----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A historical walk on the wild side
<snip>, beginning Steve's comments:
Well, if a demo product was promised in 6 months, back in 2000, that
doesn't speak well for the current situation... but then, everybody's
optimistic about delivery schedules and a five-year slip in something like
this might be reasonable.
I don't know about you, but in my 38 years in a large company, witnessing
startups, etc., I found it always takes longer than you think, even with
established technology. With really new stuff, it takes longer, much longer.
But in any case, yes, it's true that I'm very open to negative criticism
of Mills. His theory requires, among other things, ditching the
uncertainty principle, which cuts pretty deep in an area where predictions
of the current theory have been very well verified. QM in general did not
exactly fly in with no opposition; it was tested and found accurate in its
domain of application over the objections of such heavy hitters as
Einstein. When someone starts by saying we need to chuck it all because
it's wrong about such a fundamental thing as the ground state of hydrogen
I don't get a comfortable feeling.
Well, when I first encountered the idea of the OS, I was not comfortable
either, but for me the experiments matter, and the theory will fall into
place in due course. Nature speaks in experiments, mere men speak in theory.
Now, you may very reasonably accuse me of all sorts of bad bias and of
having a shallow, prejudiced viewpoint as a result of that preceding
paragraph, and perhaps you're right. But in fact, my unreasoning
knee-jerk reactions, if you would like to characterize them so, go even
deeper than that in this case.
Mills has published results which include anomalous results of various
experiments, which prove that conventional physics and/or chemistry are
incorrect in some fundamental ways, while his theory correctly predicted
the results he observed. But until those experiments have been replicated
by an independent scientist, working from the published description,
without the direct involvement of Mills himself, I would not say that they
have been replicated. As far as I know, that hasn't happened. Mills has
stockholders, he has investors, he has pulled in a lot of money with his
theory; he is not a disinterested observer of the results of his
experiments. He has a lot riding on the results coming out right.
Therefore I hesitate to accept his testimony as to surprising results he's
obtained without solid external coroboration, in the form of independent
replication. Google "Hwang Woo Suk" if you don't get my point.
This point has been pounded on endlessly on the HSG forum. As stated, it
implies that the posted body of work is essentially a work of fiction, or at
best carefully selected 'best' results, happy accidents. If it were not that
so much hangs on the experiments, they would be readily accepted. Before the
BLP labs were set up. Mills paid for experimental work to be done in a
number of industrial and university laboratories with enough positiv
eresults to keep going. Those reports are no longer at the surface of the
website, but are found in earlier editions of Mills' book. If you insist
that Mills have absolutely no connection with a test, then the field is
thin. Presently BLP is building test equipment for the use of propective
partners.
To put it bluntly, it would be great if I were eventually proved wrong,
but at this time I don't believe in Mills, nor in the hydrino. Cold
fusion, which has been demonstrated many times over by numerous
researchers, seems far, far more likely to lead somewhere useful. If I
don't spend time reading Mills' papers, well, that's why.
I have been engaged in the colf fusion field longer than with BLP and am
quite aware of its status. You are correct that the CF effects have been
seen by many, and that is hopeful, but note, please, that it has ***not***
convinced anyone official in establishment physics. You protest Mills'
theory, but there is none for the whole spectrum of CF/LENR/CMNS phenomena.
The whole field is cursed by a lack of reproduceability, especially
reproduceability of large effects. The hallmark of the CF reactions is
excess heat, and calorimetry is a basic skill done with great expertise.
Mills' water bath calorimetry is an elegant experiment in which it is
repeatedly shown that hydrogen can yield 100 times the heat of combustion --
not as much as the nuclear reactions, but very, very useful.
In terms of organization and devices, BLP is well ahead of the CF/LENR/CMNS
field.
And Steve, if you are familiar with the CF technology, the one paper you
should read is Phillips' paper on the water bath calorimeter, as published
in the Journal of Applied Physics.
So, call me a bigot, call me a fool; be that as it may, I'm convinced CF
is real, and I'm fairly sure Mills's results are not.
Interesting. You believe CF is 'real' [as I do], yet there is no accepted
theory. You disagree with Mills' theory, audacious as it is, and deny that
the experimental results are 'real' because work done in other labs with
Mills' advice might somehouw be contaminated.
And if Mills' work _has_ been replicated by an independent lab, by all
means post the links to one or more papers published by his replicator(s)
and I will read them with great interest and I will happily apologize for
being such a pig-headed Bob Park-type.
Well, try Conrads' paper: Emission in the Deep Vacuum Ultraviolet from a
Plasma Formed by Incandescently Heating Hydrogen Gas with Trace Amounts of
Potassium Carbonate H. Conrads, R. Mills, Th. Wrubel, Plasma Sources Science
and Technology, Vol. 12 (2003), pp. 389-395. You will have to pay a fee to
download this from the publisher's website. Conrads is in Germany and not an
employee of BLP. He set up the essential elements of the BLP thermal reactor
in his lab and varied it, finding an energetic plasma only when the
essential elements were present.
(Tests of particular substances, at Mills's request, showing particular
individual properties, done by fee-for-service laboratories, aren't what
I'm talking about, of course.)
If you reject such arbitrarily, then you reject every action by a lab to
have measurements done with specialized equuipment. And to be consistent,
experiments done at great expense in lab A are invalid because lab B can't
afford the equipment.
Mike Carrell
