Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
My earlier post was over reacting to a post by Professor Moddel on Huffington post(below) that some bloggers (me) were improperly linking their method to the hydrino. If I interpret the Professors reply correctly he is making this an all or nothing gambit. There may be different ways to describe what is going on inside these cavities and different ways to elicit it to happen but in the end there can be only one and that theory will apply equally to all the claims regarding catalysts and atomic hydrogen. Nature does not pay attention to our theories and I hope the professor is correct that there are different ways to ways to extract energy so that more people can stake a claim but my gut feeling is that all these methods are all just a different perspective on the same underlying physics. Moddel and Haisch may have a better theory than Mills but it was later and neither of them actually nailed it like I feel Naudts and Bourgoin did. Regards Fran FROM HUFFINGTON POST: quote http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/GModdel GModdel Unfan http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/sorry-its-malig nant-why-s_b_500733.html I'm not a fan of this user permalink http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/?show_comment_i d=42487436#comment_42487436 Friedfish writes that I believe that our patent was a mistake, but he is incorrect. I certainly don't think that. I wrote a technical article http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf http://http:/ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/Moddel_VacExtracV1.pdf f) and a version for a non-technical audience http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf http://http:/psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf f) describing some errors that zero-point energy proponents have made, but I believe that our patent has avoided those errors. We have carried out some experiments, with limited funding, to see if the concept works and the results are so-far ambiguous. Some bloggers have linked our patent to Blacklight Power's hydrino. I cannot comment on whether the concept of a hydrino is valid, but the physics behind it is certainly different from the physics that supports our concept./unquote From: Francis X Roarty [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:03 PM To: 'a...@lomaxdesign.com' Cc: 'vortex-l' Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
[Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Blacklight Power has just updated their website [What's New}with four technical dcuments outlining their status on the path to commercialization, In a presentation to investors in December '09 Mills sated that BLP has employed three engineering firms to pursue ways and means to implement 'solid fuel' resctions disclosed in technical papers. The new documents have no stated authroship. The style of writing suggest that they are lifted from third-party technical reports, somewhat in the style of descriptions in a patent disclosure. There are two schematic reactor structures in which carefully controlled thermal gradients manipulates reactants to convert H gas to hydrinos with regeration of the catalytic elements. One structure has clusters of reactor cells cycling between power production and regeration; a second version shows essentially continuous operation. A third document discusses a tecnology called CIHT which produces electricity directly from the BLP reaction without a thermal-electric converstion system. The context is BLP for automobiles,with a projected performance of 1500 miles on a litr to water, or 2500 miles on a 20 liter, 100 atm hydrogen tank. Distressingly, only the barest hints at the CHIT technology are given. The fourth document is an engineering presenttion summarizing the above three. The three documents contain detailed calculations of the estimated performance of the three approaches. This is not vaporware, but a realistic shapshot of ongoing engineering of prototypes in this year, with a 1MW performance target. Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:18 PM Subject: [Vo]:Pi factor The energy transfer between L and C as stored joules by the quantities; J= .5 CV^2 and J = .5 LI^2 and considering The I^2R heating loss of the inductor itself; when the transfer of energy between L and C as joules/sec becomes equal to the inductor heat loss wattage, by the inductor displaying a Q factor of 3.14; the oscillation of energy between the fields has become Pi times greater then its ordinary reactive state. HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!)
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. I don't know how anywone who has closely followed Mills' publications could use the word fraud. Yes, BLP is in the end game. A useable :water engine must result from the two decades of effort and $60+ million investment. All eveidence is positive at this point. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Mills' extensivwe pulications through the years constitute cointinuing reduction to practice. Patents have been inssued throughout the world, but not basic patents, whci may require a court fight. [Mills has discovered new natural law which is difficult to patent] A world-class patent firm is handling the Intellectual Property issues. Making a toy or water heater is a sure pathto bankruptcy. Electric utilitis were among the first investors. Achievement of a working protoype water engine will refute critics and be a basis for retrofit of power plants worldwide. As benchmarks are met, the private funding available continues to increase. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update At 11:43 AM 3/20/2010, Mike Carrell wrote: Cited references in the documents include technical apers also on their website, except Mills et.al, Thermally Reversable Hydrino Catalyst Systems as a New Power Source which is not posted as yet [this is the heart of the matter, possibly awaiting patent protection]. The papers about the chemistry involved are dense and technical, but the results have been verified by work at Rowan University in Glassboro NJ. Work, of course, supported by Blacklight Power. I have no problem with that, but independent replication it is not, not yet! I'm not placing any bets in this race. I wish them well, their personal fortunes are at stake. The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. I've written before that if this is fraud, it's approaching the end game. I appreciate BP's approach, they are bypassing normal scientific process, which is probably necessary. In the end, though, unless they have operating power plants, or demonstration models you can buy and operate, overall scientific isn't likely to be moved unless there are truly independent replications or verifications, and probably more than one or two. I don't know how anywone who has closely followed Mills' publications could use the word fraud. Yes, BLP is in the end game. A useable :water engine must result from the two decades of effort and $60+ million investment. All eveidence is positive at this point. If I were them, I'd be trying to make a toy demonstration that shows clear excess power, make it as cheap as possible, and sell it. But they could be hampered by patent issues, that's the problem with the patent office refusing patent protection. That's a legal problem. It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Mills' extensivwe pulications through the years constitute cointinuing reduction to practice. Patents have been inssued throughout the world, but not basic patents, whci may require a court fight. [Mills has discovered new natural law which is difficult to patent] A world-class patent firm is handling the Intellectual Property issues. Making a toy or water heater is a sure pathto bankruptcy. Electric utilitis were among the first investors. Achievement of a working protoype water engine will refute critics and be a basis for retrofit of power plants worldwide. As benchmarks are met, the private funding available continues to increase. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Mike Carrell wrote: The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. I think that is overstating it a bit. With all the good will in the world, I would be nervous about a claim that has not been totally, hands-off, independently replicated. I still have some lingering doubts about Energetics Technology because there have been no fully independent replications as far as I know. I say that even though the people at SRI are the most rigorous and professional in the field. People have a mysterious weakness for groupthink that can propagate a mistake from one person to the next without anyone being aware of it. It is hard to describe. It is a variation of the Madness of Crowds, and the reason just about every bank invested in sub-prime loans a few years ago. I think it is unlikely but the only way to rule it out is to have a fully-independent replication. There is a good reason why this is the tradition in science. Granted there are experiments and technologies they can never be replicated except by direct teaching by experts to other experts. The Top Quark is in this category, and probably so are all modern complex integrated semiconductors. I'll bet no factory every started up after 1965 that did not have at least a few experts who walked away from rival firms (or people hired away) such as the so-called Fairchildren of Fairchild. There are complex experiments in this category but I do not think Mills is that complex. The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. Until we see these licensees demonstrate real, energy generating technology I think it will be wise to remain skeptical. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:53:48 -0700 It should be possible to get protection on impossible devices. Perhaps some protection from having filed with adequate description to build a device. Even if the patent is not issued; later on, when someone tries to infringe, you'd have evidence that the original filing was actually not of something impossible! And that therefore the patent should have been issued, and that therefore it should be issued now. And the infringer required to pay licensing (perhaps with standing damages ameliorated, since they, too, could be seen to be acting in good faith, after all, there was no patent!) Abd, I totally agree, and frankly think no body except Naudts and Bourgoin really nailed the theory, Mills hydrogen with catalytic action, Haisch Moddels' hydrogen with Casimir cavities, Superwave hydrogen compressed bubbles all seemed to be based on different metrics of the same underlying energy source. If the relativistic concept is correct then all these researchers are employing the same environment. They do use different methods to extract the energy from the catalyzed hydrogen so their patents are differentiated but the right thing to do is acknowledge Mills was first to patent the environment - or I should say was first to try and patent the environment. This probably won't happen until after the technology is proved and the research really explodes. Regards Fran Simulation http://www.byzipp.com/sun30.swf of Fractional Hydrogen ash less chemistry in Flash actionscript
Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
Jed wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update Mike Carrell wrote: The issue of independance is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in the reports. JR: I think that is overstating it a bit. With all the good will in the world, I would be nervous about a claim that has not been totally, hands-off, independently replicated. I still have some lingering doubts about Energetics Technology because there have been no fully independent replications as far as I know. I say that even though the people at SRI are the most rigorous and professional in the field. MC: Scepticism is a wonderful attitude and totally safe; I think it should be applied equally to received opinion and new claims. I understand where Jed is coming from but I have also closely followed BLP for years, more closely than most on this list. Mills' business plan is not Jed's, so it is easliy misunderstood. Mills has pursued the course of the scientist-entrepreneur, publishing nearly everything, building a strong patent base to protect investors, speaking to major technical societies, writing a magnum opus on the application of his insights to the major problems of physics. Such is not 'proof'; only experiments are 'proof'. There is a remarkable parade of experiments from BLP, which support his models, leading to a new energy source. MC: regarding Rowan, and Dr. Jansson, who heads the BLP work there. I have been in his office, and read his Master's thesis for Rowan, which was on a simple BLP experiment using a Seeback calorimeter on loan from BLP. It happens that Jansson was once a technical scout for the utility now known as Connectiv, and recommended to Connective to invest in BLP years ago. I think Jansson may be a minor stockholder in BLP by special agreement. MC: Now if one is a *strident skeptic* this would invalidate all the Rowan findings. Such is silly and glib. Two resons why BLP would choose Rowan as an independent lab for validation: a) Rowan is about two hour's drive from BLP's site, and b) Jansson can be trusted not to screw up the tests. In my years of following critics of BLP I have found glib swipes, failures to duplicate what Mills did, etc. If one actually **studies** the Rowan reports, you find independant calibrations of devices, etc. What is carefully followed are the procedures and protocols developed at BLP. These qualify as ***independent*** validations as the ultimate references are standard laboratory instruments. MC: BLP is in an end game of a very difficult journey. Failure is still a possibility. The existence of the sub-ground state of hydrogen is established beyond reasonable doubt by multiple threads of evidence. Energy yields 200 times combustion [of hydrogen] have been shown using several methods of calorimetry. The engineering problem is to follow nature and build reactors that can produce sustained megawatt power output using water as a fuel. A BLP powe plant is a complex system now, but in time may be simplified. The documents just posted at BLP are mileposts on that path. All the data to understand them is published on the website, but one must dig for it and *study*. Mike Carrell snip
