Much meat for discussion here. I take Mills at face value without altering
it as 'he really means this or that' which blurs the issues. BLP and LENR
are new territory and neither theoretical structure is gospel. Mills, to his
credit, has produced a magnum opus addressing the major issues of physics
from his new model.
-----------------------
Mike Carrell wrote:
Mike McKubre should know better, and so should Jed. It is amusing that
members of each camp should claim each other's territory; it illustrates how
tightly one holds onto his pet ideas. LENR theorists try to shoehorn LENR
phenomena into Quantum Mechanics [as if that gives respectabiltiy]. One
knowledgeable author on Mills [Tom Stolper] devotes 80 pages of his book on
assertions that LENR pheomena are "really" explained by Mills model of the H
atom and hydrinos.
----------------
Our reasons are less technical than that. As I said, we think it is highly
unlikely that two separate, unrelated methods exist, both starting with
metal lattices and both producing hundreds of thousands of times more energy
than conventional chemistry. That seems like a fantastic coincidence. At
some level they must be fundamentally the same, although the implementation
and details may be quite different (just as combustion and metabolism are
different, yet both are oxidation). It seems likely that either cold fusion
is actually shrinking hydrogen atoms, or what Mills discovered is actually
some form of fusion. Of course we cannot prove that, since the exact nature
of cold fusion is still a mystery, and hydrinos have not been widely
replicated so no one can be sure they even exist.
1) BLP in no way depends on a metal lattice. The key reactions are with
electrons, not nuclei, and so are in the realm of chemistry, not nuclear
physics.
2) Measurements of BLP energy production are at 200 times the energy of
burning the same mass of hydrogen.
3) Evidence for existence of hydrinos is deep UV spectroscopy and NMR. NMR
images H in the body by exciting a resonance; hydrogen or other atoms.
Hydrinos give a different signature from gound-state hydrogen to the NMR
instlrument.
4) The BLP reactions are not fusion, but a decrease in the electron orbit.
It is just speculation that hydrinos in extreme shrinkage resemble neutrons;
such have not been detectged nor claimed by Mills.
5) Rowan, using recipies from BLP and commercial chemicals, have reproduced
the BLP reactions, with trapped hydrinos confirmed by outside NMR analysis.
------------------------
Here is Mills with set of reactions with H as a fuel which repeatedly
prioduce 50kW energy bursts in an independant lab, with posted plans for
building power plants.
50 kW for how long? How much energy? From what mass of fuel?
1) It is all stated in reports on the website and confirmed by staff at
Rowan. The published reports using a few grams of reactant gives a 50 kW
burst with about 1 MJ integrated energy as meaured by flowing waterbath
calorimetry. The present effort of BLP is to devise a multi-phase reactor
array [like an ICE] or a continuous-burn system. These are outlined on the
current web page.
--------------------------
Has anyone actually built a power plant from these plans? Until Mills or
someone else does, the plans prove nothing and mean nothing.
1) BLP has engaged major engineering firms to pursue 1 MW plant designs
based on the approaches above. The results of these studies are on the
website
with detailed calculations and projections. The BLP task for this year is to
build protoypes.
2) A major problem, to be proven, is regeneration of the reactant mix so the
only consumable is hydrogen. Actually doing this on a commercial scale will
be a major accomplishment.
3) What is present on the website is not "nothing", but a recognizable stage
in a de\velopment and design process. The firms involved are world-class and
would not undertake this effort with evikdence that it is fundamentally
sound.
---------------------
Here is LENR, in disarray, with members fretting about conspiracies and
suppression when the principle problem is absence of any repeatable large
scale effect, as Mills has produced.
Most people do not believe Mills has any effect. No one should believe him.
---------------------
1) The same could be said of LENR. Incredultiy is a bit of a protection that
has enabled BLP to work in peace while bulding a formidable
reduction-to-practice track record for patent protection. He has no trouble
raising money at $60+ million and counting. No one could accuse Mills of
secrecy, with 80+ journal papers and presentations to major technical
societies.
-------------------
If he has a repeatable, large-scale energy generating effect, he has not
publicly demonstrated it or allowed outside experts to measure it, as far as
I know. (Perhaps he did and I missed the news.) Also, as far as I know, only
one other group claims to have replicated his work, and it wasn't an
energy-generating effect per se, it was the NMR test. That's better than
zero replications, but I'll hold out for 3 or 4 before getting excited.
