And I respect Jed, even if we have differences -- Mike
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.
Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments.
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.
Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's 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:
And you still say you understand? And are sure that others would say it is
gibberish? Does "experimental evidence confirms" mean nothing? If your
position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed, this is
perfectly safe. The specific data is not given in this summary, and may be
contained in reports not yet published. Does the term "energy balance" mean
nothing to you? It means for a given weight of hydrogen the energy yield is
1000 times the energy yield of the same weight of the most energetic fuel
known. This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying
this is fiction, or gibberish, or what?
"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."
Robin has corrected me: the energy yield is 204 eV. That is still a *lot* of
energy.
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.
Yes.
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.
Of course. What has held up BLP demonstrations, etc., was inability to use
water as a fuel and produce useful output while supporting internal needs.
With this new data, it appears that barrier has been surmounted. Always,
business plans will be shaped by the actual nature of the technology in
hand.
- Jed
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
