RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Ron Wormus]

Steven,
Let me jump in here & make a comment:

I disagree that a self running prototype is what he needs. Why bother? It 
would just generate more distracting controversy much as Rossi's tests 
have done. Like Rossi Mills thinks the best way is to commercialize a 
product. Waiting also has the advantage of avoiding competition which 
would surely be stimulated by a self running model.


I agree with Peter. If Mill's has hydrino hydride compounds why have they 
not been characterized by their chemical properties; density, melting 
point, etc. that would be proof positive of his discovery.


He has done a lot of good experimental work over the years but getting the 
power density up to a decent level is daunting. For his suncell he needs 
to switch kilo amps at micro second frequencies and have it be durable, 
which from an engineering standpoint, will likely be difficult. And that 
is just one of many challenges he faces like recycling the catalysts etc.

Ron

--On Monday, February 02, 2015 1:18 PM -0600 Orionworks - Steven Vincent 
Johnson  wrote:





Jed,



I was wondering if you might find reason to complain about Mills current
development strategy.



All I can say is that I pretty much agree. I still don't buy Mills'
contention that... "A device that runs on its own requires the
sophistication equivalent to being a commercial device." When I read
that claim I, too, thought about the first transistor and Wright's first
self-powered aircraft.



I hope Mills knows what he is doing.



Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had
> in 1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not
> get it off the ground.
>

Orville Wright had experience flying gliders. Nobody had experience flying
airplanes in 1903!

Actually making four flights with that particular airplane in high, gusty
winds at the beach in December was an astounding accomplishment in its own
right -- never mind inventing an airplane. Wilbur later said that after
they become experienced pilots they would never think of hazarding a test
with a new aircraft in such weather. After the fourth test, a gust of wind
blew the airplane over and wrecked it.

I have witnessed similar reckless tests of cold fusion, such as with an
open beaker of boiling toxic electrolyte.

The Wrights were superb athletes. They were the first in a long line of
death-defying aviators described by Tom Wolfe. Orville was nearly killed
playing hockey, when his teeth were bashed out. The two of them used to
race bicycles at high speed on dirt roads after sunset. In the 1930s
Orville drove a souped-up luxury car at high speeds. Legend has it that the
Dayton police were told to look the other way and not issue many speeding
tickets. They were also brilliant engineers, and well-versed in physics,
similar to Neil Armstrong. (Armstrong was one of the go-to experts about
the Wrights: he read their papers; he knew several people who knew them;
and he wrote the Forward to the book by H. Combs.)



> A mass-produced commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer
> without much training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that
> really fit this description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer
> computer of this type.
>

I should say "a mass-produced *consumer* commercial device . . ." Some
mass-produced devices can only be used by experts, such Boeing 747s and gas
fired electric power plants. A cold fusion device will be a consumer
device, I hope. It would not be of much use to the world if only experts
could use it. I suppose it might be the core of a gigawatt electric power
generator.



> Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not
> produced irrefutable proof of existence.
>

I realize he claims that he has. I do not understand this proof. I do not
think it would be difficult for him to provide proof that I do understand.
Doing a clear demonstration does not seem to be a priority for him. Or for
Rossi.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jed,

 

I was wondering if you might find reason to complain about Mills current 
development strategy. 

 

All I can say is that I pretty much agree. I still don't buy Mills' contention 
that... "A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent 
to being a commercial device." When I read that claim I, too, thought about the 
first transistor and Wright's first self-powered aircraft.

 

I hope Mills knows what he is doing.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jones,

 

Jones, you give me the impression that you perceive Mills as remaining
stalwart in his actions while bravely staying at the helm of a mortally
wounded ship he knows is sinking. To me is actions strike me more like that
of a political campaign manager who feels the need to constantly beat back a
storm of threatening waves - doing his best to make sure his ship remains
afloat. As we all know, Mills has had to do a lot of bailing for decades.
Granted, it's understandable that many observers, perhaps you as well, find
the bailing behavior less convincing these days. I get that.

 

At present I'm still willing to cut BLP some slack here. I want to see how
the yet to be proven SunCell technology might possibly develop within the
next year or two of intense R&D effort. I thought the 2014 December delivery
date of a commercial prototype was unrealistic. The fact that it has come
and gone concerns me little. I've learned to be a patient man.

 

Often, Mills standard response against skepticism of his claims can be found
in the following comments recently posted:

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations
/messages/4660

 

"We have plenty of POC demonstrations such as calorimetry by multiple
manufacturers and academics on commercial instruments.   We have plenty of
proof of hydrino with 12 analytical tests run at multiple labs, EUV
continuum spectroscopy , and astrophysical data.  We have plenty of theory
confirmation on predictions of the acceleration of the expansion of the
universe, mass of the top quark, muonic hydrogen  Lamb shift, absence of
time dilation in highly redshifted quasars, double slit mechanism, identity
of dark matter, analytical solutions of molecules with match to AFM imaging,
etc."

