Re: [Vo]:responce to the IPKat - weblog
Thomis, It's 'Randell Mills'. He does not get an 'A'. Teri On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Carrell wrote: > > > > A standard tactic of patent examiners is deny and cite objections and > force the applicant to overcome the objections. Objections of this type have > been seen before. The process of overcoming them is iterative, lengthy, > expensive, and private. It is reasonable to believe that such interaction is > ongoing and necessary to protect investors and prospective partners. Legal > action may follow, which would make interesting theater. > > > > Dear Kat; > > I post on Vortex-L, scientific anomalies. One of the Vortexians posted the > URL of your comments on Randall Mills of Black Light Power. In one of the > papers on the BLP website, Randall claims that he can produce energy from a > BLP reactor, 1 KW / 2 cubic feet of reactor. He also claims to have produced > various novel materials. His investors have clearly invested tens of > millions of dollars in his research, and either he can do what he says he > can do, or he can't. If he can do, then science is just going to have to > adjust. > > Your poking fun at Randall is a continuation of the attacks which have been > made against researchers in a number of areas. What they have in common is > questioning the established paradigms. In 1909 Scientific American published > an article questioning the feasibility of heavier than air machine flight. > Some of the dumbest people I've ever met have graduate degrees. In > particular law degrees, two of them want to be the next president. > > > --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- > http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron "feels" (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge...
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:09:25 +0200: Hi, [snip] >No it wouldn't be, but even with my limited QM skills, I know that fortunately >you don't have to get that close for nuclear fusion. Nucleus is fm scale >(10^-15 m), but its De Broglie wavelength (roughly the distance at which >tunneling can start occurring) at even room temperature thermal energy is >quite sizeable, 0.78 Å IIRC, about 10 times larger, and even more at >higher energies of course. Actually De Broglie wavelengths *decrease* with energy. (momentum is in the denominator). > >So an impinging deuteron getting only as close as say 0.5 Å from the desorbing >deuteron would have good chances to tunnel to it and fuse I think, correct me >someone if I am wrong. The chances are a lot less than "good". What you need is a means of keeping them in close proximity for extended periods. e.g. the fusion half-life of D2 (with a separation distance of about 0.7 Angstrom is > 1E80 years. However this decreases insanely with separation distance. A decrease in distance by about a factor of 10-20 should be enough to reduce it to the point where fusion would be a practical energy source. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:19:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> >(By the >> >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >> >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) >>[snip] >>At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is >>derived from >>carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all >>the energy is . . . >> >>Also consider that people live quite well at considerable >>elevations, where the >>Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. >> >>In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without >>even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. > >My, my, aren't you anthro-centric! Whether or not we like to admit it, survival is what motivates us. Of course I'm anthropo-centric, I'm a human being. >People are not the only species, >and breathing is not the only form of respiration. Many other >species, and many chemical process, including possibly atmospheric >processes, are affected by the slight decrease in oxygen content. Name some. >There are also problems such as the oxygen exchange with water, and >fish, and so on. The fish are already dead. We have eaten them. (somewhat tongue in cheek). BTW global warming may be more important in this regard than actual Oxygen content in the air, since less Oxygen dissolves in warm water than in cold. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Oil price elasticity: Cutting through the fog
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:27:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The whole point of the exercise is that we seem to have reached the >world peak in oil production, and supply cannot be increased, due to >lack of resources. [snip] I think a better definition of the "oil peak" is that it is the peak that would occur if left to economic forces. It doesn't necessarily mean that production can't be increased in the short term at the cost of the long term. Since there is still oil in the ground, it can be extracted more rapidly if we have the will to do so, but then it will simply run out sooner. What will happen fairly soon, is sharp reduction in new exploration wells, as oil companies finally get it through their heads that the number of new discoveries is so low that it isn't worth the cost of drilling hundreds of dry wells just to find one producing well. IOW rather than a divergent supply and demand curve, you will see a rising production curve that matches demand, then suddenly goes over a cliff, and drops to zero. By analogy, look at world fish stocks. In fact I think that rising prices will probably bring this about. IOW supply will continue to meet demand, until such time as the supply suddenly ceases altogether. Of course long before then it will have become so expensive that demand will have been reduced, partially due to millions of people having died of hunger. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
>From Mike Carrell: > Mills is no fool, nor are his board of directors. He > business strategy is very different from Jed's concept > -- but there could be a global scramble of > entrepreneurship when BLP becomes "real". Mills has to > have his 'ducks in order' for what might be a firestorm. > The new solid fuel reactor is a non-trivial anouncement. >From Jed Rothwell: > For too long, people in cold fusion and at BLP have > been searching for an experiment that will "convince > the skeptics," or they have been trying to write a > "bulletproof" paper that will be "published in > Nature." These are the last steps you take, not the > first steps. To put it another way, these steps are > analogous to the World War I military strategy of > attacking the enemy at his strongest point after > giving him a week's notice that you are coming, and > after ordering your soldiers not to wear helmets. > It is self-defeating. The 2004 DoE review of cold > fusion was a good example. I would agree with Mike's perception in the sense that BLP's recent "solid fuel reactor" announcement is indeed a non-trivial announcement. The only way I can read the announcement, and in a way that makes any sense to me, is that BLP has finally discovered a commercially viable process that is exploitable in conventional terms (No new science and/or technology needed!), even if that process still has to be commercially developed and at great expense. I think Mike has, in recent years and months, hinted though his positioned un-official source(s) over at BLP that things continue to progress in a positive direction. Unfortunately, I gather Mike is not privy to anything more specific than that, which of course leaves such banalities totally up to interpretation for the rest of us, and probably for Mike as well. (Half full / half empty). The rest of us fools are forced to continuously speculate through the tea leaves of the latest BLP announcements which remain carefully couched in public relation terms to accentuate the positive while simultaneously glossing over what I could well imaging are daunting engineering tasks that could be as serious as trying to get the Apollo 13 astronauts back home safe and sound after their on-board fuel cell had the audacity to spring a leak in route to Luna. "Cranbury, We have a problem! We appear to be venting hydrinos into outer space!" It's frustrating to be left in the peanut gallery year after year. I would also agree with Jed's perspective in the sense that choosing to go into the lion's den to make their demonstration case is not likely to be as effective as focusing first on collecting as much friendly support as possible. For now, I feel I have no choice but to rely on Mr. Carrell's vast experience in the world of R&D, combined with his judgment of character regarding Mills & Co's strategy plan. Considering the millions of dollars in investment capital BLP has been able to secure over the years, I guess I would have to agree with the premise that they aren't fools. This of course pisses off the skeptics to no end. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills Mike Carrell wrote: You need several in a bulletproof demo -- or one tested in a skeptic's lab. NO! No, no, no! Big mistake. You need some pretty good demos that are tested in a friendly supporter's lab. MC: Jed has a good point, and may be the path BLP is taking. This seems a bit of a change from what I thought was Jed's standard position. Steven's question was about convincing the scientific community, which should be only an afterthought. BLP is extremely quiet about anything of real commercial significance. Mills is quite open about effects, and theory, and very silent about any commercial arrangements, as he should be. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >(By the >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) [snip] At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is derived from carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all the energy is . . . Also consider that people live quite well at considerable elevations, where the Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. My, my, aren't you anthro-centric! People are not the only species, and breathing is not the only form of respiration. Many other species, and many chemical process, including possibly atmospheric processes, are affected by the slight decrease in oxygen content. There are also problems such as the oxygen exchange with water, and fish, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:22:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] >If volcanoes added far more CO2 to >the mix then we do, than plants would have a negligible effect and >the atmosphere and there would be practically no free oxygen. (By the >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) [snip] At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is derived from carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all the energy is used in the form of heat (or that electricity production from heat is 100% efficient), and that the biosphere wasn't recycling CO2 (IOW CO2 just accumulated) it would take 34000 years to use all the Oxygen in the atmosphere. Also consider that people live quite well at considerable elevations, where the Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. In fact we are more likely to run out of fossil fuels before we run out of Oxygen to burn them. So, IMO Oxygen depletion is not a problem - certainly not on the scale of global warming. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
