Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
My system does not capture all the sea state energy. It can attenuate the waves but not calm it down enough. If the PBRs can not be deployed in a rough sea state area, I can not deploy them near my wave farms as my wave farm will be deployed in areas of strong waves. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: I understand what you mean, but my system scales with area. It can capture sea state and swell state energy, not just swell energy like some wave systems. So, if the PBRs require low sea state, I guess it won't be compatible for integration into my wave farms. My wave farms will be deployed where there are lots of waves. I go where the storms are. That doesn't make sense. If you capture the energy, the sea state is lowered behind the wave energy system. Is the requirement of low sea state only imposed by the plastic bag material strength? Is there limitation on Algae productivity in the presence of vigorous stirring and shaking caused by high sea states? In other words, assuming the bag material is of sufficient strength, what happens if you shake the PBRs rather violently? Will it affect algae growth? It seems to me it won't and would probably improve growth due to more thorough mixing of gases and nutrients, am I correct? The CAPEX of photobioreactors is proportional to area. If you make the barrier stronger, you increase the cost per area. Lack of understanding this fundamental driver of algae cultivation is what kills the economy of 90% of the proposed cultivation systems.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. ***A very interesting and wise observation. Have you considered some sort of crowdsourcing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: When I spoke of your mature advice, it was in the context of your confusion. Your advice was confused -- not mature. You are welcome to your suspicions. I am speaking from ground truth. There are lots of highly motivated very smart people with lots of money out there. The problem isn't the lack of very sharp highly motivated well-intentioned people with lots of money. The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. If they don't deal with that problem then they are effectively brain dead no matter how smart they are taken as individuals. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com *Cc:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS... http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: Analog Fan Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS... Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com *Cc:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile and I agree that it is very intriguing. I actually have a little experience from the field and do understand that it is like LENR hard to control. It is still very intriguing. So, back to why it is hard to get money to this project. First my generic answer still stands, except for that the technology is established. Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. The vision is great and once the project is up and running - many will follow and the result could be a savior for future generation's food supply. However, the investment is enormous measured by what any risk taker can provide (try Bill Gates). I do not think there is any need for research before taking action. The research money is very small - perhaps not even the $10M you suggested. However, the research is a dead end. There are several steps to fulfill before you can see any ROI. 1. Building of the 'atolls' . Yes, an engineering thing and experience from oil platforms will help. It will cost lots of money. You do not want to live on an atoll with ten people. To build an atoll structure so it can be the home for 1,000 and make it possible for them to earn their living and have a meaningful life will require resources, read dollars. 2. Convincing people to live there (at least the first group of immigrants). 3. Transportation system for algae in one direction and everything else the inhabitants need (want) in the other direction. A totally new infrastructure. 4. Build the market for this algae instead of corn, soy etc. There is a built in resistance to change - so even with very logical, economical and environmental reasons it will be hard. In addition we are still in a society, which find it necessary to have borders between the tribes. There are no clear jurisdiction for the areas you talk about. Not that I dislike that but I am sure that after success is proven some nearby 'king' will proclaim sovereignty over the atoll. In other words the risk factor is great. not a mapped territory. I do not have ten million dollars, but if the project would be profitable with such small of an investment I can guarantee funding. The idea is in my opinion great and deserve interest and financing. I am sure that will come a time, as other resources and areal becomes more and more sparse, when this will be reality. Probably, initiated by a government with a direct need for food, energy and seafront lots. I have one idea to get to the result. Find an oil platform that is fixed over a dry hole. Venezuela anybody?:). They are close to land and only the 'crew' needs to live there. No, I do not think $10M will be enough anyhow. From experience I know that size matters in this industry. Very big difference in ROI between a unit producing x ton per year and one producing 10x, at least a factor 10,000. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com *Cc:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: supply. However, the investment is enormous measured by what any risk taker can provide (try Bill Gates). Oh good grief. Do you even know who you're talking to? Not only do I have 2 separate routes through which Gates is a friend of a friend, both of them are routes in which the friend has direct positive professional experience with me. One of them is actually in charge of the Gates Foundation's nutrition project and the other was in charge of Microsoft. Both are informed of this technology. Gates is brain dead.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Yes, it has been a pipe dream. I think it still is because of reasons I gave. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
You're confused. The photobioreactor technology is not the same as the atoll technology. The photobioreactor technology requires $10M. There is no good excuse to have confused these two. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, it has been a pipe dream. I think it still is because of reasons I gave. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
To be clear, the atoll technology requires a breakthrough in energy production. Once that breakthrough occurs it will naturally incorporate the Algasol PBR technology which does NOT require a breakthrough of any kind -- indeed it is a technology, the lack of financing for which, indicts the entire power structure of civilization. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:48 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You're confused. The photobioreactor technology is not the same as the atoll technology. The photobioreactor technology requires $10M. There is no good excuse to have confused these two. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, it has been a pipe dream. I think it still is because of reasons I gave. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
To take risk in one step, which I tried to show is required, you need a very big investment. In addition such an investment is contrary to most laws regulating business. Yes, there is rules for ships but they hardly work for atolls. I mentioned Gate as an example of one of the few who has personal wealth of this magnitude. With your good connection I am amazed you do not get funding. I do know the field. I do see objectives for the investment in one step towards the vision. I even like the vision. I believe this is a future solution, which time has not been here so far. No I do not know anything about the new specific findings done by your group. I certainly has no opinion about Bill Gates. I wish you luck and think you will succeed if you can show some kind of short term ROI. Have you built an organization? Is there somebody with passion? Is there a leader? You do not have to answer me but make sure you have those issued covered and I am sure funding is secured. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: supply. However, the investment is enormous measured by what any risk taker can provide (try Bill Gates). Oh good grief. Do you even know who you're talking to? Not only do I have 2 separate routes through which Gates is a friend of a friend, both of them are routes in which the friend has direct positive professional experience with me. One of them is actually in charge of the Gates Foundation's nutrition project and the other was in charge of Microsoft. Both are informed of this technology. Gates is brain dead.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I just read the article you provided. In there the vision was the atolls. If that just was there as a filler than I misunderstood the article, sorry for that. Although I sink the sender is responsible for the message not the reciever. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:48 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You're confused. The photobioreactor technology is not the same as the atoll technology. The photobioreactor technology requires $10M. There is no good excuse to have confused these two. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, it has been a pipe dream. I think it still is because of reasons I gave. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
The Alga6 photobioreactor from Algasol, LLC brings the cost per insolated area below that for open ponds while yielding areal productivity at an annualized rate exceeding 35g/m^2/day using natural algae strains in high insolation *desert* areas http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I just read the article you provided. In there the vision was the atolls. If that just was there as a filler than I misunderstood the article, sorry for that. Although I sink the sender is responsible for the message not the reciever. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:48 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You're confused. The photobioreactor technology is not the same as the atoll technology. The photobioreactor technology requires $10M. There is no good excuse to have confused these two. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes, it has been a pipe dream. I think it still is because of reasons I gave. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, Thanks for the details of the bio project. I think the ideas has been around for awhile No it hasn't. Algae cultivation has been a pipedream for a long time if that is what you are talking about. What has _not_ been around for a long time is a practical technology for algae cultivation. There is only one that I am aware of and I've been looking at this field for decades.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
But are you related to Kevin Bacon? On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: supply. However, the investment is enormous measured by what any risk taker can provide (try Bill Gates). Oh good grief. Do you even know who you're talking to? Not only do I have 2 separate routes through which Gates is a friend of a friend, both of them are routes in which the friend has direct positive professional experience with me. One of them is actually in charge of the Gates Foundation's nutrition project and the other was in charge of Microsoft. Both are informed of this technology. Gates is brain dead.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Yeah the failure of civilization _is_ a laughing matter, isn't it? On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But are you related to Kevin Bacon? On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: supply. However, the investment is enormous measured by what any risk taker can provide (try Bill Gates). Oh good grief. Do you even know who you're talking to? Not only do I have 2 separate routes through which Gates is a friend of a friend, both of them are routes in which the friend has direct positive professional experience with me. One of them is actually in charge of the Gates Foundation's nutrition project and the other was in charge of Microsoft. Both are informed of this technology. Gates is brain dead.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
When I spoke of your mature advice, it was in the context of your confusion. Your advice was confused -- not mature. You are welcome to your suspicions. I am speaking from ground truth. There are lots of highly motivated very smart people with lots of money out there. The problem isn't the lack of very sharp highly motivated well-intentioned people with lots of money. The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. If they don't deal with that problem then they are effectively brain dead no matter how smart they are taken as individuals. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
There are people losing the key while opening the front door but look for it under the street lamp as it is brighter there. James I have not accused you about not telling the truth. As all of us, the truth is what we believe to be true. The hardest place to find flaws is within oneself. I know with 80% certainty that the reason is within the organization seeking the funding. The assumption that people are immersed in a social setting that prevents them from investing in this environmental right project with proven ROI is just wrong. In regards to LENR your point makes some sense, although I do not think it is the only reason there either. Having sad that I will stop further debate about this subject as I think we are marching in a circle to gain. I wish you find the opening and get funded. Invite me to visit when you are up and running. I think it is a great project and you have solved a problem I have heard about for 25 years (just like LENR), so because of that I should like to see a functioning and profitable solution to vital needs for the future. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: When I spoke of your mature advice, it was in the context of your confusion. Your advice was confused -- not mature. You are welcome to your suspicions. I am speaking from ground truth. There are lots of highly motivated very smart people with lots of money out there. The problem isn't the lack of very sharp highly motivated well-intentioned people with lots of money. The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. If they don't deal with that problem then they are effectively brain dead no matter how smart they are taken as individuals. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