 

I think Mills has repeated such claims many times in the past. If one is
willing to dig through some of the recent You Tube videos BLP posted last
summer for the interested, we appear to see some credible individuals
residing in universities or labs confirming some of these controversial
energy findings.  I'm not in a position to judge the veracity of such
claims. Perhaps others on this list can. In the meantime I see no reason to
doubt these alleged independent findings, not without hard evidence to
suggest deliberate cheating was occurring. So far, I see none.

 

My beef with Mills, a beef that Jed also appears to have expressed, is that
BLP has contracted out to engineering firms with a goal to build a
commercial prototype before first suggesting said firms might first want to
assemble a more forgiving self-running experimental prototype - a prototype
whose only goal would be to prove the fact that SunCell technology can run
on its own and generate excess electricity without the need of an external
power source. The prototype does not have to run long... just  long enough
to prove their point.  I think it is unwise of BLP not to have taken this
intermediate step. I have said so over at SCP. Apparently, Mills disagrees.
So, that's where it stands for me.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Randy Mills said:

> "*A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to
> being a commercial device.*"
>
I do not like to be dismissive, but that is ridiculous. That's an
incredibly ignorant thing to say. Here is a famous photo of the first
transistor:

http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/images/transistor1.jpg

Does that look like it has the sophistication equivalent to a commercial
device?

Here is the first airplane flight in history. The machine barely got off
the ground, and was incredibly unstable and difficult to fly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer#mediaviewer/File:First_flight2.jpg

In 2003 an expert pilot with far more experience than Orville Wright had in
1903 tried to fly a replica of this airplane at Kitty Hawk. He could not
get it off the ground.

Here is the same machine three days earlier, after an unsuccessful attempt
to fly:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Wilbur_Wright_after_unsuccessful_flight_trial.jpg

Does that look like a commercial device to Mills?



There are several stages to developing a commercial product:

Proof of existence. A device proves that an effect is real. Any cold fusion
reactor that produces measurable anomalous heat does this.

Proof of principle. A device proves that in principle the effect can be
useful. A cold fusion device that produces high temperatures and high power
density does this. A cold fusion device that produces three times input
power, or output with no input power, proves that in principle you might
generate electricity with cold fusion.

Further proof of principle. A cold fusion device powering a thermoelectric
device is additional proof of principle that cold fusion generators are
possible. This is true even when the cold fusion device consumes more power
than the thermoelectric device outputs.

Prototype. For space heating applications, this would be a device that
actually produces fairly stable palpable heat. Note that the smallest space
heaters produce about 500 W. For electric power this would be a device that
produces electricity with no external input power (a self powered unit).
This may be a crude prototype similar to the first transistor, which could
not possibly be of any practical use. It is a step beyond "proof of
principle" because it actually does the full application.

Commercial prototype. A device that can be mass-produced in principle, and
that can be submitted to safety agencies for testing.

Commercial device. Something that has actually been produced in some
reasonable quantity, such as 100 units, and that has passed safety
licensing and inspection. It may require intense handholding and
babysitting by the company that manufactures it. The first commercial
computers were like this. The first 100 Tesla automobiles probably fit this
description. They were very expensive and impractical for most people.

Mass-produced commercial device. Something that can be made in the
thousands or millions, and that can be sold for a profit. A mass-produced
commercial device can be used by an ordinary consumer without much
training. The model T Ford was the first automobile that really fit this
description. The Apple Computer was the first consumer computer of this
type.


Mills has not even passed the first test, as far as I know. He has not
produced irrefutable proof of existence. Between the first proof of
existence and the initial proof of principle devices, all the way up to a
mass-produced commercial device, you may have to spend billions of dollars.
The first hybrid automobiles were made around 1912. The first practical
commercial hybrid automobile was the Toyota Prius, which cost about $1
billion for R&D. Compared to cold fusion this was a minor incremental
improvement to an existing technology.

I expect the first commercial cold fusion device of any type will also cost
about $1 billion, or more. It will cost huge sums just to ensure the thing
is perfectly safe. Modern society demands very high levels of assurance
that a product is safe before it can be used. We demand that a new product
be far safer than the older product it replaces. I expect that self driving
automobiles will have to pass far more rigorous safety standards than human
driven cars do. This is not rational, but it is what society demands.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Thanks, Axil.

 

I browsed the Wikipedia article. I'll need to go through it several more times 
before I'm even close to a point of saying anything reasonably intelligible. 
What I can say is that I find some interesting concepts that, once again, 
remind me of a certain branch of computer simulation work I did on my own time 
a couple of  years ago involving Celestial Mechanics. Some of my own 
simulations showed a unique and totally unexpected definitive boundary forming 
as a "particle" bounced around within fields. I would say my orbiting 
"particle" was definitely boxed in. The shape of the boundaries formed were 
fascinating to me.

 

This is going to me take several days to digest.

 

But for now, I need to step back and temporarily lower my IQ about 10 - 15 
points. This is useful as it helps me watch the Super Bowl game with friends at 
a traditional Chinese New Year feast. I enjoy it. There will be multiple 
Chinese dishes served spanning a duration of 4 - 6  hours.

 

http://www.etiquettescholar.com/dining_etiquette/toasting_etiquette/international_toasts.html

 

Read the part about Chinese Toasts.

 

"kai pay!"

 

No one gets out alive.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Axil Axil]

I will go through my primus in detail, one point after the other with
references for your convenience.

First, stating my primus is simple terms as follows:

There is more than one way to confine an electron. First, there is the way
that most people know about, that is, an electron can orbit a nucleus. This
is what R. Mills assums in his theory.

There is another way for an electron to be confined, that is in a box, o in
other words in a potential well.

This is basically what is happening in cold fusion and reflected in R.
Mills experimental results.

Here is something to read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

When you understand this concept we can go further...



On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Peter,
>
>
>
> I still don't know what to make of Randy's bold hydrino theory and whether
> BLP will eventually be able to pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. I
> don't have sufficient mathematical expertise to parse out all the complex
> mathematical equations Randy has used in order to justify his position on
> the matter.
>
>
>
> Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective.
> Unfortunately I realize I haven't got a clue what  he's trying to say
> either, and most likely I never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed
> to have his issues with some of Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe
> Storms often critiqued some Axil's perspectives as not being sufficiently
> backed up with scientific evidence. Axil can correct me if I am mistaken,
> but as best as I can parse it out Axil believes Randy has gotten
> significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and that he has ended up
> creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical hydrinos.
> Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also appear to
> voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. There
> also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory
> maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a
> deluded theoretician. So, it's par for the course.
>
>
>
> Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly
> witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is
> either bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his
> POV the CF field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers
> which, ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group.
> Don't get me wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking
> difficult questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel
> the evidence collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But
> the group also has its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get
> rather feisty at times when they feel their superhero has been trashed in
> some way.
>
>
>
> It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as
> primarily a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying:
> Accept no other brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in
> the name of marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be
> incompatible with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can
> do about the matter.
>
>
>
> At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype
> delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of
> the game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient
> feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a
> completely different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times
> before. We have seen all this behavior before.
>
>
>
> I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that
> some minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my
> repeated suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an
> experimental POC before assembling a commercial product was effectively
> haranguing the good name of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately,
> it would appear that Dr. Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated
> suggestions personally. All I know is that it seemed to have taken repeated
> postings on my part to finally get Randy to respond directly to my
> suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came away with the feeling that
> Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my query.  Meanwhile, some
> of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap what any SCP minion
> might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad irritated.
> Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back.
>
>
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Peter Gluck]

Forget mathematics, what's with the compounds?
For mathematics etc see what Samsonenko has concluded.
Even if true, using hydrino is very much as converting lightnings in useful
usable electric energy.

Peter

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Peter,
>
>
>
> I still don't know what to make of Randy's bold hydrino theory and whether
> BLP will eventually be able to pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. I
> don't have sufficient mathematical expertise to parse out all the complex
> mathematical equations Randy has used in order to justify his position on
> the matter.
>
>
>
> Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective.
> Unfortunately I realize I haven't got a clue what  he's trying to say
> either, and most likely I never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed
> to have his issues with some of Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe
> Storms often critiqued some Axil's perspectives as not being sufficiently
> backed up with scientific evidence. Axil can correct me if I am mistaken,
> but as best as I can parse it out Axil believes Randy has gotten
> significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and that he has ended up
> creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical hydrinos.
> Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also appear to
> voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. There
> also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory
> maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a
> deluded theoretician. So, it's par for the course.
>
>
>
> Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly
> witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is
> either bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his
> POV the CF field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers
> which, ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group.
> Don't get me wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking
> difficult questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel
> the evidence collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But
> the group also has its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get
> rather feisty at times when they feel their superhero has been trashed in
> some way.
>
>
>
> It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as
> primarily a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying:
> Accept no other brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in
> the name of marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be
> incompatible with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can
> do about the matter.
>
>
>
> At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype
> delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of
> the game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient
> feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a
> completely different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times
> before. We have seen all this behavior before.
>
>
>
> I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that
> some minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my
> repeated suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an
> experimental POC before assembling a commercial product was effectively
> haranguing the good name of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately,
> it would appear that Dr. Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated
> suggestions personally. All I know is that it seemed to have taken repeated
> postings on my part to finally get Randy to respond directly to my
> suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came away with the feeling that
> Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my query.  Meanwhile, some
> of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap what any SCP minion
> might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad irritated.
> Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back.
>
>
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Peter,

