A Hydrino is a little hydrogen atom. Little compared to what? Compared to a hydrogen atom in "ground state". What is "ground state"? Well ... that is a very important question.
Atoms are very active, complex and energetic objects. The challenges with investigating something that small have been enormous and ongoing for thousands of years. A hydrogen atom can have its electron in one of many orbits, each one represented by a different quantity of energy. The Standard theory of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) does not allow orbits (or orbitspheres, as Mills discovered) to exist at energies and orbits below the ground state. SQM does not recognize that energy could be released from hydrogen during the transition of the electron from ground state to a lower orbit. This is the prime reason that Randell Mills' claims of discovery fall on deaf ears. He is way out of the paradigm.
Dr. Mills predicted that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and the magnitude of that acceleration. I learned this from a published interview of him, in Infinite Energy magazine, where I worked for Dr. Eugene Mallove. I had been interested since 1995 in the theory (and especially data) of Dr. Mills, but I learned he totally rejected quantum mechanics as I knew it, so I thought he was likely wrong. But, who was I, with only basic college chemistry, to hold a valuable opinion?
Nobody (to my knowledge) predicted that the universe was expanding and accelerating, but it is, with magnitude matching Mills' prediction. This made the Big Bang even more improbable than it was, because an initial bang imparts momentum only, not propulsion. The acceleration all happens in the first moment, in the bang. So, they saved the Big Bang Theory by pulling another ad hoc out of the bag, inventing and proving Dark Energy, cut from whole cloth.
The ease of conjecture in modern physics is what you might expect in a crisis, and it has been so for generations. Contemporaneous statements from the period, like Schrodinger's and Einstein's, called for total re-examination, but there were insufficient grounds to rebuild. This was a sharp contrast from the time of only CP, when just about everything was finally nailed down, almost.
The acceleration of the universe is a direct consequence of a correct model of the electron. This is how Dr. Mills deduced it, the same way he deduced Hydrino states.
A change in allotrope is, most emphatically, not a nuclear reaction. An allotrope is one of two or more different forms of an element. Carbon has allotropes of graphite, diamond, etc. It is a change to a different energy state of an element, not a change to another element or isotope. Chemical reactions are not supposed to be this powerful. Dr. Mills states that they have vaporized tungsten, which requires a power way beyond oxy-acetylene, 6000 F. Tungsten boils at 10,706 F. This occurs with the power required to run a hair dryer.
So, finding a way to make the reaction without consuming the reactor was the challenge, and Mills made a leap forward in design by using molten silver as electrodes. They are vaporized on contact, but not degraded or consumed. They are injected, like a fountain, toward each other. The voltage difference between them must be very low, a few Volts, but the current is extreme, perhaps 22,000 Amps. A lightning bolt has perhaps 10,000 Amps for a very brief time. The SunCell current is determined by the flow of plasma through the vaporized silver that is extremely ionized, forming extremely conductive plasma, within the negative resistance region of space. As the voltage drops, the current increases. This creates a condition for dense space charge, which is what results when you are ionizing so many atoms.
Exact data is sketchy at this time, because there is always the chance of a competitor emerging in the final stretch. One has to wonder about secret government labs investigating this. Can this very simple device be as singular as it appears?
Dr. Mills states that once the cell is fully operating, the silver pumps can be turned off, as the liquid silver is boiling, and it is a dense plasma. The voltage differential can be shut down, and the reaction continues, fueled by the massive energy flux from production of Hydrino. Only a small feed of hydrogen is needed. If these things are true, there is no prosaic explanation. It requires new physics (which is actually old physics, finally discovered).
There is no great leap here. The basic arc welding experiment is not hard to picture. The power that goes into the tip of the welder is simply found by making continuous measurements of the changing voltage across the shot and current through it, and multiplying them, moment by moment, to get power in Watts. Not rocket science, but requires special probes that certainly exist. So, measuring input power can be potentially done to a high accuracy, reasonable precision and certainty. You can always put two sets of probes going to two different instruments, from different manufacturers.
