Guys, we are wasting time and repeating ourselves.
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos
Again what errors? If you had read my post, you would already realize that response is simply wrong.
As I already said multiple times, requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors.
Also: RathkeMills made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstands Mills'existing theory both of which millsRathke pointed out.
When I can keep doing this to your sentences, it is probably because you aren't communicating anything with them. Unlike you I can point out a specific error made by Mills. He allowed wavefunctions that don't go to 0 at infinity. When you normalize such a wavefunction, you get the equation 1 = infinity. I hope you can see the problem there.
really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.
He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.
“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”
Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.
In a universe that is almost certainly not ours where hydrinos turn out to be real, it is easy to predict the kind of statements that Rathke would say, such as "these clear independent replications show that there is <insert value> energy produced by this reaction", and "This new theory of the hydrino is significantly different from the original to actually be consistent with known results in quantum mechanics, and to be internally self-consistent."
Meanwhile, your use of the word "will" in the sentence about Rathke admitting hydrinos exist indicates that you do not care about evidence and refuse to accept any possibility that they don't.
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
The so-called "errors" include at least 2 things that are obviously not errors, and seemed as if removing those would make Mills' entire response invalid.
If there are any real errors please describe them here yourself. Quoting and paraphrasing are acceptable, assuming you actually understand what Rathke or Mills wrote.
Otherwise I agree with gospacex, there is no point in continuing this conversation. You seem immune to both logic and evidence and incapable of providing evidence to back your own assertions.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.
You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
The so-called "errors" include at least 2 things that are obviously not errors, and seemed as if removing those would make Mills' entire response invalid.
If there are any real errors please describe them here yourself. Quoting and paraphrasing are acceptable, assuming you actually understand what Rathke or Mills wrote.
Otherwise I agree with gospacex, there is no point in continuing this conversation. You seem immune to both logic and evidence and incapable of providing evidence to back your own assertions.
Mills can speak for himself. This is a conversation that you are free to participate in or not. But this thread is about Mills work so I feel free to debate it. I've provided links to everything you asked. You can read the first chapters of Mills tome yourself. It's free.
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.
Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. " which makes no sense at all because that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.htmlYou may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.
You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.
Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. " which makes no sense at all because that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.
Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
As I previously mentioned, the "independent validators" weren't really independent and they didn't do much to validate Mills' claims. They were allowed to observe demonstrations and take some measurements of them. That's it. They did not replicate the experimental setup or the findings. None of them say that they observed hydrinos.
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.
You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.
Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circular
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. " which makes no sense at all because that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.
Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.
Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.
Yes, thanks, First, n is implied and that's the way Mills uses the symbols here. It's not a problem. Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here. Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble. I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here. Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.
So, miscommunication, and yes,
Mills isn't blameless here, and sloppy work led Rathke to his key conclusions. So sad that most physicists won't know all that and think that since someone of repute has debunked hydrino's, that's the end of it. I sent a message to Mills asking for clarification, something Rathke could have easily done. I'll let you know if I get a response. Thanks again for the discussion.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
As I previously mentioned, the "independent validators" weren't really independent and they didn't do much to validate Mills' claims. They were allowed to observe demonstrations and take some measurements of them. That's it. They did not replicate the experimental setup or the findings. None of them say that they observed hydrinos.
I disagree. As I said, some clearly reproduced the results in their own labs and with their own materials. They confirmed the large energy gains unexplained by conventional chemistry.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
I think that shutting up discussion should be used *very* sparingly. Even if you think it's useless, well, you can simply avoid it. But what if you are wrong and the discussion is in some way useful? Shutting it up destroys that.
There is a reason why Western political systems have "freedom of speech" component. It's extremely useful.
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.
What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?
Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.
The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.
I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.
Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - r
n).
Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.
Where is this sign error? I don't see it.
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.
What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?
Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.
The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.
I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.
Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - rn).
Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.
Where is this sign error? I don't see it.
Equation 16 in Rathke's paper is the wrong function. You were correct, I used delta(r) and that doesn't work.
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly. Also, there would then be a problem with divergence as there would be zeros in the denominator which has 1/(r-r_n) terms. But of course if one evaluates the radial part first, then it trivially solves the radial Laplacian since there are is no r dependence at all. So now I think the solutions should, be written without the delta function, just constants/(r_n)^2. His solutions are solutions of the 2D wave equation. Mills solves for r_n by what he calls a Force balance equation. Rathke does claim Mills angular solutions can't work but Mills morphs the 2D angular equation into the famous rigid rotator equation with know solutions being the Ylm functions. Equation 9 in Rathke's paper should have a negative sign. It does in Mills' book and papers. See chapter 1 of Mills free book, page 63. Thanks for the discussion.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.
To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.
Let me know if Mills ever responds to criticism by actually improving his theory and fixing flaws in it rather than using lots of words as a distraction to pretend there is no issue.
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.
To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.
Let me know if Mills ever responds to criticism by actually improving his theory and fixing flaws in it rather than using lots of words as a distraction to pretend there is no issue.
Mills informed me that he did not use the wave equation directly to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations. He also stated that Rathke was solving a non existent problem. Just to be clear, I don't know Mills personally and all my exchanges with him are in the context of a discussion group online like this discussion with you. His answers are always terse and I can't claim to always know exactly what he means.
I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent but I am working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free. Until you do so you cannot know whether it really is inconsistent or not. Also, consistency is certainly desirable for any theory, it is not a necessary conditions for a theory to accurately describe nature.
Also,
of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being 'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong. Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It was constructed to get the right energy levels. It works great very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.
It occurs to me that the radial part of the electron solutions could not solely be derived from a classical wave equation without any information about EM interactions included but the angular parts can as Mills has shown its equivalent to the rigid rotator equation. What I would like to do now is to fully understand how Mills postulated his 2D electron function and understand what if any differential equation can be hypothesized which gives both the discreet radial solutions and the angular solutions together as the Schrodinger equation does and show if that is equivalent to Mills' process. It is my belief that Mills would benefit by recasting his theory and derivations in a format closer to what people are used to with the Schrodinger equation. Thanks again for the discussion. Any inputs would be helpful.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
If there is anything to this power source, then it certainly has space based applications. Compact heat and electrical power sources are critical to cheaper deep space utilization. I don't know if there's anything to this or not. So many times with too many miracle power sources it has been bait and switch. I remain open to seeing what will happen.
More realistic sources like Helion or LPP don't make claims as fantastic as BLP or Rossi, and there really is not much to say about them. Other fusion attempts like Wendelstein, ITER, or General are just too large to have much applicable use near-term, even if they were suddenly working tomorrow.