 

I still don't know what to make of Randy's bold hydrino theory and whether BLP 
will eventually be able to pull the magic rabbit out of the hat. I don't have 
sufficient mathematical expertise to parse out all the complex mathematical 
equations Randy has used in order to justify his position on the matter. 

 

Sometimes I try to understand Axil's theoretical perspective. Unfortunately I 
realize I haven't got a clue what  he's trying to say either, and most likely I 
never will. All I know is that Ed Storms seemed to have his issues with some of 
Axil's theoretical perspectives. I believe Storms often critiqued some Axil's 
perspectives as not being sufficiently backed up with scientific evidence. Axil 
can correct me if I am mistaken, but as best as I can parse it out Axil 
believes Randy has gotten significant portions of his hydrino theory wrong and 
that he has ended up creating his own imaginative universe filled with mythical 
hydrinos. Meanwhile, I realize many others within the Vort Collective also 
appear to voice various degrees and levels of criticisms of Randy's theory. 
There also seem to be a few supporters who apparently believe Randy's theory 
maybe more on the track than as compared to being the ramblings of a deluded 
theoretician. So, it's par for the course.

 

Over at SCP when the Cold Fusion topic occasionally came up I repeatedly 
witnessed Randy trash the research, implying that most of the data is either 
bogus or badly assembled. I recall Randy once posting that from his POV the CF 
field seems to be filled with the equivalent of cult followers which, 
ironically, is exactly what I see happening within the SCP group. Don't get me 
wrong. I see a lot of smart objectively oriented people asking difficult 
questions of the doctor. Some of them openly support CF and feel the evidence 
collected IS valid, despite what Randy might conjecture. But the group also has 
its stable of cheer leaders, and some of them can get rather feisty at times 
when they feel their superhero has been trashed in some way. 

 

It's not difficult for me to perceive Randy's critiques on CF news as primarily 
a strategic and corporate one. I think he's basically saying: Accept no other 
brand name other than our own. Every corporation does it in the name of 
marketing. Unfortunately, such marketing strategies tend to be incompatible 
with spirit of scientific inquiry, and there's not much we can do about the 
matter.

 

At present I am not surprised that the December deadline for a prototype 
delivery has come and gone. It doesn't really concern me at this stage of the 
game. If the delays drag on for another year to two, without sufficient 
feedback and reasonable explanation from BLP, well that will be a completely 
different story. As Jones has said many, many, MANY times before. We have seen 
all this behavior before.

 

I must confess that I was both irritated and also a little amused that some 
minion over at SCP felt sufficiently compelled to inform me that my repeated 
suggestions that BLP might first want to try to assemble an experimental POC 
before assembling a commercial product was effectively haranguing the good name 
of Dr. Mills and his hydrino theory. Fortunately, it would appear that Dr. 
Mills didn't seem to have taken my repeated suggestions personally. All I know 
is that it seemed to have taken repeated postings on my part to finally get 
Randy to respond directly to my suggestion. I'm glad I was persistent. I came 
away with the feeling that Randy really didn't want to respond directly to my 
query.  Meanwhile, some of his minions took it personally. I don't give a crap 
what any SCP minion might have to say on the matter other than to feel a tad 
irritated. Fortunately, the SCP moderator graciously let me respond back.

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4663

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[leaking pen]

