ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 313 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    What is happening at BLP?
    Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 @ 22:29:37 GMT by vlad

    Testimonials In the hydrino yahoo group Mike Carrell writes: Nora ended a response to Tom Stolper with:

    And what the heck is happening at BLP now? There has been little substantive activity since sometime last year. The "Scientific Staff" link has said "We are in the process of updating this link" for several months now. Paresh Ray of course left some time ago, and I have heard that Andreas Voigt has also left. No new experimental papers have been posted since October 2004, an unusual gap relative to their previous level of activity.

    There have been a number of revisions of chapters of GUT-CQM, and there are quite a few very nice color graphics and avi movies depicting orbitspheres in various modes of behavior - proving what, exactly? At least some of the graphics seem to be intended to support the erroneous claim that the OS has uniform density or that Mills' computation of angular momentum makes sense. Who are these graphics aimed at, and for what reason? Has BLP stopped doing experiments?
    -------------------------------

    MC: Let me offer a hypothesis, which fits observed facts. For context, Nora and others should look at the roster of management. It is very strong in people with technical educations, including advanced degrees, and deep experience in finance. These have the comptenece to observe first hand the work of the technical staff.

    Mills has remarked that his technical quest is complete, or nearly so, and that the board is pushing toward development. Mills' business model has always been that of a license laboratory, developing technology and a defendable patent base in support of industrial partners who put up the money for technology and product development in joint corporations in which BLP would hold a 20% interest. There may be one or more IPO's for these new partnerships, but not by BLP itself, thus protecting the original investor's equity share.

    Negotiations with prospective partners would include private presentations and consulations, and assistance to technical staff of propsective partners in duplicating experiments and all the due diligence necessary for those technical staffs to make favorable recommentations to the management of their companies. In all of this, the direct contact will mean more than the opinions of critics on HSG. Such dialogues need no public accounting, which would account for the dearth of experimental reports.

    If partnerships are developing, their staffing is in flux, so it would be appropriate to withold its nature until all is in readiness.

    Meanwhile, the various technicalpapers and animations Mills has published can all be seen as a part of preparation for a more publich stance, which may include some very public and bruising patent fights. Already there have been attempts to frustrate Mills' work by technical criticisms and denial of fundamental validity. One way to impede BLP's advance is to invalidate patents and thereby discourage investment. I think Mills is now well prepared to defend his present and future patents in court, which is a major function of a license laboratory.

    When operating BLP-powered devices are manufactured, then the critics can fume all they want.

    Stay tuned.
    Mike Carrell
    -------------------------
    Mike,

    That's all very nice speculation, but it reminds me of the famous Bland Corporation Research Credo: Data-Free Analysis for Content-Free Conclusions. That is to say, it has no foundation of new information to give it credence, but is merely speculation.

    It "fits" the facts in the same way that the Bush Administration's dead-reckoning approach to the Iraqi WMD programs did -- pure extrapolation from a single observed data point 4-5 years back in time, with an outcome that is precisely what the boss wants.

    Why don't you get Mills to give us a few quotes about what he is actually doing?

    --pz
    ------------------

    From: "Mike Carrell"
    Subject: Re: Re: What is happening at BLP?


    Hi Nora, I'll snip for brevity:


    NB: Some are in finance, some are ex-military men, some are engineers.
    None are physicists with obvious qualifications to evaluate the theory.
    However,
    most, with the exception of the 'angel investor' Michael Jordan, have been on
    the board of directors for quite some time. The composition of the
    board has not changed as a result of a change in direction from science
    to development of licensing.

    MC: But you are making the theory the criterion, as ususal. I have not said
    they are competent theorists. They do have technical educations and
    experience in technology industries. They can go into a lab ans see what is
    going on. They can talk on a day to day basis with the technical staff. You
    are a theorist who is, with due respect, at a disadvantage in evaluating the
    activity in the lab. Please note that the hydrino state is not tied to the
    orbitsphere model but can be derived from the Schrodinger equation by a
    different route, and Mills has done so.

