The situation is simple. Mills has been producing low levels of energy and claind it was produced by chemical means. LENR also produced low levels of energy and said it came from nuclear processes. In this situation, a way to tell what method was correct is not possible.
Now over time, huge amounts of power are being produced that are beyond chemical means, so the cause must be nuclear. Mills must have been doing LENR experiments for the last 25 years but with the huge increase in SunCell power levels only LENR can explain what is happening inside the SunCell. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have to come back to this. This isn't looking good for Mills, and it > couldn't have come at a worse time, too. For the past year or so, Mills has > been approaching the end of his work, and hence, the end of his funding. > These people, whoever they are, aren't keeping him funded for nothing. They > expect him to deliver something tangible at some point, and that point was > fast approaching, since there was nothing left for him to do with the > SunCell. However, now if he's discovered an even GREATER source of energy, > by orders of magnitude, then he can lobby for funding for another 20 years. > > To me, this really makes him look bad. If he's legitimate, he needs to > push this new discovery aside, and get something out as soon as possible to > maintain any kind of credibility. > > Craig > > > On 06/17/2016 04:06 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: > > This is discouraging. What makes Mills special is that he: > > 1) Discovered something unusual. > > 2) Developed a theory to explain the phenomenon. > > 3) Spent 25 years working from his theory to develop his understanding of > this phenomenon. > > It's because he was working from theory which made his progress credible. > He either really had discovered something, and was able to exploit it, or > he was a complete fraud, since if his theory is worthless, then he could > never have developed all of his work. > > Now, if his theory can no longer explain the phenomenon, then this means > that he has either a) discovered ANOTHER amazing phenomenon, or b) has a > discredited theory which seriously makes me question anything he's done. > > His theory has always had problems, and always had a lot of criticism. I > don't doubt there may be holes in it which need to be filled -- perhaps a > lot of holes -- but I am at a loss as to how he could have discovered > another amazing energy source without using theory. > > Craig > > On 06/17/2016 03:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > From the quote, that is a conclusion that is now coming out of BLP. > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Axil, are you saying that Mills' theory, which he has used to develop >> this process, has now failed him and can no longer explain it? >> >> Craig >> >> >> On 06/17/2016 03:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> R, Mills has alway asserted that the energy that he sees in his >>> experiments were based on CHEMICAL processes which are driven by the >>> particular characteristics of the hydrino theory. There always has been a >>> correspondence between the small amount of energy produced by LENR >>> experiments and the small amounts of energy produced by hydrinos. >>> >>> In this latest SunCell experiment, R. Mills is seeing huge quantities of >>> excess power produced in these reactor meltdowns, in the megawatt range. >>> There is no way that such huge amounts of power can be produced by chemical >>> means. This implies that the hydrino is no longer the cause of the excess >>> energy seen in these meltdowns. Something else is going on. Mills must now >>> explain where all this energy is coming from if it cannot be produced by >>> chemical reactions. X-rays are being generated with energies far in excess >>> of any electrical input voltages. What produces these X-rays? >>> >>> BLP states: >>> >>> Proof of a new energy source is provided by two otherwise inexplicable >>> observations: (i) The formation of a high-energy hydrogen plasma in the >>> absence of any input electrical power, the nonexistence of any energy >>> releasing chemistry with this fuel, and the further impossibility of known >>> chemistry of this high energy. (ii) The emission of soft X-ray radiation at >>> a voltage far less than that of the light energy produced and the inability >>> of any known chemistry to release such high energy. >>> >> >> > > >
