All looks a bit bogus? 50M$ where's the peer review?
I don't mean way-out theories posted to alternative physics type publications (see that's the start of it - conjecture, hypothesis, theory the scientific process) but hardball nuts and bolts applied physics/engineering theory or good chemistry lab procedure. I mean is anything generally accepted/corroborated? I'd accept a new type of repeatable experiment, well above noise with or without understanding (theory) but with extensive good procedure in the lab. You know - excess heat, any neutrons or "hydrinos" (anyone isolated one?), mass specs, spectrographs, looking for reaction intermediates (NMR), electron micrographs ... the whole gamut. You know, what other good (unbiased) people (experimenters) would do in other good labs undertaking the same work. You know, pure natural science procedure, like botanists or rare stamp collectors: What is it? Where can I get more? If I do this, does it do this? Under what conditions? What isn't it - definitely? Can I write this up in such a way that it will pass muster with experts in the field? Can I break it to them gradually in small steps with well known or easily repeatable experiments? Have I got a misconception somewhere? Can I get a discussion with both True Believers and Pathological Sceptics? Is the argument moving anywhere, or does it just remain polarised camps for decades never hitting mainstream? Is it getting hyped for no real data or progress? Who's on board, are their intentions pure or is it a snake oil bubble? Did I create a monster with lots of hangers on and should I say as much to protect what little might have been good work initially? Do I distance myself from others in the field? Peer review and research ethics. _____ From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 October 2008 16:17 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? Rest mass muon > 100Mev. So that answers a question about them being created. I guess not a possible mechanism. _____ From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 October 2008 16:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP? OK, you caught me lurking. I am fascinated by this BLP stuff but haven't been following it in detail over the years. Ron Wormus gave this: http://www.blacklightpower.com/Documentary%20Video/blacklight_experiment_vid eo_v2.wmv These guys seem competent, respected and well kitted out in their lab. Where is a video or write up for the more technical crowd? 'Heat spike': relative magnitudes 'Small amount of hydrogen': How much? Nickel: How much? Electrical input: etc Temperature of reaction vessel? Did Ni undergo phase change? Big questions: 1) More power is generated than is needed to split water from hydrogen. What about that needed to regenerate the Ni or is it a consumable? 2) Is the Ni H complex somehow more inert at the end of the process? I can't vouch anything for Mills' GUTs because I haven't been exposed to them. It is understood that Chemistry is the physics of the outer electron shell. Processes are expected to be only a few eV. A Chemistry of inner electron shells would be radical and he would be a visionary in the league of a Linus Pauling when he used QM to describe the chemical bond. On this point would the activation energies of these reactions be prohibitively large or slow to start but then rapidly feeding back? Can they do chemical kinetic type experiments to postulate reaction intermediates, you know, what data? Mechanisms. On a simple hydrogen model, the energy levels are proportional to the mass of the electron. To drop below would require the mass of the electron to change. I can't imagine (yet) what the effect of a change in the effective mass would have in a lattice. I guess it wouldn't. I don't know how easy it is to transmute electrons into muons. Any suggestions and write ups? Remi.