1) Of course. My advice to people in the BLP community is that it is much
more important for Mills to get it right than get it early. Significant
energy release from the reactionhas been varified by water bath calorimetry
years ago and demonstrated to technical visitors. [There was a poster
session at ICCF-14 by one very competent investigator].
Jed, if you had studied Mills' work with the vigor and depth you have to
devoted to LENR, you would be less doubtful but also acutely aware of the
actual pitfalls lurking ahead.
----------------------
There are two sets of rules: The rules of technology, which call for some
sort of demonstration that no one can argue with, such as putting a silicon
transistor in boiling vegetable oil to prove it works at high temperature.
Or, the rules of experimental science, which call for several independent
replications. Mills has to pass one, or the other, or both. He has not done
this yet. He does not get a special exemption or a free pass.
1) Actually, if you followed closely what Mills has done, you might be
surprised how "scientific" he has been. The one close account is Tom
Stolper's, but it is so unabasedly admiring that you might be put off by it.
-------------------
Perhaps Mills does not care whether people believe him. Perhaps he is not
looking for a free pass. That's fine. That would be his business. But in
that case it is absurd for Mike Carrell to demand that I believe anything
Mills says. Arata's public demonstration, for all of its imperfections, was
more compelling than anything Mills has done, to my knowledge.
1) Jed, I know you well after all these years, and respect your position.
Mills has his savage critics, which he can answere only by the course he is
on, to build operating systems. No free passes. I report the best estimate I
can of his status and progress. Arata's public demonstration does not pave a
path to public utilities. Mills is firmly on that target with very
substantail investment watching benchmarks. These are vastlyh more important
than the opinions of list-watchers and academics.
-----------------------------
Mills has repeatedly stated that there exists a H-2H catalytic reaction in
which two H atoms can induce the hyrino transition in a third H atom. Once
created, the hydrino can catalyse other H atoms. The conditions under whch
the reaction rate may be significant include the cathodes or LENR cells. The
reaction is strongly exothermic, beyond ordinary chemistry. Such may produce
"excess heat", but does not account for transmutation or 4He production.
Notably, Mills has not claimed any connection with LENR 'excess heat'.
I wouldn't know but perhaps what he thinks are hydrinos are actually helium
atoms (or vice versa). Anyway, until several groups independently replicate
his findings and agree with his evaluation, it is all hot air. He can
"repeatedly state" that atoms shrink and transition, and he can write a
2,000 pages of theory but that doesn't count. Experiment and replication is
the only source of truth.
1) Quite so. And there are experiments, ciritcal experiments, which support
these statements. However, they would be meaningless to you without
contextual study.
There are now seven licenses issued for BLP power plants. The clients range
from small rural cooperatives to signficant corporations. One can be assured
that the negotiations were not be onlyh by prospectus, but by direct visits,
demonstrations, and outside consltants.
Well, when someone makes a visit and publishes something like an account or
a YouTube video of an energy generating device, please let me know. Until I
will believe NOTHING.
1) Well said. Belief, as such, is not the issue.
As corporate commitments are involved, due diligence is also, as meaningful
as any number of journal papers.
I note that Jed is carefully fence-sitting. I hope he as a pillow to make
his perch comfortable.:-).
I never fence sit. I apply one set of rules to all claims, conventional and
unconventional. If Mills or Rossi can pass either the test for science
(replication) or the test for technology (demonstration) I will believe
them. Until they do, I would not believe them. It is simple: I never give a
free pass to any claim, even when someone I trust such as Mike Carrell or
Gene Mallove thinks the claim is real.
--------------------
1) Well said again. What you are not aware of, Jed, is that a number
visitors and very competent scientists who have visited or done experiments
on their own have endorsed Mills' finsing in one way or another. Because
these are not "national laboratories" and are "friendly" these reports are
invalidated by the hypercritics. Before he had his own labs, Mills had
experiments done by university and industrial labs, but of course such
"don't count". You are sensitive to double standards applied to CF, be aware
of such with respect to Mills'work.
Regards,
Mike Carrell
- Jed
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
