-----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > That was kind of a silly refutation of Mills. Hydrinos, if real, result from occupation of previously unknown states below the ground state. In other words, the "ground state" is not the ground state, merely a plateau that is normally not punctured.
On the contrary - this seems to be the only logical approach at present. However, I have made your same argument to vortex in past postings, so let me express why - myself and other former fence straddlers have abandoned some of Randy's CQM theory, in total frustration. The burden of proof for such a contentious claim is on Mills, of course, and he has not met the burden - although his experimental work is top notch. That is the problem. There is gain in his experiments, but not enough to justify an unlikely theory. Over the past twenty years Mills has not been able to physically produce (for independent testing) the particle itself, despite saying he has collected them, so why should anyone waste time with the lame rationalization? Because of the Thermacore work, the line broadening, calorimetry, NASA rocket engine and UV, he certainly earned a temporary benefit of doubt - for a decade and more, but the continuing inability to produce hydrinos for independent testing, as well as outright duplicity about his close friend Jansson - is the last nail in the coffin IMO. There are other (better) ways to explain the gain, including a form of LENR (aka - the Italian job - Focardi, Piantelli, Celani, Rossi) etc ... not to mention a ZPE effect and/or the relativistic argument. Many of Mills technical arguments, in the absence of physical proof, have also fallen by the wayside. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0631v2 Tom Stolper wrote a convincing and flattering book on Mills ("America's Newton") and I have a lot of respect for Tom and Mike Carroll ... but lately even Mills' best cheerleaders seem to have given-up trying bail a sinking ship. Having said all that - I'll be the first to jump back onboard the Maru Hydrino, if Mills can ever "stand and deliver," but he has certainly not earned the continuing trust of open-minded science, or investors - and deserves zero "benefit of doubt" now, after such a long string of disappointments. Jones
