Jones Beene wrote:
I think we should hereafter, in regards to BLP's credibility, institute
the "Rothwell Test." Jed is very open-minded about LENR and understands
the broader-field very well, but has not yet been convinced of BLP's work.
That is very flattering, but it is unfair to BLP. I have not examined their
work seriously since 1992, when I found it pretty impressive. I am not
qualified to judge their recent claims about physics. If they begin to make
energy generating machinery again perhaps I will be able to evaluate them.
My only complaints about BLP have been with regard to their business
strategy. That is a matter of opinion. You cannot objectively measure the
value of a business strategy until after it is executed in the company has
either prospered or gone bankrupt. (Of course this is also partly a matter
of luck; a good strategy may fail in bad times. And strategy alone may not
decide the issue. If BLP really has what they claim, even a bad strategy
could bring in billions of dollars, whereas a good strategy would earn
hundreds of billions.)
I feel that I probably would be qualified to judge the technical claims
being made by iESi. At least I could write an informative and unbiased
description of their work. However, they demand a nondisclosure agreement,
and I will not sign one, so I cannot visit them. Several qualified people
have visited there and they seem enthusiastic. That is a good sign. But we
cannot go any firm conclusions until after we see detailed information and
the claims have been independently replicated.
- Jed
- Re: Support for Hy from on-high Jed Rothwell
-