It certainly is my fault that I have not put my disabled and dependent wife in a nursing home, gone and kidnapped the Bill Gates' children, cut their fingers off one at a time, sending them to him until he listens. I have many such faults. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: There are people losing the key while opening the front door but look for it under the street lamp as it is brighter there. James I have not accused you about not telling the truth. As all of us, the truth is what we believe to be true. The hardest place to find flaws is within oneself. I know with 80% certainty that the reason is within the organization seeking the funding. The assumption that people are immersed in a social setting that prevents them from investing in this environmental right project with proven ROI is just wrong. In regards to LENR your point makes some sense, although I do not think it is the only reason there either. Having sad that I will stop further debate about this subject as I think we are marching in a circle to gain. I wish you find the opening and get funded. Invite me to visit when you are up and running. I think it is a great project and you have solved a problem I have heard about for 25 years (just like LENR), so because of that I should like to see a functioning and profitable solution to vital needs for the future. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: When I spoke of your mature advice, it was in the context of your confusion. Your advice was confused -- not mature. You are welcome to your suspicions. I am speaking from ground truth. There are lots of highly motivated very smart people with lots of money out there. The problem isn't the lack of very sharp highly motivated well-intentioned people with lots of money. The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. If they don't deal with that problem then they are effectively brain dead no matter how smart they are taken as individuals. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions. Not for the algae cultivation system. Its $10M. Period. End of discussion. The $10M is for a production line. Not RD. the RD is done. The economics are demonstrated. Thanks but no thanks for your mature advice. Once the production line is running there are already over a billion dollars in letters of intent to purchase the photobioreactors.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: It certainly is my fault that I have not put my disabled and dependent wife in a nursing home, gone and kidnapped the Bill Gates' children, cut their fingers off one at a time, sending them to him until he listens. I have many such faults. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: There are people losing the key while opening the front door but look for it under the street lamp as it is brighter there. James I have not accused you about not telling the truth. As all of us, the truth is what we believe to be true. The hardest place to find flaws is within oneself. I know with 80% certainty that the reason is within the organization seeking the funding. The assumption that people are immersed in a social setting that prevents them from investing in this environmental right project with proven ROI is just wrong. In regards to LENR your point makes some sense, although I do not think it is the only reason there either. Having sad that I will stop further debate about this subject as I think we are marching in a circle to gain. I wish you find the opening and get funded. Invite me to visit when you are up and running. I think it is a great project and you have solved a problem I have heard about for 25 years (just like LENR), so because of that I should like to see a functioning and profitable solution to vital needs for the future. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: When I spoke of your mature advice, it was in the context of your confusion. Your advice was confused -- not mature. You are welcome to your suspicions. I am speaking from ground truth. There are lots of highly motivated very smart people with lots of money out there. The problem isn't the lack of very sharp highly motivated well-intentioned people with lots of money. The problem is their immersion in a social milieu that neutralizes their ability to think. If they don't deal with that problem then they are effectively brain dead no matter how smart they are taken as individuals. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I think you jump to conclusions about others without seeing there motives. I understand there are brain dead investors. There are also very smart dittos. I suspect you are missing an important factor in your presentation. Problems mostly emanate near ourselves. You know the old biblical talk about bars in the eyes. +I know you do not appreciate my mature vision but it can hardly cost much to just make an inventory. I mentioned a few very common but there are others, which I cannot see as an outsider. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK we agree that the RD is done. I think you can produce a system for ten million dollars. Then you say you have letter of intent so I certainly do not see the problem. It should be rather easy to get the funding. Yes it _should_ be. It should be _trivial_ to get the funding. Yet the funding is not forthcoming. All of the sources of funding you'd think should be jumping on this aren't. There is no good reason for this except that these funding sources are brain dead. I still believe it is hard to start this with baby steps and arrive at the vision. Great if you can use the billions to build at least one atoll. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Specific problems are that it is not a ten million dollar test to get there. I think you talk billions.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: Analog Fan Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com *Cc:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com *Cc:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species seems to be a perenial problem with Algae reactors. 4. What's the required ocean area for an algal field sufficient to support the nutritional needs of say 10,000 people? 5. So, the primary output would be algae primarily for oil (for biofuel) and algae dry matter for livestock? No direct food for humans? Do you know of a system for direct production of human food? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 12:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2014/05/greenhouses-are-not-next-green.html On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
No need to be snippy my friend, I just want detailed information for an initial go no go decision. This is just initial due diligence. This initial research is simply to determine if this technology will be compatible with my wave farms. This will compete for ocean area against my wave farms so it is a concern. But, I will be doing more due diligence. No, I did not look at the DOE presentation yet as my focus right now is food production for humans. I will look at it later. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
My friend, this PDF has more details but I need more. Right now, my major concern is how to deploy this in the ocean near my wave farms. So, I am really interested in deployment schemes, infrastructures required, dimensions, anchor supports, and mechanisms and provisions for storm protection. There will be more questions later, but for right now, I am focusing on its compatibility and feasibility of codeployment with my wave farm. For instance, might it be possible to integrate the PBRs into my pump floaters. This would significantly increase value and reduce CAPEX. One specific question. On the slides, there is provision for C02 injection into the photobioreactor. What is the source of this CO2, just atmospheric extraction or sea water extraction? Also, what are the provisions for piping and water circulation of sea water on the PBRs. This is another area where my existing wave pump might provide synergy. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Wave technology scales with length, not area. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: No need to be snippy my friend, I just want detailed information for an initial go no go decision. This is just initial due diligence. This initial research is simply to determine if this technology will be compatible with my wave farms. This will compete for ocean area against my wave farms so it is a concern. But, I will be doing more due diligence. No, I did not look at the DOE presentation yet as my focus right now is food production for humans. I will look at it later. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 10:39 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2 decades of research. The fact that you don't find it via Google is neither here nor there. Google is not due diligence. Any investment group that has any competent analysts could do what I did. Its not magic. You get on the phone and talk to people. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: James, I find myself increasingly interested in this technology yet am having difficulty in finding detailed information. The blogs you sent while helpful is a little incomplete for my needs. I am currently googling for Algasol but I find their web site skimpy on details, just lots of generalization and rhetoric on how revolutionary their tech could be. I need more just to even begin due diligence. Do you know of a site with a whitepaper, some pictures, deployment infrastructure, engineering drawings, etc of this technology. If you have some, please shoot them my way. James, could it be that the reason why this technology is not getting funded is as simple as skimpy information available. Could it be that the proponents of the technology are simply doing a lousy job of disseminating relevant information about the technology? If that is not the case, maybe I am just doing a lousy job of looking for it. Please send links or info my way. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 2:26 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors 1) Areal CAPEX is lower than open ponds. Specific OPEX, including energy, is well below that required for competition with crude oil. 2) No. The initial installations compete with open ponds. They are on dry land desert areas. You can get better economy in the ocean but you don't need it. You can beat crude oil and open ponds on dry land. Hail is the main threat on dry land and is dealt with by temporarily submerging the PBRs so the hail hits the flotation medium (brackish water). 3) Photobioreactors are closed hence contamination is excluded. 4) The food arithmetic is worked out in the article I sent previously. 5) No, the primary output would _not_ be for biofuel. Read the article I sent previously. Although it is true that the biomass can be used for fuel and would be competitive, the entire point of the prior link I sent is food -- not fuel. There is no more point in talking about a system for direct production of human food than there is in talking about growing soybeans for direct consumption by humans. It is even more absurd to talk about such direct consumption when you are already reducing areal requirements by a factor of 20 over soybeans. If you really insist on looking at biofuel from this system, here is the DoE proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/3_0811-1538_LBNL_Project.pdf On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James. I have a few questions: 1. What is the infrastructure cost of such an Alga6 photobioreactor? What is the ongoing energy cost? 2. It appears that it has to be installed in tropical doldrums? right? Areas with no storms? cause I presume a storm would run havoc with the photobioreactors? 3. Has the problem with algae contamination been solved. Contamination of other algae species
