be published in the future now that BLP is finally publishing in a physics journal. It's entirely likely the papers written were turned down during review just as all BLP's papers submitted to physics journals were for 20 years. Again, if someone has evidence that the papers were never submitted, and this specifically because they were intended only to deceive, we'd all like to see that evidence. Otherwise, it is irresponsible to make this implication.

Again, I am NOT saying hydrino theory is correct nor that I think the standard model is wrong, but I will note that challenges to the standard model have been multiplying these last 10 years and they have come almost exclusively from elements within the status quo. This fact combined with the seemingly amazing predictive ability of the Milsian program suggests there ought to be an open-minded and serious investigation of the BLP claims, and for 20 years, there has not been. If Congress can order the National Academies of Science to investigate everything from biofuels to "creation science", they can order an investigation into BLP's claims.

[GIThruster]

I guess we can call this confirmation that BLP has been working on their CIHT fuel cell, which is the motive energy technology they've been promoting for about 4 years.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/ciht-cell/

impressive endorsements:

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

Of course people can argue that these aren't fully "independent" studies and they're not. We're still waiting for independents to fork over cash for something like this and without an act of congress, this may take a while. I would however remind again that presuming that professors at places like CIT and MIT have defrauded themselves by selling their endorsements, is an irrational presumption. It's one thing to be careful and skeptical and quite another to be slanderous and libelous. The principle of charity requires we take these endorsements at face value until a real determination can be made.

[ScottL]

I guess we can call this confirmation that BLP has been working on their CIHT fuel cell, which is the motive energy technology they've been promoting for about 4 years.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/ciht-cell/

impressive endorsements:

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

Of course people can argue that these aren't fully "independent" studies and they're not. We're still waiting for independents to fork over cash for something like this and without an act of congress, this may take a while. I would however remind again that presuming that professors at places like CIT and MIT have defrauded themselves by selling their endorsements, is an irrational presumption. It's one thing to be careful and skeptical and quite another to be slanderous and libelous. The principle of charity requires we take these endorsements at face value until a real determination can be made.

I think the argument has long since gone past validation and has gone into the "put up or shutup" category. Without a commercial product, we're left asking, "and?" To clarify, they've made a lot of promises and since as you point out, people are unlikely to accept the endorsements, at this point they might do well to follow through with one of their claimed commercial releases.