Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Jones Beene wrote: --- Terry Blanton wrote: I'm sure all you have to do is go back and look to the people that handed over the first $20M. However, presently, since there are no apparent working prototypes from companies like AEI, who have an immediate commercial interest and are located only minutes away from the BLP facility - it appears to this unbiased observer that we are back to the energy corollary of the Fermi Paradox... which is really just another way of saying where's the beef ? I visited the BLP website. I noticed the picture of what looks like an oil refinery retort. The website gives the impression that the BLP technology is ready to go to on the grid. OTOH, Mills has always intimated that, and AFAIK, they are no where near to doing that. I'm reminded of the tri necked glass retort with the beautiful purple glow that they had on there, along with the contention that it was producing energy at the same concentration as in ICE. What is beyond dispute is that BLP has spent a lot of money on the lab equipment in the pictures. OTOH, perhaps they did it the same way that the producers of that movie on C F (Critical Mass?), did it. They made Professor Susslick an offer he couldn't refuse on some junk lab equipment. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Thomas wrote, However, presently, since there are no apparent working prototypes What is beyond dispute is that BLP has spent a lot of money.. Howdy Thomas, Well.. err.. let's observe it was BLP that spent a lot of AEI et al's money. Back in the late '50's I invested in a deal like this.. took me two years to finally get the notion I bought a pig in the poke. Ole story of the East Texas coon dog that had romance on his mind but 'nery a female dog in Crocket county he noticed a pretty girl skunk started looking better every night.. so one time he gave it a try.. and after.. he told her.. I'll admit it was fun while it lasted... but.. whew! I've had about all of this I can take. Some catch the smell on the fly, some get a good wiff as they get together.. and some have no nose for it. For sure Herb Kellerer with Southwest Airlines had a clothspin on his nose as he listened at the Congressional hearing and watched the FAA guy testify in tears about how he was threatened into silence. Ole Herb must have smelled that skunk as he likely wondered about flight 800 and the job the FAA did on the investigation,, no tears that time.. still no tears.. but.. if you ever run over a skunk ya better not park yur car in the garage for awhile. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
--- Terry Blanton wrote: I'm sure all you have to do is go back and look to the people that handed over the first $20M. Well, only one of the prime early proponents of Mills was an 'ideal fit' for immediate use (proximity, need, resources, the whole enchilada) and that company is/was his local NJ Utility (power supplier) called AEI or Atlantic Energy Inc ...not a huge company like Duke, but in the billion dollar range, and certainly with dozens of competent engineers on the staff. BLP stated that AEI had measured a measured a COP of 100x in a calorimetry test 15 years ago, yet there is no prototype and no mention of it to AEI stockholders, no mention on the AEI site and no response from several inquiries which I have sent to former and present executives of the company. ZIP, nada, zero. This could mean that they either abandoned it, or are going ahead in total secrecy - which public utilities do at their own substantial risk, since ratepayers, not stockholders, pay most of that kind of bill. BTW - this is still one of the (best) positive results cited by BLP as being an independent replications of anomalous energy, even though no clear details were ever published by anyone; And AEI has consistently refused comment. Even if the anomaly was 2x instead of 100x why would AEI, a public company- and moreover with a subsidiary that provides heat-only ! to some areas like Atlantic City- give up on it, and instead burden the ratepayers with using very expensive oil for heat? (they also gave up on coal). That kind of failure can have severe repercussions, if it turns out that they did not cover their collective Anyway - What a missed opportunity! if the BLP system works as claimed, that AEI did not pursue it vigorously a decade ag. They could and *should* be sued by angry ratepayers if the BLP's claim is correct (the 100x OU) as the rates of AEI are some of the highest in the country. However, presently, since there are no apparent working prototypes from companies like AEI, who have an immediate commercial interest and are located only minutes away from the BLP facility - it appears to this unbiased observer that we are back to the energy corollary of the Fermi Paradox... which is really just another way of saying where's the beef ? Just one of the many reasons that many former optimists and supporters of the Mills/BLP technology have turned pessimistic, if not antagonistic... ... despite some of them (me at least) believing that the hydrino reaction is real (in the sense that redundant ground states of hydrogen exist) and that the spectroscopy experiments are correct ... ...but for me, the best answer for everything is that the reaction is instantly reversible outside an enormous gravity field. The only stable hydrino, then, would then be at very high shrinkage (solar variety) and would be difficult to manufacture on earth. That may or may not be why, in an earlier post that Terry suggests that Mills so-called solid fuel was derived from the oceans. Most of you thought it was not a serious observation. Maybe he has some inside-info ;-) That need for a certain kind of hydrino, if it exists, would also seem to fit present circumstances - IF there was an actual prototype being