>From Axil:
> *This response sounds like you are conflicted as follows:* > *You first say:* > *“I want BLP to succeed not because I'm invested in CQM” * > *Then you say:* > *If BLP succeeds it would force the scientific establishment > to look more closely at Mills controversial CQM theory.* > *If you are not invested in CQM then why would you care if Mills > theory is widely accepted?* Ok, I think I see what you may be confused about concerning some of my recent statements. You appear to have mistakenly assumed I have become emotionally invested in Mill's CQM theory being correct. Let me try to clarify one more time. If BLP succeeds, it seems to me that it will likely force the scientific establishment to look more closely at Mills' controversial theory. That's a personal assessment on my part... a prediction if you will which may or may not pan out. But that's not where my emotional investment, if you will, lies. You left out what I thought was the most important part of the BLP equation. If BLP succeeds it means we will all eventually be blessed with cheaper electricity and heating bills. Many other wonderful things will likely come to fruition as well. I find it a little odd that you cherry picked around some of my previous statements in order to make it appear as if I am "conflicted". Let me put it this way: It should be pretty clear to everyone on this list that at present I have acquired an admiration for the company, BLP. I admire Mills as well even though “the Doctor” often comes across to me as being occasionally arrogant, and not particularly informed about what’s been happening over in the LENR community for the past 20 years. Well, he's had a start-up business to run for the past 20 years... and nobody’s perfect, and neither am I. Nevertheless, I continue to admire BLP because the organization has managed to persevere for over 20 years to get to the point where they now seem to be on the verge of performing the biggest Dog and Pony show of their lives. Folly or not, I admire such persistent tenacity. Will BLP succeed? Sure, I hope they do. But for me personally hope for BLP’s success does not mean it will happen. It's still possible that BLP will fail to create their magic "SunCell (tm)" box that produces oodles of cheap electricity. Mother Nature always makes the final judgment call. I’m powerless to do anything about that, and neither are you. > *Let we now probe the truth and the depths of this apparent conflict.* > *It is always best to have as many possibilities to succeed as possible, > but for a person who is desperate for that success to be achieved, it > is frustrating to be continually disappointed.* Where are you going with this statement? Are you predicting Mill's ultimate failure to see "the light?" (no pun intended.) It seems to me that what you have stated could just as easily describe what seems from my POV to be your own modus operandi at work here. > *Just like in baseball, all the Cubs fans are down on that team > because they haven't achieved success for over a century but the > fans still route for them dearly.* I think my wife would sympathize with this statement. She's much more a BB fan than me. ;-) > *I have worked hard to reach an informed opinion. It is clear to me > that success in LENR is personified in what Rossi did to Piantelli > concepts. He introduced nanotechnology to NiH. * > *How plain can it be?* > *The true path to LENR success is through nanotechnology. You will > not see this field of science covered at all in Mills theory, or > that of Ed Storms. I begged Ed Storms on many occasions to undertake > a study of Nanoplasmonics to understand the science behind the LENR > processes that are occurring in cracks to no effect. I would dearly > love to see these sincere but misdirected advocates of LENR > contribute to the understanding of what has given Rossi his apparent > success. * > *It seems so apparent to me that based on the most obvious > understanding of who has had the most success in the field of > LENR that the ways, means and methods of that success are not > taken seriously, no more tragically, these misdirected > advocates of LENR are openly hostile toward this new and > thriving field of science.* I’m curious, Axel, how much actual experimental evidence have you personally done in a laboratory setting? How long have you been at it? Don’t get me wrong, I'm assuming that you HAVE actually performed personal work in this field. But HOW MUCH and for how long???? In the meantime how much research has Ed Storms performed? I have a suspicion that Ed has probably performed a lot more due diligence than you, but by all means please correct me if I error on this point. I'm going to guess here that Storm's own due diligence may have influenced his decision to stop trying to reason with you. I realize many within the Vort Collective have speculated that BLP’s work is an offshoot of LENR theories and principles. I have speculated on this premise as well. However, Mills