I'm at Emerson Electric, in Pittsburgh, performing a factory acceptance test on a Distributed Control System. This system will be used in a power plant in NC.? I will start the place up. The Emerson Ovation computer control system is very good.? This facility has expanded by a factor of 2 since I was here two years ago.? They are capturing the market.? George Bush would like what happened.? The low paid low skill manufacturing jobs have been sent over seas.? The high paid design, branding, sales, and customer service jobs have remained here.? These jobs are all high skill.? The number of these high paid jobs has, once again, doubbled in the past 2 years.? I guesstimate 500 people. The Ovation product was once a product of Westinghouse Inc.?Mr Jorden was the?head of Westinghouse. ?Mr. Jorden, who now sits on the board of directors at Black Light Power, sold this place.? I asked around and was not able to find out much.? Noone knew Jorden.? The only thing that I picked up was that Mr. Jorden did not like this place very much and sold it. I wonder what is going on with him. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
OrionWorks wrote: Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop emitting all forms of CO2 as a result of our technology: How many active volcanoes would it take to produce an equivalent amount of CO2 that humanity currently produces ... thomas malloy wrote: Compared to the volcanoes, all 6,000,000,000 of us are the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's rear end. Hi All, My impression, and I have no numbers to back it up, is that volcanoes are only important when a mega-volcano like Toba (70,000 ago) or Yellowstone (due any day now) blows. The major daily carbon release by the Earth is in the form of methane, an even more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. I don't have any numbers on this either -- maybe C. Warren Hunt estimated it someplace. Even methane release probably has wide swings because some of it may be trapped in water-ice, or is subject to periodic warming of the tundra. All this is beside the point, which is that we must stop using rock oil NOW -- JUST SAY NO TO PETROLEUM! This is a matter of the highest national security. It should be as socially unacceptable to use rock oil as it is to spit on the floor. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
Mike Carrell wrote: You need several in a bulletproof demo -- or one tested in a skeptic's lab. NO! No, no, no! Big mistake. You need some pretty good demos that are tested in a friendly supporter's lab. Ignore the skeptics and their labs. After the last battle has been fought, victories declared, in every newspaper on earth proclaims that the effect is real, then and only then will the skeptics begin to look at it. (Not only will they look; they will take credit for it. They will say they knew all along it was real and without their help you couldn't have done it.) Now, at this stage, you want experiments for knowledgeable people who are sympathetic to the claims and willing to suspend disbelief. For too long, people in cold fusion and at BLP have been searching for an experiment that will "convince the skeptics," or they have been trying to write a "bulletproof" paper that will be "published in Nature." These are the last steps you take, not the first steps. To put it another way, these steps are analogous to the World War I military strategy of attacking the enemy at his strongest point after giving him a week's notice that you are coming, and after ordering your soldiers not to wear helmets. It is self-defeating. The 2004 DoE review of cold fusion was a good example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
- Original Message - From: "OrionWorks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills From Mike Carrell: IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to commercial viability of anything so far posted by BLP. BLP usually can back up such posts by experimental work, as stated. The fact that critical details are glossed over I interpret as evidence of ongoing patent application negotiations. The claimed evolution of H and catalyst from heating the solid fuel could enable high energy density in the reactor. In the animation, an end product of KH(1/4) is mentioned. This implies a very energetic reaction which is claimed to enable regeneration of the fuel, electrolysis of water, and operation of a heat cycle engine to produce useful external work. The patent issue is something else. BLP seeks fundamental patents whose claims will read on all possible applications to garner royalties for the BLP investors and partners. ... Seeking fundamental patents involves the existence of hydrinos. The resonant transfer