Re: [Vo]:New York MTA technology
There is another reason that comes to mind; they have monopoly so nobody offers a better alternative and nobody in the organization gets a reward for suggesting improvements. One day a component will brake and then they will have a long time of no service but that does not matter as the competition (nonexistent) will not take their business. They would not change to LENR before the utility close down. Once again that is not because it is bad people in this or any other government organization. It is because it is almost impossible to get any culture to come through in a large and old organization. Career move comes from support of the right boss. Opposition will kill your possibility to advancement. Alternatives are nonexistent for people who has ideas. They talk about remotely controlled trains as an achievement in the age when Google can drive cars on a road without drivers. No culture - no incentives. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: On the subject of governments, technology and infrastructure, here is an interesting video from the MTA showing equipment from the 1930s and 1950s still in use in the New York subway system. This shows why large organizations cannot change quickly. They have to keep the trains moving. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/30/converting_the_new_york_city_subway_system_to_communications_based_train.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
Dear Peter, I agree. There needs to be more flexibility in the current opinions. What I mean is that all to often the debate ends with a certain reason something is wrong because of known facts. That cut of the discussions and maybe the answer is in challenge a well known truth. I think so. No I am hardly able to understand the discussion in its finer nuances so it is not like I have an answer. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Lennart, Please me in the campaign of re-thinking LENR, it is very difficult because it is counter-stream thinking but I feel it is absolutely true anmd it is necessary to stop the existing theories to retard the field. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you bringing up the *Theory of Management in broad sense is the new Philosophy *is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Fwd: the show went well
http://othersideofmidnight.com/ Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
Thanks, we will see it later. Peter On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Dear Peter, I agree. There needs to be more flexibility in the current opinions. What I mean is that all to often the debate ends with a certain reason something is wrong because of known facts. That cut of the discussions and maybe the answer is in challenge a well known truth. I think so. No I am hardly able to understand the discussion in its finer nuances so it is not like I have an answer. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Lennart, Please me in the campaign of re-thinking LENR, it is very difficult because it is counter-stream thinking but I feel it is absolutely true anmd it is necessary to stop the existing theories to retard the field. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you bringing up the *Theory of Management in broad sense is the new Philosophy *is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
There are no bigger difference between government organizations and private corporations in this. There are more of the corps and therefore there are more chance some of them fit to new realities. On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:03:17 +0300, Peter Gluck wrote: Thanks, we will see it later. Peter On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Dear Peter, I agree. There needs to be more flexibility in the current opinions. What I mean is that all to often the debate ends with a certain reason something is wrong because of known facts. That cut of the discussions and maybe the answer is in challenge a well known truth. I think so. No I am hardly able to understand the discussion in its finer nuances so it is not like I have an answer. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [2] lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Lennart, Please me in the campaign of re-thinking LENR, it is very difficult because it is counter-stream thinking but I feel it is absolutely true anmd it is necessary to stop the existing theories to retard the field. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I think you bringing up the THEORY OF MANAGEMENT IN BROAD SENSE IS THE NEW PHILOSOPHY is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [5] lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html [7] I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com [8] -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com [9] -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com [10] Links: -- [1] mailto:lenn...@thornros.com [2] http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [3] mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com [4] mailto:lenn...@thornros.com [5] http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [6] mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com [7] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html [8] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com [9] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com [10] http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:ABOUT SOME PARADOXES OF LENR