Not everybody is lucky like me to know that such instruments work the way they do, or what exactly they do. My father was a man who built his own electronics test equipment, radio gear, etc., and was a professor of electrical engineering. I was playing with an oscilloscope at age 3, driven by a microphone, so I could see the waveform of my sounds. My father loved to instill curiosity. So do I.
Measuring output power is done in two ways. All energy winds up as heat, eventually. So, if you wait long enough, and have good insulation, you can capture heat as it raises the temperature of your calorimeter. This is a very old method, and quite reliable in the right hands. Many people who know it do not trust it because there are numerous ways to do it wrong.
The second way is to measure the power of the electromagnetic energy, the light, produced in the flash.
I know that a good technician can very accurately measure the optical power from the flash from exploding the shot. There is an assumption of uniform light intensity in all directions (isotropic), so it's not perfect, but close enough. It is the standard way of measuring explosive power in light spectrum and it is calibrated by standards that trace back to NIST, or military, etc. This is standard measurement technique and (rare) instrumentation.
To make such a claim as the optical power is 20 million Watts from a tiny bit of fuel, is really over the top. A car needs about 150 thousand W, but the driver would like a megaWatt.
The emphasis he places on this fact makes sense. Power to weight ratio is familiar to performance fans. The weight is almost nothing. The power is stellar, but it is very brief, about one thousandth of a second. So, the goal for the past few years has been to build a reactor that could produce these flashes at a high enough rate where the reaction is continuous, and this goal has been reached, and improved upon, remarkably.
It is clear what is happening. If they did not know how to use the instruments, they would not get consistent results occurring over a broad range of experiments. If Mills was committing fraud, there would be a legal prosecution of the man. To write that the scientific establishment has placed a bounty on him, is not too much hyperbole. Frauds do get caught, and some continue to operate, but this is not like the days of John D. Rockefeller, snake oil salesman, par excellence. Mills would not be able to live down real fraud. There would be some stockholder class action suits, or professional shaming from editors of peer-reviewed journals. From all the people who worked with Mills, we would find some serious whistle blowers. Instead, we see the opposite. The consensus seems to be in agreement with my distant observations of Mills. His achievements are astounding, even if we ignore all hydrino science. He is a balanced person, not displaying rage, to which this situation would inspire most people. He expresses full confidence that eventually, the reality of the situation will become known. Three senior editors of the European Physics Journal D wrote that discussion and debate must somehow deal with the theory and data presented by Randell Mills, and they have failed thus far to meet the challenge with a scientifically an adequate response.
The condemnation received by Mills is a little shocking to me. Most who bother to check usually reliable sources will conclude that Mills is a classic fraud, at least utterly deluded, so why bother looking at data? This editorial shows that, by scientific review standards, Mills is still standing
Hydrino theory is supported by calorimetry performed with the discharge contained in a small volume and the temperature rise of the system is proportional to the energy released. It is called a "bomb calorimeter". Calorimeters are one of the oldest lab instruments developed, and they can be calibrated to read accurately. I refuse the hypothesis that 25 years of gross incompetence would conspire to keep a research corporation in business, with more than enough cash flow. Something must explain the excess heat that is very carefully and repeatedly measured by many researchers over many years, published in many scientific journals.
My chance meeting with Dr. Jonathan Phillips was at a cold fusion conference in Washington, DC. I was working as a journalist for New Energy Times. Our main focus at that time was research published by the US Navy Research Laboratory. The editor, Steve Krivit, has chronicled matters in the cold fusion world with admirable tenacity and intelligence.
Whatever else can be said, there has been a great deal of effort, at first, simply to establish that the excess heat was not an artifact. Dr. Phillips wanted to talk to people who knew the strength of the empirical evidence, so he had a poster session in the hallway outside the main lecture hall. I walked right past, pausing long enough to see that he was there to talk about Randell Mills. He pursued me a short distance, and asked me if I knew about Mills and his theory, and I replied that I did, that I had read several papers of his, but his lack of belief in Schrodinger's quantum physics was enough to cause me to not take him so seriously. Phillips talked to me for perhaps 5 minutes, during which time, he told me of his work for Mills, and what happened when he published. He gave me his Los Alamos National Lab email address. I wrote him to request reprints of his papers, which he provided. He answered a few questions via email. This was a most fortunate encounter that radically altered my life.
