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