Yes, Torulf, ten individuals are more likely to find the golden egg than one organization with ten people. The cost of organize ten people will make it 80% effective at the best. Then if there are 100 pathways the organization needs to make 100 starts. It really is not a question of if they are private or government. Just the government is so big that we hardly know what we mean when we say the government. Just something big diffuse and out of control. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:14 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: There are no bigger difference between government organizations and private corporations in this. There are more of the corps and therefore there are more chance some of them fit to new realities. On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:03:17 +0300, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, we will see it later. Peter On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Dear Peter, I agree. There needs to be more flexibility in the current opinions. What I mean is that all to often the debate ends with a certain reason something is wrong because of known facts. That cut of the discussions and maybe the answer is in challenge a well known truth. I think so. No I am hardly able to understand the discussion in its finer nuances so it is not like I have an answer. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Lennart, Please me in the campaign of re-thinking LENR, it is very difficult because it is counter-stream thinking but I feel it is absolutely true anmd it is necessary to stop the existing theories to retard the field. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you bringing up the *Theory of Management in broad sense is the new Philosophy *is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:AN EQUIVALENT OF THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FOR LENR
Just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/an-equivalent-of-michelson-morley.html Very truly yours, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Let me point out that Fleischmann and Pons both worked at government-owned, government-run institutions for their entire careers, as did Mizuno, Srinivasan, Storms, Miles and many others. Most cold fusion research has been paid for by governments and conducted by government employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Once again - nothing wrong with people in large organizations. I am saying they could be more effective if broken down and organized for rapid changes (read adapt to the reality we live in). You are saying people could be more effective, in your opinion. I am pointing out that in actual historical fact, in the case of cold fusion, they were not more effective. Fleischmann, Pons, Srinivasan and the others were all part of large groups in established institutions. They made contributions to cold fusion. Very few people in small institutions, and few individuals working on their own have made contributions to cold fusion. Leslie Case and Andrea Rossi are the only examples that come to mind. People such as Ed Storms and Tom Claytor have made contributions working at home, but they are drawing upon expertise they developed at Los Alamos, and in some cases they are still using instruments at Los Alamos. You are describing a counter-factual version of history. You are saying that perhaps in parallel universe, cold fusion would have worked better if it had been developed by small groups. Perhaps you are right but there is no way to prove it. There may be other discoveries and inventions which works better pursued by individuals or by small groups. Offhand, other than the airplane, I cannot think of many fundamental breakthroughs in the last 200 years that did not originate in large institutions. Fundamental breakthrough such as the incandescent light were made by individuals such as Edison and Tesla. They had lots of institutional support and lots of Wall Street capital. After 1906 the Wright brothers also had mainstream Wall Street support, without which they would have failed, in my opinion. People such as Mizuno were part of mainstream institutions but they encountered a great deal of opposition from other people in those institutions. I am not suggesting that all large institutions have welcomed this research. Pam Boss and others have had to fight decision-makers in the Navy all along. Many minor incremental technological breakthrough such as the software from Microsoft were done by small groups of individuals -- Bill Gates in that case. Compared to the fundamental RD in computers and in software conducted by the government before 1975, the contributions made by Gates are trivial. He repackaged work that was already done in mainstream institutions and mostly paid for by Uncle Sam. You could make the case that the billions of dollars he earned should have gone to the taxpayers who paid for 99% of the work before he started. You could say the same for most of the money made in Internet ventures. These people are building minor improvements to an infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers. They just happen to the first to come up with an implementation. For example, the first product made by Gates was Microsoft BASIC. BASIC was invented by Kemeny and Kurtz at Dartmouth College in 1964. Gates did an excellent job migrating it to microprocessors, but there were thousands of good programmers who might have done that. He just happened to be the first. Dartmouth is a private university but it is very much part of the establishment and a great deal of the money spent there comes from the federal government. That was already true in 1964. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hello Jed, Once again - nothing wrong with people in large organizations. I am saying they could be more effective if broken down and organized for rapid changes (read adapt to the reality we live in). I have no problem that many devoted and successful people have government affiliation. On the contrary they have had no other venue. It is not like people in government cannot achieve anything. If we let government manage everything (we are getting closer so . . .) then we could say that government has provided it all. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Let me point out that Fleischmann and Pons both worked at government-owned, government-run institutions for their entire careers, as did Mizuno, Srinivasan, Storms, Miles and many others. Most cold fusion research has been paid for by governments and conducted by government employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