penomenon is a natural phenomenon, which cannot be patented. Thus BLP is faced with the whole of "accepted physics" in trying to get patents. And without a strong patent base, investors and partners may not risk the development cycle. Mike Carrell Ok, I'm still a little confused on some of these points. Why is it important for BLP to prove to the scientific community that hydrinos exist, particularly if BLP's investors can finance the building of a prototype that proves the point that a commercially viable regenerative process can be manufactured. "Proof to the scientific community" means acceptance by major journals of experiments by world-class labs. Don't hold your breath. BLP has publised papers on experiments, and commentary on known experiments, supporting the physical existence of hydrinos, but the resident skeptics attribute these results to error, etc. Same scenario as for LENR, different chartacters. The real "proof of principle" is a working water engine -- and not just one in a lab photo-op. You need several in a bulletproof demo -- or one tested in a skeptic's lab. Even there the problem would be to make sure the demo is done right and not sabotaged by the skecptic. Doing this means that BLP has to solve a whole series of engineering problems which can be quite expensive. There have been too many magical engines in the new energy field, witness Joseph Newman through the years, and others. A "water engine" is itself almost as refleively absurd as "cold fusion". However, a water engine in the lobby of the US Patent Office or a court room would have a certain persuasive power. How does legitimizing the existence of the hydrino theory help BLP's investors protect their patents. It means you *get* the patent. Correa got patents on his PAGD by inserting a paragraph saying in effect that although the source of energy at present is obscure, when understood it will be found to conform to known physics. What he did not say is the corollary that a deep understanding of the PAGD phenomenon might revolutionize physics. Mills has not chosen this course. Instead he has produce a GUT which addresses many of the salient phenomena of physics in an attempt to explain his discovery. This is the honorable path and the most exposed and difficult. Regardless of whether hydrinos exist as Dr. Mills claims or not, couldn't a savvy competitor either way, just as easily, and just like what happened in RCA, devise a "...circuit which walked around..." BLP's patents leaving BLP high and dry? How does legitimizing hydrinos make that possibility any less of an issue for BLP? High and dry is where you don't want to be. That's why you want a fundamental patent. If hydrinos are produced in Nature, say the solar corona, or like buckyballs, then you can't patent their existence, only a means of utilization or production. A patent is basically a license to sue an infringer to cease selling the product/device/service or pay royalties. You can have a trade secret, like the flavoring of Coca-Cola, but can't save the world with it. Patents are granted in exchange for teaching a art. Patents expire. BLP's long term future depends on mastering know-how such that the partners can make better products than anyone else. This is such a smarmy issue, particularly since I gather there are a number of alternative theories, some discussed extensively within vortex, that elude to the existence of the hydrino species but with very different characteristics, certainly not beholding to Dr. Mills CQM theory. It still seems more important from my perspective to simply develop a POC prototype that proves that BLP's investors were on the right track all along, rather than trying to legitimize hydrinos in the eyes of the scientific community. The latter effort seems to me to be a m
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
Further to my previous comment - there seems to have been some black propaganda put about that the output of volcanoes dwarfs what humans produce - and we are invited by this "fact" to imagine that nature's effects are much larger than humans and therefore all the talk of manmade global warming must be politically inspired rubbish etc etc. The source of this big lie seems to be that when some volcanoes like Mount St Helens and particularly Mount Pinatubo (the largest recent eruption) erupt they put a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. I was going to say "ah, but they are only erupting for a relatively short time compared to when they are not - a week or so as opposed to many years - so their average output is much less than their peak output and I would have been prepared to believe that the largest volcano in recent times could have "out CO2'd" humans for a couple of weeks BUT... I don't know how reliable this quote is but "Gerlach and others estimate that, in addition to the measured 17 Mt of SO2, the eruption of approximately 5 km3 of magma was accompanied by release of at least 491 to 921 Mt of H2O, 3 to 16 Mt of Cl, and 42 to 234 Mt of CO2.">> EIA Anthropogenic CO2 output = ~25,162 MTonnes/yr So even Mt Pinatubo only put between 1/107th to 1/600th of the CO2 out that humans did in that year. It does look as if the peak output during the climactic few hours of the final eruption did equal us for a few hours but there absolutely isn't any way volcanoes generally are of much significance at all compared to the mighty homo "sapiens"...
