*This response sounds like you are conflicted as follows:*
*You first say:* *“I want BLP to succeed not because I'm invested in CQM” * *Then you say:* *If BLP succeeds it would force the scientific establishment to look more closely at Mills controversial CQM theory.* *If you are not invested in CQM then why would you care if Mills theory is widely accepted?* *Let we now probe the truth and the depths of this apparent conflict.* *It is always best to have as many possibilities to succeed as possible, but for a person who is desperate for that success to be achieved, it is frustrating to be continually disappointed.* *Just like in baseball, all the Cubs fans are down on that team because they haven't achieved success for over a century but the fans still route for them dearly.* *I have worked hard to reach an informed opinion. It is clear to me that success in LENR is personified in what Rossi did to Piantelli concepts. He introduced nanotechnology to NiH. * *How plain can it be?* *The true path to LENR success is through nanotechnology. You will not see this field of science covered at all in Mills theory, or that of Ed Storms. I begged Ed Storms on many occasions to undertake a study of Nanoplasmonics to understand the science behind the LENR processes that are occurring in cracks to no effect. I would dearly love to see these sincere but misdirected advocates of LENR contribute to the understanding of what has given Rossi his apparent success. * *It seems so apparent to me that based on the most obvious understanding of who has had the most success in the field of LENR that the ways, means and methods of that success are not taken seriously, no more tragically, these misdirected advocates of LENR are openly hostile toward this new and thriving field of science.* *I am addressing the broad expanse of nanoscience as the most promising pathway to success in LENR which includes but not limited to: Topological Materials, Properties of Atomic, Molecular and Nanoscale Materials, Interactions at the Nanoscale, Nanocomposites, Nanoparticles, Nanocrystalline Materials, Nanoclusters and Nanocrystals. Superlattices, Quantum Dots, Molecualar and Nanowires, Nanoscale Thin Films, Nanoporous systems, Nanoplasmonics, Hybrid materials, Colloids, Nano-Alloys, Nanoceramics, Nano-particle Self-Assembly, Monolayers and Multilayers Nanoelectronics, Nano-optics, Nanophysics, Nano-integration, Quantum Optics, Nanomagnetism, Fullerenes, Nanotubes, Nanorods, Molecular Wires, Molecular Nanotechnology, Supramolecules, Superatoms, BEC, Dendrimers, nano self-assemblies, Low-dimension Structures, polymers, Structure Analysis at Atomic, Molecular and Nanometer range Atomic Manipulation, Computational Nanotechnology, Molecular Nanoscience, Nanorobotics, Nanomechanics, Topological and type II Superconductors, and Nanofluidics.* *These fields of science are not covered at all by CQM. And most discouraging, quantum mechanics, the queen of the sciences that nanoscience is based upon is ridiculed by CQM,* *I will predict that nano-scientists will not turn to CQM in any event because this theory has nothing to contribute to the advancement of their success. * *Mills: “These laws, developed in the mid 1800’s, with the extension to the atomic scale and taking into account the appropriate space-time metric are sufficient for describing all phenomena in the universe.”* *I am certain that this kind of thinking is not compatible with success in the application of the very newest nanoscience, I mean LENR.* On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > From Axil: > > > > > Let the quibbling begin... > > > > Quibble away! > > > > > Correct theory is important in advancing the engineering and design of > the system > > > that underlies that theory. IMHO, the reason that Mills fails to get his > project to > > > 100% completion is that he does not depart from his theoretical > preconceptions when > > > experimental experience demands it. This is not good science. > > > > It seems to me that you are making unfounded assumptions about BLP > failures. How do you know that Mills and BLP are in the process failing. > Where to you see failure? ...Because you personally believe Mills refuses > to depart from his theoretical preconceptions? Well, ok, that's your > opinion. But it sure as hell doesn't look like BLP is in the process of > failing to me. It looks to me as if BLP may very well achieve a closed-loop > prototype, possibly within 6 - 12 months. Actually, BLP predicts much > sooner than that. I'm however allowing for Mr. Murphy to make an unexpected > visit - to slow things down a tad. > > > > I goes without saying that a correct (perhaps I should say: more accurate) > theory is indeed extremely important. However, experimental evidence always > trumps anyone's pet theory. It seems to be that BLP has been doing a > diligent job collecting experimental evidence to support the ultimate > objective of generating a massive amount of energy. I realize some here > might disagree with me on that point, but at present that remains my > personal opinion on the matter. If BLP can pull the rabbit out of the hat, > CQM theory will need to be look at more closely. It will earn the right to > be looked at more seriously - warts or not. I don't think that would be a > stupid idea. CQM needs to be given the chance to be falsified just as any > other new theory should be handled. > > > > > Mills just can’t bear to see his beloved CQM changed in any major way. > Once QCM theory > > > gets into that 2000 page book, it will not be changed come hell or high > water no matter > > > what his test equipment is telling him. > > > > In my experience, predicting the psychological behavior of others can > often result in a nasty tendency of backfiring in unflattering ways onto > the predictor of such behavior. BTY, I noticed that Ed Storms finally gave > after countless attempts in trying to reason with you. Just saying... ;-) > > > > > There is a back and forth feedback loop required to advance both theory > and experimentation. > > > Good science is always looking for the experiment that does not fit the > theory so they can > > > develop new science. > > > > > My favorite example is the fractional quantum Hall effect. When that > seminal experiment hit > > > physics, the entire community was distressed that fractional charge > could exist. This > > > experiment showed that confinement of electrons could produce very > strange effects. > > > Fractionalization of the electron is also weird but experimentally > demonstrated. But Mills > > > does not pay heed to those types of experiments since he tries his best > to undercut quantum mechanics. > > > > > I don’t think Mill will succeed, because his theory will blind him to > what experimentation is > > > telling him is true. > > > > Ok, you have stated your opinion. > > > > And now my POV: > > > > I would like BLP to succeed. I want BLP to succeed not because I'm > invested in CQM but because I would like to pay a lot less for my electric > and heating bills. Granted, if BLP succeeds it would force the scientific > establishment to look more closely at Mills controversial CQM theory. I > certainly don't have a problem with that. Do you?. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. > Department. > > >