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: For instance, might it be possible to integrate the PBRs into my pump floaters. This would significantly increase value and reduce CAPEX. I believe you will find in the vortex-l archives my comment on precisely the potential integration with wave power that I made in response to you: The floating PBRs need low sea state and low sea state is provided by any kind of wave barrier -- one form of which naturally would be wave energy systems that absorb the wave energy.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: One specific question. On the slides, there is provision for C02 injection into the photobioreactor. What is the source of this CO2, just atmospheric extraction or sea water extraction? CO2 is presumed available at current commercial rates -- which means it can be extracted from air. The energetics are that economic. Of course, if you have another source of CO2, such as a fossil fuel power plant, you have to do some processing to render it food-grade but then that is a requirement of all new clean coal technologies anyway. Also, what are the provisions for piping and water circulation of sea water on the PBRs. This is another area where my existing wave pump might provide synergy. The maritime deployment of the PBRs do not require sea water on them but rather under them. The wave action must be kept at a moderate level to avoid damaging the polyfilm -- which is why wave barriers are necessary. Desert deployment of the PBRs require artificially induced standing waves, the energy for which is accounted for in the OPEX.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: No need to be snippy my friend, You were the one who challenged the presentation of information as being inadequate and since billions have been blown on algae cultivation technologies and none of them is as forthcoming with the critical data, my response to your challenge was entirely cricket.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I understand what you mean, but my system scales with area. It can capture sea state and swell state energy, not just swell energy like some wave systems. So, if the PBRs require low sea state, I guess it won't be compatible for integration into my wave farms. My wave farms will be deployed where there are lots of waves. I go where the storms are. Is the requirement of low sea state only imposed by the plastic bag material strength? Is there limitation on Algae productivity in the presence of vigorous stirring and shaking caused by high sea states? In other words, assuming the bag material is of sufficient strength, what happens if you shake the PBRs rather violently? Will it affect algae growth? It seems to me it won't and would probably improve growth due to more thorough mixing of gases and nutrients, am I correct? Here's what I'm thinking. I am thinking of integrating the PBRs with my floaters. My floaters are arranged in a grid 5'x5' square. I am thinking of several ways to integrate the PBRs 1. Use 4 floaters to anchor the corners of a 5'x5' PBR. This would shake the PBR rather violent since the floaters are bobbing up and down vigorously. 2. Use the top of the floater and lay the PBR on top of the floater. The top of the floater is 24 diameter circle. Each 3-5MW power station requires 10,800 floaters. So this is a lot of area for PBRs, but this would complicate piping. 3. Use a transparent floater which will serve as the PBR itself. Hence, algae grow inside the floater. They are protected from the storm as the floaters are made of relatively robust plastic material. The floaters themselves are designed to sway, tilt, submerge and move in response to strong waves and wind. Hence, hopefully I have designed them to survive a Cat5 hurricane. How small can each PBR be for it to make sense? Will a cylinder 24D x 12H work as a PBR? Increasing the diameter or height of the floater is an option. 4. Use a large sheet PBR and cover the entire area where the floaters are. the PBRs will be violently shaken and stirred as individual floaters bump up and down on it. Technique 1 appears to be the simplest and most economical as long as the PBR bag and the algae can resist violent shaking and up and down movement. Technique 2 offer a way to anchor the PBR on top of a floater which would protect it from strong forces and stresses during a storm. Technique 3 allows the integration of wave farm with food and oil production of algae but requires the use of transparent floaters which will increase cost of the floaters significantly, which may bring the total wave farm cost into uneconomic territory. Technique 4 offers a cheap way to deploy a large are PBR though it might present problems with the Algae growth and maintenance would be highly problematic. Of course, these assumes limited ocean area which may or may not be case. But I do want both the wave farm and the algae farm in the same general vicinity. That may not be possible if the PBRs absolutely require low sea states. How long is a growing cycle? from initial inoculation of the PBR to harvest. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Wave technology scales with length, not area. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: No need to be snippy my friend, I just want detailed information for an initial go no go decision. This is just initial due diligence. This initial research is simply to determine if this technology will be compatible with my wave farms. This will compete for ocean area against my wave farms so it is a concern. But, I will be doing more due diligence. No, I did not look at the DOE presentation yet as my focus right now is food production for humans. I will look at it later. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Here's the presentation from the European Algae Biomass 2013 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/28447217/Algae%20Platform%2024-25%20april%202013-2.pdf I defy you to find comparably detailed information about pricing, productivity, biomass concentration, etc. from ANY other algae technology company. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: And by the way did you even bother looking at the DoE proposal? I did provide you with the URL to my dropbox. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously haven't been looking at algae technology. I have for 20 years. Algasol has provided far more detailed and specific information than any other company in that 2
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
As you correctly pointed out, I do not have 20 years of algae production experience. I produced biofuel from moringa oliefera so I was presuming the industrial processes would be the same. It turns out that it is quite different. I just need more information, not pitting one algae technology with another. I am just lamenting that the information available seems to be inadequate to make an informed go no go initial decision. Just like my question on the absolute requirement of low sea state. This requirement if absolutely necessary is a deal breaker for me. I need to go where the waves are so this technology would be incompatible with my needs. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: No need to be snippy my friend, You were the one who challenged the presentation of information as being inadequate and since billions have been blown on algae cultivation technologies and none of them is as forthcoming with the critical data, my response to your challenge was entirely cricket.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: I understand what you mean, but my system scales with area. It can capture sea state and swell state energy, not just swell energy like some wave systems. So, if the PBRs require low sea state, I guess it won't be compatible for integration into my wave farms. My wave farms will be deployed where there are lots of waves. I go where the storms are. That doesn't make sense. If you capture the energy, the sea state is lowered behind the wave energy system. Is the requirement of low sea state only imposed by the plastic bag material strength? Is there limitation on Algae productivity in the presence of vigorous stirring and shaking caused by high sea states? In other words, assuming the bag material is of sufficient strength, what happens if you shake the PBRs rather violently? Will it affect algae growth? It seems to me it won't and would probably improve growth due to more thorough mixing of gases and nutrients, am I correct? The CAPEX of photobioreactors is proportional to area. If you make the barrier stronger, you increase the cost per area. Lack of understanding this fundamental driver of algae cultivation is what kills the economy of 90% of the proposed cultivation systems.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS... Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS... http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 Preview by Yahoo
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Although I agree with your general premise that things do not add up with BLP - a reasonable explanation for owning this facility - and it being on the market now could be fairly mundane. IIRC Mills bought a large aerospace facility maybe a decade ago, for pennies on the dollar (probably it was this one but not sure) when real estate was much lower in price. At that time he was claiming that he was months away from a commercial product. He failed to get to the commercial product - not just once, but many times since then. Consequently, he may have changed his entire business plan; foregoing any prospect of manufacturing, and instead focusing on licensing others to do the manufacturing... that is, he can ever deliver a marketable product. Doubts about the SunCell are stronger than ever. BLP may see several million in profit on this building, to add to the recent haul - and/or to pay a handsome bonuses to RM. It has been privately rumored that he draws an enormous salary for an RD company - but there is no proof of that in the public record. From: Analog Fan The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data http://njparcels.com/property/1101/5/3 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Although I agree with your general premise that things do not add up with BLP - a reasonable explanation for owning this facility - and it being on the market now could be fairly mundane. Google maps shows this to be the same building as 493 Old Trenton Rd., Cranbury Township, New Jersey, where he has always been. Maybe he owned part of the building and has bought the rest.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500: Hi, Indeed. Humans are very risk averse. They are willing to invest large sums in things they are tried and true, even if the promised return is only low, but very unwilling to invest in something completely new, even if the promised return is very high. This attitude could well be the downfall of civilization. As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Its worse than that. I've seen Exxon blow $600M on a competing technology that had far less to offer under anything resembling due diligence. The US government has blown billions on the Tokamak over a period of decades despite the founders of the program denouncing it. Then there is the Space Shuttle. No, its not being risk averse alone that defines dumb money. The capital structures are constructed by rent seeking: Public sector rent seeking: Groups figuring out how to extract money from the taxpayer and/or Federal Reserve that they they, in fact, use to engage in more activities targeting the same public sector extraction. Private sector rent seeking: Investors looking for natural monopolies aka network effects aka network externalities while avoiding paying for the government services that protect their de facto monopoly properties. This results in a general capital structure in the economy that is incapable of doing risk assessment and management in technology development -- regardless of whether it is risk averse or not. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500: Hi, Indeed. Humans are very risk averse. They are willing to invest large sums in things they are tried and true, even if the promised return is only low, but very unwilling to invest in something completely new, even if the promised return is very high. This attitude could well be the downfall of civilization. As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Vortex James and mixent. I think you are right in one regard. We are in a rent seeking society. Why? The reason is that we have indoctrinated ourselves to rely on stats, computers and academic wisdom. That is a problem my grand children's children will have to deal with. Credit score is important - not. The whole investment community is on the same track. Models are imposed and if it does not fit so be it. WE will take the sure ones - we leave the big catches to the others as nobody will reward us for the occasional break of the sound barrier but a steady 500 miles per hour gives us more bonuses. The next thing is that everybody has the same model. They all use Excel to make the model based on old stuff. They all have the same model. Now next step, put in LENR or any unknown technology in the model and the answer is NO CORRELATION. That equals , do not invest. The result for the investment community is that they all do mediocre. They all do the same. Any new ideas will require as much effort in to financing, management, leadership etc. as is spent on the core issue. I understand that most Vortices are critical of Dr. Randy Mills. However, one need to applaud his ability to raise money. It is wrong to say that his investors are stupid or do not understand. He has identified his target investors and even after 25 mllion dollars ?? he is abel to get them to over subscribe. I do not know anything about Axil's ideas - I do not understand more than half of it. I know Peter is a smart guy so I trust Axil has a few ideas worth following up on. There are to problems: 1. Axil does not invoke any trust by being anonymous. 2. One need to talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in professor's language. The last is a Swedish say by the way (not perfectly translated). To Axil or Lixa? there will be very little traction for your ideas without you open up. You need a 'translator' somebody needs to clad the theories in words possible to understand by an investor. 2nd degree differential equations does mean nothing to any ANY investor. I think we have a lot of expertise in Vortex. We do miss people doing experiments as I understand. I am a strong believer of a modern approach to problem solving. Many small entities work together in an per need basis. That is the strengths of the western society. We have all the pieces, building it to a massive organization cannot happen without prior success (or Chinese wager). Then the massive organization relies on the models I mentioned above and they provide s porly. Exxon lost half a billion dollars on a stupid thing per James. It does not mean anything. I know without having one idea about the project, the people or the timing that everybody has CYA. Nobody suffered and Exxon is anonymous. Life goes on and here we are complaining. I suggest to make some program and confirm the basic ideas and then find the right investors. Hard to find them? Not , really. I do not know anyone of them but I am sure I could smell them out. I guarantee that I am not risk averse. I do not thing there is any shortage of investment money. I do not thing risk taking is unusual in humans - on the contrary. The ten million you need for the eco project, James are available. I have no idea about te project but I know hwy you have had no luck. One need to talk to farmers in farmer's language and to professor's in professor's language. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its worse than that. I've seen Exxon blow $600M on a competing technology that had far less to offer under anything resembling due diligence. The US government has blown billions on the Tokamak over a period of decades despite the founders of the program denouncing it. Then there is the Space Shuttle. No, its not being risk averse alone that defines dumb money. The capital structures are constructed by rent seeking: Public sector rent seeking: Groups figuring out how to extract money from the taxpayer and/or Federal Reserve that they they, in fact, use to engage in more activities targeting the same public sector extraction. Private sector rent seeking: Investors looking for natural monopolies aka network effects aka network externalities while avoiding paying for the government services that protect their de facto monopoly properties. This results in a general capital structure in the economy that is incapable of doing risk assessment and management in technology development -- regardless of whether it is risk averse or not. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to James Bowery's message of Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:34:24 -0500: Hi, Indeed.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
James, Please elaborate on this technology. If it is enormously profitable as you claim, I might be able to integrate this with my wave power to produce food. We need cheap food here in the Philippines to feed an exponentially growing population. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: Analog Fan Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors As far as I can see there is nothing _but_ dumb money out there. Let me define what I mean: I know of at least one technology that has, since 2009, been waiting on nothing more than about $10M dollars to reduce civilization's ecological footprint by at least a factor of 2 while increasing protein production to the point that, even passing through multiple trophic layers in the agricultural foodchain to high value meat and fish, would provide a diet so rich the problem wouldn't be malnutrition but gout. When I say waiting on I mean it is demonstrated and the production line to manufacture it is already specified. Oh, I guess I failed to point out that what I mean by demonstrated is that its economics are not just profitable, they are _enormously_ profitable. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com wrote: On Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:43 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? I never assume lousy due diligence. But it is fair to wonder how much diligence they did do. It's indisputable that there is 'dumb money' out there - the history of poor due diligence on investments is legendary. I've seen a ~$90 million dollar investment fund up close, and you would be surprised at the lack of due diligence. I was surprised when the SEC stepped in to reveal the fund was a house of cards. Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? You may as well ask why people do inexplicable things? It's clear that Mills has personal charisma and is able to raise money, and that is impressive. But in my opinion any sort of scientific or business results look to be extremely unlikely at this stage. Mills has raised and spent a lot of money, that's for sure. The details do not add up to me - for example, why on earth does a company involved in speculative research spend millions to buy a fifty thousand square foot building in New Jersey, when their team could fit in a smaller leased lab? 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS - NJParcels.com New Jersey Property Data Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Surely you jest? As I pointed out, they've had 22 years, and yet it is they that keep shifting the goalposts. All of this skepticism would cease if they had a working product. AF 493 EDINBURG RD, East Windsor Township owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS...Information regarding Block 5, Lot 3 (493 EDINBURG RD), owned by BLACKLIGHT REAL ESTATE C/O R.MILLS in East Windsor Township. View on njparcels.com Preview by Yahoo
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
DGT and Rossi are honest in that they both have little or no idea of what is going on in LENR. BLP has their science all worked out, and all that is required is more money for engineering. I say that BLP has even less of a feel for what they are doing than the rest of their competitors. I all modesty, I can judge because I have most of this area doped out. I
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From Axil DGT and Rossi are honest in that they both have little or no idea of what is going on in LENR. BLP has their science all worked out, and all that is required is more money for engineering. I say that BLP has even less of a feel for what they are doing than the rest of their competitors. I all modesty, I can judge because I have most of this area doped out. And so shall you be judged. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Where's the promised TIP2 report ***Rossi has no control over those 7 feckless (or perhaps even corrupt) professors. They are more concerned with their own reputations than the advancement of science. On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? Why is it that we feel that we know more than the validators? Why this air of superior smug on our part that BLP investors are gullible? that we know more than them? Do you honestly believe these investors are unaware of BLP past failures? Surely they are, and yet continue to invest. What does that tell you? That you have superior knowledge and they part with millions because they are gullible and have not done proper due diligence? Frankly, I want BLP to fail, but this constant witchhunt and attacks are getting old. Yes, BLP has had past failures, everyone knows that, but no one else is doing any better? Is Rossi doing any better? (Where's the promised TIP2 report or the plant visits.) Or maybe the mythical hyperion has rose from the ashes again. Or how about Brillouin? Or is McKubre, Storms, Mitsubishi, Mizuno, etc doing any better? The challenge is difficult and frought with risks. Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Jojo From: Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Raising another $11m is an impressive milestone for BLP. But we've seen this before - every few years BLP makes big claims, puts on a demo, does a press release, raises money and then vanishes for a few years until more money is needed. I do wonder how much due diligence these investors did? Exhibit A: October 25, 1992 We're getting 10 times the power out relative to power going in--every hour, every day, week after week. Mills says to expect a major announcement around year end that his confidants predict may include the unveiling of a prototype 10-kilowatt electrical generator. That's back when BLP was known as HydroCatalysis Corp, and was hot on the heels of Pons and Fleischmann! Exhbit B: May 28, 2008 BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. For twenty two years, it's been the same cycle of claim, hype then silence. What I can't understand is where BLP is planning to spend the $11m? Their business summary claims seventeen employees and eight consultants wherein the majority of employees and consultants are scientists and engineers But LinkedIn lists only Dr Mills, VP Bill Good, two chemical technicians and two executive assistants as employees of BLP. At least two of their senior research scientists left in the last few years according to their profiles. The other possibility perhaps is the other eleven BLP employees are simply too embarassed to list BLP on their LinkedIn profiles? AF On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:27 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: On Aug 7, over at the BLP web site What's New Link, and at SoCP Randy posted the following statement: On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M. I never majored in business. I assume the above statement means BLP just got another 11 M infusion from private investors. I assume the oversubscribed phrase means BLP had actually asked for only 10 M, but apparently his investors are feeling generous. Say what you will, but right now I find keeping tabs of what's happening over at BLP to be a fascinating hobby. Good luck, Randy. I mean that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. These are all good questions. I don't know the answer to them. I was just noting the (normal-physics) case of a muon (207 times heavier than an electron) in orbit around a heavy nucleus (Pb), where the mass of the muon pulls it in significantly, and the radius of the nucleus is somewhat large in comparison to that of much lighter nuclei. In a nucleus there is a skin depth in which the nuclear density has not yet reached its full value. It is in this region that I imagine the muon 1s wavefunction residing, although I am not sure of this. The main insight is that there doesn't appear to be a magic boundary where the nucleus keeps bound leptons (electrons and muons) out. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
An electron becomes heavier when it is localized( bound ) by a defect in the lattice like a hole or a bump. This is called Anderson localization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Eric-- What is the frame of reference that the electron is relativistic in? Does such a hypothesis consider that the rotation of the pertinent frame of reference is nill. What would be the effect of a spinning frame circulating in the same direction as the electron’s circulation? Would the relativistic appearance of the electron in question change? Would an external rotating magnetic (or electric) field change the relativistic appearance of the electron to the nucleus which it is influenced by? It may be that electrons around free nuclei act much differently than those around nuclei in a lattice from the standpoint of relative motion to the nuclei’s reference frame. As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:32 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Bob, IMHO the inertial frame is not generated by the electron or the nucleus but rather the “umbrella” of surrounding geometry that effects the space-time that this gas atom happens to be randomly migrating thru..hence it is a transitory state that locally the gas atom is unaware of.. according to Mills these atoms can even become ionized/ self catalyzing WRT each other pushing themselves to even more relativistic/fractional states… MY point/posit is that unlike relativistic states we accept at the macro scale that require an object to pass thru virtual particles at near C velocities I am convinced the same differential can be obtained in the opposite direction by inhibiting virtual particles from passing thru physical objects [hydrogen atoms] residing inside Casimir cavities – and that random motion of gas, which remains a constant in any frame, forces these atoms to migrate between frames as a function of the nearest Casimir geometry surrounding them at any given moment – the value of that force is based on the inverse cube of distance between the surrounding boundaries so the smaller it gets the faster the faster and more dramitically Casimir force changes[DCE]. The really confusing issue then becomes that which we consider stationary [our macro perspective] must become the dilated reference frame that seems to “stop” from the perspective of the confined hydrogen which encounters fewer VP/time than we do in the same proportions that we encounter fewer VP/time than the Paradox Twin who approaches C. IMHO inhibiting VP via geometry provides negative equivalent acceleration while a gravity well produces positive equivalent acceleration. In both cases a stationary object feels acceleration without the requirement of motion and can be viewed as modifications to the intersection rate between our physical plane and virtual particle passing thru that plane. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Eric-- What is the frame of reference that the electron is relativistic in? Does such a hypothesis consider that the rotation of the pertinent frame of reference is nill. What would be the effect of a spinning frame circulating in the same direction as the electron’s circulation? Would the relativistic appearance of the electron in question change? Would an external rotating magnetic (or electric) field change the relativistic appearance of the electron to the nucleus which it is influenced by? It may be that electrons around free nuclei act much differently than those around nuclei in a lattice from the standpoint of relative motion to the nuclei’s reference frame. As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Eric Walkermailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Eric and Fran-- Thanks for those clariifications. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Bob, IMHO the inertial frame is not generated by the electron or the nucleus but rather the “umbrella” of surrounding geometry that effects the space-time that this gas atom happens to be randomly migrating thru..hence it is a transitory state that locally the gas atom is unaware of.. according to Mills these atoms can even become ionized/ self catalyzing WRT each other pushing themselves to even more relativistic/fractional states… MY point/posit is that unlike relativistic states we accept at the macro scale that require an object to pass thru virtual particles at near C velocities I am convinced the same differential can be obtained in the opposite direction by inhibiting virtual particles from passing thru physical objects [hydrogen atoms] residing inside Casimir cavities – and that random motion of gas, which remains a constant in any frame, forces these atoms to migrate between frames as a function of the nearest Casimir geometry surrounding them at any given moment – the value of that force is based on the inverse cube of distance between the surrounding boundaries so the smaller it gets the faster the faster and more dramitically Casimir force changes[DCE]. The really confusing issue then becomes that which we consider stationary [our macro perspective] must become the dilated reference frame that seems to “stop” from the perspective of the confined hydrogen which encounters fewer VP/time than we do in the same proportions that we encounter fewer VP/time than the Paradox Twin who approaches C. IMHO inhibiting VP via geometry provides negative equivalent acceleration while a gravity well produces positive equivalent acceleration. In both cases a stationary object feels acceleration without the requirement of motion and can be viewed as modifications to the intersection rate between our physical plane and virtual particle passing thru that plane. Fran From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Eric-- What is the frame of reference that the electron is relativistic in? Does such a hypothesis consider that the rotation of the pertinent frame of reference is nill. What would be the effect of a spinning frame circulating in the same direction as the electron’s circulation? Would the relativistic appearance of the electron in question change? Would an external rotating magnetic (or electric) field change the relativistic appearance of the electron to the nucleus which it is influenced by? It may be that electrons around free nuclei act much differently than those around nuclei in a lattice from the standpoint of relative motion to the nuclei’s reference frame. As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:16:43 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;) If we say that the s quantum number (aka intrinsic spin) is contingent, then we will probably need either to decouple fermi statistics from this value, or to suggest that fermi statistics are similarly contingent. Note that some electrons in a metal are not strongly bound to a nucleus but still obey fermi statistics. Eric A metal is an environment where lots of charged bodies are closely packed together. I don't think an electron in such an environment can be truly seen as free. I.e. perhaps electrons in the conduction band actually migrate from one atom to the next, rather than wandering around freely? (Though I must admit that Fermi statistics is what bothers me the most about my outrageous hypothesis. