In reply to James Bowery's message of Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:07:18 -0500: Hi, [snip] >No of course a Newton, Maxwell, etc comes along once a century or so. > That's not what I'm talking about. Its more like someone accidentally >discovers steam power but can't really reproduce it because Newton's laws >of mechanics had been buried in ad hoc nonsense for a century -- and then >James Watt not only invents the steam engine but comes up with Newtonian >mechanics to make the phenomenon reproducible and commercializable.
It's actually the other way around. Mills came up with the theory first, then started looking for ways to realize practical benefits from it. He has been through a whole series of different practical approaches. > > >2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources -- > >> >either of which would provide the profound technological utility. >> >> This is not a miracle if one enables the other, which in this case is also >> likely. I.e. if Hydrinos are real, then it's highly likely that they will >> lead >> to enhanced nuclear reaction rates, due to enhanced tunneling rates at >> closer >> proximity (hence the conflation). >> > >Really? Given Mills's claims for more tractable mathematical modeling it >seems he should have quantitative predictions about these tunneling events >and should be making the corresponding measurements in his burns. Initially he suggested that nuclear reactions were possible, but practical experience has led him to conclude that they are not happening at any appreciable rate (at least in his own experiments). Personally, I suspect this is because he works primarily with low "p" value Hydrinos, i.e. mostly p = 4. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
