Mike Carrell wrote:
> Mike McKubre should know better, and so should Jed. It is amusing that > members of each camp should claim each other's territory; it illustrates how > tightly one holds onto his pet ideas. LENR theorists try to shoehorn LENR > phenomena into Quantum Mechanics [as if that gives respectabiltiy]. One > knowledgeable author on Mills [Tom Stolper] devotes 80 pages of his book on > assertions that LENR pheomena are "really" explained by Mills model of the H > atom and hydrinos. > Our reasons are less technical than that. As I said, we think it is highly unlikely that two separate, unrelated methods exist, both starting with metal lattices and both producing hundreds of thousands of times more energy than conventional chemistry. That seems like a fantastic coincidence. At some level they must be fundamentally the same, although the implementation and details may be quite different (just as combustion and metabolism are different, yet both are oxidation). It seems likely that either cold fusion is actually shrinking hydrogen atoms, or what Mills discovered is actually some form of fusion. Of course we cannot prove that, since the exact nature of cold fusion is still a mystery, and hydrinos have not been widely replicated so no one can be sure they even exist. > Here is Mills with set of reactions with H as a fuel which repeatedly > prioduce 50kW energy bursts in an independant lab, with posted plans for > building power plants. > 50 kW for how long? How much energy? From what mass of fuel? Has anyone actually built a power plant from these plans? Until Mills or someone else does, the plans prove nothing and mean nothing. > Here is LENR, in disarray, with members fretting about conspiracies and > suppression when the principle problem is absence of any repeatable large > scale effect, as Mills has produced. Most people do not believe Mills has any effect. No one should believe him. If he has a repeatable, large-scale energy generating effect, he has not publicly demonstrated it or allowed outside experts to measure it, as far as I know. (Perhaps he did and I missed the news.) Also, as far as I know, only one other group claims to have replicated his work, and it wasn't an energy-generating effect per se, it was the NMR test. That's better than zero replications, but I'll hold out for 3 or 4 before getting excited. There are two sets of rules: The rules of technology, which call for some sort of demonstration that no one can argue with, such as putting a silicon transistor in boiling vegetable oil to prove it works at high temperature. Or, the rules of experimental science, which call for several independent replications. Mills has to pass one, or the other, or both. He has not done this yet. He does not get a special exemption or a free pass. Perhaps Mills does not care whether people believe him. Perhaps he is not looking for a free pass. That's fine. That would be his business. But in that case it is absurd for Mike Carrell to demand that I believe anything Mills says. Arata's public demonstration, for all of its imperfections, was more compelling than anything Mills has done, to my knowledge. > Mills has repeatedly stated that there exists a H-2H catalytic reaction in > which two H atoms can induce the hyrino transition in a third H atom. Once > created, the hydrino can catalyse other H atoms. The conditions under whch > the reaction rate may be significant include the cathodes or LENR cells. The > reaction is strongly exothermic, beyond ordinary chemistry. Such may produce > "excess heat", but does not account for transmutation or 4He production. > Notably, Mills has not claimed any connection with LENR 'excess heat'. > I wouldn't know but perhaps what he thinks are hydrinos are actually helium atoms (or vice versa). Anyway, until several groups independently replicate his findings and agree with his evaluation, it is all hot air. He can "repeatedly state" that atoms shrink and transition, and he can write a 2,000 pages of theory but that doesn't count. Experiment and replication is the only source of truth. > There are now seven licenses issued for BLP power plants. The clients range > from small rural cooperatives to signficant corporations. One can be assured > that the negotiations were not be onlyh by prospectus, but by direct visits, > demonstrations, and outside consltants. Well, when someone makes a visit and publishes something like an account or a YouTube video of an energy generating device, please let me know. Until I will believe NOTHING. > As corporate commitments are involved, due diligence is also, as meaningful > as any number of journal papers. > > I note that Jed is carefully fence-sitting. I hope he as a pillow to make > his perch comfortable.:-). > I never fence sit. I apply one set of rules to all claims, conventional and unconventional. If Mills or Rossi can pass either the test for science (replication) or the test for technology (demonstration) I will believe them. Until they do, I would not believe them. It is simple: I never give a free pass to any claim, even when someone I trust such as Mike Carrell or Gene Mallove thinks the claim is real. - Jed