demonstrated. However, this also presents a huge problem with IP for Mills. If there are real prototypes which need solar hydrinos as catalysts, that factoid may be why Mills does not want to let the secret out of the bag yet - since anyone can mine the oceans - royalty free - for this particular species -- but more troubling for BLP is that it also makes specific claims, which are still on the website, out to be deliberate falsehoods (or as Hilary sez: I mispoke ;-) Mills has a habit of mispeaking, and IMHO this problem, combined with this secrecy and giant ego, make him untrustworthy. Jones Still - like Terry, I want to believe that he is mining ocean solar hydrinos ... and that this is the key bit of new progress ... especially since that particular suggestion, and concept AFAIK appeared first here on Vortex, and many years ago, and cannot be patented by BLP unless they intend to ignore the past public disclosure.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
- Original Message - From: R C Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Howdy Vorts, What am I missing in regards to BLP ? Our tiny company budgets $ 350,000. per year in research. No matter how great the idea, if we don't see something happen in two years.. bye bye idea based on the simple premise that a blind hog can root up an acorn every once in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? People that can actually do it.. DO IT. Sure hope Mike don't hold any BLP stock I don't have any BLP stock. The private invesement is in blocks so large that it would be unwise for me, and Mills refused to offer a small piece once. Trying out a cute idea and founding a new technology are not comparable accomplishments. The done it includes massive publications as books and juried technical journals, extensive experiments, new tools for chemistry, and most rcently, a platform for commercial development. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
A lot of speculation on the head of a pin by Jones. I once had conversations with Dr. Peter Jannson of Rowan University. He was the first gradudate student of the newly-endowed engineering school at Rowan. For his Master's thesis, which I read, he performed a simple BLP experiment, using a calorimeter borrowed from BLP. He got modest excess heat. He told me that he had been a technical scout for Atlantic City Electric, the local utility, looking for energy-related investment opportunties for the corporation. He recommended an investment in BLP [Hydrocatalysys at that time]. He was allowed to buy a modest investment of stock at a time when only mjaor investments were being sought. Jannson was part of the Rowan team that investigated BLP reactiors as thusters for deep space probes. The team made very effective use of a $75,000 Phase 1 grant, but were unable to get definitive results. I have no knowledge of what was 'claimed' at that time. Jones may be conflating this with the much later finding with water bath calorometry of an energy yield of 100X that of combustion of H. There lhas been no claim of 100X power gain from a BLP reactor to my knowledge. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? I'm sure all you have to do is go back and look to the people that handed over the first $20M. You'll find more than one with the potential to fund a proof-of-performance prototype 10 kW (net) reactor. :-) After all, Duke Power designed and built their own fission reactors. Terry
[Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
--- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Speaking of Capstone - the once hot stock micro-turbine manufacturer, which had some kind of a tie-in to BLP ... and was featured prominently in one of Randy Mills' interviews ten years ago as being on the verge of a commercial product using hydrino energy... ... in the course of trying to find out what happened to them, if seems like they have become First National Power (OTC FNPR) FNPR has bought the rights to inventor Alvin Snapers propeller less wind-powered turbine. Sounds good, right? This vertical axis windmill was also thought to be a hot ticket technology at one time but you can see from the recent OTC price: http://www.streetinsider.com/company_spotlight.php?id=27 That they were probably a pump-and-dump stock scam which has been dumped already from 36 cents to one or less. Can they snap back from the jaws of defeat and become a born-again PD? BTW Mr. Snaper invented the IBM Selectric typewriter ball, and Tang, the orange flavored drink. Strange combo. From the looks of things, Mr Wealthy Green Investor, you too can get in on the ground floor of the second-rising of this company, for a penny per share. Or less. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? I read the 'new' information in the context of years of careful attention to Mills' work. To casual visitors and critics, it may not appear significant. I get some context from indirect private sources, but no specifics. The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a solid or atmospheric pressure to get high reaction intensities is a major step to toward commercial ultility. Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? I wish I could, but such are quite proprietary. It would be reasonable to assume that discussions in that direction have been going on for some time. Even if interested parties duplicated some the effects documented by BLP, there are vexing problems with commercial ultility, as there are with LENR. The current embodiment seems to overcome these problems and one might expect more rapid progress toward utilization. The website clearly invites licensing and expection of increased staff to support partners. Mike Carrell Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
