Oh I think it is entirely equivalent.
The ITER team has blown over 14 billion just to make a proof of concept that can't even run over-unity. The ITER was initially formed back in 1985, so that's 32 years ago. So 32 years and 14 billion flushed down the toilet and they don't even have a working proof of concept yet.
Mills has taken half the time with a hundredth of the resources to go from theory to functional reactor, and now on to a functional generator. Yet I don't see you complaining that fusion reactors aren't real. In terms of progress, Mills team makes the ITER team look like a bunch of turtles.
No, there is no doubt at all that fusion reactions have been created both in nature, in stars, and on Earth, in hydrogen bombs and yes, in Tokomak runs.
The science is well documented, explained and has garned Nobel prizes.
.
None of that can be said of the physics of hydrinos despite it being touted by Mills for almost as long as Tokomak has been around.
You are falsely equating development of a machine with the scientific concept.
How long did it take to go from E=mc
2 to the Manhattan project? (Answer ~29 years) How long between Alamogordo and EBR-1 (Answer 4.5 years)
From Rutherford & Einstein to working fission power plant is over 3 decades. Fusion reactors are not available not because the science and concept of fusion is unproven, it's engineering issues such as containment of plasma capable of destroying any physical container.
That said, you haven't answered the question yet.
Given, the claims of Mills at having produced hydrinos, and
given the promises of having a production model available for installation in businesses in the next 12 months, if the science is not proven and the generator not available in a year will you harbour doubt? If it's still stalled in development in 5 years from now? 10 years?