The issue here is that no matter what the science says, and what the
experiment shows, ramping up an effect to a usable product is never
certain, and lots of REALLY useful known facts fall apart when you try to
make a product out of them. This is why we MAKE proof of concepts.   Not to
prove the concept TRUE, but to prove it EXPLOITABLE!.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  I recently had some interesting interactions over at Dr. Mills' SCP
> group. After repeated postings I finally got Dr. Mills to respond to a
> suggestion I wanted to make. See:
>
>
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4652
>
>
>
> "The point I keep harping is that it seems to me that assembling a proof
> of concept (POC) prototype before tackling an honest-to-god commercial
> prototype would be a more immediate, realistic and safer goal to reach for
> at this developmental stage of the game. Seems to me that it would
> accomplish the same goal of convincing financial backers that SunCell
> technology worth sinking fortunes in."
>
>
>
> I finally got a response from Dr. Mills which I will post here. But first,
> and for your enjoyment, here's what one ardent supporter had to say about
> my attempts to post my suggestion multiple times:
>
>
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4657
>
>
>
> "Your glib "balanced" harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated
> support. Your incessant repetition of "POC" shows an ignorance of the gold
> standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times, indeed, in published
> peer reviewed journals.  Let me edify you in science there is no greater
> proof positive/negative than the experiment.  Dr Mills theory in all its
> determinisitic and pleiotropic applications computes, predicts and creates
> experimental results that are impossible for the "BIG SCIENCE" to
> approach.  Indeed there is not greater scale than the 85 order of magnitude
> that Dr Mills GUT makes knowable.   That reproducible fact immediately and
> permanently bastardizes, yes deliberately used, the "BIG SCIENCE" adherents
> and all their entire financial ecosystem, politicians, granting agencies,
> grant administrators, colleges/universities, physic department funding,
> right down to the lowly TA. The proven fact that "BIG SCIENCE" is
> professionally bereft to match the experimental result is all the POC you
> ever need.  If Dr Mills did not have the published derivation, the
> experimental results but was still advocating an energy technology then
> maybe your harangue would be valid; it is not and never has been."
>
>
>
> Yeah. Whatever...
>
>
>
> Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response:
>
>
>
>
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4660
>
>
>
> "*A device that runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to
> being a commercial device.*"
>
>
>
> I remain unconvinced. Seems to me it would be a whole lot easier and wiser
> to initially attempt to assemble an experimental self-running POC as a
> preliminary step towards putting together what I assume has to be a much
> more ambitious commercial device. Seems to me an experimental POC would
> accomplish the same results: Convincing financial backers it would be a
> wise decision continue funding BLP's plans... generously so.
>
>
>
> But maybe I'm wrong. So, I'm looking for feedback. Are there any Vorts who
> might want to add their two cents to this matter? Pro or con.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> svjart.orionworks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

I guess that you don't get grants to investigate the hydrino. My take on
this whole story is by some reason Mills theory and results are downplayed
due
to political reasons, not scientific reasons, maybe people are just stupid,
and are hindering open minded physists doing coperations with Mills to
 independently verify hydrinos, like cutting grant and pulling political
strings, just as with cold fusion. The oposite of stupidity I wouldn't call
it malice,
 but I'm sure that a new theory that makes a lot of things tractable will
cause people in charge to sweat and want to keep the development behind
curtains.
Or scientist who know how to evaluate Mills theory want to keep it as
fringe to let Mills work in peace, from the politician. There is a lot of
things that can
be happening behind closed doors besides people being stupid. Personally I
think that the whole issue is due to QM getting so much traction so that
everything is evaluated with that as a base, and then you can invent all
kinds of abstract reasons on why Mills theory is wrong, that after some
hard work
can be nullified. People love to use abstract thinking as their base of
argument, that have no ground in reality.

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> I tell you guys what is the greatest problem and mystery with the hydrino.
>
> I was in very good relationship with Randy till the Rossi affair- then he
> got angry with me because I dared to suppose that yes, Rossi has excess
> heat ...but after a while we both forgot this incident. Randy has told with
> total sincerity what he thinks about cold fusion; it is on my Blog.
> The TROUBLE: hydrino has compounds, that by elemental analysis coupled
> with NMR show beyond doubt that the hydrino is there. It could be expected
> that tens of the best laboratories would analyse tha hydrino compounds and
> publish the results in the Analytical Chemistry and other high rank
> journals.
> CCan you cite a single paper of this category?
> Mike Carrell and I have visited Randy's lab in 2000 and have seen a great
> collection of hydrino compounds.
> I don't understand the situation.
> Peter
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Imagination yes, if there was no real quantities calculated. But by
>> calculated many 100 of experimentally measurements one could just say that
>> his theory has 100:s or is it not 1000:s of validation experiments. This
>> would not be strange if there was a bunch of factors that was estimated
>> in the data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially
>> meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental
>> verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does
>> not matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are
>> small.
>> Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental
>> work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that
>> needs
>> to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with
>> the development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions
>> of the model
>> and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note
>> the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values,
>> therefore there is
>> not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of
>> overfitting.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified
>>> imaginative  misinterpretation of his experimental data. I now think that
>>>  I understand how this is mistake happening, When it comes to understanding
>>> what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is
>>> oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct.
>>> Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our
>>> minds eye must suffice.
>>>
>>> At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms,
>>> Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons,
>>> but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so
>>> ever.
>>>
>>> The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a
>>> quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside
>>> that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots
>>> exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the
>>> fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits.
>>>
>>> Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of
>>> these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there
>>> internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as  form
>>> an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent
>>> alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path
>>> where interfere

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Peter Gluck]

I tell you guys what is the greatest problem and mystery with the hydrino.

