tomclarke wrote:Maybe the 25 years is because they have nothing.
Consider, if they had what they claim, water-tight experimental evidence could easily be checked by NASA etc, people would believe, or at least sit up take notice. And BLP funding would be easier.
So why have they not done this?
Tom, its a common misconception that NASA does this sort of investigative work. When they happen to have someone who is well educated in the issue at hand, then they can make an attempt at this, as with Widom-Larsen theory; and recall that their investigators had 10 months of tutoring by Larsen. Conversely, despite the years of consistent lab results on the M-E work, NASA will not do an investigation because they say they simply do not have the people to do it. Remember NASA's technical people are primarily engineers, not physicists; and engineers seldom have the background to check things like M-E theory, so NASA isn't even checking the experimental apparatus, methods and protocols. My guess is the same is true of the BLP issue, since it is primarily chemistry and NASA is not full up on chemists. This is why I have been saying for years, that the real investigatory work needs to be ordered by congress and given to the National Academies of Science. This is the organization designed for just such an investigation, but to get one you need to spend at least a cool million dollars. So real answers to this issue are being neglected now for 25 years, and this is the history of all revolutions in scientific paradigms, at least according to Thomas Kuhn.
OTOH, universities have an abundance of chemists and that's why Rowan did the investigation they did. Now look at where it got them--nowhere. Even the people here, who claim to have an open mind, have excuse after excuse that they can't be bothered with BLP. It simply does not matter how much evidence there is, and how many world-class professionals are convinced--most people find skepticism an emotionally safe investment. If you don't mind being a coward, skepticism is a natural position for most people.
Fact is, if you're an enthusiast or optimistic about an emergent technology and it doesn't pan out, the skeptics will come out of the woodwork to make you pay for your optimism. OTOH, if you're an habitual skeptic that can't be bothered to give these sorts of issues the time of day, the enthusiasts and optimists will be too busy enjoying the moment to bother roasting the skeptics. Skepticism is an entirely safe position so long as one doesn't mind being a coward.
Chris, you made these unfounded assertions many months ago and still have no sources to back up your claims. You don't know if hydrinos can be captured at all. We certainly have no reason to suspect they're inert, especially given the claims that hydrino crystals exist. You're not a chemist and you're not conversant in the theory, or in the level of chemistry necessary to debunk BLP's claims. Given BLP has been publishing in the chemistry peer review journals and presenting at the American Chemical Society's annual conferences for many years, I'll take the response of the chemistry community over your uninformed presumptions.
And note now, 2 pages of responses and no evidence that anyone has read a single validation study. So what are y'all actually responding to?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis