BLP news

[rcain]

agreed. my understanding is that patents must show that something is 'workable' - that is 'it can be built'. i think there is less onus to prove that what is built is capable of 'performing' as expected, but as Chris says, if it can be shown that an invention 'cannot' perform, then a patent would not generally be granted (as here by the look of it).

but anyway, as pointed out, the patent is rather beside the point. we are simply requiring some 'indisputable', independent corrobatory evidence.

[GIThruster]

You can't patent an idea but there are lots of patents granted for things that cannot work. For example, there are all sorts of perpetual motion machines that have been granted patents over the decades. IIRC, there's even a pretty funny book that goes into great detail with all the drawings and the histories of the inventors of these.

The only really useful thing to learn about a subject such as BLP from their patents is that they've invested the time and money to make all those applications. This isn't Steorn or some magnetic motor company that filed for one or two patents. Mills may be wrong, but he is honest. He's not a charlatan.

[chrismb]

You can't patent an idea but there are lots of patents granted for things that cannot work.

You cannot patent something that you can't convince an examiner will work. That is the subjective part of it. You might get something non-functional past an examiner, if they think you've demonstrated a prima facie case of its likelihood of working

In this case, the examiner gave a rigorous analysis of the very basis of Dr Mills' claims and found it in error. Dr Mills gave only a prima facie demonstration of viability, with Rowan's experiments, but the examiner rebuffed those prima facie claims with a rigorous analysis, and Dr Mills declined to traverse that analysis even though he had the opportunity to do so.

Are you saying the examiner's analysis is in error, and if so, i) where is the error, ii) why did Dr Mills not rebuf it himself?

[Giorgio]

Lets see your "proof"?

Other posters already beated me to that, the Rabbet Run has all the info you need to justify the extra heat.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/some ... -well.html


But let me quote yourself from another thread:

What you need to be asking is, "how do I demonstrate what I have works?"

If this is the way you think, than why this should not be valid for BLP too?

[GIThruster]

So Giorgio, what you call "proof" is someone else's word that nickel can explain the energy, despite that the chemists who did the experiment and who know what the chemicals are made of, have repeatedly said there is no known chemical reaction that can account for the energy. In effect, you take the word of the ignorant over the word of the informed because it suits you, and you call that "proof"?

I don't think so. I understand if you have an emotional need to protect the status quo, but lets not be so insulting as to call something so irrational, "proof".

[GIThruster]

You can't patent an idea but there are lots of patents granted for things that cannot work.

You cannot patent something that you can't convince an examiner will work. That is the subjective part of it. You might get something non-functional past an examiner, if they think you've demonstrated a prima facie case of its likelihood of working

In this case, the examiner gave a rigorous analysis of the very basis of Dr Mills' claims and found it in error. Dr Mills gave only a prima facie demonstration of viability, with Rowan's experiments, but the examiner rebuffed those prima facie claims with a rigorous analysis, and Dr Mills declined to traverse that analysis even though he had the opportunity to do so.

Are you saying the examiner's analysis is in error, and if so, i) where is the error, ii) why did Dr Mills not rebuf it himself?

I'm not saying anything. You're not making a cogent argument because of all manner of critical reference failure. If you think you have an argument, then make it. For the USPTO to issue a patent, the invention must be novel, non-obvious, and "useful." The standard for usefulness is certainly the weakest of the three--any possible utility, no matter how small, will suffice. And, useful does not necessarily mean commercially viable. In other words, you can get a patent on some crazy things that will never make it to the shelves of your local store. Useful does entail that the item work, however; so patents on things that cannot work are really pushing the issue.

Is that what you meant to say? A a patent examiner turned down a patent because he/she decided that it would not work, based entirely on a conventional understanding of chemistry?

[chrismb]

So, where is the error in the examiner's equations, and why was no objection raised against the examiner's analysis?

[Nik]

I've been following this thread from time to time, wondering if there was any validity to BLP's notion of a 'lower quantum state' {my words} for hydrogen.

As I understand it, common or garden hydrogen is 'collapsed' using a proprietary BLP catalyst, issuing lots of energy. The 'collapsed' hydrogen behaves unlike the usual stuff, is more like a noble gas, and is meta-stable enough to be stored easily...

I can't seem to find any explanation of how it gets back to 'normal' hydrogen, though there's a heap of guff on the search engines...

Okay, if the process can be catalysed, there must be lots around naturally. Are we talking 'Dark Matter' here ??