I was in very good relationship with Randy till the Rossi affair- then he
got angry with me because I dared to suppose that yes, Rossi has excess
heat ...but after a while we both forgot this incident. Randy has told with
total sincerity what he thinks about cold fusion; it is on my Blog.
The TROUBLE: hydrino has compounds, that by elemental analysis coupled with
NMR show beyond doubt that the hydrino is there. It could be expected that
tens of the best laboratories would analyse tha hydrino compounds and
publish the results in the Analytical Chemistry and other high rank
journals.
CCan you cite a single paper of this category?
Mike Carrell and I have visited Randy's lab in 2000 and have seen a great
collection of hydrino compounds.
I don't understand the situation.
Peter

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Imagination yes, if there was no real quantities calculated. But by
> calculated many 100 of experimentally measurements one could just say that
> his theory has 100:s or is it not 1000:s of validation experiments. This
> would not be strange if there was a bunch of factors that was estimated
> in the data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially
> meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental
> verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does
> not matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are
> small.
> Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental
> work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that
> needs
> to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with
> the development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions
> of the model
> and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note
> the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values,
> therefore there is
> not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of
> overfitting.
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified
>> imaginative  misinterpretation of his experimental data. I now think that
>>  I understand how this is mistake happening, When it comes to understanding
>> what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is
>> oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct.
>> Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our
>> minds eye must suffice.
>>
>> At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms,
>> Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons,
>> but these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so
>> ever.
>>
>> The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a
>> quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside
>> that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots
>> exert force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the
>> fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits.
>>
>> Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of
>> these quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there
>> internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as  form
>> an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent
>> alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path
>> where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force
>> the electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of
>> space.
>>
>> This  strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli
>> exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid
>> or SPP is an exact  fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is
>> pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in
>> quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it
>> gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme
>> ultraviolet.
>>
>> I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism
>> is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom
>> so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills
>> sees in his experiments.
>>
>> From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R,
>> Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills
>>> theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need
>>> to explain new
>>> phenomena to

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Imagination yes, if there was no real quantities calculated. But by
calculated many 100 of experimentally measurements one could just say that
his theory has 100:s or is it not 1000:s of validation experiments. This
would not be strange if there was a bunch of factors that was estimated
in the data but there is no such tricks in mills theory, essentially
meaning that there has been done an enormous amount of experimental
verification. The fact that the theory comes after the experiments does not
matter much if the number of choose points and tuned variables are small.
Knowing this is of cause why he is so persistent with his experimental
work. Typical science of model development includes a lot of unknown that
needs
to be fitted with the current experimental data, this was the fact with the
development of the standard model. Then they searched for predictions of
the model
and later experimentally verified that fact and got the nobel price. Note
the difference here, in Mills theory there is no need to fit any values,
therefore there is
not as much need for verifying new observations just because of fear of
overfitting.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified
> imaginative  misinterpretation of his experimental data. I now think that
>  I understand how this is mistake happening, When it comes to understanding
> what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is
> oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct.
> Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our
> minds eye must suffice.
>
> At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free
> electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but
> these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever.
>
> The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum
> well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that
> well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert
> force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores
> that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits.
>
> Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these
> quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal
> structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as  form an
> irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively
> by interference and amplification to form a circular path where
> interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the
> electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of
> space.
>
> This  strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli
> exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid
> or SPP is an exact  fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is
> pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in
> quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it
> gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme
> ultraviolet.
>
> I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism
> is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom
> so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills
> sees in his experiments.
>
> From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R,
> Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills
>> theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need
>> to explain new
>> phenomena to develop a new theory and it is advisable to drop that
>> principle as a lone principle. The reason is, of cause if you assume a very
>> limited number
>>  of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle
>> physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line
>> to get a
>>  spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a
>> good part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and
>> such and then
>> maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't
>> explain the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid.
>>
>> Over to the critique,
>> 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated;
>>
>> Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum
>> mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a
>> high
>> degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably
>> through some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this
>> link. Note to deduce
>> t

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Axil Axil]

I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified
imaginative  misinterpretation of his experimental data. I now think that
 I understand how this is mistake happening, When it comes to understanding
what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is
oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct.
Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our
minds eye must suffice.

At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free
electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons, but
these electrons behave like artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever.

