Contrary to popular belief, Mills was not the first to suggest the fractional hydrogen state, even if many of his supporters want to give him that status. Dr. Robert Carroll predicted fractional quantum states of hydrogen in 1976 in a published book: The Eternity Equation, and there were others. An inventor named Arie de Geus (now deceased) patented an energy production method that involved creating fractional hydrogen from lithium as the prime reactant at a time when Mills had never published any experiment with lithium. Piantelli beat Mills to publication with nickel-hydrogen. And so on.
Mills did go well beyond Carroll on fleshing out the theory, but RM did not discover the fractional state. Moreover, a graduate student of Carroll predicted the 137 inverse quantum levels, also claimed by Mills - but the history of alpha WRT Schrödinger goes back many years. http://www.cce.ufes.br/jair/mq2grad/ArchHistExactSci395_Kragh_Magic_Number_P artial_History_Fine_Structure_Constant.pdf In short, Mills has plenty of competition in the fractional hydrogen arena as to authorship of a workable theory and unfortunately - he appears to be lost-in-space with regards to useful applications even if his is the name most associated with the theory. In short, Mills had a golden opportunity but seems to have blown it - and most of that can be traced to a stubborn rejection of quantum mechanics and LENR. Of course, the Sun-Cell could salvage everything, if it is real - but isnt BLP already overdue on that? From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent >From Jones: > Oops typo should be: Therefore, a logical conclusion is that dark matter > is most likely a degenerate from of light matter, meaning that it is mostly > hydrogen in a different and denser form. > BTW - This would be the same species as seen in the many Holmlid/Miley papers, > which is called IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen. > Holmlid: A much denser state exists for hydrogen ... and the bond distance is > very small, equal to 2.3 pm. Its density is extremely large >130 kg / cm3 > here is one paper: > http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036/pdf/1742-6596_244_3_032036 >From my layman's POV these explanations sound VERY similar to Dr. Mills' hydrino model which allegedly consists of smaller more sense hydrogen atoms that apparently exist in great abundance below the officially accepted ground state. Can someone lay out some of the basic differences that might exist between the Rydberg hydrogen model vs Dr. Mills' hydrino model? Feel free to clarify any misinterpretations I may have made in my previous wording. It might be a good idea to point out what the most significant theoretical difference might be between competing models of Dark Matter that apparently involve the hydrogen atom. I'm curious. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
