OrionWorks
Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:03:19 -0700
Jones Said: ... > Mills considers the hydrino to be stable- but that may > be the part he got wrong. Or partly wrong if most are > unstable and immediately reinflate. Mills even claims > to have captured them ; and has pictures on his site > of this: LOL as if a picture were proof. > > Only problem is he sent out dozens of samples to MRI > XPS and NMR specialists and not a single one will > independently confirm his claim. > > When contacted indpendently - even Mills best > "supporter" has hedged. Eric Kreig, no matter what you > may think of him, has tried to verify Mills by > actually tracking down the people involved. > > QUOTE: I got through to Alfred Miller of Lehigh > university.... He has done XPS studies on samples > Mills gave him. He's seen interesting things that are > not easily explained - but is very clear that it is > still inconclusive. He doesn't poo poo this stuff out > of hand, but I gather that he is not convinced the > laws of physics must be rewritten either.... I can't > really conclude anything significant from his data. > It doesn't support Mills - but it doesn't prove him a > fraud either. > > IOW Mills best "independent" proof of a stable hydrino > may not support that conclusion. It is inconclusive. > > Why should we not be free to modify Mills claims? But > also- why should we not give Mills the credit he > deserves, even if he did not get it 100% correct? This sounds absolutely bizarre to me. Sez a lot about the interpretive "art" of physics. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks