BLP update

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    criminal invention = fake-news - called up quark particle.

    Quite a strong statement towards thousands of physisists who do their jobs and whose research is based on the currently accepted model by mainstream phyiscs (I do not claim at all that model is right nor complete, but since there is no other widely accepted theory that currently matches most or all of the experiments better out there), strong also towards the Nobel prize winners and the commitee in the past years and decades. Not nobel....


    I personally would love to see you as the probaly only one (that I know of) that has a really new exciting approach stand up and fight for your new theory and model in every instance, conference and journal, in order to push this new physics forward into the brains of the physisists out there, instead of all-day long repeating your contemptuously opinion on those "poor" researchers. It is somehow annoying to read this everyday a few times - just my 2cts.

    “You are taking liberties with what I said”


    And Shane, you are taking liberties with what I said. My whole point is that it is a leap to use Mills as an example in a discussion of the competence of LENR researchers. The leap is not whether Mills is a competent researcher. The leap is not whether LENR is real or whether hydrino theory is valid. The leap is that Mills is an LENR researcher. I don’t think he considers himself to be one, and only the LENR community calls him one for the reasons I stated. This has nothIng whatsoever to do with being open-minded or being skeptical. It is just a version of the old adage about giving a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Show potential new physics and it must be LENR.

    Quote from Max Nozin

    zorud do you approve medieval witch hunt? Thousands of respectful and educated people ....

    I do not approve anything. I like his theory to use new theoretical approaches and to explain unanswered or wrong answered questions or other lacks of the SM. But I don't like his attitude of I-know-it-all-better and his "all CERN physists are part of a criminal fake invention" opinion.

    • Official Post
    Quote from interested observer

    Show potential new physics and it must be LENR.


    I think that is a gross generalisation. I can think of very few members of the working LENR world who would agree with that view. The opinions of some modest fraction of our membership should not be taken as representative of the whole field. any more than your opinions are representative of those of most members of this forum.

    Alan, no gross generalization was intended. When I said “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”, I did not mean to imply that most members of the community did this. I should have said “some members...”, which I assume you would agree with.


    The truth is that it is quite difficult to determine what views most members of the forum hold. We mostly hear from a relatively small number and their views may or may not be representative of the majority or even of a significant minority. In any case, I will be more careful in describing views held by others as being held only by some others in recognition of that fact.

    • Official Post

    On the topic of publication of the theory of Wyttenbach this issue has been raised before. I think the main difficulty for publishing new ideas for anyone without a recognized or mainstream specialization, and that comes from a professionally different field, is that interdisciplinary theoretical work is often misunderstood and overlooked. A very known case is the plasma cosmology work of Hannes Alfvén, who was an electric engineer and that has never been widely adopted or properly understood by astrophysics, and that was regularly rejected by astrophysics journals while was accepted in plasma physics ones.


    I see Wyttenbach’s work as an interdisciplinary work that requires a very good understanding of both information theory (which Wyttenbach had due to his professional origin and specialization) and physics. He has also a great capacity of abstraction.

    He would probably have, as Hannes Alfvén did, better luck attempting to publish his work in an physics mathematics journal.


    Nevertheless it needs to be said he has been publishing his work in his Researchgate page, which is a modern venue of publication that is slowly getting more and more traction, as is much faster and much more widespread than the classic peer review, and also allows review from multiple parties from multiple disciplines.

    • Official Post
    Quote from interested observer

    “You are taking liberties with what I said”


    And Shane, you are taking liberties with what I said. My whole point is that it is a leap to use Mills as an example in a discussion of the competence of LENR researchers. The leap is not whether Mills is a competent researcher. The leap is not whether LENR is real or whether hydrino theory is valid. The leap is that Mills is an LENR researcher. I don’t think he considers himself to be one, and only the LENR community calls him one for the reasons I stated. This has nothIng whatsoever to do with being open-minded or being skeptical. It is just a version of the old adage about giving a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Show potential new physics and it must be LENR.


    I was not talking to you so much as using your post (sorry) to make a broad appeal, in an attempt to bring a little more balance to the forum between believers and skeptics. When we believers read too much into something, the skeps are there to bring us back down to earth. When the skeps start rejecting everything we say out of hand, we are there to redirect them back to being more objective. So in this case, when or if Mills starts this new proof of concept campaign, I believe everyone should have an open mind, and not let their preconceived BLP biases taint their assessment of what BLP does.


    As to BLP, and where they fit into the equation (LENR or something different), I think it is safe to lump them together. The BLP people tell me Mills does not identify with LENR, nor want to be associated with it in any way, but his early history reads like LENR to me. Keeps things simpler to do it this way, with the added benefit we can not be accused of chasing multiple fringe sciences. :)

    Quote from interested observer

    And Shane, you are taking liberties with what I said. My whole point is that it is a leap to use Mills as an example in a discussion of the competence of LENR researchers. The leap is not whether Mills is a competent researcher. The leap is not whether LENR is real or whether hydrino theory is valid. The leap is that Mills is an LENR researcher. I don’t think he considers himself to be one, and only the LENR community calls him one for the reasons I stated. This has nothIng whatsoever to do with being open-minded or being skeptical. It is just a version of the old adage about giving a man a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Show potential new physics and it must be LENR.


    Mills started with LENR and discovered strange resonances. He found a model that possibly could explain it. Physically the model is not well funded but there is one low state of the H-H system that also Santilli/Holmlid uses.

    H*-H* could be seen as a different process if you only do produce H*-H* . This process is also not very helpful for energy generation because the waste is not well researched --> currently a dead end. But H*-H* is the standard starting point for e.g. Ni-Li-H LENR and thus is a part of LENR.