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:13:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually returns to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force again.) Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are affected by Coulomb attraction.) Eric I'm aware of that, however if you check Jones' original post, you will see that I picked up his ball and ran with it. The implication was, even if what you say is true, then Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Raising another $11m is an impressive milestone for BLP. But we've seen this before - every few years BLP makes big claims, puts on a demo, does a press release, raises money and then vanishes for a few years until more money is needed. I do wonder how much due diligence these investors did? Exhibit A: October 25, 1992 We're getting 10 times the power out relative to power going in--every hour, every day, week after week. Mills says to expect a major announcement around year end that his confidants predict may include the unveiling of a prototype 10-kilowatt electrical generator. That's back when BLP was known as HydroCatalysis Corp, and was hot on the heels of Pons and Fleischmann! Exhbit B: May 28, 2008 BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. For twenty two years, it's been the same cycle of claim, hype then silence. What I can't understand is where BLP is planning to spend the $11m? Their business summary claims seventeen employees and eight consultants wherein the majority of employees and consultants are scientists and engineers But LinkedIn lists only Dr Mills, VP Bill Good, two chemical technicians and two executive assistants as employees of BLP. At least two of their senior research scientists left in the last few years according to their profiles. The other possibility perhaps is the other eleven BLP employees are simply too embarassed to list BLP on their LinkedIn profiles? AF On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:27 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: On Aug 7, over at the BLP web site What's New Link, and at SoCP Randy posted the following statement: On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M. I never majored in business. I assume the above statement means BLP just got another 11 M infusion from private investors. I assume the oversubscribed phrase means BLP had actually asked for only 10 M, but apparently his investors are feeling generous. Say what you will, but right now I find keeping tabs of what's happening over at BLP to be a fascinating hobby. Good luck, Randy. I mean that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? Why is it that we feel that we know more than the validators? Why this air of superior smug on our part that BLP investors are gullible? that we know more than them? Do you honestly believe these investors are unaware of BLP past failures? Surely they are, and yet continue to invest. What does that tell you? That you have superior knowledge and they part with millions because they are gullible and have not done proper due diligence? Frankly, I want BLP to fail, but this constant witchhunt and attacks are getting old. Yes, BLP has had past failures, everyone knows that, but no one else is doing any better? Is Rossi doing any better? (Where's the promised TIP2 report or the plant visits.) Or maybe the mythical hyperion has rose from the ashes again. Or how about Brillouin? Or is McKubre, Storms, Mitsubishi, Mizuno, etc doing any better? The challenge is difficult and frought with risks. Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Jojo From: Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Raising another $11m is an impressive milestone for BLP. But we've seen this before - every few years BLP makes big claims, puts on a demo, does a press release, raises money and then vanishes for a few years until more money is needed. I do wonder how much due diligence these investors did? Exhibit A: October 25, 1992 We're getting 10 times the power out relative to power going in--every hour, every day, week after week. Mills says to expect a major announcement around year end that his confidants predict may include the unveiling of a prototype 10-kilowatt electrical generator. That's back when BLP was known as HydroCatalysis Corp, and was hot on the heels of Pons and Fleischmann! Exhbit B: May 28, 2008 BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. For twenty two years, it's been the same cycle of claim, hype then silence. What I can't understand is where BLP is planning to spend the $11m? Their business summary claims seventeen employees and eight consultants wherein the majority of employees and consultants are scientists and engineers But LinkedIn lists only Dr Mills, VP Bill Good, two chemical technicians and two executive assistants as employees of BLP. At least two of their senior research scientists left in the last few years according to their profiles. The other possibility perhaps is the other eleven BLP employees are simply too embarassed to list BLP on their LinkedIn profiles? AF On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:27 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: On Aug 7, over at the BLP web site What's New Link, and at SoCP Randy posted the following statement: On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M. I never majored in business. I assume the above statement means BLP just got another 11 M infusion from private investors. I assume the oversubscribed phrase means BLP had actually asked for only 10 M, but apparently his investors are feeling generous. Say what you will, but right now I find keeping tabs of what's happening over at BLP to be a fascinating hobby. Good luck, Randy. I mean that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: A metal is an environment where lots of charged bodies are closely packed together. I don't think an electron in such an environment can be truly seen as free. I.e. perhaps electrons in the conduction band actually migrate from one atom to the next, rather than wandering around freely? One interesting thing about a metal is the lack of discrete energy levels. Once the number of atoms grows large, the different levels blend into one another. This is kind of suggestive of a relaxing of Fermi statistics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Hello Jojo, Although you will not licences your machine:). I must say that your statement about BLP and a sad envy, sometimes shining through here at vortex, has my 100% support. Spot on. On Aug 14, 2014 6:42 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you assume that the investors would have done lousy due diligence? Why is it that we always believe that we understand more than the investors who would have been up close and personal with the people and scientists at BLP and have seen the technologies and prototypes more closely? Why is it that we feel that we know more than the validators? Why this air of superior smug on our part that BLP investors are gullible? that we know more than them? Do you honestly believe these investors are unaware of BLP past failures? Surely they are, and yet continue to invest. What does that tell you? That you have superior knowledge and they part with millions because they are gullible and have not done proper due diligence? Frankly, I want BLP to fail, but this constant witchhunt and attacks are getting old. Yes, BLP has had past failures, everyone knows that, but no one else is doing any better? Is Rossi doing any better? (Where's the promised TIP2 report or the plant visits.) Or maybe the mythical hyperion has rose from the ashes again. Or how about Brillouin? Or is McKubre, Storms, Mitsubishi, Mizuno, etc doing any better? The challenge is difficult and frought with risks. Let's give BLP some time and credit shall we? Jojo From: Analog Fan analogit...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Raising another $11m is an impressive milestone for BLP. But we've seen this before - every few years BLP makes big claims, puts on a demo, does a press release, raises money and then vanishes for a few years until more money is needed. I do wonder how much due diligence these investors did? Exhibit A: October 25, 1992 We're getting 10 times the power out relative to power going in--every hour, every day, week after week. Mills says to expect a major announcement around year end that his confidants predict may include the unveiling of a prototype 10-kilowatt electrical generator. That's back when BLP was known as HydroCatalysis Corp, and was hot on the heels of Pons and Fleischmann! Exhbit B: May 28, 2008 BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. For twenty two years, it's been the same cycle of claim, hype then silence. What I can't understand is where BLP is planning to spend the $11m? Their business summary claims seventeen employees and eight consultants wherein the majority of employees and consultants are scientists and engineers But LinkedIn lists only Dr Mills, VP Bill Good, two chemical technicians and two executive assistants as employees of BLP. At least two of their senior research scientists left in the last few years according to their profiles. The other possibility perhaps is the other eleven BLP employees are simply too embarassed to list BLP on their LinkedIn profiles? AF On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:27 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: On Aug 7, over at the BLP web site What's New Link, and at SoCP Randy posted the following statement: On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M. I never majored in business. I assume the above statement means BLP just got another 11 M infusion from private investors. I assume the oversubscribed phrase means BLP had actually asked for only 10 M, but apparently his investors are feeling generous. Say what you will, but right now I find keeping tabs of what's happening over at BLP to be a fascinating hobby. Good luck, Randy. I mean that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior understanding is the metastate permitting both. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe entangelment ... Just to note, I have a few issues with Mills CQM. 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the theory, only the eigen states 2. I don't know how you do combinations of eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if Mills can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something about entanglement. No? what do you think? - The details are made intentionally vague. I think that the ironic thing about Mills rejection of QM, in place of what he wants us to believe is “classical” – but looks a lot like paraphrasing, is that eigenstates and eigenvectors and eigenvalues and QM matrix math seem to be capable of explaining the hydrino state and orbitsphere as well as what he proposes. As a non-expert but curious observer, I can see how something like shear mapping of a 2D OS is at least as intuitive as the Mills version. My impression is that RM picked up a little QM in the nineties, and was possibly competent in the field 20 years ago - but thereafter became too busy to keep up with progress, as he was chasing investment dollars. This emphasis on Aspect is the perfect example of this lack of competence. QED. Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but there could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking like a poor imitation. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Jones, Do you have a reference for Naudts' paper? It would be interesting to get Yeong Kim's take on this. Some time ago, he published a paper refuting the existence of any stable f/H state. Eigenvectors, in a linear system, are a complete basis for expansion/description of any driven solution (the general solution) - even a transient one. However, I thought one of the precepts of these f/H states was that we are now entering into a relativistic framework - the smaller orbital has increasing electron velocity, making the electron effectively more massive. This is where Dirac's equation comes in, handling the special relativistic aspects of the solution. However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. General solutions to nonlinear systems are hard. As I understand it, this is where solitons emerge in the solution set. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior understanding is the metastate permitting both. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe entangelment ... Just to note, I have a few issues with Mills CQM. 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the theory, only the eigen states 2. I don't know how you do combinations of eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if Mills can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something about entanglement. No? what do you think?
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From: Bob Higgins Do you have a reference for Naudts' paper? http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193v2.pdf It would be interesting to get Yeong Kim's take on this. Some time ago, he published a paper refuting the existence of any stable f/H state. It would also be interesting to get Naudts opinion of Kim’s criticism.
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From: Bob Higgins However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. Bob, although you may not have intended it this way, your post made me think of an even better-fitting scenario for describing the details of hydrogen oscillation, and for supplying thermal gain, instead of Mills permanent fractional state. Imagine that there is no lasting state of redundant orbitals as Mills claims, but also imagine that the electron of the confined hydrogen atom oscillates through redundant ground states and can, on occasion, be reduced to the lowest 1/137 orbital - and then reinflate almost immediately. This would be symmetric for energy balance - on every other reduced orbital but the last, and in most oscillations, there would be no gain. However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. Thus the extra energy comes from the strong force, and from proton mass. The gain is 3.7 keV at this final orbital which matches the “dark matter” signature but in a way that has been missed by Mills. This viewpoint keeps the gain as “nuclear” and avoids invoking ZPE, which is a turn-off for many observers. It also avoids Mills theory and most other LENR theories. Therefore, it pleases very few of those who have a pet theory to promote ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
How does Mills know that what he is seeing in his experiments are electrons. They might be muons that obit at very low orbitals. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. Bob, although you may not have intended it this way, your post made me think of an even better-fitting scenario for describing the details of hydrogen oscillation, and for supplying thermal gain, instead of Mills permanent fractional state. Imagine that there is no lasting state of redundant orbitals as Mills claims, but also imagine that the electron of the confined hydrogen atom oscillates through redundant ground states and can, on occasion, be reduced to the lowest 1/137 orbital - and then reinflate almost immediately. This would be symmetric for energy balance - on every other reduced orbital but the last, and in most oscillations, there would be no gain. However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. Thus the extra energy comes from the strong force, and from proton mass. The gain is 3.7 keV at this final orbital which matches the “dark matter” signature but in a way that has been missed by Mills. This viewpoint keeps the gain as “nuclear” and avoids invoking ZPE, which is a turn-off for many observers. It also avoids Mills theory and most other LENR theories. Therefore, it pleases very few of those who have a pet theory to promote ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Does this mean my aliens farting through a wormhole theory is off the table? On Wednesday, August 13, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. Bob, although you may not have intended it this way, your post made me think of an even better-fitting scenario for describing the details of hydrogen oscillation, and for supplying thermal gain, instead of Mills permanent fractional state. Imagine that there is no lasting state of redundant orbitals as Mills claims, but also imagine that the electron of the confined hydrogen atom oscillates through redundant ground states and can, on occasion, be reduced to the lowest 1/137 orbital - and then reinflate almost immediately. This would be symmetric for energy balance - on every other reduced orbital but the last, and in most oscillations, there would be no gain. However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. Thus the extra energy comes from the strong force, and from proton mass. The gain is 3.7 keV at this final orbital which matches the “dark matter” signature but in a way that has been missed by Mills. This viewpoint keeps the gain as “nuclear” and avoids invoking ZPE, which is a turn-off for many observers. It also avoids Mills theory and most other LENR theories. Therefore, it pleases very few of those who have a pet theory to promote ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Yes, I know about this, but this is only for the deep state, and also this state seam to be attributed to the use of essentially the wave operator that in part is included in klein gordon and mills theory. I have also seen papers that have looked at what happens when the proton is model as a non point source term. It then looks like these solutions dissapear. So I'm still a bit unsure that normal QED and klein gordon eqation really are able to model the hydrinos (if they exists) On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior understanding is the metastate permitting both. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe entangelment ... Just to note, I have a few issues with Mills CQM. 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the theory, only the eigen states 2. I don't know how you do combinations of eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if Mills can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something about entanglement. No? what do you think? - The details are made intentionally vague. I think that the ironic thing about Mills rejection of QM, in place of what he wants us to believe is “classical” – but looks a lot like paraphrasing, is that eigenstates and eigenvectors and eigenvalues and QM matrix math seem to be capable of explaining the hydrino state and orbitsphere as well as what he proposes. As a non-expert but curious observer, I can see how something like shear mapping of a 2D OS is at least as intuitive as the Mills version. My impression is that RM picked up a little QM in the nineties, and was possibly competent in the field 20 years ago - but thereafter became too busy to keep up with progress, as he was chasing investment dollars. This emphasis on Aspect is the perfect example of this lack of competence. QED. Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but there could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking like a poor imitation.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
*Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but there could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking like a poor imitation.* Richard Feynman said, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior understanding is the metastate permitting both. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe entangelment ... Just to note, I have a few issues with Mills CQM. 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the theory, only the eigen states 2. I don't know how you do combinations of eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if Mills can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something about entanglement. No? what do you think? - The details are made intentionally vague. I think that the ironic thing about Mills rejection of QM, in place of what he wants us to believe is “classical” – but looks a lot like paraphrasing, is that eigenstates and eigenvectors and eigenvalues and QM matrix math seem to be capable of explaining the hydrino state and orbitsphere as well as what he proposes. As a non-expert but curious observer, I can see how something like shear mapping of a 2D OS is at least as intuitive as the Mills version. My impression is that RM picked up a little QM in the nineties, and was possibly competent in the field 20 years ago - but thereafter became too busy to keep up with progress, as he was chasing investment dollars. This emphasis on Aspect is the perfect example of this lack of competence. QED. Of course, that same lack of QM expertise could be said about most of the regular posters on this forum (myself for sure – but there could be a lurker or two who is highly qualified, perhaps yourself) but the difference is that we did not take in $120 million over the years, based on a series of failed promises for a working device – which device was firmly based on a theory which essentially wants to reject QM, but ends up looking like a poor imitation.
