Jed wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heads Up! BLP Update
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.
JR: 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.
MC: Scepticism is a wonderful attitude and totally safe; I think it should
be applied equally to received opinion and new claims. I understand where
Jed is coming from but I have also closely followed BLP for years, more
closely than most on this list. Mills' business plan is not Jed's, so it is
easliy misunderstood. Mills has pursued the course of the
scientist-entrepreneur, publishing nearly everything, building a strong
patent base to protect investors, speaking to major technical societies,
writing a magnum opus on the application of his insights to the major
problems of physics. Such is not 'proof'; only experiments are 'proof'.
There is a remarkable parade of experiments from BLP, which support his
models, leading to a new energy source.
MC: regarding Rowan, and Dr. Jansson, who heads the BLP work there. I have
been in his office, and read his Master's thesis for Rowan, which was on a
simple BLP experiment using a Seeback calorimeter on loan from BLP. It
happens that Jansson was once a technical scout for the utility now known as
Connectiv, and recommended to Connective to invest in BLP years ago. I think
Jansson may be a minor stockholder in BLP by special agreement.
MC: Now if one is a *strident skeptic* this would invalidate all the Rowan
findings. Such is silly and glib. Two resons why BLP would choose Rowan as
an independent lab for validation: a) Rowan is about two hour's drive from
BLP's site, and b) Jansson can be trusted not to screw up the tests. In my
years of following critics of BLP I have found glib swipes, failures to
duplicate what Mills did, etc. If one actually **studies** the Rowan
reports, you find independant calibrations of devices, etc. What is
carefully followed are the procedures and protocols developed at BLP. These
qualify as ***independent*** validations as the ultimate references are
standard laboratory instruments.
MC: BLP is in an end game of a very difficult journey. Failure is still a
possibility. The existence of the "sub-ground" state of hydrogen is
established beyond reasonable doubt by multiple threads of evidence. Energy
yields 200 times combustion [of hydrogen] have been shown using several
methods of calorimetry. The engineering problem is to follow nature and
build reactors that can produce sustained megawatt power output using water
as a fuel. A BLP powe plant is a complex system now, but in time may be
simplified.
The documents just posted at BLP are mileposts on that path. All the data to
understand them is published on the website, but one must dig for it and
*study*.
Mike Carrell
<snip>
