OK I've had time to do some due diligence on Mills and his critics and while I'm not sufficiently versed in the details to be convinced one way or another about Mills, I can say unequivocally that Mills' critics are not being intellectually honest. We may dismiss, out of hand, any attempt at scientific, as opposed to business, critique based on failure to deliver intellectual property to market and similar critiques that amount to "smells like crackpottery" <http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/>. Its fine to use those arguments to admonish people to not waste their time and money on research or development of Mills's theory and/or technology, but we must not mistake such investment decisions as deciding the science itself. That leaves critiques such as A Rathke's <http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/#nj196979bib6> and, to be clear, the class of such critiques appears to consist of exactly the one by A Rathke, which Mills showed was flawed <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2t1TWkOVtG9VDF3NlpxTXNkRW8/edit>. The proper scholarly refutation of Mills would go back to the accepted scholarship of George Goedecke's paper on the nonradiation condition published in the early 1960s (attached) and proceed to show that the direction he established for recasting the uncertainty principle in terms of classical physics does not lead to fractional Rydberg states. This is a neglected line of scholarship that, so long as it is left to Mills alone, leaves Mills in a theoretically unassailed position. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/3/2014 7:54 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > He's talking about exceedingly high power densities. > > I haven't done anything like due-diligence for this technology so don't > bother wasting your time unless it is recreational.... > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ > > Mills' "hydrino" theory has been out there for years. For all I have > seen it has all the hallmarks of pathological science. > There are some refutations of this theory that can be seen here: > > > http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/ > > > and here: > > http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/#nj196979bib6 > > > I just don't see how you get below the currently accepted ground state of > hydrogen w/o having to revise a fundamental constant like h. > > Dave > > > >
Attachment:
Goedecke_ClassicallyRadiationalessMotionsAndPossibleImplicationsForQuantumTheory_1964_NewMexicoStateUniversity_779k.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document