An antigravity patent that accidentally got through

[Aether]

"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur

Many discoveries flow from unexpected experimental results. For example, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was first discovered by Penzias & Wilson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp65co.html. However, to make such a discovery "by accident", you would typically need to: 1) measure some sort of signal that reveals a new effect; 2) recognize that the measurement you have made is anomalous; 3) rule out as many known sources of error in your measurement as you can (this can take a long time, and feels like you are "peeling an onion"); and 4) try to find a theoretical explanation...etc..

You can also make discoveries by using "thought experiments" and computer simulations, but it's usually better to mix these in with real experiments if you can.

 

[ZapperZ]

Going back to the topic on hand, a possible explanation on how this thing could have passed through the Patent Office was hinted by Bob Park this week. In his November 11 column, he had this to say about this thing.

PATENT NONSENSE: ANOTHER PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE IS PATENTED.

It happens every few years. U.S. pat. 6,960,975, was issued on November 1, 2005 to Boris Volfson for a "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum." It uses a Podkletnov rotating superconducting gravity shield to "change the curvature of space-time." Of course, he does not mention the forbidden words "perpetual motion." The patent office rejects patent applications that use those words under the 1985 ruling in Newman v Quigg. These days you have to call it "zero-point energy." Ironically, the patent was issued shortly after arbitration required the Patent Office to reinstate Tom Valone, who lost his job in the fallout from the 1999 Conference on Free Energy (WN 2 Aug 02).

http://www.bobpark.org/

When you have someone who clearly is pushing for "free energy" without waiting for scientific validity, you get things like this.

Zz.

 

[Aether]

IX. SPECIAL STATUS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS RELATING TO SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
In accordance with the President's mandate directing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accelerate the processing of patent applications and adjudication of disputes involving superconductivity technologies when requested by the applicant to do so, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will, on request, accord "special" status to all patent applications for inventions involving superconductivity materials. Examples of such inventions would include those directed to superconductive materials themselves as well as to their manufacture and application. In order that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may implement this procedure, we invite all applicants desiring to participate in this program to request that their applications be accorded "special" status. Such requests should be accompanied by a statement under 37 CFR 1.102 that the invention involves superconductive materials. No fee is required.

The applicant (Boris Volfson) filed a "petition to make special" on the grounds of "related to superconductivity", and the primary examiner approved it for issue within one week of it landing on his desk (the patent examination process typically takes years rather than days).

The patent is not classified as an antigravity spaceship, it is primarily classified as: "ELECTRICITY: MAGNETICALLY OPERATED SWITCHES, MAGNETS, AND ELECTROMAGNETS: MAGNETS AND ELECTROMAGNETS Superconductive type" and it is secondarily classified as "POWER PLANTS: REACTION MOTOR (E.G., MOTIVE FLUID GENERATOR AND REACTION NOZZLE, ETC.)"

 

[ZapperZ]

The applicant (Boris Volfson) filed a "petition to make special" on the grounds of "related to superconductivity", and the primary examiner approved it for issue within one week of it landing on his desk (the patent examination process typically takes years rather than days).
The patent is not classified as an antigravity spaceship,

Of course not, because it would have been thrown out on its rear end if it was called as that. Instead, they managed, probably with the help of a good patent attorney, to call a duck as a quacking cat, and fooled everyone in the process. As someone who specialized in superconductivity and knows very well the material being used in the Podkletnov effect, I am amazed the patent examiner can be fooled that easily AND without consulting an expert in the field who would have easly pointed out the evidence against such a thing.

The upside of this whole debacle is that is this foolish event is being reported in all the major science journals, and the Patent Office is back under scrutiny, if not, the laughing stock of the science community.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

that's true... but i do know some guy who went outside to fly a kite in a thunderstorm and was zapped by a bolt of lightning... only to later discover the many uses of electricity. If it weren't for things like that, we may not be typing to each other today :)

Benjamin Franklin did not accidently discover that lightning was electricity while flying a kite. He'd been experimenting with static electric generators for some time and went out specifically to see if he could collect an electric charge on a metal object during a lightning storm. Static electric generators had been around quite a while in several versions and were a popular novelty and subject of interest for amateur scientists like Franklin. The fact his kite-and-key experiment succeeded simply proved that lightning is a giant version of the tiny discharges of static electricity eveyone's familiar with. This is extremely interesting, and explains a lot about lightning, but lead nowhere in particular as far as "the uses of electricity".

Also: There was nothing "accidental" about the kite experiment. It was very deliberate and planned out. Nor was he or the kite struck by lightning. He picked up an electric charge on the key by induction from proximity to the charged clouds and was able to then charge up a leyden jar with the key.
---
Franklin invented an electrostatic motor. This was a delicate little thing that, again, no one has ever been able to find any usefull application for. Several people since Franklin have improved it, but its main usefullness seems to be as a demonstration tool for electrostatic effects. Anyway, his motor was powered by a hand cranked electrostatic generator, which was the power source for all his, and everyone's, electrostatic experiments, and so, his motor had nothing in particular to do with the connection he demonstrated between static electricity and lightning. The only practical result of his lightning discovery I can think of is lightning rods.

I think Benjamin Franklin was an extremely fine scientist, but his work in no way lead to the computer or made any remarkable contribution to our understanding of "the uses of electricity". All the important practical things were worked out a piece at a time by people like Volta, Oersted, and Ohm, and culminated in a big surge of discovery, through careful experimentation, by Faraday and then Maxwell.

To the extent a person hasn't sorted out popular myths, not only in science but in any field you're interested in, you remain prone to thinking in terms of the dynamics presented in those myths. If your general approach to thinking about things is based on the logic derived from a large mental collection of popular myths, notions like "anti-gravity" and "free energy generators" seem perfectly plausible.

 

[Aether]

Of course not, because it would have been thrown out on its rear end if it was called as that. Instead, they managed, probably with the help of a good patent attorney, to call a duck as a quacking cat, and fooled everyone in the process.

The examiner is the one who decides how to classify a patent (e.g., categorize the invention according to the type of technology involved), and this applicant represented himself. The title is "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state", so I don't see any evidence that the applicant meant to conceal the true nature of the "invention" as he saw it.

Here is one of the technical references cited by the applicant (stricken by the examiner): "In "The First Men in the Moon" (1903), H. G. Wells anticipates gravitational propulsion methods when he describes gravity repelling "cavorite." Discovered by Professor Cavor, the material acts as a "gravity shield" allowing Cavor's vehicle to reach the Moon. Prof. Cavor built a large spherical gondola surrounded on all sides by cavorite shutters that could be closed or opened. When Prof. Cavor closed all the shutters facing the ground and opened the shutters facing the moon, the gondola took off for the Moon."

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

zooby, i didn't say he discovered electricity that way, i said the many uses... but thanks for the history class :) nor did i imply it was an accident, i had just got done saying that everything is done with a purpose, you just need to rely on randomization of events, chance/luck, and sometimes yes accidents, sorry if i gave misleading information in anyway.

 

[ZapperZ]

The examiner is the one who decides how to classify a patent (e.g., categorize the invention according to the type of technology involved), and this applicant represented himself. The title is "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state", so I don't see any evidence that the applicant meant to conceal the true nature of the "invention" as he saw it.

Nope. I see it as deception. It is clear to me what are the consequences of the PHYSICS from this "invention". My original post in this thread clearly stated this.

Here is one of the technical references cited by the applicant (stricken by the examiner): "In "The First Men in the Moon" (1903), H. G. Wells anticipates gravitational propulsion methods when he describes gravity repelling "cavorite." Discovered by Professor Cavor, the material acts as a "gravity shield" allowing Cavor's vehicle to reach the Moon. Prof. Cavor built a large spherical gondola surrounded on all sides by cavorite shutters that could be closed or opened. When Prof. Cavor closed all the shutters facing the ground and opened the shutters facing the moon, the gondola took off for the Moon."