    >MC: Mills has remarked that his technical quest is complete, or nearly so, and
    >that the board is pushing toward development.

    NB: Very possible. Or, maybe they want to cut their losses. See below also.

    >MC: Mills' business model has
    >always been that of a license laboratory, developing technology and a
    >defendable patent base in support of industrial partners who put up the
    >money for technology and product development in joint corporations in which
    >BLP would hold a 20% interest. There may be one or more IPO's for these new
    >partnerships, but not by BLP itself, thus protecting the original
    >investor's
    >equity share.
    >
    >Negotiations with prospective partners would include private presentations
    >and consulations, and assistance to technical staff of propsective partners
    >in duplicating experiments and all the due diligence necessary for those
    >technical staffs to make favorable recommentations to the management of
    >their companies. In all of this, the direct contact will mean more than the
    >opinions of critics on HSG.


    NB: No doubt. We are mere ciphers compared to these all-knowing, all-wise
    captains of industry.

    MC: Who have direct contact with the experimental work, as I have stated
    above. They are also aware of the arduous path between research and
    implementation, which I have emphasized on many occasions here. Knowing and
    wisdom extend beyond theory and criticism of Mills calculation of angular
    momentum. Success in the marketplace is what will determine the ultimate
    value of Mills' work.

    >MC: Such dialogues need no public accounting, which
    >would account for the dearth of experimental reports.
    >

    NB: True, negative evidence is often evidence ... but it's hard to know,
    of what?

    MC: Is the glass half empty or half full?

    >MC: If partnerships are developing, their staffing is in flux, so it would be
    >appropriate to withold its nature until all is in readiness.>

    NB: Really? I would think you might want to showcase the staff to
    (1) encourage morale and loyalty, and (2) make it easier to recruit new
    staff, which will surely be needed with this shift in emphasis. A web
    page, after all, is your display window.

    MC: If people simply quit, you delete them from the web page without
    comment. Stating that it is under construction suggests a future. Morale and
    loyalty will come from what the staff see in their own lab, not publicity or
    criticism from critics who do not see what they see. The new crew may
    include staff from the partner company. What is vitally important is that
    the technical staff of the partnership are satisfied in their heart that the
    enterprise is a good thing to which they can give their all. They will get
    there by their own experiments, not some paper in a journal or endorsment by
    Authority X.

    NB: But perhaps when all is ready, they will strike with lightninglike speed!

    MC: Duck! :-)

    >MC: Meanwhile, the various technicalpapers and animations Mills has published
    >can all be seen as a part of preparation for a more publich stance, which
    >may include some very public and bruising patent fights.

    NB: Maybe so, but some of these animations seem aimed at demonstrating
    that some of the claims made here are wrong. For example, the various
    graphics purporting to show that the charge-mass density is uniform.
    Is that really of any interest to future licensees or partners?

    MC: No. But it might be important in a patent fight. Recall that a Mills
    patent was suddenly withdrawn by the USPTO just short of issuance because it
    did not conform to known theory or some such excuse. A court review held
    that the USPTO had the authority to act as they did. But Mills may decided
    to reclaim that territory by suit against the USPTO, which will then drag
    into the open all the claims and counterclaims, and may be capped by a
    public demosntration of something as simple as the water bath calorimetry or
    a closed cycle energy system. At that time the essentials -- creative
    insight, utility, reduction to practice will be firmly established by the
    public record of the BLP website whether you or I or anyone else reads it.
    The value of BLP to a partner is a firm grasp on fundamental patents which
    have been ***defended in court***. A patent is nothing more than a license
    to sue. Company X will not invest with BLP if they think that a herd of
    wannabes can erode and evade the patent position.


    >MC: Already there have
    >been attempts to frustrate Mills' work by technical criticisms and denial of
    >fundamental validity.

    NB: Mills voluntarily, knowingly, took the scientific route. Scientists
    argue and they have to defend their theories. "Technical" criticisms
    seem like exactly the *right* kind of criticisms. "Denial of
    fundamental validity" translates to "We think the theory is wrong."
    Try to view it from the other side. Suppose someone was proposing a
    theory which you believe to be a crock. Should you (a) just ignore it,
    and hope he goes away without involving too many naive adherents, or (b)
    state your case clearly and forcefully to try to reveal the scientific
    flaws?

