What is **nascent** H2O as a catalyst? Is this similar or identical to Santilli's HHO?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>wrote: > Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, > take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) > is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight > experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's > Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to > Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... > > > could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ > > > 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell <[email protected]> > >> Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP >> forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk >> about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD >> energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be >> characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the >> possibilities of **nascent** H2O as a catalyst, but designing an >> acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread >> public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. >> >> >> >> Mike Carrell >> >> >> >> *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM >> *To:* VORTEX >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP >> >> >> >> Dear Mike, >> >> >> >> Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I >> >> want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ >> >> hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A >> PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the >> demo. >> >> See please: >> DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO >> >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html >> >> >> DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE >> >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html >> >> >> >> I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates >> >> that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he >> actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. >> >> Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Mike, >> >> You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement >> upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually >> exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes >> up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible >> solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for >> them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Carrell <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP >> >> Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty >> if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it >> is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, >> entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open >> about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very >> new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance >> without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their >> patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television >> technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold >> licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access >> to RCA engineers. >> >> >> >> Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in >> nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. >> >> >> >> Mike Carrell >> >> >> >> *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]?>] >> >> *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and >> ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the >> optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. >> >> >> >> Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to >> build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if >> people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If >> they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something >> that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. >> Department. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> >> Cluj, Romania >> >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. >> Department. >> > >
