Excess Heat

The research work of Dr. Robert Bush, Dr. Robert Eagleton and student James Djunaedy was the subject of an article published in Dr. Eugene Mallove's magazine, Infinite Energy , number 12, 1997 .  I was working for FAA when I received this issue and it strongly influenced me to attempt a Mills replication.  The article describes a situation that is not supposed to happen.  It was one thing to believe that Fleischmann and Pons blew it and claimed experimental results of excess heat that could not be reproduced.  I do not believe that to be the case, but it is believable to most people.  In this instance, at Cal Poly, was a team producing results in a robust and highly reproducible fashion, if their reports are to be accepted.  Why would someone not find their reports credible, or at least worthy of consideration? This group reported strong calorimetry results using light water electrolytic cells, run at sufficient input power to exclude the possible confounding factors associated wi

Everyone is wrong sometimes, so what precisely is the title asking?  Is Mills wrong about his theory, the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Mechanics (GUTCP)?  Or, is the theory generally correct, but wrong in some aspect?  Or, is the theory totally wrong, yet the data predicted by the theory proved to be correct by empirical testing?  Or, is the theory essentially wrong and the empirical data that is said to be supporting it falsified or mistaken?   I began to approach Mills by reading his 1991 paper as far as I could.  It was 1997.  I got the gist of it.  He was saying that the atomic physics that followed from the Schrodinger Equation (SQM) was not correct, particularly that the ground state predicted by only positive integer values of n in the Rydberg equation did not give the full picture.  In this theory, Mills states that the ground state postulated in SQM is incorrect, that there are energy states of the atom below the "ground state", states he termed hydrino.  This