    MC: You are performing what you perceive to be a public duty. I do so also,
    in defending not the theory but the experimental reports. If BLP were to
    mount an IPO, the charge of fraud could be mounted against it, contending,
    as here, that since the theory is wrong the claims of laboratory
    demonstrations and future progress are therefore false. Thus the disclaimer
    on the theory which is in the prospectus I have seen for private investors.
    Against this attack Mills has been preparing. If the IPO comes from a new
    entitiy in a joint venture, a similar assault could be mounted.


    >MC: One way to impede BLP's advance is to invalidate
    >patents and thereby discourage investment. I think Mills is now well
    >prepared to defend his present and future patents in court, which is a
    >major
    >function of a license laboratory.
    >

    NB: In fact, is the licensing approach likely to be successful if patents
    are not obtained? I would think not.

    MC: Of course not, which is why the patent base has been attacked and will
    be attacked in the future, and why Mills is fortifying his position.


    >MC: When operating BLP-powered devices are manufactured, then the critics can
    >fume all they want.
    >

    NB: Fume and fulminate, indeed! I must say I look forward out of just
    sheer curiosity to what comes next, whatever it is.

    MC: So do I. Pass the peanuts. :-).

    >Stay tuned.
    >Mike Carrell

    NB: It is true, Mike, your explanation fits some of the public facts, but it
    is of course a retrofit, and it is not perfect. Other explanations are
    equally plausible.

    Here is a quote from Mills some time ago ...

    "Dr. Mills states, '...we scaled it up greater than a factor
    of a thousand and we have right now a cell running that is a
    commercial demonstration of this technology. We're pushing
    right now ... we have a contract we're pursuing that will
    give us a one kilowatt -- a one thousand watt home heating
    unit within four months. We have the electrochemical power
    cell -- it is running. It has the capacity of putting out
    a thousand watts. And we are waiting for the heat exchanger
    unit to interface with that [power cell] and we will have a
    prototype of a home heating unit.'"


    The date ? 1992. It was published in 'Fusion Facts'. See:

    http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_1.html


    MC: I asked Mills about that. You can read it as a ridiculously inflated claim
    if you exclude some historical perspective. From the energy yield of his
    beginning electrolytic experiments which were directed by his hydrino
    insight and Farrell's search for catalyst candidates to the energy yield of
    1992 and later is easily a factor of 1000. A prototype can be anything, and
    you can easily extrapolate.

    I cut Mills slack about these things because he has to also recruit
    investors and show promise of applications. Over the years he has discussed
    a number of ways to extract energy from the plasma which look nice but have
    serious difficulties -- which I have commented on as they come and go. The
    home heater makes a nice target for critics and a horrible place for a new
    technology. At one time his model was replacement for fossil fuel boilers in
    utility electric plants. He realized that the power density he was getting
    from the electrolytic cells was not going to be attractive agaisn the then
    low cost of natural gas or oil, so he went in pursuit of gas phase
    reactions.

    You may be critical of this but Edison had a target of an invention a week
    from his Menlo Park lab and a major innovation every six months.

    NB: Right, Mike, stay tuned.

    MC: You too.

    Mike Carrell

     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Testimonials
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Testimonials:
    Dr. Eugene Mallove is dead


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 1
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "What is happening at BLP?" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: What is happening at BLP? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 @ 22:37:55 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    From: "smenton"
    Subject: New BLP presentations


    While the resident skeptics engage in more of their idle gossip and sideshows aimed at discrediting Mills without performing a single experiment, Randy has apparently been busy further presenting his case in forums to scientists who are actually interested in doing science. Here are links related to some of those presentations:

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/technical/Techtheoryintro030705Web.pdf

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/TheoryPresentation030105B.pdf

    The first is from a Symposium on Plasma Physics and Radiation Tech sponsored by the Netherlands Physical Society (they must not subscribe to "What's New?") at the Research School Center for Plasma Physics, Lunteren Netherlands on March 1-2. The second is from a workshop at the Univ of Eidenhaven on Feb 28.

