ZPEnergy.com - What is happening at BLP?

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