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:11:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Diracs equation is apparently not square integrable. I suspect that the unreal QM solutions would become real if they dropped the notion that spin is an intrinsic property of the electron and has a fixed value. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Where does the spin of the electron come from? On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:11:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] Should have added this. In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen as superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is concerned - as is his rejection of QM. IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s equation is apparently not square integrable. I suspect that the unreal QM solutions would become real if they dropped the notion that spin is an intrinsic property of the electron and has a fixed value. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:02:22 -0700: Hi, [snip] However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually returns to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force again.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:35:46 -0400: Hi, Where does the spin of the electron come from? Two different forms of angular momentum. Think of an elliptical orbital. The motion of the electron around the perimeter represents the spin, (s quantum number), rotary motion of the body of the ellipse as a whole represents what is commonly referred to as angular momentum, (l quantum number). For circular (spherical) orbitals, only s exists because there is no elliptical asymmetry. (all axes have the same length). However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
That's a pretty good theory, Jones. It upholds many aspects of Occham's Razor. No ZPE, not too much of Mills where he goes off into the weeds, coincidental dark matter 3.7keV gain. Now, if we align up these electrons in such a way that they interact with others like themselves in a 1D chain, their mutual vibrational energy might generate a Fermionic Condensate (similar to a BEC but with Fermions) and perhaps we have a reason why the generation of Negative Coulomb Drag helps break down the Coulomb Barrier. www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v6/n12/full/nnano.2011.182.html Positive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated ... - Nature www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v6/n12/full/nnano.2011.182.htmlSimilarOct 30, 2011 ... A quantum wire induces both positive and negative electron drag in another wire 15 nm away, changing the voltage across the second wire by ... Negative Coulomb drag in a one-dimensional wire. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16840694 Science. 2006 Jul 14;313(5784):204-7. Negative Coulomb drag in a one- dimensional wire. Yamamoto M, Stopa M, Tokura Y, Hirayama Y, Tarucha S. Positive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated one ... arxiv.org/abs/1008.5155CachedAug 30, 2010 ... Positive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated one-dimensional quantum wires. D. Laroche, G. Gervais, MP Lilly, JL Reno. Positive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically ... - ResearchGate www.researchgate.net/.../51756163_Positive_and_negative_Coulomb_drag_in_vertically_integrated_one-dimensional_quantum_wires Re-entrant Negative Coulomb Drag in a 1D Quantum Circuit D. Laroche1,2, G. Gervais1, M. P. Lilly2, and J. L. Reno2 1Department of Physics, McGill University, ... On 8/14/14, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Higgins However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. Bob, although you may not have intended it this way, your post made me think of an even better-fitting scenario for describing the details of hydrogen oscillation, and for supplying thermal gain, instead of Mills permanent fractional state. Imagine that there is no lasting state of redundant orbitals as Mills claims, but also imagine that the electron of the confined hydrogen atom oscillates through redundant ground states and can, on occasion, be reduced to the lowest 1/137 orbital - and then reinflate almost immediately. This would be symmetric for energy balance - on every other reduced orbital but the last, and in most oscillations, there would be no gain. However, this deep orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. Coincidentally, the strong force it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism, and if the strong force were to exert a bit of extra pull on the electron in the last orbital, then the electron becomes even heavier. The electron will then be able to give up more energy on reinflation than it borrowed on redundancy. Thus the extra energy comes from the strong force, and from proton mass. The gain is 3.7 keV at this final orbital which matches the “dark matter” signature but in a way that has been missed by Mills. This viewpoint keeps the gain as “nuclear” and avoids invoking ZPE, which is a turn-off for many observers. It also avoids Mills theory and most other LENR theories. Therefore, it pleases very few of those who have a pet theory to promote ... Jones
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the electron. Further, if the orbital electron gives up all spin momentum, it might not be freed but cease to exist entirely!
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually returns to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force again.) Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are affected by Coulomb attraction.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Further, if the orbital electron gives up all spin momentum, it might not be freed but cease to exist entirely! Then we have a charge conservation problem on our hands. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;) If we say that the s quantum number (aka intrinsic spin) is contingent, then we will probably need either to decouple fermi statistics from this value, or to suggest that fermi statistics are similarly contingent. Note that some electrons in a metal are not strongly bound to a nucleus but still obey fermi statistics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. This reminds me of Horace Heffner's deflation fusion (via Robin) [1]. Eric [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76268.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Eric-- What is the frame of reference that the electron is relativistic in? Does such a hypothesis consider that the rotation of the pertinent frame of reference is nill. What would be the effect of a spinning frame circulating in the same direction as the electron’s circulation? Would the relativistic appearance of the electron in question change? Would an external rotating magnetic (or electric) field change the relativistic appearance of the electron to the nucleus which it is influenced by? It may be that electrons around free nuclei act much differently than those around nuclei in a lattice from the standpoint of relative motion to the nuclei’s reference frame. As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I do not know whether they are fraudulent because I'm not a police detective and I do not have the power of subpoena. They seem suspicious. I would not do business with them. ***Isn't that a bit sideways, considering that you DID do business with them and they went out of their way not to pay you? On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it that a company like BLP, with a published theory . . . a permanent headquarters and a published schedule and timeline - gets kicked around like frauds Anyone can have a theory. A theory plus $23.25 will get you 36 Hershey Bars at Amazon.com. BLP does have a timeline. They have set many deadlines since 1992. But they have missed every deadline as far as I know. They keep changing their methodology. They have cried wolf many times. They have spent tens of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it. So their track record is not good. However, I do not know anyone who accuses them of fraud. BLP should follow through on one methodology that produces continuous heat. They should do a demonstration that easily convinces people. Perhaps they could have done this with their original 1992 technique. Perhaps it could not be made into a practical source of energy for some reason, but they should have made a good demonstration out of it. The present demonstration is not convincing to me because the reaction is so brief and because bomb calorimetry is tricky. And yet A company like DGT, with no published theory, zero validations, no endorsements - in fact 2 endorsements against it, no professors working on it, 1 fraudulent demonstration with intentional fraudulent measurements, no prototypes (wait ... 1 mythical hyperion prototype), no permanent office address and no schedule and timeline whatsoever - gets praised and its imaginary technology gets mentioned in this forum as it it was real. I and many others have pointed out these problems with DGT many times. So, most people here are not giving them a free pass. I still stop short of saying the demonstration was definitely fraudulent or intentionally fraudulent, but on the other hand I uploaded the paper by Gamberale saying that. I do not know whether they are fraudulent because I'm not a police detective and I do not have the power of subpoena. They seem suspicious. I would not do business with them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know whether they are fraudulent because I'm not a police detective and I do not have the power of subpoena. They seem suspicious. I would not do business with them. ***Isn't that a bit sideways, considering that you DID do business with them and they went out of their way not to pay you? That was for a small sum of money. I would not bother calling the police for that, or filing suit. It was unsavory, but not criminal. Some large, established companies routinely try to cheat people out of a few thousand dollars. Especially cable TV providers, condominium and property rental companies, and hospitals. People have to hire experts to deal with medical bills because there is so much double-charging, false charges, overcharging and so on. It sometimes amounts to tens of thousands of dollars per patient. I guess you could call that fraud. My point is that if we are going to call in the police for every case of fraud in those industries, every hospital accounting department employee would be in the hoosegow. Assuming Gamberale's report is accurate, I would say that rises to the level of criminal fraud. I assume it is accurate. I have no reason to doubt it. But I don't know. I would not point to that report and testify in court or tell the police I have proof of fraud! I would refer them to Gamberale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
There are bad mistakes or possibly wrong interpretation. But, I already summarized, people did not seem to care. 2014-08-12 11:10 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Assuming Gamberale's report is accurate, I would say that rises to the level of criminal fraud. I assume it is accurate. I have no reason to doubt it. But I don't know. I would not point to that report and testify in court or tell the police I have proof of fraud! I would refer them to Gamberale. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Why is it that a company like BLP, with a published theory, multiple validations, multiple endorsements from professors of reputable universities, several demostrations of their technology, several prototypes, a permanent headquarters and a published schedule and timeline - gets kicked around like frauds And yet A company like DGT, with no published theory, zero validations, no endorsements - in fact 2 endorsements against it, no professors working on it, 1 fraudulent demonstration with intentional fraudulent measurements, no prototypes (wait ... 1 mythical hyperion prototype), no permanent office address and no schedule and timeline whatsoever - gets praised and its imaginary technology gets mentioned in this forum as it it was real. Get real folks. So, BLP missed a few previous goals. Named me one company which hasn't. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than WL theory, because at least these won't try to reformulate *all* physics with things that are known not to work. What they do is either naive or dishonest. But given that their experiments display a physical sign that it doesn't work (the fast oxidation of the electrodes) and the massive money they are always getting plus 20 years of over excuses, I am compelled to at least to not take them seriously. 2014-08-09 12:09 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it that a company like BLP, with a published theory . . . a permanent headquarters and a published schedule and timeline - gets kicked around like frauds Anyone can have a theory. A theory plus $23.25 will get you 36 Hershey Bars at Amazon.com. BLP does have a timeline. They have set many deadlines since 1992. But they have missed every deadline as far as I know. They keep changing their methodology. They have cried wolf many times. They have spent tens of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it. So their track record is not good. However, I do not know anyone who accuses them of fraud. BLP should follow through on one methodology that produces continuous heat. They should do a demonstration that easily convinces people. Perhaps they could have done this with their original 1992 technique. Perhaps it could not be made into a practical source of energy for some reason, but they should have made a good demonstration out of it. The present demonstration is not convincing to me because the reaction is so brief and because bomb calorimetry is tricky. And yet A company like DGT, with no published theory, zero validations, no endorsements - in fact 2 endorsements against it, no professors working on it, 1 fraudulent demonstration with intentional fraudulent measurements, no prototypes (wait ... 