Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. Both have proceeded for decades in the expectation of a new power source for mankind. Defkalion belongs to the LENR world. There are a number of other 'exotic' energy devices proposed. Both BLP and LENR point to new phenomena not part of 'mainstream' physics and neither has yet a commercial system, although in my opinion, BLP is ahead.
Mike Carrell From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:07 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP 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-c ode.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] <mailto:[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. ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
