Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>I do not mean, for example, that you should suggest a spectroanalysis
>that would confirm these are hydrinos. I do not see how that
>knowledge would do Mizuno much good.
Knowing what's going on in your experiment narrows down the parameter space,
allowing productive results to be achieved sooner.
. . .
In this case, if Hydrinos are confirmed, and he is still interested
in pursuing
the matter, then there are suggestions that can be made that might enhance the
effect.
Well, what are the suggestions? Can they be made without a
spectroanalysis or other extra steps? If so, let us make these suggestions now.
What I am looking for is some recommendation that would simultaneously:
1. Confirm the hydrino hypothesis (or at least bolster it).
2. Improve performance. (Any aspect of performance: heat output,
control, or some other parameter or set of parameters).
3. Plus it would be great if he could implement this without making
too many changes or a great deal of effort.
Perhaps that is asking too much!
I think if you achieve #2 it would automatically imply #1.
While of course I do not speak for Mizuno, I am not opposed to the
hydrino theory, but merely indifferent to it. I am only interested in
theories that offer concrete assistance to the experiment. If the
hydrino theory is effective I welcome it, even if it turns out to be
wrong. If conventional nuclear theory gives no guidance I have no use
for it. Who cares if a theory is true or false, or some mixture of
the two? I expect that all theory is a mixture, or an approximation.
As I have often pointed out, obsolete theories work fine for some
applications and are still used. The late, great Guy Murchie wrote
that Ptolemy's astronomy is still the best model for celestial
navigation, a subject he taught in the 1940s.
- Jed
