FYI,
A link to the following Forbes critical article of BLP's claims has been posted out at the BLP's CQM group. I would have to agree that the article appears to be somewhat of a hatchet job. IMO, it does not appear to be terribly informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/06/01/warning-signs-for-energy -technology-investors-3-yes-they-can-be-that-stupid/ http://tinyurl.com/pse8b9v Not surprisingly Dr. Mills needed to respond as quickly as possible. His rebuttal can be found out at: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /messages/5551 The only responses I fee appropriate to make here, a criticism that has been made by many others within the Vort Collective, is the undeniable fact that over the years Dr. Mills' has repeatedly expressed optimistic enthusiasm that a commercial device would be rolled out in short order. So far, as best as I can tell no commercial prototype has ever been publicly revealed. I cannot vouch for what kind of non-commercial prototypes may have been revealed behind closed doors. Unfortunately, Dr. Mills has repeatedly cast himself as the principal character in the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It is no wonder that opportunistic skeptics have over the years repeatedly used BLP & Dr. Mills as one of their favorite whipping boys when they want to find a scape goat on the subject risky capital ventures. A repeated string of inaccurate predictions has turned Dr. Mills into his own worst enemy in terms of garnering public credibility. That said, I still personally seen no reason to doubt the underlying experimental evidence BLP has meticulously accumulated and presented. I see no reason to doubt BLP's claims implying they have been able to release tremendous amounts of energy that can't be explained by chemical means. Nor I do not think the data is due to experimental error, or deliberate fraud. The fault, if I could call it that, is a continued denial that the technology involved is going to turn out to be far more difficult to develop commercially than most had originally hoped. The latest example of this folly appears to have been generated by some enthusiastic engineering firms BLP contracted with. It would not surprise me if some of the latest engineering firms, after they saw the evidence BLP showed them, got excited and became overly optimistic themselves that they could whip something out in an absurd amount of time of, say, six months. It would not surprise if some of these firms may have worried that if they did not aggressively land a contract with BLP, they feared BLP would approach one of their competitors and steal the rug out from under their feet. So, cut corners if you have to. (We'll look the other way when you get Randy to sign the contract.) Unfortunately, few modern technological miracles have ever been achieved in the short order of six months or so. Why should BLP's miraculous dreams be any different? I realize that investment wise it may not be the best strategy to advertise the fact that the technology involved is so new and unproven that BLP simply cannot promise when a commercial device can realistically be developed. Unfortunately, that appears to be what's happening these days. It is another reason I continue to hope BLP might be able to eventually secure government support - if only to fund a steady pace of R&D - to eventual success. The fault, as I see it, appears to be more with how our modern society tends to force ambitious enterprises into making unfounded/unrealistic sales pitches just so that they can continue to secure a trickle of money from rich private investors, some who might be willing to risk funding a miracle. This is not an easy task to accomplish when all too often it is the case that those in power possess so little vision that they would feel no qualms whatsoever of squashing visionary enterprises like BLP as if they were nothing more than a an insignificant bug under their feet. FWIW, my time table is to look for something significant coming out of BLP in about 12 months. What I mean by "significant" is some kind of non-commercial prototype that hopefully closes the loop. It does not need to run very long. Just long enough to prove their point. That would satisfy me immensely. I think it might satisfy some investors too. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