The point I am getting at here is that the early stages of basic research into things like cold fusion are seldom profitable. Corporations seldom do basic research for this reason. There was a time when ATT supported a lot of fundamental research at Bell Labs, and IBM used to do a lot of fundamental research, but this seldom paid off. Of course the transistor was a huge exception, and I am sure you can think of others. However, most devices such as the laser were not profitable at first. There is little chance that anyone will make a profit from cold fusion research as it is now conducted. One of the reasons is that a force of nature cannot be patented. So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. Private individuals are also ruled out. There is little chance that you can contribute unless you happen to be a multimillionaire. You will not have the money to conduct useful experiments in something like cold fusion. It requires expensive instruments and safe lab space. That leaves only government labs, national labs, and university labs, which do not have to show a profit. Their main goals, in descending order, are: 1. To get U.S. government research funding. 2. To contribute to weapons development. 3. To establish scientific priority. 4. To discover new scientific knowledge. Goals 1 and 2 far outweigh the others. If anything such as cold fusion threatens #1 it will be ruthlessly suppressed, even if it would contribute to new scientific knowledge. You cannot blame people for making research funding the number one priority. They have to make a living after all. Most scientists do not have lavish lifestyles. Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the RD money spent by the U.S. government. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hello Vincent, I could not agree more. Large and aged private enterprises suffer from the same decease. There is no way that a CEO or department head can make a culture penetrate the organization of age and size. The hope is that even large organizations are allowed to fail. Not like many financial organizations and GM to take examples when the 'buddies' in government with unlimited funds (read our money) saved the behind of top management that should have had to leave. I hope I do not come across as not being civil. I agree that one has to live with the beast we designed. That does not mean that I think it is all well. On the contrary. It wont make dramatic improvements in my life time. However, it has to start somewhere. To develop new technology , i.e. LENR, the right conditions need to be at hand. I hear constant complains about that LENR is underfunded because all people who sits on the money do not understand better. Reality is that there is only one source. It is enormous and one would think that a small risk would be easy to take. No, reality is that there is no risk worthwhile the ramification of a failed result of LENR and there is no upside for a good outcome. Such good outcome will just be rewarded with a gold star by the closest boss. Have no controversial hot fusion (I think that there is no controversial opinion about that it would work with the right temperature and encapsulation) receive the funding and then if it does not work everybody (read nobody being the same guy) needs to be blamed. The positive result will be treated the same way regardless of the project. my solution means small flexible task oriented organizations rewarded for taking risk. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hello again Lennart, I wanted to comment on: Example of good result in the government is not enough to convince me that government can handle change and improvements I would say the same criticism applies towards a number of private corporations as well. Jed has been very good at citing numerous historical examples that have shown the Achilles heels of well-established private enterprises. I think we must resign ourselves to the realization that we are stuck with both extremes running our society: Governments and private enterprises, and all the interesting hybrids that find their little niches in-between. I think it best if both extremes try to do their best to remain civil and work with each other for the common good of everyone. As they say on the Red Green Show: We're all in this together. http://www.redgreen.com/ I'm hoping this is a matter we can both agree on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Yes, Jeff only the politician can handle it. BS the reality is that we let them. We accept that we have less and less input on the over all financial operations. I believe that your priority list is accurate, or close enough. Are you happy with that? I am not. I have several reasons in descending order: 1. It is centralizing the decision making (the Sovjetunion tried between 1917 and 1989 - did not work so well). 2. The military (industrial complex) does very little for people in general seen away from those who have their income from that part of society. It ought to be well down played. 