BLP news

[GIThruster]

the process is still UNREPEATABLE

I really don't want to dignify the above nonsense with a reply but in the event some innocent lurker might take such silly statements at face value, I will remind that Rowan University has run these reactors for many months, generating fantastic quanitites of detailed information, with reactants they purchased themselves. There was and is no opportunity here to believe BLP had somehow snuck in a black box. Rowan did the experiments.

Likewise with this new experiment--it is obscene that trolls in this forum think they have some intellectual duty to essentially call people they don't know liars, because they don't like what those people found. When you cast objections in the form that "it's not really an independent experiment because. . ." what you are doing is saying you doubt the veracity of the reporter. Obviously, this kind of emotional disease is the product of circular reasoning and a self fulfilling prophecy. Research labs don't work for free. If you want to see a replication done, someone has to pay for it. Simply because the money comes from those who have an interest to see the work validated, does not impugn the character of those doing the work.

And honestly, I don't owe anyone the same tired explanations of how these sorts of objections fail miserably. They're just grade school errors anyone of intelligence ought to be able to see through. Not worth any more of my time.

[chrismb]

And honestly, I don't owe anyone the same tired explanations of how these sorts of objections fail miserably. They're just grade school errors anyone of intelligence ought to be able to see through. Not worth any more of my time.

When has it ever been explained to me why there is some 'miserable failure' of experimental objective with determining the presence of hydrino gas by trying to burn it?

The best tests of proof are the simplest.

Why complicate it by running NMR measurements and calorimetry at the limits of detectability when all you have to do is put a lighted splint in it?

[GIThruster]

Well I'm sure I don't know, Chris. I'm not a chemist. Why are you pretending to be? Why is it not enough to simply take these chemists at their word, that this is the proper way to do the experiment, and if you have objections, send them to the chemists?

I certainly have more reason to trust those who did the work, wrote the papers and put their names and reputations on, much more than someone like you, who are not a chemist.

[D Tibbets]

I'm not a chemist per say, but I do have a minor in chemisty. Provided there is enough bulk of this hydrino substance, then what Chrismb suggested is both simple and profound. If you can collect 'hydrinos', demonstrate that they are more buoyant than helium, and yet nonflammable in an oxygen environment (air) then there is absolutely nothing else that could give this result, with some caveats -if I you could obtain some helium 3, it is probably is more buoyant than run of the mill helium 4 . A better test would be to test the hydrino gas with hydrogen gas. They should have the same buoyancy but one would be nonflammable. Also, of course you have to make sure both balloons are at the same temperature. Keeping both balloons in the same room for a few minutes should suffice.

And, speaking of chemistry, hydrogen molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms. The single electron in the 1s orbital is not the lowest energy state for a population of hydrogen atoms (more than one). If another hydrogen atom is available, they will tend to share the two electrons, thus forming molecular hydrogen. In that sense, if you start with two hydrogen atoms and combine them, you will get some energy/ heat out of it. I don't know what the magnitude of energy this represents, without looking it up, but it is simple chemistry (or physical chemistry if you prefer).

Dan Tibbets

[Nik]

As I said, they should have buckets of it by now: Where are the papers on its many anomalous properties ??

Don't need much for GC/MS. Don't need much in an otherwise empty gas-discharge tube for spectrum. Don't need much to establish gas-law stuff...

[GIThruster]

If you can collect 'hydrinos'

Could well be this is the issue. IIRC, they have collected the hydrino compounds, but not the gas. The reaction process used in the experiment above is not a gas, but a plasma. Not something you can put in a balloon.

Honestly, if you did a minor in chemistry, aren't you comfortable with the analysis process they've used to date? I had a couple years of chem in high school and a couple more in college, and I was pretty impressed with the method as far as I understood it.

As to this balloon test, there are lots of things we don't know, which is why I think it's best to withhold judgement except to expect the chemists know what they're doing. What don't we know? Do hydrinoes pass through stainless steel because they're so small? Are they like normal hydrogen, diatomic? If they're not, they would not necessarily float, now would they?

I dunno, which is why I keep reminding myself, I'm not a chemist. I do suspect however, if there were such an easy test, BLP would have used it a decade ago.

[chrismb]

IIRC, they have collected the hydrino compounds, but not the gas. The reaction process used in the experiment above is not a gas, but a plasma. Not something you can put in a balloon.

Moreover, molecular hydrino gas and novel hydrogen compounds with potential commercial applications are the by-products.

What don't we know? Do hydrinoes pass through stainless steel because they're so small?

The opportunity may exist with BlackLight Technology to replace a FEL that occupies the size of a large building with a table-top laser comprising a laser tube containing dihydrino gas that is excited by a standard electron beam.

Are they like normal hydrogen, diatomic? If they're not, they would not necessarily float, now would they?

The [molecular hydrino gas] is very stable and self-vents from the atmosphere to space due to its high buoyancy and mobility.

[Maui]

Research labs don't work for free. If you want to see a replication done, someone has to pay for it. Simply because the money comes from those who have an interest to see the work validated, does not impugn the character of those doing the work.

I'm not a part of the scientific community, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a multitude of universities willing to replicate BLPs claims for the sake of research, not $, if allowed to independently control all elements of the experiment.

It is ridiculous to claim that because BLP paid for it, it does not impugn the results. That, my friend, is a classic conflict of interest. If GEN3 were to disprove BLP's claim, what are the chances BLP would bring GEN3 further business? Sure there are plenty of uses for paid research, but proof of a controversial theory to the scientific community is not one of them.