FWIW, I did just enough nuclear & radiochemistry to be very, very skeptical about BLP's claims. I've seen too many schemes that turned out to use 'consumable' catalysts or simply bad science to accept the BLP line as-is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simple, irrefutable proofs they could so easily provide seem to be lacking. This lack begs the question of what they're trying to achieve.

I am especially wary of pilot plants that are only run briefly, as these may conceal a multitude of sins...

[Giorgio]

So Giorgio, what you call "proof" is someone else's word that nickel can explain the energy, despite that the chemists who did the experiment and who know what the chemicals are made of, have repeatedly said there is no known chemical reaction that can account for the energy. In effect, you take the word of the ignorant over the word of the informed because it suits you, and you call that "proof"?

I don't think so. I understand if you have an emotional need to protect the status quo, but lets not be so insulting as to call something so irrational, "proof".

Well, I actually see it quite differently.

I see grad and post grad chemistry students of a single university claiming they have found validating evidences in BPL technology during experiments "financed" by BPL itself.
And I see an university professor giving a clear and logical explanation of what might actually be happening.

I said it before, we can disgress about this forever, but to convince me they will have to bring me a working proof, not a "sponsored" proof.

It takes 25K to build a working model with off the shelves component and all the energy companies will be at their feet. Is that something so irrational to ask from a company after their 20 years of claims, endless postponement of their technology and tens of millions of dollars spent in research?

I do not think so.

I understand if you have an emotional need to protect the status quo, but lets not be so insulting as to call something so irrational, "proof".

That made me laugh, classical example of someone not having any argument and resorting to bashing just to change the focus of the discussion from the main issue.
So, for the sake of an intelligent discussion, let me refocus you on the main issue of the discussion:

What you need to be asking is, "how do I demonstrate what I have works?"

If this is the way you think, than why this should not be valid for BLP too?

[GIThruster]

That's what I thought, Giorgio. You don't actually have anything like "proof" and when faced with the facts, like the study at Rowan, you simply cast the facts in doubt. You basically ignore them and say they're not sure enough to suit you. But lets be plain, it is you who have refused to accept the facts. Your method is like so many others, to cast doubt on the people doing the research--just one University, just one team, it was really grad students etc.

You hold your position not because of, but in spite of the evidence presented.

So we're done. Lets not talk about this anymore.

[Betruger]

I don't think that's Giorgio's method or intention.

[Giorgio]

GIthruster, the point you keep missing is that also you do not have any other proof except for the BPL words and a couple of "experiment" financed by BPL itself.
No one with some grain of salt in his mind can blindly consider these as a final proof that BPL is right. You seem a logic person and should clearly understand this point.

Their extraordinary claims need a real working proof. You can't argue on this.

But if you want argue that they do not need one, than please explain why they shouldn't need it.
It's three posts now that I would like you to develop this concept.

[GIThruster]

What you need to be asking is, "how do I demonstrate what I have works?"

If this is the way you think, than why this should not be valid for BLP too?

This is the second time you've asked so I suppose I ought to answer.

I think running a reactor daily at a major university in front of hundreds of engineering students, doing a careful interdisciplinary analysis including the calorimetry engineering and chemical analysis, is about as good a demonstration as one could have. Turning the heat generated into electricity is irrelevant, distracting, expensive and does not come to the issue of determining whether there is net energy production. Anyone who requires a step like this, is not familiar with the process of science, nor the act of experiment. Furthermore, this requirement does not come to the issue of the facts you dispute--whether there's a chemical reaction that can account for the heat generated, so your requirement is not even internally consistent with your position.

Seems you'll believe whatever you like, which is precisely why I said, your belief is predicated upon emotional predisposition and quite in spite of the facts.

[GIThruster]

GIthruster, the point you keep missing is that also you do not have any other proof except for the BPL words and a couple of "experiment" financed by BPL itself.
No one with some grain of salt in his mind can blindly consider these as a final proof that BPL is right. You seem a logic person and should clearly understand this point.

Their extraordinary claims need a real working proof. You can't argue on this.

But if you want argue that they do not need one, than please explain why they shouldn't need it.
It's three posts now that I would like you to develop this concept.

Giorgio, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. If you understood how science works, you'd know this. I think we have nothing else to discuss.

[chrismb]

So, where is the error in the examiner's equations, and why was no objection raised against the examiner's analysis?