re: “He could have proved his hydrino exactly as I described.”
Would you know how to ‘read areport’ of that type if it were handed to you.
There are something like THIRTY (30) in-depth analytical reports examining the Hydrino; Do you think you could get through one? Do you know any calorimetry or spectroscopy?
And as I wrote before, most posters are too lazy to investigate any of this. Ans as I wrote before, boilers in the 250 kW range are being tested, readied for field trials; Does ANY of this make into your head? DO YOU KNOW WHAT A BOILER IS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT 250 kW REPRESENTS IN THIS KIND OF APPLICATION? We’re no longer in the 5 to 10 W on-the-bench lab curiosities.
Look asshole, if you stop with the antagonistic sh*t, I might be willing to actually discuss real science, which you obviously are incapable of.
I am a PhD chemist with a spectroscopy and nuclear background, I designed instrumentation for 50 years (now retired). I know how instruments work, I know spectroscopy, I also know mechanics and design.
Here is the fact. Mills claimed to have synthesized hydrino compounds. Sent to any professional chemical analysis lab that does instrumental analysis (specifically infrared and NMR) would yield incontrovertible evidence whether his theory is right or not. No fancy theory garbage...just incontrovertible measurements. And that process cannot be interfered with by outside parties, or those labs would rapidly go out of business.
The rest of your diatribe simply proves that you have totally swallowed the Mills Kool-aid.
Show me the DATA. HARD DATA. Not bullbleep.