BLP update

Hope and persistence are two of the currencies of societies innovation and growth. If cutting edge researchers and movers dropped the ball every time a sceptic raises a point we would still see candles and campfires as the hight of civilization. Somethings gotta be happening here, especially within the well funded companies that have good reason not to release all the information at the moment. It will be released hopefully and praying the pressure catches us by surprise in it's suddeness.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You should not engage in discussion with simple minded people that only know right & wrong. The question always is the same: Where are the limits of a model. Is a QM/QED derived hamiltonian with 7th order terms with fantasy gauging still QM/QED/QCD or a desperate try to rescue it? You have to understand that 100000 physicists did work for more than 90 years now and they still cannot calculate anything based on a first order measurement as being the mass of e,p,n or an isotope or the electron g-factor or the magnetic moments of e,p (n). All these quantities are known with 10 digits precision and destroy any QM/QED/QFT formula for dense matter that tries to relate them.

Mills biggest achievement is the electron g-factor something impossible to do with QM.

The QED/QFT fraudster tried to derived it from 20000 Feynman loops all handcrafted gauged underlaid with a pseudo infinite sequence to avoid rounding errors...

I need not to mention here that "some" weights they used for their loops are pretty unknown as they are measurement based with less than 3 digit precision...

Bankers that did the same have names like Madoff...

But many things of Mills e.g. hydrogen spectrum are based on the same math as QM uses - of course QM needs to use Maxwell (3D waves) too...Other things like Mills electron model (disk..) are not very helpful (missing 4D) or the 4-He model contains some tiny cheats like the wrong reduced mass. I could give a long list of minor problems that compared to the basic failure of QM not being able to make first order derivations are small.

Nevertheless: If I had to model an "electron gas" in a conductor, transistor etc, then I would use QM because it is a good model for tiny perturbations. It's never a question of right or wrong. The question is: What is adequate?

Mills certainly is brilliant but sometimes brilliant people make brilliant errors and are not able to concede them.

Display More

Morality (right and wrong) is a matter of a human's behavior, social responsibility as decision making as related to devine/spiritual perpose and a higher power. Not applying to theoretical physics! It's just a spectrum of accuracy!

sometimes brilliant people make brilliant errors and are not able to concede them.

Which is why papers in theoretical physics need to be published, reviewed, and critiqued by others who are independent.

Peer review is a not wholly reliable gatekeeper. But there are a lot of journals - a lot of conferences, of varying quality. Interesting work will always get exposure. And now anyone can publish on arxiv (if they expect a real publication) or vixra.

I don't btw view conference posters as real publications, but there are a good number of conferences that take and peer review papers (not abstracts) - much easier to get something new published that way than in a journal. Also you get to talk to people about it.

Conferences are open to anyone

Workshops are open to anyone: and a great way to talk to others https://www.ggi.infn.it/bee/application/submit?id=321

It is tough communicating seriously with others independent and competent to critique your work: they have their own ideas, and tend to see things differently. But if you don't, neither you, nor anyone else will ever know its merit.

For that reason, some people avoid it!

Scientific Censorship is endemic

Quote from THHuxleynew

Conferences are open to anyone

eg

1.Psychiatry.

2.Climate Change.

https://blogs.scientificameric…are-censoring-themselves/

of course PHYSICISTS are superhumans from Krypton

and are immune to scientific censorship.

Quote

Mills certainly is brilliant but sometimes brilliant people make brilliant errors and are not able to concede them

I'm wondering, what Dr. Mills would do with his elaborated patents referring to hydrino™ in every claim, once it turns out not to be quite there..

He can always redefine the hydrino in the light of new research/evidence - a dense form of H, maybe so dense (140 Kg/cm>3) it won't even allow neutrinos or antineutrinos safe passage?

Quote from RobertBryant

Scientific Censorship is endemic

eg

1.Psychiatry.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

2.Climate Change.

https://blogs.scientificameric…are-censoring-themselves/

of course PHYSICISTS are superhumans from Krypton

and are immune to scientific censorship.

Display More

Two bad examples:

psychiatry - is medicine, and not science (maybe neurobiology will eventually allow this).

climate science - is censored by anti-science politicians, in the US. Sure, but political censorship is rare in the West. And only applies to government employees, not university academics. Are you seriously claiming that Trump cares two hoots about which GUT is right?

Quote from THHuxleynew

is medicine, and not science

2ist century medicine is not science... classic THHnew..

so the half million or so research scientists in medicine are not scientists?

there are no hypotheses or experimental method in medicine?

scientific (unscientific ?) censorship is widespread and documented.

Randell Mills is invisible in academia..

"little science" still prevailed until World War II. Since then, though, science has been "industrialised":

it is characteristically done by teams using expensive apparatus. This requires substantial funding,

which comes primarily from governments (including militaries) and large corporations.

The groups with the greatest stake in this contemporary system are governments and corporations

, naturally enough, plus elite scientists whose influence depends on satisfying their patrons,

maintaining the flow of funds and protecting their reputations.

Anyone who challenges these interest groups is a potential target for censorship or reprisal.

https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01cescience.html

Prior to 2011 the nuclear village in Japan

exerted pressure at many levels social, political, scientific to maintain a status quo and a flow of yen

This nuclear village attitude was weakened by a tsunami..but it is still there....and it is not only in Japan

"This modern version of the traditional practice of murahachibu (village exclusion) has been the stick,

while access to vast resources and corridors of power are the carrot.