The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum
well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that
well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert
force on the pile of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores
that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits.

Certain chemical compounds can form nano particles. The structure of these
quantum particle aggrogets and there reflective surfaces of there internal
structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as  form an
irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively
by interference and amplification to form a circular path where
interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the
electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of
space.

This  strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli
exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid
or SPP is an exact  fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is
pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in
quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it
gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme
ultraviolet.

I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well mechanism  is
what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom so
formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills sees
in his experiments.

>From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R,
Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination.



On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills
> theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need
> to explain new
> phenomena to develop a new theory and it is advisable to drop that
> principle as a lone principle. The reason is, of cause if you assume a very
> limited number
>  of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle
> physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line
> to get a
>  spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good
> part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such
> and then
> maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain
> the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid.
>
> Over to the critique,
> 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated;
>
> Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum
> mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a
> high
> degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through
> some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note
> to deduce
> the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the
> axioms of quantum mechanics, lorenz invariance fitting with current
> observation etc.
> So what is the axioms? Basically you can take solutions of linear
> combinations and get a new solution. to find the expected value you sum the
> square the
> resonans values for a quantity. The thing is that you can take a theory
> take an aproximate theory and then mathematically transform it so that you
> get the axioms
> of quantum mechanics, that Mills theory can put through such a machinery
> is not dissproved or anything close to be not possible in order to take
> this critique
> seriously atm. Also you cannot just add solutions ontop of each other, you
> do have the pauli exclusion principle that violate that e.g. for normal
> atoms the axioms
> of quantum mechanics is not valid. So you need to add the pauli priciple
> that there can only be one particle at a certain number of quntum numbers,
> something
> i find disturbing and unclean.
>
> 2. The major part of solutions contains singularities and they are not
> normalisable.
> Why not singularities? We have basically tuned out of theories that are
> lorenz invariant and regular. What's left is lorenz invariant and
> unregular.
> For example the creation of par

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Peter,

 

The paper in your link appears to be very recent. Looks like it might have been 
a Power Point presentation in its original incarnation. 

 

On page 8, specifically the hand drawn graphic of the Hydrino atom... there is 
not enough information within the 2D chart for me to understand what the 
graphic is supposed to represent other than it's suppose to represent electron 
volts at different distances. The "U" shaped curve puzzles me. Its' not what I 
would have expected. When I look at the graphic what I personally see a 
mathematical representation a (-1/x + 1/x^2... or -1/x^2 + 1/x^3) involving two 
different forces simultaneously at play here: Let's say one is a positive 
force, whereas the second forces is one power higher and of the 
opposite/negative power. The chart reminds me of a number of computer 
simulations I have done over the years involving my own eccentric research into 
orbital mechanics. I hope someday in the future to post some of my analysis. I 
was intrigued by what some my simulations seemed to suggest.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills
theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need
to explain new
phenomena to develop a new theory and it is advisable to drop that
principle as a lone principle. The reason is, of cause if you assume a very
limited number
 of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle
physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line
to get a
 spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good
part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such
and then
maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain
the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid.

Over to the critique,
1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated;

Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum
mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a
high
degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through
some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note
to deduce
the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the
axioms of quantum mechanics, lorenz invariance fitting with current
observation etc.
So what is the axioms? Basically you can take solutions of linear
combinations and get a new solution. to find the expected value you sum the
square the
resonans values for a quantity. The thing is that you can take a theory
take an aproximate theory and then mathematically transform it so that you
get the axioms
of quantum mechanics, that Mills theory can put through such a machinery is
not dissproved or anything close to be not possible in order to take this
critique
seriously atm. Also you cannot just add solutions ontop of each other, you
do have the pauli exclusion principle that violate that e.g. for normal
atoms the axioms
of quantum mechanics is not valid. So you need to add the pauli priciple
that there can only be one particle at a certain number of quntum numbers,
something
i find disturbing and unclean.

2. The major part of solutions contains singularities and they are not
normalisable.
Why not singularities? We have basically tuned out of theories that are
lorenz invariant and regular. What's left is lorenz invariant and
unregular.
For example the creation of particles from photons comes from sheering the
space so much that the nature of space basically shifts like a continental
drift.
This means that information that is normally not interacting will interact
at this anomaly, and that anomaly is through a surface. The good question
is why on earth
this is stable and maintains it's state e.g. Mills theory set's up a fine
balance and any disturbance of this balance looks like it will destroy it,
there are no mathematical
truths so what on earth makes it stable, that is the real good question. My
suggestion are that we do have a higgs like field that have the same
booring intensity at all
directions, it can be a soup of solutions to the actual wave equation of
nature but you cant see them, because there is no variation in the
electrical potential, Because we can't
see them we does not take it into account when we deduce the Maxwells
equations, Think of a B field with no electrical potential, you can invent
it and add it to the maxwell
equations if you have the same value in all directions, it will sum to zero
and not be detectable. But hang on, what about the anomaly at the
continental shaft, there it might
interact and you would nicely get some extra physics that can with some
play of the mathematics create a reason that stabalizes the Mills solution
and voila it is not unthinkable
to have a non normalized theory, on the contrary all things speaks for the
theory not to be regular e.g. normalisable.