    [Nora Baron: Interesting - it is worth noting, too, that the Netherlands presentation was an invited presentation.

    Both of these presentations make extensive use of the graphics and animations that have been on the website recently. That may explain why they have been posted.]

    Of course, it is more than a little ironic that, while HSG was wallowing in wild speculation about and gossip about BLP activities, its Bd members and staffers, Randy was out presenting his case to scientists actually trying to do science.

    It is kind of sad that Randy doesn't announce many of these things in advance any more for fear that the rumor mongers will try to interfere and stifle the debate.

    [Nora Baron: 'Stifle the debate???' Mills *withdrew himself* from the 'debate' quite some time ago. Note that in his presentations, Mills just glosses over his use of the nonstandard root-mean-square computation of angular momentum [which he has never justified, here or elsewhere - he has removed the phrase, though not the computation from GUT-CQM], and he "proves" his claimed uniform mass-charge distribution on the OS with one of his cartoons. He also glosses over his computation of the Bohr radius. He repeats his wave-equation with its total lack of a term for the potential field generated by the proton. All of this is where the *debate* has been. Were any questions on these raised, or answered, at his presentations? Were questions raised, as they legitimately have been here, regarding his experimental results and methods?]

    The reports I have gotten indicate that the exchanges were lively and Randy did quite well.

    [Nora Baron: Again, this is interesting. I would love to have been at the presentations to see how Mills might have handled basic questions about both his model and his experiments.]

    Steve Menton
    -------------

    From: "john_e_barchak"
    Subject: Re: New BLP presentations

    Hi Steve

    It is quite clear that we are dealing with a double standard. QM can, with a wave of Bohr's hand, ignore the binding energy of the point particle electron; which is, by the way, infinite. R. Mills wants to ignore a very small (comparatively speaking) binding energy, and it is not allowed.

    Also, with the wave of Bohr's hand, this point particle electron flits about like a chicken with it's head cut off - with no radiation what-so-ever. And it is supposed to be Mills that is the crackpot???

    All the best
    John B.
    -----------

    From: "Mike Carrell"
    Subject: Re: Re: Re: What is happening at BLP?


    JimNLori wrote:

    I think all this to-do over patents is nonsense. If someone today began research, started a notebook, then tomorrow discovered a battery technology like Mills' then Mills would get the patent. Why? Because he has plenty of documentation that he discovered it first. That's how it works. All this nonsense about patents is a red herring.

    ["ashtonrsmiller" writes: I think your information is a bit out of date. IIRC several years ago, in a move to harmonize its patent laws with the rest of the world, the US changed the right of invention from first to invent to first to file.

    Also changed was the term - from seventeen years from date of grant to twenty years from date of filing. This could be a problem for BLP who had approval of several patents about to be granted suddenly withdrawn at the last minute.]

    MC: No, the best Mills could do would be to invalidate the patent on the basis of his prior work, whihc would then be in the public domanin and an economic free-for-all. In the US you can disclose an art and then file within a year and get your patent. In many other countries, public disclosure, even to a small group who consititue the audience for the art, invalidates the patent.

    MC: Patents are licenses to sue. You can force the infringer to stop selling the infringing device, or to pay royalties, for a stipulated period. Patents go to the first to disclose. Sometimes an hour can make a difference in who go tothe patent office first.

    MC: Patents alone are not the value licensees pay for. It is also technical know-how and access to advanced developments.

    Mike Carrell
    -----------------

    From: "Mike Carrell"
    Subject: BLP watch


    Recent correspondence with Mills indicates that things are going well and BLP has hired 4 more PhDs. The presentations just posted were made to substantial audiences of physicists and according to reports he handled questions well. The technical staff will no longer be posted, in line with practice at other corporations who do not publish lists of thier employees.

    Mike Carrell



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.