Jones Beene wrote:
"Curious" ... in the sense that Mills has strong academic credentials, no hidden ingredients, a vetted theory with 20 years of refinement, a stellar Board of directors,>$60mm raised in capital - and yet suffers only from the lack of 100% independence in verification.
I do not follow Mills closely. Maybe I am wrong, but as far as I know, he has never demonstrated anything remotely as close to a high powered, practical device as the Rossi device. If he had, I -- for one -- would be as enthusiastic about his work as I am about Rossi. As I have often said, theory makes not one iota of difference to me. Frankly, a stellar board of directors or $60 million do not impress me much either. If I had to guess, I suppose it would mean that many of Mills experiments and claims are well supported. That's true for bulk Pd-D cold fusion as well, but I have never thought that technique has any commercial prospects.
I certainly take Mills 100% seriously, and I have since Mills and Thermocore described Ni-H experiments at MIT in 1992, and in the 1993 Final Report. I thought that was sold work. It was convincing. I have taken the Ni-H approach seriously ever since. But it often seemed stalled. Unfortunately Mills was not independently replicated in a convincing way, and the power density was so low it seemed impractical. Later Piantelli and Focardi demonstrated higher temperatures and higher power density with Ni-H. Again, that was not replicated as far as I know.
Lately, as we all know, Rossi has done extremely convincing Ni-H systems. (By "system" I mean a mixture of Ni and other metals, with a stimulus, which is different from Mills circa 1992.) I was ready to believe it from the start, when I heard about it a year ago, in part because others have done similar experiments. That's always a good sign.
Brian Ahern is also reporting significant heat and power density from Ni-H systems. Which lends support to Rossi, and vice versa. Many groups in Italy are frantically trying to replicate Rossi. I gather they are making educated guesses about the two mystery elements. If one of them hits the nail on the head that will certainly prove these claims beyond any question. I hope that happens. I can see why Rossi hopes it will not happen.
Rossi has a strange personality and he makes what appear to be outrageous claims. That causes a person who is not careful or objective to dismiss Rossi's work. It turns out, that's a huge mistake. His personality is irrelevant and so far his claims have been 100% true, even though they seem outrageous. Only a fool would bet that he will not eventually make a 1 MW reactor. It may not be on time, but unless outside forces or events prevent him, it is likely he will make it.
In science or business, art or any creative field, you should try to ignore personality issues and let the work speak for itself. That isn't easy. Sometimes it is impossible -- because you are only human and personality is bound to affect your judgment. Rossi and Mills both rub me the wrong way, and I find it hard to look beyond their style to the content of their claims.
- Jed