1 mythical hyperion prototype), no permanent office address and no schedule and timeline whatsoever - gets praised and its imaginary technology gets mentioned in this forum as it it was real. I and many others have pointed out these problems with DGT many times. So, most people here are not giving them a free pass. I still stop short of saying the demonstration was definitely fraudulent or intentionally fraudulent, but on the other hand I uploaded the paper by Gamberale saying that. I do not know whether they are fraudulent because I'm not a police detective and I do not have the power of subpoena. They seem suspicious. I would not do business with them. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From Daniel, Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron. I have a suggestion to make, one that applies to anyone who may have serious questions and/or doubts about certain aspects pertaining to Mills' audacious classical approach to physics. Directly ask the doctor over at Yahoo SoCP. Sign up, get accepted via through the moderator, and start posting your questions. Preferably, that's how all questions of this nature should best be addressed. To put it bluntly, trying to get one's questions answered via 2nd and 3rd hand interpretation is a monumentally stupid way to lean about a controversial subject of this nature. Don't let the fact that SoCP is a moderated group turn anyone off. The moderator, John Farrell, is a reasonable individual. I only had one of my numerous posts returned, and I got a reasonable private reply as to why he rejected it. In that particular case John still sent my comments to Dr. Mills privately (upon my request), bypassing the group. That was good enuf for me. If you are reasonable and courteous in the manner of how you assemble your questions it's likely that you can get your questions posted. It's been my experience that often, Mills seems to like answering these kinds of CP questions, particularly if he doesn't think he trying to communicate with a stalwart skeptic/debunker or a crank. However, he often tends to be terse in his responses. I don't blame him for being terse. He does have the serious issue of a business to run. Personal gripe of mine: I realize I'm not a physicist. I don't possess sufficient math in my background to make heads or tails out of much of CP. Nevertheless, I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning Mills' CP, but they never make a concerted effort to directly ask the doctor to respond to such concerns. Instead many just continue complain about their misgivings here, and never do anything more than that: They just complain. And then, soon enough, their complaints turn into irrefutable fact. Self fulfilling prophecy. Granted I do believe some posters here have actually attempted to get some of their questions asked over at SoCP, and maybe some of those questions were rejected. I don't know. But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than WL theory, because at least these won't try to reformulate *all* physics with things that are known not to work. What they do is either naive or dishonest. But given that their experiments display a physical sign that it doesn't work (the fast oxidation of the electrodes) and the massive money they are always getting plus 20 years of over excuses, I am compelled to at least to not take them seriously. 2014-08-09 12:09 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Auburn University BLP Replication: http://beforeitsnews.com/energy/2014/08/blacklight-power-gets-2-more-validations-more-information-2454992.html Follow the links from the first sentence of the article. --On Saturday, August 09, 2014 12:38 PM -0300 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have anything to ask. When I wrote I don't make heads or tails of their theory, it's not because I cannot understand because it is too hard or I missing something in the mumbo jumbo. In fact, what I mean is an euphemism for their theory being not even wrong. What they do is worse than WL theory, because at least these won't try to reformulate *all* physics with things that are known not to work. What they do is either naive or dishonest. But given that their experiments display a physical sign that it doesn't work (the fast oxidation of the electrodes) and the massive money they are always getting plus 20 years of over excuses, I am compelled to at least to not take them seriously. 2014-08-09 12:09 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: But have you, Daniel? Have you tried? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: ... I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning Mills' CP, but they never make a concerted effort to directly ask the doctor to respond to such concerns. Instead many just continue complain about their misgivings here ... The good thing about Mills's prodigious efforts to construct a theory is that, because it is a theory, it is something that can be grasped and elucidated by other people. This is in contrast to a revealed religion, say, where one may need to turn to the head of the religion to get clarification on questions that come up. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron. Mills theory in general is very interesting and a big part of it is correct math because no one is able to pinpoint any detailed errors like on eq. X there is a strange factor etc (and I checked the g-factor calculation and have asked Mills to publish that in a journal to underline arguments like this in a better way). In stead of high quality critique we get blatherings about crackpot theory an such. Be a good boy and please pinpoint the error in e.g. the derivation of the g-factor else I would take Mills theory to be a very interesting theory. Of cause the hydrinos are a solution that seams strange and could be an artefact of the theory without it being crackpot or wrong. Math is like that, it is not reality but a model of it. I agree that we are men/women enough to discuss the issue here on vortex but I don't follow your argument above 1) standing waves as in mills theory are not the same as time independent, they are recurrent e.g. the same pattern repeat itself. Consider separating the time in the schrödinger equation, aprox, dphi/dT = H phi, and the acompanion eigenvalue proble e.g. dphi/dt = i k phi in quantum mechanics, that has A(r) exp(i k t) as a solution this is the normal ground state and the wave equation is recurrent and not time independent. The probability density however is time independent. So also on QM the standing waves are recurrent and not time independent. 2) I can be wrong but I look on the hydrino has a photon moving in a wave so that if you look at it at a plane it does a half wavelength at one turn and complete the wavelength (for H(1/2)) in the second. As you say in two dimensions this would cause havoc, but in 3D the photon may also turn in the third dimensions on the sphere to avoid havoc. Therefore I would not turn down hydrinos based on your argument. If you can detail yourself I could change my opinion though. Also note that the bending in 3d makes these solutions very different from the normal solutions typically found and therefore I am a bit unsure that QED and QM can handle hydrinos correctly. Also to me that explains that you cannot easily change the states just by exchanging photons, something different is needed and that could be the reason that we have water on earth and that it hasen't burned into dark matter. For the octupole moment I would ask Mills though, it is too difficult for me to analyze. Cheers
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I would say that BLP does at least one thing right. Even if the whole estabished society of physisists are opposing LENR and the government is following their lead, there is investment money available. In other words take a better theory and a better demo an money is no longer an issue. I hope he succeed although I partly understand the contradictions. On Aug 7, 2014 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I am really impressed. He didn't even try to run a half assed demo! He just made some tack tack. And it was so crude that the electrodes were very oxidized in just a few seconds. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From Daniel I am really impressed. He didn't even try to run a half assed demo! He just made some tack tack. And it was so crude that the electrodes were very oxidized in just a few seconds. Many prototypes are the result of scrounging around for whatever you can get your hands on laying around the lab. Here's a photo of a prototype whose progeny eventually transformed our world. http://tinyurl.com/lskc4lx ...and as for endurance, here's another prototype that managed to prove it's point in just 12 short seconds. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/wright.htm What entrepreneur in his right mind could possibly deduce from that initial prototype that it's progeny would eventually be capable to ferrying passengers across the Atlantic Ocean non-stop. Many prototypes in their earliest incarnations tend to have ugly bloody births. They look like wet chicks just hatched out of their shells. They are about as dumb as a doorknob too. The mortality rate of trying to make it through flying school isn't very good. Just ask my cat, Charm. Why should BLP be any different? Get the hot water! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
The difference it is that as long as the transistor worked, no matter how short the time, it could work at least as a proof of concept. That thing BLP showed should work for a few hours to show that there is extra heat. Getting peaks from UV to short X-Rays, and even some nuclear reactions, is not a big deal. The spark plug of a car can do it, that is, it can knock electrons, innest electrons of several metals, and also promote some fusion. But doing it with gain is extremely difficult. Take a look at something more serious: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ And these cooks from BLP get in the millions while LPPX is low in the budget. 2014-08-08 21:35 GMT-03:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: Why should BLP be any different? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
BLP demonstrates the value of having a long standing theory to back its research. Something is better than nothing. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: I would say that BLP does at least one thing right. Even if the whole estabished society of physisists are opposing LENR and the government is following their lead, there is investment money available. In other words take a better theory and a better demo an money is no longer an issue. I hope he succeed although I partly understand the contradictions. On Aug 7, 2014 6:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I am really impressed. He didn't even try to run a half assed demo! He just made some tack tack. And it was so crude that the electrodes were very oxidized in just a few seconds. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Their theory doesn't make sense, not even as a classical approximation. I cannot make heads or tails of anything there. For example, any wave function, time independent, must be a standing wave. If it is a fraction, and you want to enforce this, it will be a sum of many waves, possibly infinite. This violates the exclusion principle, since each orbital can only have one spin of each electron. BTW, what about the octupole moment of the Ni 61? 2014-08-09 1:45 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (janap...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DqWWWv0RqSFyLwTfqXIlXFlNCk8a8RMduA1kpP5aJeeFpXDtoKUegS18ZQaIBTWx75gKbE1XPHG1tenL7%252BA4x5GvLoeXhrYN%252B5Neu%252BI8OQru6AhNiIuGnM3UeLpUPTzrUO80Rv5TfUQ0%253D%26key%3DltkDyM%252F7L6fLBD2tQTURGeTE0FkrZutfKhGRuHr6lOQ%253Dtc_serial=18182608871tc_rand=613971190utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18182608871tc_rand=613971190utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 BLP demonstrates the value of having a long standing theory to back its research. Something is better than nothing. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson * Randy posted the following statement: On July 31, 2014, BlackLight Power closed on $11 M in private equity financing that was oversubscribed by $1 M. Yup, pretty clear that the last demo was indeed a dog-and-pony show, staged for well-heeled investors, but with almost no science involved... and quite possibly no overunity involved either. It was almost a Rube Goldberg joke, in retrospect - seam welder and squirt gun - LOL. Nevertheless - I wish BLP success too - the need for any kind of non-fossil-fuel solution is greater than ever - but alas, based on the similarity with the past 5 demos which were almost the same formula ... all show and no go ... except to stash away $10 million more, we may hear no more of the SunCell, and in a year there will be something else for someone else. There's one born every day, as they say. Fortunately, Mizuno and/or IH are poised to open up things with real data instead of hype. RIP... SunCell... we hardly knew ya' attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Jones sez: ... RIP. SunCell. we hardly knew ya' Don't divide the bear before it's been kilt. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
I am really impressed. He didn't even try to run a half assed demo! He just made some tack tack. And it was so crude that the electrodes were very oxidized in just a few seconds. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