    Quote from zorud

    Quite a strong statement towards thousands of physisists who do their jobs and whose research is based on the currently accepted model by mainstream phyiscs (I do not claim at all that model is right nor complete, but since there is no other widely accepted theory that currently matches most or all of the experiments better out there), strong also towards the Nobel prize winners and the commitee in the past years and decades. Not nobel....


    I completely agree: But they (CERN) tries to sell the quarks as particles, something normal people, that spend tax money, believe is something real not just the sound of a bang hitting your billion $ car...


    There is still the open question (to THH!) why the best of the best theories (QED/QFT/QCD) ... is not able to give any real value for the quark masses (up, down..) they claim to measure ...


    What is the perception of the best the best theories (QED/QFT/QCD) based on effectively unknown particles ...

    • Official Post
    Quote from Shane D.

    I was not talking to you so much as using your post (sorry) to make a broad appeal, in an attempt to bring a little more balance to the forum between believers and skeptics. When we believers read too much into something, the skeps are there to bring us back down to earth. When the skeps start rejecting everything we say out of hand, we are there to redirect them back to being more objective. So in this case, when or if Mills starts this new proof of concept campaign, I believe everyone should have an open mind, and not let their preconceived BLP biases taint their assessment of what BLP does.


    As to BLP, and where they fit into the equation (LENR or something different), I think it is safe to lump them together. The BLP people tell me Mills does not identify with LENR, nor want to be associated with it in any way, but his early history reads like LENR to me. Keeps things simpler to do it this way, with the added benefit we can not be accused of chasing multiple fringe sciences. :)

    I’d like to emphasize that LENR is by default an umbrella acronym, and many phenomena fall into the category precisely because anything that mainstream proposes that can only happen at high energies when matter is affected below the atomic level (aka nuclear) and is observed at lower energy levels, is de facto a LENR. So this includes Mills, Santilli, Plasmoids, the SAFIRE project, weird cavitation results, etc. Even neutron emissions by rock fractures is a Low energy nuclear effect, because it means a nucleus was affected.

    Quote from Curbina

    I’d like to emphasize that LENR is by default an umbrella acronym, and many phenomena fall into the category precisely because anything that mainstream proposes that can only happen at high energies when matter is affected below the atomic level (aka nuclear) and is observed at lower energy levels, is de facto a LENR.

    That seems like a quite astute observation and accounts for much of the ambiguity about the status of LENR in general.

    it seems THH has decided that will not be enough. He simply will not accept what they produce. Whatever it is will be DOA. That is not an open mind to me.


    I take issue with this reading. They have a system that is very difficult to measure. FACT. I've said that I expect them (HISTORY) not to deal with this. I've said that I will be interested if they do have bomb-proof calorimetry.


    I don't think they lie about tech stuff. They just work on systems that can easly be misinterpreted. Their demos have become harder to interpret as time has gone on.


    THH

    • Official Post

    Curbina wrote "I’d like to emphasize that LENR is by default an umbrella acronym, and many phenomena fall into the category precisely because anything that mainstream proposes that can only happen at high energies when matter is affected below the atomic level (aka nuclear) and is observed at lower energy levels, is de facto a LENR."


    Quote from interested observer

    That seems like a quite astute observation and accounts for much of the ambiguity about the status of LENR in general.


    Sounds like disambiguation to me. If a nuclear change happens only at high energy it isn't LENR, if it happens a low energy levels it is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction - simple.

    Quote from ShaneD

    it seems THH has decided that will not be enough. He simply will not accept what they produce. Whatever it is will be DOA. That is not an open mind to me.


    ...


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Sounds off to me. Low efficiencies mean very large cooling requirements, which cost. In any case a simple heater has very large market, so why complicate with other stuff till that exists?The answer, for BLP, is that PR is always needed to get funds, whereas working product has been postponed 26 years and I'll bet a large amount will be postponed another 5 (to give the bet a viable termination date). Of course it will be postponed forever.


    Of course it will be...

    ;)

    • Official Post
    Quote from Alan Smith

    Curbina wrote "I’d like to emphasize that LENR is by default an umbrella acronym, and many phenomena fall into the category precisely because anything that mainstream proposes that can only happen at high energies when matter is affected below the atomic level (aka nuclear) and is observed at lower energy levels, is de facto a LENR."



    Sounds like disambiguation to me. If a nuclear change happens only at high energy it isn't LENR, if it happens a low energy levels it is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction - simple.


    The Bottomline for me is that in the current paradigm nuclear reactions require a minimum energy threshold that is normally unnatainable without reaching a high temperature in the tens of millions of degrees, and cause release of energy and lethal radiations. Anything nuclear happening without reaching those high temperatures is therefore "low energy" and be it a plasma arc, a high velocity kinetic shock, a cavitation bubble, an electrolytic cell, a plasma discharge or a plasma contained in an electric field, etc, is "low energy", and it should not cause Nuclear rections, but we "nuts" here think that the people that say it happens are not lying nor deluded, and that this can happen without lethal radiations, and even tho these reactions can cause transmutation and also energy release.

    “Sounds like disambiguation to me. If a nuclear change happens only at high energy it isn't LENR, if it happens a low energy levels it is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction - simple.”


    What becomes ambiguous are questions like , “is LENR real”, “has LENR been proven to exist”, “has it been replicated”, “what are the hallmarks of it”, and “how might it work”? Seems like there are a variety of answers that are appropriate.


    If the term refers to a bunch of disparate phenomena united only by the fact that they relate to nuclear phenomena at low energy, then all of these questions are meaningless in the aggregate and one should only ask questions about specific manifestations (e.g. the Fleischmann-Pons experiment).

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.