Mike Carrell wrote:
. . . 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.
Well, you can ignore the tenor of the comments and take it from me
directly: I do fully recognize the importance of the claims. I will
not get excited about them until I hear they have been independently
replicated.
Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's situation.
I think I grasp BPL's situation better than they themselves do.
Perhaps I am wrong, but their situation seems dire and it is their
own fault. They have spent huge sums and 20 years with nothing to
show for it (so far anyway). They gone in many directions at once
without completing any task. They have no credibility with the public
or the scientific community. All of these problems could have been
avoided, in my opinion.
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?
Quite sure. I have heard many of them say it. Perhaps they are wrong.
I cannot judge this issue.
Does "experimental evidence confirms" mean nothing?
I cannot evaluate the experimental evidence for the theory. I can
evaluate evidence for excess heat production. That's a different story.
If your position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed,
this is perfectly safe.
That's true too.
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.
I know what it means. When I see the experimental details I may be
able to judge whether the claim has merit. I doubt that I will be
able to judge whether this energy comes from shrinking hydrogen or
not -- and as I said, I don't give a hoot where it comes from.
This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying
this is fiction, or gibberish, or what?
The theory is gibberish according to most physicists. Whether they
are right or wrong I cannot judge and I do not care.
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.
What does that mean? What are "internal needs"?
- Jed
