An antigravity patent that accidentally got through

[Hdeasy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aether
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hdeasy
It seems that Blacklight's powerful financial backers then told Mills to go back to the drawing board and churn out peer reviewed papers in respected physics and chem journals.


Is that how powerful financial backers talk, Hdeasy? Wouldn't they really be saying things like "does it work yet?", "are we making money yet?", and "can I have my money back now?".

unquote

Sure, Aether: or do you make a habit of hob-nobbing with tychoons? I imagine that the moguls of the power industry are rather shrewd and have done their homework, which is why they already invested > 20 million Dollars in the Blacklight research facility.

A small set-back like a patent refusal is par for the course en route to a massively profitable power source. And if they had done their homework (they didn't get where they are today by tossing away millions idly at unfounded schemes), they would be aware of the solid evidence for an effect and would stick with their money. After all, Shell has pumped millions into not very profitable solar power research. Good environmental publicity. Maybe that's also a good reason for backing Blacklight - it got the seal of approval from the head of Greenpeace research. But I have seen that these forums are rife with apologists of the nuclear power industry - one laughable posting complained about millions being spent on nuclear plant safety while there were 'no deaths' from nuclear accidents. Ever hear of Czernobyl? Thousands of cancer deaths. That's what would happen if Al Kaida bombed a nuclear plant. But let's not get distracted...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hdeasy
- his team proceeded to do just that, with the result that 5 years later even Rathke of ESTEC admits there is a wealth of evidence in the peer reviewed literature for an experimental excess heat in the hydrino plasmas. And E.g. NASA's BL rocket study confirmed that. THus I suspect that BL will have another bite of the patent cherry soon.

How would feel upon hearing this report if you were one of those powerful financial backers, Hdeasy? Happy?

Again, if I were a clever backer, i.e. clever like me, then having seen the report in the Guardian of Rathke criticising hydrino THEORy, I would search the web for the original Rathke article and find that it indeed agrees on the "wealth of evidence" for an effect. See, not everyone is as superficial as many comentators here...

 

[Aether]

Sure, Aether: or do you make a habit of hob-nobbing with tychoons?

No, I don't. Face-time between scientists/inventors and tycoons is typically arranged by MBA-types for a specific purpose.

I imagine that the moguls of the power industry are rather shrewd and have done their homework, which is why they already invested > 20 million Dollars in the Blacklight research facility.

If they had made $20 million, then I can understand how you might imagine that they were shrewd. However, losing $20 million isn't evidence of shrewdness. Believe it or not, $20 million is too small of a number to really be of any great concern to truly "powerful financial backers".

A small set-back like a patent refusal is par for the course en route to a massively profitable power source.

Whether this is just a "small set-back" or not depends on the circumstances. Investors don't give a...care...how many patents you get or how many papers you publish in respected physics and chem journals unless that translates into a tangible return on investment for them.

And if they had done their homework (they didn't get where they are today by tossing away millions idly at unfounded schemes), they would be aware of the solid evidence for an effect and would stick with their money.

Where are they today? Out $20 million. How did they get there? Perhaps by tossing away millions idly at unfounded schemes, and perhaps not, who knows. The fact of the matter is that their money is gone, and unless/until they get it back with a nice profit then they aren't going to be "happy campers".

After all, Shell has pumped millions into not very profitable solar power research. Good environmental publicity. Maybe that's also a good reason for backing Blacklight - it got the seal of approval from the head of Greenpeace research.

No, expecting to make a nice return on your investment is a good reason for backing Blacklight. Losing your investment doesn't usually make for good publicity...it's a bad, bad thing.

But I have seen that these forums are rife with apologists of the nuclear power industry - one laughable posting complained about millions being spent on nuclear plant safety while there were 'no deaths' from nuclear accidents. Ever hear of Czernobyl? Thousands of cancer deaths. That's what would happen if Al Kaida bombed a nuclear plant. But let's not get distracted...

At least nuclear plants work.

Again, if I were a clever backer, i.e. clever like me, then having seen the report in the Guardian of Rathke criticising hydrino THEORy, I would search the web for the original Rathke article and find that it indeed agrees on the "wealth of evidence" for an effect. See, not everyone is as superficial as many comentators here...

If you have made money on your investments with BL, then that is what would convince me that you were a clever backer. Of course, losing money with them doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't clever, but it isn't anything to "write home about" either.

