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, 349 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

    BLP, the struggle for legitimacy
    Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 @ 18:21:11 GMT by vlad

    Testimonials In my opinion, this is typical for what any new & revolutionary energy technology/company will be going through on the road to a marketable product [Vlad]. In the hydriono yahoo group Mike Carrell (MC) writes: Nora Baron (NB) wrote, in reply to Steve Menton:

    >Let me also assure you that Mills has NOT withdrawn from the "debate." He
    >may have ceased trading barbs with anonymous palindromes on the internet,
    >but he is very much engaged in the "debate." The "debate" is taking place
    >in laboratories and conference rooms in several locations in the US, Europe
    >and Asia, but it is not happening on HSG.

    NB: I am glad, actually, that the debate is reaching a wider audience. That is the kind of activity that will settle questions regarding what Mills has done in a definitive way. Mills has been largely dismissed and ignored by mainstream physicists up till now. One might think he had opportunities to interact with academic physicists, since BLP is not far from Princeton and Philadelphia, but I have not seen much evidence of that. I think when larger numbers of experts come to grips with what he is saying, he will find opposition that will make the HSG look like a pillow fight [my prediction]. But I think we should all welcome that. The air needs to be cleared one way or the other.

    MC: Mills and other BLP staffers presented papers at a regional ACS meeting at Princeton a few years ago. The meetings in Holland are indeed welcome.

    (snip)

    NB: You can take the attitude that responding to people like me with no credentials other than math is beneath Mills' attention, that Mills can just blow us off because we don't count - we are insignificant, we don't control the all-important money, that what really counts is that Mills goes up against practicing theoretical physicists and experimentalists. That's fine. I can accept that. Perhaps that is happening. If so, included among their questions, there should and very likely will be resolution one way or the other of the questions that have been raised here. I really look forward to seeing how that turns out.

    MC: "What really counts" is commercial implementation of the BLP technology. In case Nora hasn't noticed, the warnings of oil reserves peaking out are flying all over the place while the demand for oil from China and India is rising. Nora may be contemptuous of 'captains of industry' who merely 'control the all-important money', but all the theoretical squabbles and endorsement or lack of endorsement by academics mean nothing to the large affairs of mankind if there is not another source of energy with the convenience and potency of gasoline.


    >It is actually kind of funny how some people feel compelled to rewrite
    >Mills' theory in order to discredit it.
    NB: I don't know what you mean by this. I have not tried to rewrite it at all. I have tried very honestly to understand Mills' intentions. Perhaps you can be more specific.

    MC: I give Nora credit for this, for whatever value my 'credit' may be to her. But her effort does not extend to understand the experiments, and relies on the opinions of others, which are colored by their prejudices.

    (snip)

    >What is disturbing is the apparent lengths that some skeptics are willing
    >to go to not only stifle but actually sabotage Mills' efforts.

    NB: I have never done anything to either stifle or sabotage ANYTHING Mills has done.

    MC: I don't think that Steve was referring to you alone, Nora. There is evidence of attacks from other quarters which are not just open discussion.

    >In the end, Mills' success should be decided on the ability to use his
    >theory to make predictions and confirm them in the laboratory not on the
    >debate points of anonymous or even famous internet posters.
    >
    (snip)

    NB: Another point on this. When I say Mills predicts new results that have never been observed, one should recall that they COULD have been, even SHOULD have been. Mills is not the first person to study spectra in plasmas which are mixtures of gases.

    MC: Correct, as Mills points out in his first JAP paper, concerning line broadening in H-Ar glow discharges. Mills was not the first to observe this. Incidentally, this also proves that Mills is not 'faking it'.

    NB:If hydrinos exist, they are relatively stable - it will take more energy to restore them to ground state than it does to ionize ordinary hydrogen - the deeper their Millsian below-ground fractional quantum number, the more stable they will be - far more stable than ordinary hydrogen. Therefore they should be *common*. Recall that helium was first identified in the spectrum of the sun. Hydrinos, being stable, should be present in space, very likely in the sun's corona as well - Mills has claimed to see interstellar spectra that match his predictions, but the evidence suggests an ordinary explanation. If self-catalyzation occurs, once a hydrino reaction is started, it should cause an explosion of subnuclear force, and a truly remarkable spectrum should be observed. Yet no such explosion has happened in either Mills' experiments or those of other people dealing with hydrogen plasmas. All this is negative evidence of course - but absence of evidence when it should be there, is evidence of absence.

    MC: Here Nora fails to correctly apply the information Mills has published on hydrinos and their reactions. She, and others, have failed to understand that the 'rt' reactions occur only with isolated hydrinos, as with H atoms, and not with hydrino hydries or hydrino molecules. She also fails to understand that as far as hydrino-hydrino reactions are concerned, one has to go to a higher state as another goes to a lower state, so a runaway chain reaction does not occur. So her assumptiohns about evidence of big explosions are based on misunderstanding of what Mills has said.

    NB: I note that as in past posts you do not argue the math or the physics. You appear to accept the experimental results without qualification. You mainly attack the person, not the science. I think what you want here basically is that I just shut up about the theory and go away. I saw a posting in sci.physics a few months ago which said that the HSG is essentially a 'Bible study group' dominated mainly by believers in Mills.

    MC: And did the poster on sci. physics actually study Mills' work? Especially the experiments?