The lack of interest from the broader scientific community was hard to understand here. Even Steve Krivit was uninterested. Dr. Mills contracted with a division of Honeywell, Thermacore, to do electrolytic calorimetric studies for the light water cell with nickel electrodes. This could not be a "cold fusion" cell, which requires heavy water and typically palladium cathode. Fusing protium is far less likely than the very unlikely deuterium fusion that was proposed as the explanation for the excess heat. But, instead of seeing this as a refutation of the cold fusion hypothesis, which it was, this was taken as an even more esoteric form of cold fusion. It is hard enough to perform research that the bulk of the scientific community believes is nonsense (cold fusion), without resorting to a theory that is openly ridiculed by leading mouths of science.
A disproof of hypothesis is when you proceed, based on what reason and the hypothesis would dictate, and find a falsification of that hypothesis in the data, exactly and repeatedly. Certainly, the working hypothesis (more like a recipe, really, to generate heat), to explain the sporadic heat and other data, during those early years of cold fusion was of a deuterium-deuterium fusion within a palladium lattice, correlated with loading ratio. Dr. Mills was demonstrating a disproof of that working hypothesis, and it had no influence. One could fairly say that at point, respect for the scientific method failed. Cold fusion was exhibiting a symptom of pathological science, as described by Langmuir. Wishful thinking or worse had gripped scientists who somehow managed to ignore the gorilla in the room, as did I. After all, Mills did not ascribe to Schrodinger's quantum mechanics. Nothing he could offer from such a position could possibly work.
Thermacore's repeatable and robust electrolytic light-water/nickel results allowed the project to continue for a long time. The results were good enough to scale it up to a 50 Watt excess heat. However, they determined that to produce useful power in this fashion would require so much nickel that it was obviously uneconomic.
Contrary to the hyperbole, we humans are not running out of energy. This is obvious from economics, where the cost of energy has been dropping for centuries.
I tend to think that the mystique surrounding SQM, the priesthood-like cloistering of adherents among their own kind, makes a lot of space for unscientific thought. Gone is the expectation of the student to understand the subject matter, in a traditional sense of the word. Instead is the power of the teacher over the initiate, to explain to him his understanding, rather than for the student to discover. I found that expressing a belief in SQM was key to acceptance among most people who conversed about cold fusion. Classical physics had supposedly been tried by the best minds. It did not work. Except that it continued to be tried by the best minds, and it finally worked.
Mills was not alone. He was the final scholar in a chain that originated with those early efforts to find a classical solution for the electron. He reaped the intellectual rewards, but almost no one else saw it that way. Those rewards were not in terms of fame and money, but only pointed him toward experiment to test the theory, and to prove it to the world.
If not a ringing endorsement from the National Science Foundation, there should have been investigations launched into the experiments once results were verified by a number of independent scientists. I mean, a former DoE cabinet member physicist was singing Mills' tune, and officials would not even come over and look? You start to see how Semmelweis met his demise? Ignorance can be mighty stubborn.
When the subject of anomalous energy devices comes up in conversation, and the apparent strength of the evidence is discussed, somebody often says, 'if they could just demonstrate it publicly', that would solve the issue.
Arguably, when Mills contracted with Thermacore, for the light-water/nickel electrolytic studies, he was demonstrating publicly. Thermacore scientists might have signed non-disclosure documents, which became irrelevant, because results were published. To my mind, this created a credible source of testimony about the excess heat. To others, the NASA non-confirmation totally negated anything from Thermacore. I just wanted to see it in my own experiments, which was not happening.
I believe from Dr. Mills' public statements that it has been possible for qualified individuals to visit him at his company, and witness things themselves. I know from my experience on SCP that he is responsive to direct questions. I have never seen much disagreement, certainly nothing that amounted to a declared difference of opinion, although they must exist. Most people are lurking on SCP, waiting for something exciting to be announced, or some disagreement to arise.