3. It is not yet clear, why the Bohr orbits electrons did not fall down into
 the hydrino orbits during the whole life of the universe.

hydrino are dark matter, there are plenty of dark matter that indicates
that the hydrgene, to  a good part have declined the ladder to a hydrino
state,
it is unclear that you have so much chemistry so that you will produce so
much dark matter that all hydrogen declines, Mills have tried for 24 yrs,
it does look like it's difficult to get to these states. After all there is
a barrier that needs to be overcome, it looks like the electrical field is
morphologically
different than for the normal and excited states, forcing this change is
like getting cold fusion to work - not easy, but perhaps easier.


4. Up to now the hydrino states were not discovered in the direct
experiments.
Detectors for spectra that you can get from hydroinos is not common, and
also the energys used in quite many experiments is too high, you need
the correct chemistry at moderate energies in the bouncing, you need to
call a mechanic, not a billiard player to see the hydrinos. I want' to see
a list

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

"Your glib "balanced" harangue against Dr Mills, belies your stated
> support. Your incessant repetition of "POC" shows an ignorance of the gold
> standard Dr Mills has already adduced numerous times, indeed, in published
> peer reviewed journals.  Let me edify you in science there is no greater
> proof positive/negative than the experiment. ...


Hi Steven,

The retort above is unbalanced enough that the fellow may be a troll on
that forum.  In that case, he would be having fun at both your and Mills's
expense, and not just your expense.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Steven,

see here paper no 1- is in English:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/russian-cnt-seminar-of-january-29.html

The author is a world class physicist.
Peter

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> Ø   Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: "*A device that
> runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a
> commercial device.*"… Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two
> cents to this matter? Pro or con.
>
> Randell Mills sounds and acts defeated. He may end up being remembered as
> his own worst enemy, should LERN prevail – which is most ironic since the
> new LENR looks a lot like the old hydrino-tech.
>
> Mills seems to have put most of his resources into the SunCell of late.
> Therefore, even though he could be correct on the point that you mention: that
> to make a SunCell self-powered is equivalent to a commercial device ---
> it is equally true that the glaring lack of anything at all, other than hot
> air and vapor-ware, is the main characteristic of BLP in 2015. They
> appear to have missed the boat.
>
> There have been many other BLP devices which were as highly promoted as
> the SunCell but then dropped off the planet with no explanation. Many of
> these could have led to the self-powering proof you seek - if they were
> not total BS. But apparently they were BS. We are still waiting to see
> some of that gigawatt of electrical power that BLP licensed to several
> New Mexico Utilities. See this 7 year old evidence of Mills propensity to
> overstate his capabilities:
>
>
> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.html*
> 
>
> This kind of unexplained failure mode has happened half a dozen time in
> recent memory. I do not envy his investors. They seem to have
> misunderstood what “due diligence” is supposed to mean.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on a BLP POC disagreement

[Jones Beene]

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

*   Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: "A device that runs
on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a commercial
device.". Are there any Vorts who might want to add their two cents to this
matter? Pro or con.

Randell Mills sounds and acts defeated. He may end up being remembered as
his own worst enemy, should LERN prevail - which is most ironic since the
new LENR looks a lot like the old hydrino-tech.

Mills seems to have put most of his resources into the SunCell of late.
Therefore, even though he could be correct on the point that you mention:
that to make a SunCell self-powered is equivalent to a commercial device ---
it is equally true that the glaring lack of anything at all, other than hot
air and vapor-ware, is the main characteristic of BLP in 2015. They appear
to have missed the boat.

There have been many other BLP devices which were as highly promoted as the
SunCell but then dropped off the planet with no explanation. Many of these
could have led to the self-powering proof you seek - if they were not total
BS. But apparently they were BS. We are still waiting to see some of that
gigawatt of electrical power that BLP licensed to several New Mexico
Utilities. See this 7 year old evidence of Mills propensity to overstate his
capabilities:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.htm
l

This kind of unexplained failure mode has happened half a dozen time in
recent memory. I do not envy his investors. They seem to have misunderstood
what "due diligence" is supposed to mean.