FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him.
Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important > – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his > theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at > least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and > more should have been. > > > > Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it > could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone > who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, > and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important > detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) > > > > If there really is a COP>3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then > this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however > instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be > hard to entice associates to look into this… > > > > However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation > for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water > splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against > light and water splitting as the source of gain? > > > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a > > > > Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, > and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for > financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative > explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the > Department? > > > > As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past tactic$ > perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another round of > false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more investment > with hardly a mention of the past failures > > > > … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. > > > > *From:* Carl High > > > > Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing > support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based > on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising > that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon > emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. > It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the > day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report > and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as > well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the > LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a > technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich > and heat them to 300 degrees > > > > Steve High > > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf > > >
