@optiongeek
Mills is not opposed by all LENR followers. Only by some. I think it is because they don´t understand each other very well. Mills thinks LENR is bullshit because he just sees one possible mechanism for LENR and that is hydrino catalyzed fusion (shrunken H atom has much higher probability for “tunneling” or to be tunneled). And he expects hydrino catalyzed fusion to be in a non economic power/energy range. With saying “LENR is bullshit” Mills does not take some major experimental results of LENR research into account (like SPAWAR – Pamela Mosier-Boss et al) which show transmutation and thermal runaway which is not explainable with a simple hydrino reaction.
The LENR folks on the other hand already work with the “crap science” stigma and studying the theorys of another “crap scientist” is probably too much. For most people (including LENR scientists) Mills seems to be too much away from established physics to put effort into understanding him.
Bringing these two groups together is pointless right now. Mills (probably) will be able to show a closed loop system within the next two years that can run for a day or two. After this demonstration LENR researches will have to view all their results in the new (brilliant) light of GUTCP. My guess is that high power LENR is not so far away with a proper theory (GUTCP) and a working hydrino generator.
@ Jed
There are independent replications. Optiongeek posted one but there are also results of two world class plasma physicists that used their own equipment in their own labs. They looked at the spectrum of the plasma with the hydrino catalyst and with a chemically similar but different material.
Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.
Driessen, N. M., E. M. van Veldhuizen, P. Van Noorden, R. J. L. J. De Regt, and G. M. W. Kroesen. (2005) “Balmer-alpha line broadening analysis of incandescently heated hydrogen plasmas with potassium catalyst.” In XXVIIth ICPIG, Eindoven, the Netherlands. 18-22 July.
There was a german report on BLP and the research of Conrads which gives some additional information to the first paper. Here is my translation of the relevant part:
…Critics [of Mills] insist, that most external validations of his experiments are not independent because BLP has either consulted or the experiments were conducted in BLPs labs. These was avoided by the professor of physics Johannes Conrads. Conrads was personally interested in this work but his long time working place, the research facility Jülich, feared an image loss if replications of Mills were conducted in Jülich. The Ruhr Universität Bochum was more open in 2001 under the restriction, that his research was not about Mills “crazy theory”. But Mills plasma lamp burned. “I well remember the sun burn one day later” said the involved physicists Thomas Wrubel. The BLP reaction produced intense UV light. “From theory it is not predicted that such extreme UV radiation exists in this setup”, comments Gerrit Kroesen of technical university Eindhoven, who studies the BLP process himself. “You have to bend yourself a lot to find an explanation”.
Conrads and Wrubel examined the mysterious glow with known methods. They also modified the experiment. They worked on it for one year, but an explanation for their results could not be found because “ the minimum energy [for their spectroscopic results] was not there. Either we have a new chemical reaction we could not identifiy or analyse or it is something very odd.” Wrubel said. Mills was added as a co-auther when they published their results in 2003, because he gave them the reaction vessel.
. Now it seems that they reached a very rewarding time in the suncell development. But as in most products there is the rule: to get 80% performance you need 20% of the time. To get the last 20% performance you need 80% of the time.