 

[ZapperZ]

Again, if I were a clever backer, i.e. clever like me, then having seen the report in the Guardian of Rathke criticising hydrino THEORy, I would search the web for the original Rathke article and find that it indeed agrees on the "wealth of evidence" for an effect. See, not everyone is as superficial as many comentators here...

Then maybe you'd like to prove to us that you're also not one of those "superficial" commentators on here by producing this WEALTH of evidence? Oh wait, maybe by "wealth", you could have meant the NUMBER of quack websites that carry and tout this thing, rather than the number of peer-review papers. After all, you did say "I would search the web...".

And you call us superficial?

Zz.

 

[Hdeasy]

Then maybe you'd like to prove to us that you're also not one of those "superficial" commentators on here by producing this WEALTH of evidence? Oh wait, maybe by "wealth", you could have meant the NUMBER of quack websites that carry and tout this thing, rather than the number of peer-review papers. After all, you did say "I would search the web...".
And you call us superficial?
Zz.

These are the papers that may have impressed Rathke:

H. Conrads, R. Mills, Th. Wrubel, Plasma Sources Science and Technology, Vol. 12 (2003), pp. 389-395. - http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0963-0252/12/3/312

R. Mills, P. Ray, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 36, (2003), pp. 1535-1542. - http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/36/13/316

Mills, R.L.; Ray, P.C.; Nansteel, M.; Chen, X.; Mayo, R.M.; He, J.; Dhandapani, B. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, Issue 3, June 2003, pp. 338-355. - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=27155&arnumber=1206739&count=18&index=5

R. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, W. Good, P. Jansson, M. Nansteel, J. He and A. Voigt - 03/13/03 The European Physical Journal - Applied Physics 28, 83-104 (2004) - http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/epjap:2004168

R. Mills, E. Dayalan, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, J. He - 06/13/02 Electrochimica Acta, Vol. 47, No. 24, (2002), pp. 3909-3926

J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102.

etc.

If you ignore these you are indeed superficial. At least Rathke was patient enough to sift through these peer reviewed papers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What does any of that have to do with the claim? They measured various spectral emissions, so what?

Can you cite one such paper which claims that excess energy was measured?

 

[ZapperZ]

These are the papers that may have impressed Rathke:
H. Conrads, R. Mills, Th. Wrubel, Plasma Sources Science and Technology, Vol. 12 (2003), pp. 389-395. - http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0963-0252/12/3/312
R. Mills, P. Ray, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 36, (2003), pp. 1535-1542. - http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/36/13/316
Mills, R.L.; Ray, P.C.; Nansteel, M.; Chen, X.; Mayo, R.M.; He, J.; Dhandapani, B. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, Issue 3, June 2003, pp. 338-355. - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=27155&arnumber=1206739&count=18&index=5
R. Mills, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, W. Good, P. Jansson, M. Nansteel, J. He and A. Voigt - 03/13/03 The European Physical Journal - Applied Physics 28, 83-104 (2004) - http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/epjap:2004168
R. Mills, E. Dayalan, P. Ray, B. Dhandapani, J. He - 06/13/02 Electrochimica Acta, Vol. 47, No. 24, (2002), pp. 3909-3926
J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102.
etc.
If you ignore these you are indeed superficial. At least Rathke was patient enough to sift through these peer reviewed papers.

I didn't ignore these! But you seem to be blind to the fact that NO ONE ELSE seems to have verified what they claimed. Can we say "cold fusion"? When I asked for a "wealth" of evidence, I want the reproducibility of the experiment done by an independent source! As an experimentalist, I ALWAYS look for that as THE most convincing evidence, NOT the one done by the person claiming it.

Being duped into buying something like this when the ONLY people to ever see such a thing are the people who made the original claim is MY example of being superficial, in addition to be guilible.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well obviously I'm missing something here.

Zapper, how could someone publish so much and be faking it, or incompetent, without being labeled a fraud; or at least being forced to retract the paper? Has anyone tried to duplicate the results - whatever it is that is interesting which I either missed or don't understand?

 

[Chronos]

It's a hoax. Look at the references, they are circular. Look at the published experimental evidence supporting it... it is nonexistent. The lack of 'citations' to this 'paper' speaks volumes about its credibility.