I have not seen refutation that I can easily understand. I need somebody to show me how the spreadsheets do not work, the ones on brilliantlightpower.com that calculate element parameters with such accuracy from simple algebraic equations. These are analytic, not algorithms or series expansions. They are limited to real numbers. It is Newton and Maxwell applied to the sub-atomic, finally, what science always wanted.
I saw one physics professor respond to a question about GUTCP, saying that it was an example of the worst kinds of wrong theories, one that is consistently correct. I think I sense his dilemma. The distinctions between the theories that get accepted and those that get rejected are not so clear that the loser is abandoned. If it works well, and the validity of your life work is in question, you might look long and hard for a problem, while ignoring the log in your own eye.
Now, I am not saying that I made every calculation, or even more than a few, in understanding GUTCP, but others have. There is a big difference between performing a derivation and following along someone else's math. There are very intelligent people who are conversant in higher math and physics on the public discussion group, sponsored by BrLP, the Society of Classical Physics (SCP). The publications of Mills that meet so few replies, the empirical evidence, etc., are very hard for me to see as a conspiracy of any kind. It is most probably what it appears to be: a research effort centering on a theoretical breakthrough that has steadily evolved into the SunCell. Like previous profoundly advanced theory (Maxwell), it may require decades (or commercial success) before there is widespread comprehension.
When a change from stable state to stable state occurs with hydrogen, involving the change of energy of electrons, it is a chemical change, from one allotrope to another. The Hydrino is merely another allotrope of hydrogen, but it is one that was impossible for scientists to see in the way that states are seen in the atom, by photonic emission and absorption, by delta-energy. What if changes happened in the atom that did not involve either absorbing or emitting a photon? Energy transferred kinetically does not express with radiation. We would not see the change of state indicated with a characteristic light. In fact, we would not see the matter. It would continue to have mass and exert gravitational attraction. It would not absorb light, which is another way we detect objects. We might call it something like, "dark matter".
Randell Mills does not have to rely on his ideas about chemistry and physics to show that being very smart comes easily to him. He recognized his own talents early, focused them, and used them wisely. He has an MD from Harvard, but used the education to know the world of technology through a real doctor's eyes. I believe that the experience of medically treating people, having such personal experiences with helping people in serious need, reinforced what the farmer's ethics (in no way intending to denigrate such worthy stock) would lead one to expect. He is a man one should take time to know, to whatever extent is possible, however remotely. I feel most fortunate to have had the quite limited communication I have with Randy. I get to see him interact with a Yahoo discussion group, and he answers me sometimes. There is a large number of scientists, and I really ought to keep more quiet.
"Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character." - Einstein
If he was just an MD, or just a chemist, or just a physicist, or just a theorist, or just an experimentalist, or just an inventor, or (?), I would say he is evidently quite accomplished and sharply focused, but that does not prove he is right. People have passionately pursued research projects for lifetimes that amounted to little, so little that we will never know who they were. Mills has every right to state that he has correctly applied the non-radiation condition. Whoever wishes to refute it may do so, but in theoretical circles, Mills is treated like a bad idea that just won't go away, not as a professional theoretical challenge. Mills does not have a physics degree, after all.
The problem with being smart enough and hardworking enough to be a polymath is that you are going to use the knowledge you glean from so many areas in ways that nobody has done. Instead of safely plodding along a path to gain points in a recognized academic specialty, you might place a strong emphasis on just making sense. If you are really good at it, you can make chains of real breakthroughs, because the way that humans have dissected knowledge, our academic classifications, and cultural biases, are arbitrary. Notice, arbitrary is not insignificant. Arbitrary means that at some point in time, somebody thought it was a good way to proceed, a good way to think about something. Raw reality, raw sensory stimulus objectively has qualities that we can describe, quantify and relate in logical ways. There is often more than one way to do these things, and arriving at a best, or optimal system of thought will perhaps be a work in progress, forever. I think it is fair to say that it certainly is today.
To most who are on track in some academic pursuit, somebody like Mills can seem more than odd. In reality, he is a troublemaker, if not by intent, who has potential to interfere with the path of science to which so many of its practitioners wish to adhere. Practitioners near the end of a paradigm can find little or no value in such perspectives. Careerism often takes root in practitioners.