Researchers who don’t support the Village consensus on the need, safety, reliability and economic logic of nuclear power

don’t get grants and are denied promotions "

https://apjjf.org/2012/10/37/Jeff-Kingston/3822/article.html

Quote

Of all those companies, BLP has by far been the most transparent, and looks to have a sophisticated, powerful, albeit hard to contain prototype. There has been nothing like it in LENR's 30 years that I know of. Sure, there have been some impressive looking concept drawings/models, but those just represent hopes and dreams, where the Suncell is real, working, and being tested.

Suncell real? Sure. Working? What do you mean by that? It makes heat and light when you put lots of current through it. So does a crowbar. Tested? By whom other than Mills, his group and paid for and incomprehensible work by Rowan?

Quote

Why then, after all that, the many validations, and video testimony they still struggle to find a partner with the expertise, and financial depth to bring this technology to fruition baffles me as much as it does others. Just the one independent replication by the ARA (Applied Research Associates) alone, should have had the investors, and companies lined up at the door begging BLP to take their money. or partner up.

Because investors other than those with him for a long time, don't believe Mills' claims.

Quote

The skeptic's have the easy answer; they have nothing, and this is a scam. I just do not buy that. Yes, it is possible, and if Mills were a one man show, I would have joined them by now. But they do have a team of approx 12 scientists/engineers, along with the other 12-13 employees. Hard to get that many to go along with a product fraud. Maybe for a short time, but not this long. Someone would have cracked by now, and spilled the beans. These are not a group of thugs recruited from the street, but highly educated, motivated people making it that much harder.

A while back, I worked with a company which had government contracts for biophysical research aimed at simulating spaceflight conditions, including "zero gravity" on the ground. Most of the scientists working on this project thought (but were not certain) that it was mostly fanciful. But there was enough real work of value around it that it did not seem like an outright fraud and there was some small chance it would work (it mostly didn't). The scientists made a salary working at this. Each of their individual assigned tasks was not unreasonable. So nobody complained to the funding agencies. Nobody wanted to get fired. I suspect this is what is going on for those at BLP who do believe Mills but I suspect some of the scientists do believe him. That doesn't mean he is right and the Suncell really does anything anomalous.

Quote from Shane D.

They are considering releasing a more detailed paper on the water bath Suncell experiment, along with taking other steps that would better showcase their prototype. If so, it probably won't silence the most vocal critics, but would be convincing to those watching it in operation, or reading the data. Those who want to see, will see there are no gimmicks.

The whole Suncell system is inherently difficult to validate - a gimmick by nature. It will be interesting to see how much they try to validate it but had the bombproof method they would be somewhere different with acclaim from the likes of NASA, so I do notr hold out much hope.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The scientists made a salary working at this. Each of their individual assigned tasks was not unreasonable. So nobody complained to the funding agencies. Nobody wanted to get fired. I suspect this is what is going on for those at BLP who do believe Mills but I suspect some of the scientists do believe him. That doesn't mean he is right and the Suncell really does anything anomalous.

There are larger companies doing the same: CERN invented the quark for funding reasons and then it needed a model to find more quarks and 1000's of underwriters ($$$ fun live $$$) do confirm oh yes quarks are particles. The show goes on but the invention of the Higgs had a flew... There were two and only one was predicted and it was off by a factor of 3 at least - to be honest it was off by more than factor of 20 as LEP was built for much, much higher energies to find hick-up particle...

Dear SOT: Why do you not devote some time for debunking the big, true physics SUN & fun mafia (CERN,ITER,...) that sucks the most research money we could use for real & useful research ?

Randy is an unlucky and may be untalented engineer but not a cheater as his process shows a clear COP >>1.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Tested? By whom other than Mills, his group and paid for and incomprehensible work by Rowan?

Some people find high-level physics papers to be 'incomprehensible'. Others find a simple email chain to be equally incomprehensible... Apparently.

One can only imagine how that Venn diagram plays out...

“Obviously you have little faith there is anyone competent in all of LENR. Even doing such a simple measurement as a water bath test is beyond their capability. Suit yourself, but I am of a different opinion, and believe the LENR field is full of capable researchers...Mills and team being a good example.”

Mills is a good example of what? This strikes me as another case of members of the LENR community embracing a wide range of fringe science claims as being examples of LENR even when the claimants don’t make that association. Regardless of what may or may not be true about LENR, I strongly doubt that every proposed new energy source is based on it. Of course, you can take Director’s tact and declare that everything including LENR can be explained by his own pet scientific epiphany.

Quote

Dear SOT: Why do you not devote some time for debunking the big, true physics SUN & fun mafia (CERN,ITER,...) that sucks the most research money we could use for real & useful research

I am not sure what I would debunk in large physics projects. They pretty much do what they claim and it mostly makes sense. Yes they have huge budgets and they take too long. But they move forward, clearly. Most LENR projects do not. The obvious exception would be Mizuno but I guess it will be some time before we can expect replication (as per JR).

Quote from seven_of_twenty

They pretty much do what they claim and it mostly makes sense.

ITER and CERN might have done at the start

but after 12, 30 years many large organisations which are publically financed become fossilised

and self justifying.

ITER is the way the truth and the light but its workings are not so clear.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

I am not sure what I would debunk in large physics projects. They pretty much do what they claim and it mostly makes sense.

This only tells us that you have absolutely no clue what the CERN/ITER guys do and you do believe everything what they tell.

As said: CERN invented the quark particle (to get more funding) !

CERN never measured a single up quark particle as it in fact has no known mass and they freely communicate that they never could separate the two belied up- quarks. Quarks were the root of a complete nonsensical development of a nonsensical model based on a criminal invention = fake-news - called up quark particle.