would flatly deny such a link. As for me, I think it would be wiser for me to remain agnostic on the matter. I’ve read your previous four paragraphs multiple times… and what I can’t get past is the distinct appearance that you seem adamantly intent on comparing all of BLP’s due diligence and Mills' CQM theory strictly within your personal definition of how LENR works. Quite frankly, much of what you have stated is beginning to come across to me as doctrine. You also state: “How plain can it be?” That does seem to pretty much sum up your definitive conclusion on the matter. You’re right, and Ed, sincere he may be in his efforts, is woefully misguided. Personally, I don’t think that is a wise perception to advertise, particularly when it comes to the controversial matter of discussing speculative exotic energy systems. > *I am addressing the broad expanse of nanoscience as the most > promising pathway to success in LENR which includes but not > limited to: Topological Materials, Properties of Atomic, > Molecular and Nanoscale Materials, Interactions at the > Nanoscale, Nanocomposites, Nanoparticles, Nanocrystalline > Materials, Nanoclusters and Nanocrystals. Superlattices, > Quantum Dots, Molecualar and Nanowires, Nanoscale Thin Films, > Nanoporous systems, Nanoplasmonics, Hybrid materials, Colloids, > Nano-Alloys, Nanoceramics, Nano-particle Self-Assembly, > Monolayers and Multilayers Nanoelectronics, Nano-optics, > Nanophysics, Nano-integration, Quantum Optics, Nanomagnetism, > Fullerenes, Nanotubes, Nanorods, Molecular Wires, Molecular > Nanotechnology, Supramolecules, Superatoms, BEC, Dendrimers, > nano self-assemblies, Low-dimension Structures, polymers, > Structure Analysis at Atomic, Molecular and Nanometer range > Atomic Manipulation, Computational Nanotechnology, Molecular > Nanoscience, Nanorobotics, Nanomechanics, Topological and type > II Superconductors, and Nanofluidics.* That’s a lot of fancy words you just used, Axil. I think I might even understand a small percentage of what some of those words and terms might actually mean. Good grief! What intelligent thing can I possibly say in response to… well, shoot, just about every other word you recited above starts with “nano-.“ Yes, I like NANO-technology. Yes, I think NANO-technology is a godsend and that it may very well help LENR make it out of the dugout and into the big leagues. I truly hope that happens. But for whose benefit was this recital of nano-words really made for? Ok. Make your day. > *These fields of science are not covered at all by CQM. And > most discouraging, quantum mechanics, the queen of the sciences > that nanoscience is based upon is ridiculed by CQM,* > *I will predict that nano-scientists will not turn to CQM in > any event because this theory has nothing to contribute to the > advancement of their success. * > *Mills: “These laws, developed in the mid 1800’s, with the > extension to the atomic scale and taking into account the > appropriate space-time metric are sufficient for describing > all phenomena in the universe.”* > *I am certain that this kind of thinking is not compatible with > success in the application of the very newest nanoscience, I mean > LENR.* Just a brief comment, what little I know about CQM vs. currently accepted standard QM is that CQM has big issues with the way SQM uses probability models to explain things like the wacky behavior of electron orbits around a nucleus. I believe CQM attempts to be more precise about such matters. I find it interesting that SQM doesn’t seem to appreciate CQM’s attempt to clarify the fuzziness of such things. Why is that so? What’s really under the rug here? What kind of fuzzy little dust bunnies does SQM not care to come face-to-face with? I wonder what Einstein might have had to say had he had a chance to visit BLP’s labs and had a chance to pour over the experimental evidence collected. Some might think I’m rooting for CQM to win over SQM. That is not the case. What I’m actually rooting for is that CQM be given a fair chance to present its experimental evidence at the table of reason. Let CQM sink or swim on the merits of what it has managed to accumulate as experimental evidence over the past 20 years. CQM should not be held hostage to a fear that it might end up seriously goring someone else’s pet theory. Sadly, the CQM vs SQM debate, (and now possibly the LENR debate as well, if you get your way) is degenerating into a political battle to protect entrenched pet theories. What does any of that have to do with an honest, impartial scientific inquiry into an investigation of different and possibly more accurate ways of modeling how the universe operates. Warts and all, I believe CQM has a legitimate case to present here. Bailiff! Bring on the witness. I remain less confident than you appear to be about how you believe the universe operates. Fortunately, I think I can live with my uncertainty. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.Orionworks.com
