I wrote:
I did not miss these statements! I will be thrilled by this
development, as soon as it is independently replicated.
I mean that. I did read these sections, and I do understand why this
breakthrough is important.
I have never depreciated the potential importance of the BLP claims.
I disagree with their business strategy, and I have made it clear
that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific
claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications.
Mike Carrell realizes that I take BLP seriously, so I think it is a
little unfair for him to say that I am a "casual observer" or that I
have not "adequately studied Mills' and BLP's work." That is a bit
like saying that Truman did not have an adequate grasp of nuclear
physics. He knew what he had to know to judge the situation.
In other words, I understand this part perfectly:
"The energy gain is well above that required to regenerate the solid
fuel, and experimental evidence confirms the theoretical energy
balance per weight of the hydrogen consumed of 1000 times that of the
most energetic fuel known."
This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish:
"In the animation of the process, in the fourth stage KH(1/4) is
mentioned as a product. H(1/4) designates hydrinos shrunk by a factor
of 4, releasing 435 eV in the process."
If this turns out to be right, it will be important to the theorists
and eventually to the engineers, but not to me. Whether the energy
comes from fusion, or the zero point, or whether it is leaking from
Mars via a hidden 5th dimension would not make the slightest difference to me.
Mills might be utterly wrong about the source of energy he has
observed, but his discovery might be perfectly valid and important
despite this. In the book by J. Sandford, "Heat Engines" chapter 1 is
titled "Primitive Heat Engines." It describes the early engines and
nascent thermodynamic theory -- which was completely wrong. Having
the wrong theory was an impediment, and it made the early heat
engines inefficient, but in the early stages people managed to make
enough progress to make heat engines practical. Sandford writes:
". . . If you could have asked Mr. Savery to describe the operation
of his engine, he would have used such expressions as 'incensed and
inflamed air,' 'intercourse of the two contraries,' and 'frustrated
ascent of water,' amusing fancies but meaningless today.
Nevertheless, Savery's fire engine was a financial success. . . ."
Once the machine succeeded financially, it attracted capital and
eventually its successors attracted the attention of smart people
such as Watt, who improved thermodynamic theory. That outcome was inevitable.
If cold fusion or the BLP effect can be made practical, I expect that
the early commercial implementations will be extremely inefficient,
just as the early heat engines were. Even if the BLP theory is right,
it will not lead to optimized engines in the early stages. It does
not have to do that. All we need is an engine that works well enough
to convince many people that the effect is real. Improved theory and
engineering will follow inevitably.
- Jed
