----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
Good reply from Jed.
As far as the gibberish factor re Mills, the same can be said of all the
attempts to find a theory for LENR to stand on. Both are outside of the
realm of conventional physics. Therefore one must pay attention to the
experiments, and I don't think Jed has done this as carefully as with LENR.
I avoid theory quarrels with BLP critics and concentrate on the experiments.
On the current website only a fraction of the experimental papers are
available for download, as most of the significant ones are now controlled
by journal copyrights.
a) The research reactors operate at about 1 Torr and power is needed to
maintainthe vacuum
b)Microwave excited research reactors use an inefficient RF power supply.
c)The gas mixtures are predominantly catalyst, which has to be recycled or
it becomes a consumable
d)Energy output from the reaction is in the deep UV, which is converted to
heat and a wasteful thermal cycle
e)Water is electrolyzed to provide a source on hydrogen
These are internal support items requiring energy before any is left over
for external use. The new reactor has sufficient energy outout to be self
sustaining with water as an external fuel.
Nothing in the LENR world approaches this. Yet.
Stay tuned.
Mike Carrell
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
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
