From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Support for Hy from on-high
> There is a paper by Christianto which has some interesting > relevance to the Hydrino. I posted this on the HSG forum but it > hasn't shown up yet. Seems like they think that I am too critical > of the "golden boy" over there. Jones' spin on this is not quite what happened. Jones posted a political polemic about the corporate offices held by two of the board members: ---------------------------------------------- ....Perhaps... in the sense that Al Capone was a powerful person. Even so, these two are not a tenth as powerful as Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay were few years ago. And in fairness, they are quick to add that they do not now represent nor condone the substandard ethics which the companies they work for engaged in within the recent past. What else do you expect them to say? But that is not the problem... BLP could have allied itself with ethical partners. To me, this choice of directors shows lack of good judgment on the part of BLP - just the opposite from what is being suggested - but let's make it clear this is not for the two men themselves, who may be honorable men, but for the companies they represent. ------------------------------ BLP is currently in deep negotiations with a number of prospective partners for serious joint ventures. They, as well as BLP, read the HSG forum. The Al Capone link resulted in a threat by BLP to sue for slander. HSG is more closely focused than Vortex. > > On vortex, I get the impression that most observers, except for > Mike and Robin, who are big hydrino-boosters, are more critical of > the Mills-concept than I am. The HSG forum has a number of arch-critics who believe that they have deflated the orbitsphere and all experimental reports that have Mills' name are automatically suspect, even though these may appear in major peer reviewed journals. I defend the experimental results against hit-and-run criticism. Criticisms of BLP experiments must have the same scientific quality as is demanded of BLP itself. Jed has expressed a similar sentiment with respect to LENR. Jones has been more than lukewarm about BLP itself; his political polemics went overboard and caused a flaplet. Many on vortex will buy-into the > reality of LENR, but not the hydrino, and certainly not the > hydrino as a predecessor condition to LENR. However, I would go > that far, but with the caveat that it is *not* the Mills-defined > hydrino, but very close. > > In fact, my criticism is limited to the theory - NOT the > experiments - which are superb except for the fact that they tend > to get interpreted only in the context of a theory which has > gaping problems. OK, the theory *may* have problems; certainly it is audacious and has no general acceptance -- yet. The experiments are consistant with Mills' theory. There may be a be a better one, that will embrace BLP and LENR phenomena. I simply say that they should be pursued separately at present in experiments and development. > > If one could combine Mills with Puthoff, Hotson and Dirac, then > that about says it all for the whole field of free-energy, to my > way of thinking. ZPE is likely to be a major source, if not the > only energy source of the oscillating hydrino. However in that > small percentage of cases where you get really substantial > shrinkage - certainly that is strongly exothermic, and would be > even more so if you used deuterium - but that may not be the bulk > of the actual OU which is seen in Mills. Mills has used deuterium in a few runs. The performance is much like hydrogen, except that some spectral peaks get shifted. There may be different results in the case of extreme shrinkage, but there presently appears no way to enhance the population of deep-shrunk hydrinos. They may be concentrated by liqefaction of gases and fractional distillation -- but that is a research program for graduate students some better day. > > However on HSG, apparently any suggestion that Mills could have > made major errors, even tried to hide them, or have a personal > agenda (big prize or big IPO) which agenda is leading him astray > of both factuality and honesty - is met with utmost rancor and > threats of silencing the critics. Jones is spinning again. HSG is split into two camps, hydrinophiles and hydrinophobes who mostly don't have much to say to each other as the positions have hardened. Like vortex, personal attacks are verboten, but the dialog can get testy. The issue is that Mills' CQM deeply challenges existing paradigms. There is a large body of detailed experimental reports on the website and the critics categorically dismiss all of them as error or taint if at all associated with Mills. Mills has at various times proposed techniques for directly extracting energy from the plasma, which are unworkable. I have posted critical analyses showing why they won't work, without any response, and after a while they are quietly dropped. That Mills could become very rich and get a Nobel prize are obvious possible outcomes, as well as slipping and being swept away. This is not actually discussed much, certainly not with "utmost rancor and threats of silencing critics", certainly not within HSG. I and others will not put up with unfounded slashing attacks on Mills or BLP. BLP watches and defends itself against excessive attacks. As for the HSG forum, Mills no longer posts to it. What is important is not these squabbles in the peanut gallery, but progress by Mills and BLP toward commercialization. The people involved are doing heavy duty due diligence. If any *here* really care about the future of 'new energy' for the US and the world, the honorable and honest thing to do is to let the game go forward to the production of workable devices. BLP is much, much closer than anyone else that I know of. Why try to kill it? Perhaps I am in line to be > silenced. If so, that may be more a reflection on them than on my > occasional recourse to the soapbox. Soapboxes are fine, but so is measured discourse without irresponsible fluorishes. <snip> > > Mills has consistently pooh-poohed Puthoff, and why not - it is > direct competition, and it precedes Mills by years. But as Pete > Zimmerman stated some time ago "Hal Puthoff has been associated > with ZPE, mental telepathy, Uri Geller and spoon bending, remote > viewing and other rather foolish things. [Zimmerman's comment, not > mine] But the fact remains that when he puts his mind to it, he's > a pretty good theorist, and despite his reputation his stuff gets > published in Phys Rev and it gets read [snip] I consider Puthoff > an example that Mills should emulate. Puthoff, in spite of the > baggage, gets read and taken seriously by serious scientists; > Mills doesn't. Mills is secretive; Puthoff isn't. And that's > certainly why few researchers will rearrange their research > careers to try and replicate Mills' stuff published in obscure > journals. Jones is spinning again. I've spent a few hours with Puthoff at Earth Tech at a meeting on another subject, with pleasant sidebar conversations about remote viewing and other matters of common interest. I've also spent hours in Mills' presence. Mills has some 65 papers in peer-reviewed journals, many of then high rank like JAP and IEEE publications. How Jones can say that Mills is "secretive" is quite beyond me -- his book is on the website, revised frequently, and many, many experimental reports have been posted on the website over the years. This assertion of secrecy is unsupportable and borders on falsehood. It is like a newspaper who accused the Wright Brothers with being secretive while they were flying their planes over a field nearby. Purhoff's ZPE work does not challenge the whole superstructure of physics the way that Mills' CQM does. For any physicist to stand up and validate CQM is career suicide. Regards, Mike Carrell
