Mike Carrell wrote:
> The issue of "independance" is a stinking red herring, casting apersions on > the staff of Rowan, and showing only a cursory review of what is actually in > the reports. I think that is overstating it a bit. With all the good will in the world, I would be nervous about a claim that has not been totally, hands-off, independently replicated. I still have some lingering doubts about Energetics Technology because there have been no fully independent replications as far as I know. I say that even though the people at SRI are the most rigorous and professional in the field. People have a mysterious weakness for groupthink that can propagate a mistake from one person to the next without anyone being aware of it. It is hard to describe. It is a variation of the Madness of Crowds, and the reason just about every bank invested in sub-prime loans a few years ago. I think it is unlikely but the only way to rule it out is to have a fully-independent replication. There is a good reason why this is the tradition in science. Granted there are experiments and technologies they can never be replicated except by direct teaching by experts to other experts. The Top Quark is in this category, and probably so are all modern complex integrated semiconductors. I'll bet no factory every started up after 1965 that did not have at least a few experts who walked away from rival firms (or people hired away) such as the so-called "Fairchildren" of Fairchild. There are complex experiments in this category but I do not think Mills is that complex. > The more severe test is tghe seven licensees of BLP technioplogy, who had > first-hand due diligence access to the personnel and facilities of BLP and > in some cases at least, replicatged the effects in their own labs. Until we see these licensees demonstrate real, energy generating technology I think it will be wise to remain skeptical. - Jed