I'm sorry, but this is a "technical reference"?! And you buy this?

I don't quite understand what you were trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to explain how something that most experts are saying contradicts physics and is not based on any valid theory, actually got a patent? Or are you actually arguing that these people are justified in getting a patent because they have solid science?

Zz.

 

[Aether]

I'm sorry, but this is a "technical reference"?! And you buy this?

I don't buy it, no. It is clearly ridicuolus.

I don't quite understand what you were trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to explain how something that most experts are saying contradicts physics and is not based on any valid theory, actually got a patent?

You wanted to discuss "how this thing could have passed through the Patent Office":

Going back to the topic on hand, a possible explanation on how this thing could have passed through the Patent Office...

I looked at the paper trail for this case, and pointed out what looks odd from a procedural point of view. First, the President specifically ordered that patents relating to superconductivity be treated in a special way; and second, this one patent examiner seems to have believed that Volfson's antigravity spaceship might actually work (or he may have been disciplined in the past for sitting on such a case, and over-reacted in the opposite direction...the state of mind of the examiner is not of record).

Or are you actually arguing that these people are justified in getting a patent because they have solid science?

I am not arguing that this person deserves this patent, and hope to see it withdrawn from issue soon.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nope. I see it as deception.

Aether's point, I think, is: the fact the applicant cited H.G. Wells strongly point away from deception to him just being a nut case.

I think Aether's on the right track in suspecting the presidential order to expedite patents having to do with superconductors lead to this one not being properly screened.

Anyone have any idea why Bush adopted superconductors as a pet? What prompted his "mandate"?

 

[Aether]

Anyone have any idea why Bush adopted superconductors as a pet? What prompted his "mandate"?

This may trace back to a 1988 Executive Order by Ronald Reagan http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12661.html, but I'm not positive about that. The Federal Regulation that actually authorizes a special status for inventions related to superconductivity does so "...if the basis for the petition is that the invention will materially contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources...".

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not arguing that this person deserves this patent, and hope to see it withdrawn from issue soon.

Thanks. I just wanted that as a clarification because the discussion was beginning to appear muddle to me.

Zz.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This may trace back to a 1988 Executive Order by Ronald Reagan http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12661.html, but I'm not positive about that. The Federal Regulation that actually authorizes a special status for inventions related to superconductivity does so "...if the basis for the petition is that the invention will materially contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources...".

That looks right. It also says: "Sec. 3-301. Reporting Requirement on Semiconductors, Fiber Optics and Superconducting Materials." What this suggests to me is a larger concern about staying on top of all the then technologies that were really taking off. Semiconductors, Fiber Optics, and Superconducting Materials are being specifically highlighted for special attention.

Since the patent was approved in a week instead of the usual "years" it strongly suggests these executive orders end up having the effect of exerting great pressure on the examiners. It's obvious, at least, that they are required to disturb their whole workflow to accommodate the flagged patent applications. It makes me wonder if there isn't some unspoken, or only spoken of off-the-record, understanding that any patent so flagged gets approved regardless because the executive branch is perceived as having given that order, although, perhaps, not in those words?

 

[Aether]

That looks right. It also says: "Sec. 3-301. Reporting Requirement on Semiconductors, Fiber Optics and Superconducting Materials." What this suggests to me is a larger concern about staying on top of all the then technologies that were really taking off. Semiconductors, Fiber Optics, and Superconducting Materials are being specifically highlighted for special attention.

Also see Sec. 3-401(6)(J) A National Commission on Superconductivity "...In preparing the report required by subsection (5), the Commission shall consider addressing, but need not limit its review to:...Methods to strengthen domestic patent and trademark laws to ensure that qualified superconductivity discoveries receive the fullest protection from infringement."

Since the patent was approved in a week instead of the usual "years" it strongly suggests these executive orders end up having the effect of exerting great pressure on the examiners. It's obvious, at least, that they are required to disturb their whole workflow to accommodate the flagged patent applications. It makes me wonder if there isn't some unspoken, or only spoken of off-the-record, understanding that any patent so flagged gets approved regardless because the executive branch is perceived as having given that order, although, perhaps, not in those words?