From Mike Carrell: ... I wish I could, but such are quite proprietary. It would be reasonable to assume that discussions in that direction have been going on for some time. Even if interested parties duplicated some the effects documented by BLP, there are vexing problems with commercial ultility, as there are with LENR. The current embodiment seems to overcome these problems and one might expect more rapid progress toward utilization. The website clearly invites licensing and expection of increased staff to support partners. Mike Carrell I hope so. I suspect most BLP observes who wish to remain in the game, so-to-speak for the long run have learned over the years to rein in any personal enthusiasm they might feel when some new breakthrough is announced at the BLP web site. One the surface this new solid medium does seems to be a positive step towards the eventual commercialization of the difficult to tame BLP process. Considering the fact that in recent years waning enthusiasm in investing in alternative energy has suddenly increased many fold it can only be considered a good sign for all parties concerned. I personally continue to hope that some of that enthusiasm will continue to wash up on the shores of Cranberry NY. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/OrionWorks
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:02:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a K3+ is not a catalyst AFAIK. It is the consequence of the catalytic reaction, the product if you will. Only after it has captured free electrons does it once again become a catalyst. Mills would however mention this product as important, because he sees it as an indication that Hydrino catalysis reactions are taking place. The only reasonable alternative would be the presence of ionizing radiation. This is of course always present to some extent in K due to the decay of K-40. OTOH, such ionizing radiation should also yield a few more highly ionized atoms of K, e.g. K4+, K5+ and their spectral lines should also show up. If these lines are absent, or extremely weak, while those of K3+ are strong, then the catalysis reaction is strongly indicated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
I think Robin may be right about the details. The explicit detail on the website is a mention of KH(1./4) in the fourth step of the process animnation. H(1/4) has an ionization potential of some 435 eV. Someplace I recall an association of K3+ with H(1/4) but I have not found the reference yet. There is mention of a regenerative cycle for the 'solid fuel', and 'conventional chemical reactions' without explicit details, an exercist to be left for we students. An arrow of unreacted H points to the reactor, not the regenerator. It is possible that the separation of H and hydrinos may be nothing but a specialized membrane which blocks H but allows the smaller hydrinos to penetrate. All this points to a foundation for commercial development. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:02:25 -0400: Hi, [snip] Jones, you are a clever and sophisticated observer and can do better than that if you want to be objective. The voluminous journal papers and experimental reports are hardly 'vaporware'. They require study. The new reactor configuration embodies solutions to vexing problems with the earlier exploratory lab work. Producing H and catalyst [presumptively K3+] in a K3+ is not a catalyst AFAIK. It is the consequence of the catalytic reaction, the product if you will. Only after it has captured free electrons does it once again become a catalyst. Mills would however mention this product as important, because he sees it as an indication that Hydrino catalysis reactions are taking place. The only reasonable alternative would be the presence of ionizing radiation. This is of course always present to some extent in K due to the decay of K-40. OTOH, such ionizing radiation should also yield a few more highly ionized atoms of K, e.g. K4+, K5+ and their spectral lines should also show up. If these lines are absent, or extremely weak, while those of K3+ are strong, then the catalysis reaction is strongly indicated. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
Howdy Vorts, What am I missing in regards to BLP ? Our tiny company budgets $ 350,000. per year in research. No matter how great the idea, if we don't see something happen in two years.. bye bye idea based on the simple premise that a blind hog can root up an acorn every once in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? People that can actually do it.. DO IT. Sure hope Mike don't hold any BLP stock Richard --- Mike Carrell wrote: As I dig into the new material on the BLP website, it looks as Mills is finally positioned for commercial development. His 'solid' fuel when heated releases H and K3+ Here is a picture of such a solid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_hydroxide Which is almost as much real information as is apparent on these new pages. Surely you have head something beyond what appears on the web site, no? The only thing which leaves the impression that BLP has moved beyond 19 years of vaporware so to speak, is what we can 'read into' the sparseness and line drawings. Given that there is a picture of a cylindrical reactor, which BTW is far less impressive that past pictures of reverse gyrotrons and Capstone turbines- surely there must be data and results beyond this, which you are privy to ? Hardly 'due diligence' ;-) Can you name any independent licensee of the energy technology who is investing enough money to move towards a real prototype? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Where's the beef? was: Stupid Academic stunt
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:57:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] in awhile.. BUT.. 19 years ? I thought Mills started in 1986 - that would mean 22 years, not 19. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