 

[Hdeasy]

I didn't ignore these! But you seem to be blind to the fact that NO ONE ELSE seems to have verified what they claimed. Can we say "cold fusion"? When I asked for a "wealth" of evidence, I want the reproducibility of the experiment done by an independent source! As an experimentalist, I ALWAYS look for that as THE most convincing evidence, NOT the one done by the person claiming it.
Being duped into buying something like this when the ONLY people to ever see such a thing are the people who made the original claim is MY example of being superficial, in addition to be guilible.
Zz.

Oh boy - it's the same old story in these cases where something new fights against the paradigm - the conservatives shift the goalposts to suit themselves. Thus some posts back I was challenged to prove reproducibility - I did this, but then I am challenged to quote peer reviewed papers, with references to crank sites: this I also do, to find the goalposts have shifted back. Can't win - but luckily this is small potaotes here: what counts is some real scientists are rightly impressed by the results. Just a reminder: I already pointed out all the universities in the states, including Marchese at Rowan under the NASA Blacklight Rocket study, who reproduced the hydrino effect. Many, including the rocket study, also confirmed excess heat. Also, some of those papers cited above involve researchers at other institutes - e.g. Conrads of Greifswald in Germany and some other German researchers who cannot be said to be in the employ of BL.

 

[ZapperZ]

Oh boy - it's the same old story in these cases where something new fights against the paradigm - the conservatives shift the goalposts to suit themselves. Thus some posts back I was challenged to prove reproducibility - I did this, but then I am challenged to quote peer reviewed papers, with references to crank sites: this I also do, to find the goalposts have shifted back. Can't win - but luckily this is small potaotes here: what counts is some real scientists are rightly impressed by the results. Just a reminder: I already pointed out all the universities in the states, including Marchese at Rowan under the NASA Blacklight Rocket study, who reproduced the hydrino effect. Many, including the rocket study, also confirmed excess heat. Also, some of those papers cited above involve researchers at other institutes - e.g. Conrads of Greifswald in Germany and some other German researchers who cannot be said to be in the employ of BL.

Then show me the peer-reviewed papers of these people already!

You also need to pay attention to ONE thing: I NEVER claimed that these things are false. I claimed that they haven't been VERIFIED! Yet, we have rabid people who are ASTOUNDED that companies and others are not putting in gazillion of money to invest in this "proven" technology. This is bogus!

Everytime I try to emphasize that, for some odd reason, I get labelled as someone who is trying to maintain the "paradigm". Anyone who has paid enough attention to my stand on this would clearly have seen that this couldn't be further from the truth. I would have asked for the same type of validity for others too, and have done so many times in the past - there's nothing special here! If you find there's something wrong with my skepticism about being convinced, then YOU should also find something wrong with your too-eager of an acceptance also. When all one can cite as independent reproducible results are these ad hoc and informal citations, then something isn't right. We saw way too many of these already from the Podkletnov effect. Yet, you had no qualm at all in accepting this wholesale.

Oh well, put your money in it then.

Zz.

 

[Hdeasy]

Well, getting back to patents and revolutionary theories on gravity – don’t forget that Einstein was a patent clerk. Now the main associate and successor to Burkhard Heim in developing Heim-theory is Walter Dröscher , once at the Austrian patent office. Heim repudiated the claim that his form of antigravity gives free energy – he was glad it didn’t as humans had already mucked up the environment enough by excessive energy pollution. You have to pump lots of energy into Heim’s space drive to get off the ground.

 

[Chronos]

Well, getting back to patents and revolutionary theories on gravity – don’t forget that Einstein was a patent clerk. Now the main associate and successor to Burkhard Heim in developing Heim-theory is Walter Dröscher , once at the Austrian patent office. Heim repudiated the claim that his form of antigravity gives free energy – he was glad it didn’t as humans had already mucked up the environment enough by excessive energy pollution. You have to pump lots of energy into Heim’s space drive to get off the ground.

No argument that Einstein was a patent clerk [swiss to be precise]. Are you suggesting that working in the Austrian patent office confers credibility to Walter Dröscher? The logic escapes me.

 

[Hdeasy]

Just saying that there is a coincidence in the Patent connection and that it at least doesn't militate against Droescher. He'll be getting the Nobel prize in few years anyway, so patent origins won't matter then.