It is just common sense that when the President singles out an issue like superconductivity as being important to the country (or the world) then it is understood that the issue should be handled with more care, not less care.

Here are some Patent Office Statistics:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2004/040201_patentperform.html

"At the front end of the examination process, in fiscal year 2004, the Patent organization received 353,342 Utility, Plant, and Reissue (UPR) patent applications, 23,468 Design applications, as well as 45,396 PCT applications...At the back end of the process, 170,637 UPR and 16,533 PCT patents were granted in fiscal year 2004, and 248,561 pending applications were published."

The "Error rate" for 2004 was 5.3%. Patents that are allowed but later found to be defective count as errors.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is just common sense that when the President singles out an issue like superconductivity as being important to the country (or the world) then it is understood that the issue should be handled with more care, not less care.

I agree, of course. The reason I made that suggestion is from considering the effect Reagan's personal interest had on Nasa in the matter of the Challenger explosion. Nasa management was loathe to postpone the launch, despite the dictates of caution, because Reagan had turned that particular mission into a public relations showcase for US technology. In those circumstances, common sense says a delay is vastly preferable to an explosion, yet they went against common sense and took the risky option.
So, with that episode in mind, I wonder if these mandates don't have the effect of making people too nervous to think straight.

 

[Hdeasy]

Park seeemingly shafted Blacklight Power - they had been granted a patent, but he rushed in and bullied the patent office to retract it, as it was based on nonsense physics. So the great man of science decided that because Mills' theory was rubbish his experiments had to be also - 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 - 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. Let's see if Park can shaft 'em again this time!

 

[Aether]

I agree, of course. The reason I made that suggestion is from considering the effect Reagan's personal interest had on Nasa in the matter of the Challenger explosion. Nasa management was loathe to postpone the launch, despite the dictates of caution, because Reagan had turned that particular mission into a public relations showcase for US technology. In those circumstances, common sense says a delay is vastly preferable to an explosion, yet they went against common sense and took the risky option.
So, with that episode in mind, I wonder if these mandates don't have the effect of making people too nervous to think straight.

That is a valid point, but I wouldn't expect any rational patent examiner to feel that kind of pressure from a simple petition to make special based on "related to superconductivity". Something else had to be going on in combination with this, but there isn't a clue in the record of what that something else might have been.

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?".

- 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?

 

[Hdeasy]

That is a valid point, but I wouldn't expect any rational patent examiner to feel that kind of pressure from a simple petition to make special based on "related to superconductivity". Something else had to be going on in combination with this, but there isn't a clue in the record of what that something else might have been.
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?".
How would feel upon hearing this report if you were one of those powerful financial backers, Hdeasy? Happy?

Well now, Aether, a valid point in a sense, as I admit it's been the same old story since 2000 - the heater is always 3 years away from production. But this scenario also suggested itself to me, oh Aether (forsooth, what eldritch appellation?) : the technical problems have in the meantime been solved, and BL is just awaiting the re-issuing of the patent for the go-ahead on production. Looks like the backers understand that and may have been given sneak previews of the heater in the BL labs. Who knows? Wait and see - should be exciting. After all, that Physics Journal editor who in an editorial comment wondered if therse peer reviewed publications would spark debate has been rewarded by Rathke & co.' attention. This could be the sign of a thaw, or Glasnost in the conservative halls of physics.

 

[Eyes R. Rollin]

It may be an 'urban myth', but I recall reading somewhere that an enterprising Connecticut inventer managed to obfuscate enough a few decades ago to basically patent the wheel. (you know what CT nutmegs were famous for!) I would appreciate it if anybody could track this down--it is precious.

 

[ZapperZ]

It is the person (Randy Mills) that formed the Blacklight Power Co. and the hydrino. Do a search on here and you'll find refereces to this quackery.

Zz.

 

[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.