I haven't read the papers (and wouldn't understand them if I did), but knowledgeable people have consistently been criticizing BLP for not allowing those validating their claims to actually be in control of all elements of the experiment. I suspect this case is no different.

Finally, I have read that that previous experiments performed by Rowan that supposedly confirm BLP's theory have later been contradicted. I admit I am just going off of Googling here, but since you say that we are not allowed to question the "veracity of the reporter", what are we to do when two different reporters report contradictory results?

[Maui]

Actually, one more thing-- why is BLP even wasting time with this?

2 years ago Mills said they had working models in the lab and were ready to commercialize. "Within the next two years, we're going to grow to 500, maybe 1,000 employees."

If they have the technology to generate that kind of money, why on earth would you not simply go do it instead of piddling around trying to prove to through paid research that it was possible?

[GIThruster]

It should not be hard to believe that universities will not get involved in the BLP controversy. Universities typically do all their research funded through the National Science Foundation, and it would be risky even to file for such a grant. In the case of Rowan, BLP paid for the research themselves in order to have an objective view of their work.

No university professor, and no private research lab, would even consider fudging results to suit BLP as this would utterly destroy their reputation.

I'm not saying you have no right to question veracity. I'm saying the principle of charity applies in science--you presume the best of people until you see evidence of fraud. There is no such evidence at BLP, Rowan or this private lab and until there is, it is indeed wrong to impugn their character.

I'm not sure what you read about Rowan's results being overturned, but I have been in contact with Dr. Peter Jansson over at Rowan, and he certainly did not mention this. Rowan has had an open invitation for anyone interested to view their setup and lend any criticism they like. I seriously doubt Rowan's results have been overturned, but I'm certainly willing to look at any claims to this affect.

As to the separate claim that "knowledgeable people have consistently been criticizing BLP for not allowing those validating their claims to actually be in control of all elements of the experiment", I find that extremely difficult to believe. Places like EarthTech did their own replication many years ago with no supervision or insight whatsoever, so whence comes this claim?

[GIThruster]

IIRC, they have collected the hydrino compounds, but not the gas. The reaction process used in the experiment above is not a gas, but a plasma. Not something you can put in a balloon.

Moreover, molecular hydrino gas and novel hydrogen compounds with potential commercial applications are the by-products.

What don't we know? Do hydrinoes pass through stainless steel because they're so small?

The opportunity may exist with BlackLight Technology to replace a FEL that occupies the size of a large building with a table-top laser comprising a laser tube containing dihydrino gas that is excited by a standard electron beam.

Are they like normal hydrogen, diatomic? If they're not, they would not necessarily float, now would they?

The [molecular hydrino gas] is very stable and self-vents from the atmosphere to space due to its high buoyancy and mobility.

Points well made, Chris. Why don't you write up a few paragraphs and either send them over to Rowan or to me, and I'll forward them for you. You're making an interesting argument I'd like to see an answer to.

[GIThruster]

Actually, one more thing-- why is BLP even wasting time with this?

2 years ago Mills said they had working models in the lab and were ready to commercialize. "Within the next two years, we're going to grow to 500, maybe 1,000 employees."

If they have the technology to generate that kind of money, why on earth would you not simply go do it instead of piddling around trying to prove to through paid research that it was possible?

I don't have an answer except to say it appears Mills was wrong about his prediction of the future. People get timelines like this wrong all the time. That's not evidence of fraud; it's evidence of human nature.

[Maui]

Actually, one more thing-- why is BLP even wasting time with this?

2 years ago Mills said they had working models in the lab and were ready to commercialize. "Within the next two years, we're going to grow to 500, maybe 1,000 employees."

If they have the technology to generate that kind of money, why on earth would you not simply go do it instead of piddling around trying to prove to through paid research that it was possible?

I don't have an answer except to say it appears Mills was wrong about his prediction of the future. People get timelines like this wrong all the time. That's not evidence of fraud; it's evidence of human nature.

I guess my point was not that the timeline was wrong, but that if you had working models there should be no benefit to funding quasi-independent verification. I can understand such research being necessary to get you to the point where you can produce working models, but once you have working models, no science is required to advance the business. Instead of showing research to a prospective investor, give them a unit.

In fact, I would think if they were at the point they claimed to be 2 years ago, they wouldn't <b>want</b> to be producing such research. Wouldn't they want to be keeping this on the down-low?

[GIThruster]

The situation is very different than you imagine. BLP hasn't been accepting any investment for years. Rather, they're selling licenses, both here in the States and in Europe.

I can't pretend to know how Mills makes these decisions, but I can reflect back on the work at Rowan. Originally, several profs at Rowan took an interest and successfully landed a NIAC grant in order to build a pair of BLP thrusters. The NIAC final report for that was issued way back, was it 2002? Not sure but if you look back in this thread you'll probably find it.

IMHO, it was probably result of this that BLP chose to fund a replication at Rowan. They had already made themselves an exception to the rule by daring to hope in a thruster.

BTW, both thrusters worked. They were not able to measure the thrust, and I believe (but cannot confirm) that project got phase 2 funding from DARPA. There is nothing published about it on the web, and I have never asked Dr. Jansson about it because if indeed the rumor about a DARPA follow on is true, and it is not on the web, it is classified--so if Peter were to tell me, he'd then have to kill me.

[Maui]

The situation is very different than you imagine. BLP hasn't been accepting any investment for years. Rather, they're selling licenses, both here in the States and in Europe.

Actually, that's exactly the situation I was referring to. If they are already able to make money on the product, why are they spending money trying to prove they can do it to the public? This is like GM funding studies to prove an electric car can be built.