Jones Beene wrote:
Only problem is he sent out dozens of samples to MRI
XPS and NMR specialists and not a single one will
independently confirm his claim.
When contacted indpendently - even Mills best
"supporter" has hedged. Eric Kreig, no matter what you
may think of him, has tried to verify Mills by
actually tracking down the people involved.
QUOTE: I got through to Alfred Miller of Lehigh
university.... He has done XPS studies on samples
Mills gave him. He's seen interesting things that are
not easily explained - but is very clear that it is
still inconclusive. He doesn't poo poo this stuff out
of hand, but I gather that he is not convinced the
laws of physics must be rewritten either.... I can't
really conclude anything significant from his data.
It doesn't support Mills - but it doesn't prove him a
fraud either.
Jones, do you have any further information on what "interesting" but
"inconclusive" results might be?
My understanding was that the novel substances were supposed to be
something never before seen in a laboratory. So, presumably the
recipient would attempt to identify it... and either succeed (in which
case the substance wasn't novel) or fail (in which case it apparently
was novel, at least in the experience of the particular experimenter).
One would think that, in the course of studying it, the person receiving
the sample would surely have formed some opinion about what the stuff
probably was, beyond "white powder with funny diffraction pattern".
So, do you know of any information on what Miller (or any other sample
recipient) thought Mills had actually sent him, after studying it?
IOW Mills best "independent" proof of a stable hydrino
may not support that conclusion. It is inconclusive.
Why should we not be free to modify Mills claims? But
also- why should we not give Mills the credit he
deserves, even if he did not get it 100% correct?
Jones
