----- Original Message -----
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Vo]: Hydrino Summation
My take on this is that yes, LENR and BLP are somehow related and will lead
to a major advance in physical understanding. In Tom Stolper's book "Genius
Inventor", a detailed and generally exccellent chronology of the controversy
surrounding Mills, he devotes 85 pages to early work by Mills in
electrolytic cells in the context of the growing controversy over CF. Tom
sees excess heat in CFexperiments as "really" BLP catalysis reactions.
The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in its
electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP catalyst. The cells
that Mills built, which turned on immediately and yielded excess heat, used
K2CO3 as an electrolyte. Potassium was selected predictively from the 27.2
eV resonant transfer energy indicated by Mills' theory and a purposeful
search of literature by John Farrell.
Mills has demonstrated that deuterium forms deutrinos and it is reasonalbe
to conjecture that such may facilitate LENR. But one has first to show that
the conditions in LENR electrolytic cells are conducive to the generationof
deutrinos by resonant transfer catalysis, and this has not been done.
Jones' speculations are always interesting, but care is needed here to deal
with facts as best known.
<snip rest of original post for brevity>
Mike Carrell
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
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
