Robin, > Once again you appear to miss the point. The point is that it's not an either/or situation....Sometimes an electron can take up a Bohr orbit fleetingly, IOW it's not forbidden by the Schrödinger equation.... The question is, can you prove this statement wrong?
This is a good point, and I'm glad you are pressing it. Additionally, it may relate to Mills refusal to give up his absurd model - the "OS" LOL. I think you have nailed an important common denominator between QM and "classical". But there are more relevant questions: like: are sub-ground state "orbitals" more like Bohr in terms of probability? ... most of which implications, R. Mills completely ignores (since he would be embarrassed otherwise, most likely). And, since we are on the subject, how does Mills rationalize this 3.5 nm discrepancy - could it be related to a non-Bohr orbital ? http://www.blacklightpower.com/presentations/Hydrino_Light_Signature_W_Spect ra.pdf Anyway, since the 19.3 nm peak is NOT predicted by prior versions of Mills theory (it should be at 22.8 nm)... What gives? This experiment has impressive hardware. We must give it credence. But it also indicates how Mills has passed over "practicality" in pursuit of theory. Where is his commercial "solid fuel" reactor - promised in 2008? Jones May 28, 2008. BLP announced that they have a 50 kW reactor prototype ready to take commercial immediately, and a number of licensees who are grid suppliers (mostly in New Mexico for some reason). Fast forward almost 4 years: nada. Bottom line: is Randell Mills any more believable than Andrea Rossi?