[Vo]:Short article in French about Biberian
From the Centre Européen pour la Recherche et le Développement de Nouvelles Technologies Energétiques Alternatives (CERNTEA), see: http://cerntea.canalblog.com/archives/2008/03/15/7163644.html
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
thomas malloy wrote: Compared to the volcanoes, all 6,000,000,000 of us are the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's rear end. That is incorrect, as shown by the stats Nick Palmer found. It is also obviously wrong because in North America, we burn roughly twice as much fossil fuel as all of the plants on the continent convert back into carbon and free oxygen. If volcanoes added far more CO2 to the mix then we do, than plants would have a negligible effect and the atmosphere and there would be practically no free oxygen. (By the way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) This notion that people have an inherently smaller effect than natural phenomena is widespread, but it has no logical or factual basis. In North America we have stripped away most of the top soil, cut most of the trees down, destroyed the water table over large areas and paved over an area the size of Nebraska. It is inconceivable that such large scale terraforming would not have a major impact on the environment. At this rate we will destroy most of the continent in a few hundred years as effectively as people in ancient times destroyed Iraq (Mesopotamia). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
OrionWorks wrote: Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop emitting all forms of CO2 as a result of our technology: How many active volcanoes would it take to produce an equivalent amount of CO2 that humanity currently produces and/or is indirectly Compared to the volcanoes, all 6,000,000,000 of us are the equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's rear end. BTW, did you see the Newman video? Joseph intimated that his technology could have made a difference in, I assume, the Sun's behavior. which is over the top, even for a man who believes that he is Jesus. I viewed the video to the point where he had the two solar images. and it stopped. I think I'll try again. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
I don't know how many volcanoes it would take but the global total CO2 emissions of active volcanoes is about 1/150th of what humans are doing. see this site http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
[Vo]:How many volcanoes would it take...
Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop emitting all forms of CO2 as a result of our technology: How many active volcanoes would it take to produce an equivalent amount of CO2 that humanity currently produces and/or is indirectly responsible for producing, such as deforestation techniques through burning. I was wondering how prior active volcano counts lined up with previous epochs, along with the prevailing weather patterns and temperatures of that time. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
>From Mike Carrell: > IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to commercial > viability of anything so far posted by BLP. BLP usually > can back up such posts by experimental work, as stated. > The fact that critical details are glossed over I interpret > as evidence of ongoing patent application negotiations. The > claimed evolution of H and catalyst from heating the solid > fuel could enable high energy density in the reactor. In > the animation, an end product of KH(1/4) is mentioned. > This implies a very energetic reaction which is claimed to > enable regeneration of the fuel, electrolysis of water, and > operation of a heat cycle engine to produce useful external > work. > > The patent issue is something else. BLP seeks fundamental > patents whose claims will read on all possible applications > to garner royalties for the BLP investors and partners. ... > Seeking fundamental patents involves the existence of > hydrinos. The resonant transfer penomenon is a natural > phenomenon, which cannot be patented. Thus BLP is faced > with the whole of "accepted physics" in trying to get > patents. And without a strong patent base, investors > and partners may not risk the development cycle. > > Mike Carrell Ok, I'm still a little confused on some of these points. Why is it important for BLP to prove to the scientific community that hydrinos exist, particularly if BLP's investors can finance the building of a prototype that proves the point that a commercially viable regenerative process can be manufactured. How does legitimizing the existence of the hydrino theory help BLP's investors protect their patents. Regardless of whether hydrinos exist as Dr. Mills claims or not, couldn't a savvy competitor either way, just as easily, and just like what happened in RCA, devise a "...circuit which walked around..." BLP's patents leaving BLP high and dry? How does legitimizing hydrinos make that possibility any less of an issue for BLP? This is such a smarmy issue, particularly since I gather there are a number of alternative theories, some discussed extensively within vortex, that elude to the existence of the hydrino species but with very different characteristics, certainly not beholding to Dr. Mills CQM theory. It still seems more important from my perspective to simply develop a POC prototype that proves that BLP's investors were on the right track all along, rather than trying to legitimize hydrinos in the eyes of the scientific community. The latter effort seems to me to be a massive waste of finite financial resources, and is in real danger of failing, particularly if BLP can never gat a single POC financed and demonstrated to a skeptical community. I assume I must be missing an important business strategy in my latest machinations. I'm just worried that if they continue focusing on the patent issue, BLP may never get their bird off the ground. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
