>From Mike Carrell: > IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to commercial > viability of anything so far posted by BLP. BLP usually > can back up such posts by experimental work, as stated. > The fact that critical details are glossed over I interpret > as evidence of ongoing patent application negotiations. The > claimed evolution of H and catalyst from heating the solid > fuel could enable high energy density in the reactor. In > the animation, an end product of KH(1/4) is mentioned. > This implies a very energetic reaction which is claimed to > enable regeneration of the fuel, electrolysis of water, and > operation of a heat cycle engine to produce useful external > work. > > The patent issue is something else. BLP seeks fundamental > patents whose claims will read on all possible applications > to garner royalties for the BLP investors and partners.
... > Seeking fundamental patents involves the existence of > hydrinos. The resonant transfer penomenon is a natural > phenomenon, which cannot be patented. Thus BLP is faced > with the whole of "accepted physics" in trying to get > patents. And without a strong patent base, investors > and partners may not risk the development cycle. > > Mike Carrell Ok, I'm still a little confused on some of these points. Why is it important for BLP to prove to the scientific community that hydrinos exist, particularly if BLP's investors can finance the building of a prototype that proves the point that a commercially viable regenerative process can be manufactured. How does legitimizing the existence of the hydrino theory help BLP's investors protect their patents. Regardless of whether hydrinos exist as Dr. Mills claims or not, couldn't a savvy competitor either way, just as easily, and just like what happened in RCA, devise a "...circuit which walked around..." BLP's patents leaving BLP high and dry? How does legitimizing hydrinos make that possibility any less of an issue for BLP? This is such a smarmy issue, particularly since I gather there are a number of alternative theories, some discussed extensively within vortex, that elude to the existence of the hydrino species but with very different characteristics, certainly not beholding to Dr. Mills CQM theory. It still seems more important from my perspective to simply develop a POC prototype that proves that BLP's investors were on the right track all along, rather than trying to legitimize hydrinos in the eyes of the scientific community. The latter effort seems to me to be a massive waste of finite financial resources, and is in real danger of failing, particularly if BLP can never gat a single POC financed and demonstrated to a skeptical community. I assume I must be missing an important business strategy in my latest machinations. I'm just worried that if they continue focusing on the patent issue, BLP may never get their bird off the ground. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