    NB: If that is what you want - no dissent, no questioning, no discussion - fine, say so and be done with it. I however am not agreeing to comply.

    MC: Nor will I cease inviting you to look at the experiments for yourself, not other's opinions.

    NB: I am not, incidentally, unduly impressed by the fact that Mills has given invited presentations to groups at universities in Europe. It is a little mysterious why he has not done that at Princeton or other major universities near Cranbury, NJ. I am not saying that Leyden University is not comparable to Princeton or anything of the kind; that is not the point. The point is, hearing that he has given talks, even that they were well-received, does not convince that he is right and I and other skeptics are wrong. To do that, all Mills (or his supporters) have to do is come up with some valid rigorous mathematics or some well- replicated experiments.

    MC: "Well replicated experiments" is a straw man. What has been done and published as reports and papers would be quite acceptable if it were not "Mills" and his audacious theory.

    MC: What is going on is "due diligence" by prospective partners with BLP. That means Mills has to address panels of competent physicists selected by X and answer their questions so that they can be saisfied and give recommendations to X. Technical staff of X must replicate at least some of the Mills experiments in their own lab, with or without the help of BLP staff, and report to X that the phenomena are real can can be used as the basis for a serious R&D effort to produce commercial product. Mills must show evidence that he can show the way to scaling up the effect and design commercial versions of reactors. X may ask for outeside opinions and very likely make lurk on this and other forums to see what is going on, so Nora's concerns will filter in to be weighed against the experimetnal evidence and the opinions of other consultants.

    MC: In this real world, as opposed to academic, engagement, the issue of Mills and experiments is the inverse of the acadmeic straw man mind set of HSG critics. If the board and CEO of X are to invest $$$$$ in developing BLP technology, they must have full confidence that Mills and BLP can and will give then the technical strength to carry through to a product that can be realiably manufactured in quantity, and can defend patents.

    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: 3
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "BLP, the struggle for legitimacy" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: BLP, the struggle for legitimacy (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Sunday, March 13, 2005 @ 19:51:59 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    From: "avisho"
    Subject: relative mass ratios


    Hi,

    What do people here at the list think about the astonishing formulas connecting alpha (fine structure constant) to ratios between masses of fundamental particles. (look at slide 164 on http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/TheoryPresentation030905.pdf). I got the latest experimental values from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt , and calculated myself using Mills formulas. Here are the results: alpha used is : 7.297352568e-3 ,

    M(muon)/M(electron):
    Mills Formula: 206.7682796957039
    Experimental : 206.7682838 with an error of 0.0000054
    so here the result is exact up to the experimental error.

    M(tau)/M(muon) :
    Mills Formula: 16.81675574104293
    Experimental : 16.8183 with an error of 0.0027
    so here again the result is exact up to the experimental error.

    M(neutron)/M(electron)
    Mills Formula: 1838.674148752293
    Experimental : 1838.6836598 with an error of 0.0000013
    Here the numbers are very close, but the result is not exact up to the experimental error (difference of ~0.01 too large for error of 0.0000013)

    I have to say I'm quite amazed to see such formulas really work. As far as I know no one ever connected in such a simple formula the fine structure constant to masses of fundamental particles. Getting the exact ratios for muon/electron mass and tau/muon mass is quite amazing. If his theory produced such a formula that gives such an exact number it must mean that something in his theory works. I'm not saying all what Dr. Mills says is correct (that is probably not so - even here the neutron/electron mass should have been more accurate) - BUT in a way these formulas provide a "zero knowledge" indication that there are some things that are correct in his ideas. How can we explain the fact that these simple formulas connecting such basic constants in physics where not known before???...

    I'm quite a skeptic guy usually, and I'm still very very skeptic about Dr. Mills theory and experimental data (why didn't any independent lab repeat it already?...). However I must say that he certainly looks different than a usual hoax guy, and gives the impression of someone who really does science. I'm starting to think that maybe he did discover some new way of looking at physics. Getting such formulas randomly is just impossible.

    Any comments?

    Have a nice day

    Avi



    Re: BLP, the struggle for legitimacy (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, March 14, 2005 @ 05:47:12 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    There are essentially four types of dichotomy in the art of discovery and technological development but only one can lead to legitimation and acceptance, and that is the process that leads to repeatability.

    1. Bad experiment, bad theory...keep working but go nowhere
    2. Bad experiment, good theory...keep working and eventually get good results, problem is you'll get old and die or lose your funding before you get there.
    3. Good experiment, bad theory...good results, but because your theory is flawed, you don't know exactly what is going on and your repeatability is below any standard of being reliable.
    4. Good experiment, good theory... managing to box in all the variables and no loose ends, it at least gets you published in the legitimate scientific journals and if what you have works, you've created some added value.

    I would have to characterise most of what I see in FE/OU as being in categories 1 through 3, hopefully with most of you approaching category 3.

    I place category 3 people in the same position as the Medieval Alchemists. They did a lot of experiments, they discovered a lot of interesting things, but their paradigms were far from the mark, it took Mendeleev to put all their work into one consistant framework, and that happened way after Alchemy was discredited and a dead Art.

    Getting to Number 4. Good experiment, good theory requires stepping back and looking at the whole of the problem and seeing all the variables. Sometimes with an exciting development, we are too close to be objective.



     

    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.