3. It makes the freedom (academic and personal in general) less. 4. It limits whom can be funded by bureaucratic (very dull) tools. You are saying this is how it was, this is how it is, therefore it should remain the same. I say it is time to change gear and undo some of the old rules. That I understand is consensus in Vortex that it might take modification of established rules to make LENR a reality. I think the same goes for our society in general and for management principal especially. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The point I am getting at here is that the early stages of basic research into things like cold fusion are seldom profitable. Corporations seldom do basic research for this reason. There was a time when ATT supported a lot of fundamental research at Bell Labs, and IBM used to do a lot of fundamental research, but this seldom paid off. Of course the transistor was a huge exception, and I am sure you can think of others. However, most devices such as the laser were not profitable at first. There is little chance that anyone will make a profit from cold fusion research as it is now conducted. One of the reasons is that a force of nature cannot be patented. So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. Private individuals are also ruled out. There is little chance that you can contribute unless you happen to be a multimillionaire. You will not have the money to conduct useful experiments in something like cold fusion. It requires expensive instruments and safe lab space. That leaves only government labs, national labs, and university labs, which do not have to show a profit. Their main goals, in descending order, are: 1. To get U.S. government research funding. 2. To contribute to weapons development. 3. To establish scientific priority. 4. To discover new scientific knowledge. Goals 1 and 2 far outweigh the others. If anything such as cold fusion threatens #1 it will be ruthlessly suppressed, even if it would contribute to new scientific knowledge. You cannot blame people for making research funding the number one priority. They have to make a living after all. Most scientists do not have lavish lifestyles. Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the RD money spent by the U.S. government. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
From Jed, So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. IMO, it is conceivable that Dr. Randall Mills' Blacklight Power company may be pushing the envelope on that matter. Over the decades BLP, a privately owned RD company, has managed to receive millions of dollars from rich angel investors in order to prove they can build a new kind of technology capable of generating energy through the exploitation of a controversial (and presumably cheap) new energy source. The process strikes many of us on this list as being somewhat similar to LENR. Again, I say: Somewhat similar. Dr. Mills would vehemently disagree there is any similarity between his hydrinos and any kind of LENR research. Dr. Mills would then attempt to drive a stake in the heart of all LENR research and researchers, proclaiming the community is primarily made up of faulty researchers who are for the most part incapable of conducing proper experiments. Lately, I noticed there have been some members who have become brave enough to debate LENR research over at Dr. Mills' Society of Classical Physics Yahoo group. Needless to say, Dr. Mills does not seem particularly interested in letting LENR debate progress too far in his discussion group. I can't really blame him since they are supposed to focus on Classical Physics matters. I believe there are a number of really smart cookies doing their best to comprehend how Dr. Mills Classical Physics is supposed to work. Many of them ask questions that involve a lot of scary-looking mathematical formulas. I commend their efforts. OTOH, what did bug me was the existence of a group of cheerleaders who tended to congratulate Dr. Mills for every new alleged breakthrough BLP claimed had just transpired. No questions asked. The latest alleged BLP breakthrough involved transforming SunCell Technology from a moving parts engineering project to a brand new non-moving solid-state engineering project. If true, it would presumably be a huge improvement. I asked Dr. Mills if BLP would be willing to assemble some kind of a black box experimental demonstration that could show everyone that the new solid state direction BLP is taking is not just smoke and mirrors. I argued it would help quell negative commentary from pathological skeptics if BLP could show something new indeed was happening. I stressed it would need to be some kind of black box demonstration that would not reveal any proprietary details. By making such a request, repeatedly so I might add, I ended up upsetting the cheerleading section. A few went after me for challenging Dr. Mills. One even called my persistence passive aggressive. To make a long story short, I was eventually canned from the list. Despite my defrocking, I continue to bare no ill-will towards Dr. Mills or BLP, and especially towards the moderator who privately treated me with the upmost respect. Truth of the matter, Dr. Mills was never under any obligation to show and/or demonstrate anything to the peanut gallery, of which I'm a non-paying member. It is, after all, a privately owned company. But trying to get back to Jed's comment. Will BLP, a privately run RD company be able to survive the constant slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune and eventually come to be? I'd like to hope so. It would make a great story to tell one's grandchildren. Only time will tell. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:show other side of midnight went well
show The other side of midnight went well. It will be available on the web. I got to plug my book.
