On Mar 20, 2010, at 5:47 PM, "Mike Carrell" <mi...@medleas.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com
>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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.
Eh? No aspersions cast, no accusations. It's not independent
replication, or if it is, what is replicated?
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.
Again, what effects are independently published, under review? This
isn't any kind of accusation. Dependent replication often comes first.
So?
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".
I wrote "fraud" clearly as a rational possibility, and what I wrote
was endgame fraud, which sometimes follows earlier work that is not
fraudulent. Endgame fraud comes at the very end. I am not claiming
fraud. I'm saying that if it is fraud, it's not likely to last long. I
think we'll know soon. However, it is taking longer than I expected.
That's nit necessarily good news.
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.
Evidence of a usable water engine? Can I buy one? Even a toy? I.e. a
small device that shows the effect? If not, why not? Commercial power
production might be very difficult even if the effect is real. But a
toy?
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!)
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
