http://mechanical.illinois.edu/directory/faculty/glumac
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Carl High <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list > himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an > out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a > valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him. > > Steve High > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important >> – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his >> theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at >> least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and >> more should have been. >> >> >> >> Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it >> could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone >> who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, >> and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important >> detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) >> >> >> >> If there really is a COP>3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then >> this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however >> instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be >> hard to entice associates to look into this… >> >> >> >> However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation >> for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water >> splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against >> light and water splitting as the source of gain? >> >> >> >> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a >> >> >> >> Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, >> and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for >> financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative >> explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the >> Department? >> >> >> >> As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past >> tactic$ perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another >> round of false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more >> investment with hardly a mention of the past failures >> >> >> >> … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. >> >> >> >> *From:* Carl High >> >> >> >> Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is >> verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific >> progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is >> not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check >> for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' >> hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little >> prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice >> this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate >> the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the >> bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple >> from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from >> Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees >> >> >> >> Steve High >> >> >> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf >> >> >> > >
