From: Jones Beene Subject: Re: Support for Hy from on-high
Richard, The new CEO of EDS is Mike Jordan not Vernon Jordan, and those two have very polarized political connections. I think the "United Negro College Fund" thing threw you off. This one is white and a big Republican. In fact he made the "Top10" list of CEO contributors (100% Republican). http://tinyurl.com/bsbu2 . You won't read about that, or any other negatives, in the glowing company PR release mentioned by Mike Carrell: http://www.eds.com/news/mediaclippings/downloads/inside_new_eds.pdf Jordan, as I said is probably an honorable man, and very well connected in the Republican Party, in a time when EDS needed political connections. His business acumen is in doubt however, as he is taking the blame for gigantic multi-hundred-million dollar losses in a contract with the Marine Corps which he insisted on winning. Last point - and then I'm done with what is turning into a short-sighted thread. Mike, your stance - in the larger context of finding a way out of the fossil fuel dilemma - is appearing short-sighted and almost selfish - but in fairness let me say that it is based on your unflinching commitment to a company which may or may not have something of value. Yet you want that company alone to be the beneficiary of every indulgence and leniency in a field fraught with con-artists, some very sophisticated - and when others honestly feel that BLP has demonstrated nothing of value to the general public. Yet you feel that all nay-sayers have something personal against BLP. I do not look at this as personal in any way, and have said many times that BLP probably will have a viable technology some day - but they have not even come close to demonstrating it in public. MC: Jones, I make no apology for defending BLP in points of fact. I have no idea at all that nay-sayers have anythin personal against BLP. This is your perception, not mine. Nor do I have the idea that criticism of BLP must automatically be more valid than support, which some critics seem to feel. I do take posted reports at face value unless some specific problem has been detected, as happened in the past [and been corrected]. Otherwise, one may feel that it is all an elaborate charade, which I find implausible. It is true that BLP has made no public demonstrations, but as you should be aware, such demonstrations may be elaborate hoaxes and prove nothing. They invite attack and distract from the core purpose of understanding the phenomena. 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. When he is finally convinced that BLP has demonstrated something of commercial usefulness, then we can say for our purposes, it has reached a certain credibility plateau - and that others should get on the bandwagon and give it the same kind of indulgence and trust which Mike Carrell now gives it. MC: Jones, if you read me carefully, I agree that **only** productionof multiple functioning power systems can validate Mills' work, and even such does not in itself validate CQM. I give indulgence and trust to the process, as I have seen a number of R&D programs. I do not decided that all positive results are the result of error because some mathematical aspect of the orbitsphere is wrong in someone's opinion. I have not heard a single critique of the waterbath calorimetry that points to a error significant in relationship to the energy signal produced. Otherwise, the result of that short-sightedness could be very devastating to other fledgling companies and good ideas, in need of support from a limited number of "angels" --- in fact to the whole field of LENR. These are companies and researchers who are on the verge of being able to actually demonstrate something useful with tens of thousands of dollars - which BLP has not been able to do so far with 10s of millions. MC: You apply different criteria, the comparisons are skewed. BLP is financed by "qualified investors" who can afford to lose their entire investment. This has no relationship to the funding of LENR or ZPE projects. At the scale involved, there is more than enough money to go around. You are complaining that your pet projects have not attracted the capital that Mills has, and Jed disapproves of the business model as well. The LENR field is fragmented, and many have been on the "verge" for years. Mills can reproduce his effects, the LENR field has trouble on this point. I sense that capital is moving toward various investigators and I applaud all of this. It is not a zero-sum game. Why should we care - simple - there is only so much total R&D capital available for all of alternative energy. There are few investors and lots of needs. If a slick promoter comes around and gets most of that discretionary "angel" money then many others will suffer. MC: You are fixating on the term "angel investor" applied to Jordan. There are many others. You are implying that Mills is a "slick promoter" sucking up all the investment money that could be applied to other projects, and my support is somehow selfish. You forget that in past years I was a staunch defender of CF experiments, but perhaps you were not around then. > You go on to say the individuals may be honorable men -- if > so, why the fuss? This then appears as an opportunity to vent > your personal frustrations. Absolutely NO personal frustrations are involved on my end. I am concerned about the future of the whole field of alternative energy, while you seem to only focus on a single company. Many observers who have no axe to grind, do NOT feel that BLP is up to the task. Maybe you have seen something that we have not - but so far, everything coming from BLP is a huge disappointment, considering the time and the amount of money they have already burned through. MC: Very much in the eye of the beholder. I watched RCA blow far more money on consumer projects. Given the nature of the task, I think that BLP's investment has been very prudently spent. If BLP should push through a really big IPO - based on what little they have shown in public, knowing that they cannot produce a product quickly - and they have consistently shown over the last 14 years that they cannot even bring an OU prototype device to public scrutiny - then yes... that would be a huge tragedy for the whole field, including and especially LENR, all of cold fusion, ZPE conversion, MAHG, Ultraconductors, magnetics and everything else. MC: You are convinced that BLP's claims are empty. I am not. If you actually read what BLP is saying, instead of making assumptions, you would find that their position is that of a license laboratory and any IPO will be that of a joint venture between company X and BLP, with X putting up 80% equity in cash and other resources and BLP taking 20% for technical support. I'm sure you can conceive that this will not happen without very extended due diligence in which the CEO and staff of the partner are certain of the validity of BLP's technology and ability to steer them to commercialization. The other initatives you mention can have their place as well when devices are available for demonstration. I hope now you can see where I am coming from - it is not personal - why should it be? MC: Jones, I read you, and I hope you read me better. I wish the LENR/CMNS field were further along, I have many friends there and it deserves its polace in the sun. Mills has played his cards very carefully so as not to be drawn into the controversies surrounding LENR/CMNS. I have no monetary stake in any of this, and in the past - you have assured us that you do not have such a stake in BLP either. I hope that is still the case, and that you will be able to somehow appreciate the "big picture".... unless, of course, you know something that we do not know. MC: I do appreciate the 'big picture'. I do have a thread who can mesure the internal mood of BLP, which is very upbeat at the moment, but that person is not told everything either. There have been too many covert attacks on BLP's position, as there have been on LENR/CMNS. Stay tuned, it is going to be interesting. Mike Carrell
