"BLP continues to tout the idea of using these hydrinos in products like super good anti-corrosion coatings for ships. Great, in 20 years have they supplied any of this hydrino product to coating manufacturing?" If I understand correctly, Mills did not publicize hydrino hydrides until spring of 2004. That is less than 9 years ago. Also, consider that in addition to this discovery, they are also touting the more recent solid-fuel hydrino reactor as well as the CIHT fuel cell. Before all that was the discovery of plasma based systems. It is easy to see why this might 20 years or more to develop.
"Or more simply have they done an experiment where they recover the water from their experiments that allegedly recover energy from water and keep using that water and notice as the build up hydrinos increases the ability of the water to supply energy declines?" They do not try to reform the water after taking the hydrogen out of it. In the CIHT cell design, once the hydrogen is used, the oxygen is incorporated in other oxygen species which serve various functions in the fuel cell. The ability for the water to supply energy declines the moment that energy is extracted from them, rendering them as "non water". There are no indications in the paper that recombination of two hydrinos with one atom of oxygen will form "water", or that further energy would be extracted by catalytic reaction of such "water", nor is any importance placed upon trying to measure the amount of such "water" as a separate item from normal H20. The interest here, primarily, is not the notion of "recycling water" for further extraction of energy, but rather, the interest here is to allow the electron of hydrogen atoms to fall to lower fractional orbitals below ground state and allow that energy to be harness through an electrochemical fuel cell via absorption of energy by ions.'—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk "My objection to the characterization of Rowan as an a source of independent research on BLP theories was at least partially based on this issue. Where is it that Rowan showed a hint of independent thought about the experiments they did? Did they ask questions like this and do independent testing to try to ferret out answers or did they work as paid technicians that did exactly the experiments that BLP paid them to run and only report their results after BLP had approved the reports? Has BLP ever done' an experiment which proved that they could distinguish between water with hydrinos and water that doesn't have hydrinos?" To my knowledge, Mills has not made it clear that two hydrinos could combine with an oxygen atom, and this is perhaps because the nature of them would be rather unclear at this time, thus not justifying and publication of claims regarding that issue. Any questions specifically about this probably have no solid answers at this time, so it would not be surprising if no information could be gathered that Rowan scientists asking these sorts of questions, because that would probably not be available until the questions have good answers. BLP is not the type that publishes a question that it does not have an answer to, so it keeps mention of such to a minimum until better data can be gathered. So answers to your questions are, as far as I know, are "not publicized, not publicized, yes, no".
As far as my view about whether or not Rowan constitute independent research—it's not.''''—Expert Sectioneer'' of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk