On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote:
Sadly, the CQM vs SQM debate, (and now possibly the LENR debate as well, if > you get your way) is degenerating into a political battle to protect > entrenched pet theories. For me the motivation is a little different than protecting a pet theory (although I do admit to missing quantum mechanics every time I think about orbitspheres). My reason for taking a less generous attitude towards BLP is a growing sense that they are aware that they have nothing to show and that they will have nothing to show in the medium term. The main question I have doubts over is whether they believe they'll have something in the longer term; I'm becoming more and more skeptical, but I suppose this is possible. That said, their operation is starting to take on the aspect of a confidence game. I say this as someone who had no opinion of them three years ago. There are people here who I am guessing have a financial stake with them. I doubt they are aware of any malfeasance if it exists. For those of you who strongly advocate for BLP, the company, rather than hydrinos, the concept, the thought will cross my mind that you are providing them with financial backing. There are others who are just interested in seeing an underdog succeed, which is a different thing. I respect Robin's predisposition towards hydrinos, so don't feel prepared to write them off altogether. Talking about hydrinos is one thing, and tossing out the uncertainty principle is perhaps something else. I find the latter idea a little fanciful, for with it goes some important results in physics. Eric
