Mark,
The one remaining possibility which could explain how the brilliant scientist Mills' is being outflanked and outscored - thoroughly, and by a lowly engineer working on a few percent of his budget, could relate to that mysterious product: the CIHT, mentioned by Peter. It could be his last hurrah. Since it is a direct conversion device, and since that feature would make it extremely important in terms of commercial value, a hero-product really: relegating Rossi to the hot water market - then this explanation is possible. IOW - that when the direct converter was discovered - everything else at BLP was dropped completely in favor of the (poorly named) device. Otherwise Mills is not only an embarrassment, but almost a laughing stock due to the missed opportunities, as you note. For a long time, it had seemed to me that the delay in Mills' progress towards getting his much publicized 'solid state' reactor into grid operation - related to radioactive ash and activation - and the efforts to get rid of radioactivity .. but perhaps not. This is because when V&B essentially proved that there is no radioactivity in the Rossi device, during or after a long and energetic run, then this outcome makes it also not the problem for Mills that it seemed to be, at first. The only present rationalization that allows Mills any wiggle-room for being the scorned bridegroom who got left at the altar, is that he made the huge breakthrough with the CIHT technology, which was so advantageous that it was worth dropping everything else for - even a multi-year delay. Of course, Mills might still fail to get it to market - just as happened with the solid fuel (sodium hydride) reactor, and the Capstone micro-turbine partnership before that, and. hold on, before that there was the reverse gyratron, and so one. It is a long history of embarrassing disappointments - and it almost defies the imagination that after 20 years he has nothing of value to show to the public- given what Rossi has done (apparently) with so little funding. Jones From: Mark Iverson I renamed this thread cuz I'd like to hear opinions as to WHY an engineer succeeded where ALL the scientists failed in optimizing the excess heat and controllability of whatever this reaction is??? In our conversation about Mills/BLP, Peter wrote: "His theory is OK, verified by experiment." But an 'engineer' (i.e., someone not real knowledgeable about theoretical foundations) optimized the excess heat effect and controllability of the reaction in only a few years and with very little money compared to BLP (20 years and $60M)... So either Mills' theory has serious errors or holes, or they have incompetent scientists/engineering managers who are making bad decisions as to what tests/experiments to do, thus wasting alot of time and not achieving true UNDERSTANDING of what variables affect the reaction. If Mills' theories were accurate, then optimizing/manipulating the reaction mechanisms would have happened by now... and they would have beat Rossi to the market. What's more likely is that the conclusions that come out of Mills' theories have caused them to go down numerous 'dead-ends'... and Mills' ego refuses to acknowledge that his theory needs some serious revisions. -Mark