- Original Message - From: "John Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Mike, Is the new "solid fuel" process commercially viable? The implication over at the BLP web site has been that the new-and-improved process has been proven experimentally to self-generate through well-known chemical manufacturing processes. If this really is an authentic breakthrough in how to sustain the critical regenerative process to produce excess energy couldn't BLP & lawyers simply patent the process that generates the excess heat and, well, sort of gloss over (at least for now) the alleged theory behind it? IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to commercial viability of anything so far posted by BLP. BLP usually can back up such posts by experimental work, as stated. The fact that critical details are glossed over I interpret as evidence of ongoing patent application negotiations. The claimed evolution of H and catalyst from heating the solid fuel could enable high energy density in the reactor. In the animation, an end product of KH(1/4) is mentioned. This implies a very energetic reaction which is claimed to enable regeneration of the fuel, electrolysis of water, and operation of a heat cycle engine to produce useful external work. The patent issue is something else. BLP seeks fundamental patents whose claims will read on all possible applications to garner royalties for the BLP investors and partners. Some time ago BLP submitted a massive application of hundreds of claims covering as many details of configurations as possible, without mentioning hydrinos or theory. Such would be a recipe patent as commonly found in the chemical industry. The problem is that some novel configuration could evade the claims. Such has happened, for example Armstrong did not get expectged revenue from his patents on FM reception because an engineer at RCA devised a very simple circuit which walked around Armstrong's claims. Seeking fundamental patents involves the existence of hydrinos. The resonant transfer penomenon is a natural phenomenon, which cannot be patented. Thus BLP is faced with the whole of "accepted physics" in trying to get patents. And without a strong patent base, investors and partners may not risk the development cycle. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Oil price elasticity: Cutting through the fog
thomas malloy wrote: Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi Stephen, Nice simulation; but human greed and stupidity, which are impossible to over-estimate, are not Personal reflections: I hope they're right. Not sure that I do. Does your calculation factor in an increase in the supply of oil which will result from the increase in price? The whole point of the exercise is that we seem to have reached the world peak in oil production, and supply cannot be increased, due to lack of resources. So the question I was trying to answer was, if demand continues to increase but supply is forced to remain static or drop, what will be the effect on price? (Sure it'll go up, but how much?) Peak oil has been predicted for a good many years, and reading the news, I'm hearing about old fields in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the Americas passing their peaks and declining and no new fields seem set to come on stream. It sure looks like it could be the peak of production. Saudi Arabia has two large fields left but they're hard to use -- they have major pressure problems and will need water injection from day 1. They hope to start producing from the Khurais field in 2009, if I recall correctly, but it's going to take a research project to extract the oil, and whether or not it works as planned it's not going to help with prices this year. Aramco is supposedly the world expert in extracting all possible oil from a field, rumors of Arab oil field mismanagement notwithstanding, but it's a big enough challenge that even they may have trouble extracting the oil -- and their last remaining large field, whose name slips my mind, is apparently even tougher to work with than Khurais. Brazil has made a large find recently but it's not really confirmed and could be smaller than it appears (admittedly fields usually turn out /larger/ than thought, tho), and it's under more than a mile of ocean water which won't make it any easier to bring on-stream quickly, so it's not going to be producing anything this year, either. But let's put it in perspective: If it's 40 billion barrels, as has been reported in the news, that's slightly more than a 1-year supply for the world. The world uses about 84 million barrels per day, or about 30 billion barrels per year. So, Brazil's find just extended the "oil era" by 16 months. And finds of that magnitude are reported far less frequently than one every 16 months! Straws in the wind, that's all; but it's sure looking like stormy weather coming.
