Mike
The wasp in this ointment is that the F-P cell had lithium in
its electrolyte, and lithium is distinctly **not** a BLP
catalyst.
Yes, agreed - but then again (even without a kludge that makes it
a catalyst)- this goes to the original "straw man" argument of the
HSG thread. That being:
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.
And as it turns out, in the alternative hydrino theory of Arie de
Geus, lithium is a hydrino catalyst. This presents the possibility
that anyone who comes along later - can improve on Mills work - or
find gaps not covered. This does not at all denigrate the original
work IMHO. The original insight is on a par with Bohr, etc. and
history will assign the that to Mills.
Therefore, it should be noted first that Mills alone had the
original insight, and that is extraordinarily valuable in itself -
but very likely Mills got the situation only either partially
incorrect, or with big lapses in coverage, or even wrong in minor
details. It doesn't really matter (historically), but what does
delay things is the ego problem.
The final chapter has not been written on this of course, and
personally I very much doubt that hydrino formation is even
exothermic in the first two stages (n= 1/2 and 1/3); and that all
of the excess heat is coming from new kinds of fusion reactions
involving "faux D" and even then it may be a natural and not a
manufactured species, or from higher level shrinkage in the case
of Mills.
But the point is that there are any number of alternatives or
improvements to Mills' original insight, and only three things are
certain.
1) There are large egos involved
2) No general theory is correct in 2006
3) A useful theory for LENR will of necessity incorporate the
hydrino as a basic paradigm.
Jones
