-----Original Message----- >Too bad for Tom Stolper (and others, present company included) who looked at >the Mills saga in the early 90's and were convinced for a time that there >really was something there. Mills may well be judged by history to have been >closer to Isaac Asimov than to Isaac Newton.
..boy, you really do have it in for Mills don't you. ;) Well, Robin - my disappointment runs deep, due not so much to the string of failures going all the way back to the Capstone/Rosenblum interview, but from the deathly silence on Mills' part in failing to explain why the many "sure thing" implementations did not work. Ditto reverse gyrotron. Ditto hydrino battery. Ditto solid fuel reactor and many more. Now the CIHT is about to hit the fan. And as you stated in another post "I wrote to Mills a couple of years back suggesting that what he needed was a partnership with a really good engineer, someone like Dean Kamen. However I think my advice was ignored." So true. That is precisely what was needed then, and is needed now. The only device based on Mills theory which was proved to work for long term gain was the Thermacore effort 20 years ago. That was a year-long success built by three engineers who knew how to go from the Lab to a useful device, and which could have been pushed forward to a simple water heater - but wasn't - because of petty jealousy and "not-invented-here syndrome". Especially consider that since Kamen had already engineered a Stirling engine which could have been an ideal front-end for many exiting projects, if powered by f/H - it makes no sense for BLP not to go that route - other than a gigantic ego getting in the way. Mills deserves far more criticism - than he is getting here. After all, we are nice guys at heart, on vortex. And most of us do realize that parts of CQM are brilliant, but not all of it. Mills should be thankful that "Gary Wright" is not on his case :) http://shutdownrossi.com/
