For those LENR advocates on this forum who do not closely follow
the hydrino forum: a recent message from Drew Meulenberg sums up
nicely the bottom line situation in the "big picture" of LENR, the
hydrino and the past 17 years of needless posturing and animosity
involving the two "different" fields, but first let me quote Prof.
Kowalski on a related issue. He asks:
"What are the odds that two such anathema experimental
circumstances, Mills and CF, are unrelated?"
ANS: one can only guess. My guess is about a trillion to one...
and not just because they occurred in the same year (1989) and in
the same general type of experiment, using hydrogen and the same
general kind of electrolytes and hydriding metals - and with the
same kind of mixed confirmation from many subsequent overlapping
experiments. The main reason they are related is encapsulated in
that one word which is so appropriate to a correct understanding
of any theory: "elegance". Mills provides an elegant way, in fact
it is the only elegant way, to understand the basis of LENR.
The good professor goes on. BTW the cite is:
http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/299hydrinos.html
"The experiments of Mills and those of cold fusion relate to the
original disagreement between Bohr and Einstein regarding
(Einstein's phrase) the 'missing causal substratum'. (Bohr's rules
are actually independent of v, meaning c can substitute for it
with no change other than mental interpretation.) At the time, and
to this day, Physics had no ultimate causal understanding of
charge behavior in the bond between p and e, a particle, charge,
unified field theory deficiency. (Thus, Physics must either choose
Bohr and Schroedinger or stand in complete public atomic
theoretical ignorance for nearly a century. They chose B & S. The
inability of Mills experiments and cold fusion experiments to be
explained by existing theoretical material exposes this ultimate
deficiency from the past. ) To continue:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Will Link has written:
Keep in mind: whether quantum mechanics is a correct theory is a
DIFFERENT question then whether or not Mills theory is a correct
theory. Even if Mills measurements could demonstrate
conclusively his fractional quantum states, his theory would
still be incorrect.
Drew Meulenberg's insightful message that corrects this ridiculous
conclusion:
Bohr's model of the atom is "incorrect." Nevertheless, it
revolutionized physics. I suspect that Mills' work may fall in the
same category. If fractional quantum states are confirmed, he will
be famous, even if his model is incorrect. His critics will be
forgotten. Those who improve and correct the model will become the
"new school." They will find that THEIR "correct" model is readily
incorporated into SQM, which will be made more complete by the
addition.
While Mills has steered well clear of "cold fusion," it may end up
vindicating him. Work in India, during the early '90's with light
water and nickel, reproduced his early results (indicating the
production of both tritium and neutrons; references provided on
request). That work is continuing today in the US with the CR-39
detectors showing energetic alphas. The sub-orbital states are
certainly an easier way to believe Coulomb-barrier penetration
than most present theories to explain "cold-fusion" results.
If Mills' model is BS, but ultimately sub-orbital states explain
some aspects of LENR, as well as his research on hydrino and
hydrino products, (both of which could lead to multiple
breakthroughs in science and economics), where does that put him
vs his critics (many of whom will be leading the rush to the
federal $ trough, claiming long-term involvement)? Where does that
put the many patents, which have not been issued?" END of quote.
Well said. Personally I am as convinced of sub-orbital states as
of the Bohr model and SQM, even if Mills is incorrect in some of
the math and other details. He got the most of it right.
Wouldn't the more general goal (societal aim) for the important
quest for so-called "free energy" (non-nuclear) be better served
if every LENR experimenter looked at the situation firmly grounded
in Mills' insight?
Not to mention: wouldn't Mills be better off if he switched to
deuterium <G>??
Jones