I have no business association with this man or his company, Brilliant Light Power, and I do not possess extreme technical expertise, although I have a BSEE, and worked in testing electronics systems of many types, and building some scientific equipment for use in calorimetry. Calorimetry is something Dr. Mills has done extensively to investigate Hydrino reactions.
I became interested in trying to know what quantum mechanics is many times, without much of a start. In college, quantum mechanics was a highly practical approach to teach us how to do the calculations needed for making integrated circuits. We could not take time to try to make any sense of it (you might say it was "forbidden"), and that was hard to swallow. It is not that engineers are necessarily known for their theoretical prowess, but I always like physics more than engineering, and this left a big hole I wanted to fill.
The activities of Randell Mills have been furious, and I'm not going to give you a bio. That has been done by two authors, already and independently: Tom Stolper and Brett Holverstott. You probably won't be getting a copy of the former (which is not really a bio, but a dense collection of facts about Mills accomplishments, with intelligent insights), because today the Amazon price is $1594 for a used paperback. I'll just say that Stolper was a mathematician, who was lucky enough to have exposure to Dr. Mills and he really got his attention. I am very glad that Tom Stolper had the foresight to record as he did. It takes intelligence to appreciate intelligence.
The claim that Schrodinger's Quantum Mechanics, which is the core of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, has been on the cutting edge of failure since it was introduced in 1926 is not a stretch. However, that is not the impression one gets from the heads that talk for institutional science. Schrodinger is revered like a prophet who sees into infinite dimensions, almost like Einstein. Yet, Schrodinger was not happy to see where his ideas had taken science and society. He never accepted the idea of quantum jumps, and tried to keep it real, but the cat, live or dead, was out of the bag. The effort it takes to solve hydrogen with SQM is reasonable, but the results are seriously deficient unless you start to include the band-aids. The pure Schrodinger Equation failed spectacularly (see p. 19 in the Introduction) for hydrogen but the math gymnastics get much more severe with two electrons, and after two, the methods are not impossible, but close. The author graduated first in his class in chemistry, summa cum laude. His penetration of quantum mechanics is complete, from where I sit. We could say that it takes some very active imagination to see value in the Schrodinger Equation, because that is what Dirac and many other theorists have developed, a vast array of contradictory understandings, using a lot of imagination. In reality, what made SQM so valuable, even popular, was the lack of competition. It is so important to have some kind of a theory to try to make sense, compared to having nothing. This is not to slander the scientists, who are participants in a mistake. It is to disagree with those who claim a preeminence for a theory that is just a theory, and one well known to be dubious ("God does not play dice with the Universe." - Dr. Einstein).
When I use the term competition above, I am not ignoring the great many theorists and experimentalists who work in quantum mechanics, who argue against Mills. I am saying that apparently nobody else is applying the non-radiation condition to the ground state of the hydrogen atom. The basic idea makes good sense to me, a survivor of basic electromagnetics. Making this step is the application of classical physics to "solving the electron". If somebody else used this method of solution, other than Mills, and developed an entirely different theory, that proved even more successful, then I would say that Mills has real competition.
Are these scientists, who see Mills in deplorable terms, arguing that the non-radiation condition is incorrect, or inapplicable? Not that I have seen. Then why not apply it? If Mills was right to do that, even if he royally messed up down the line (no evidence to my eyes), this is profound. I am not saying here, for the purposes of argument, that he was right. I am saying that the discussion about the rightness or wrongness of applying the non-radiation principle to explain why the electron does not radiate in ground state, has gone unaddressed in the literature to my knowledge.
A book by E. T. Bell, Men of Mathematics, chronicles millennia of mathematical progress, one great mind at a time. "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo. The development of an idea in mathematics is appreciated by very few, but the effect of incorporating a new extension of logic in expanding understanding and in solving urgent problems, is appreciated by the many. If there is a clearer instance of how misleading popularity is when seeking valid results, it is with mathematics. It is even drier than physics itself (in a good way). It speaks no physical theory, but informs the minds of physics theorists when a new tool is available.
There must be pioneers in math for there to be pioneers in physics. This has always appeared to me as awesome. The nature of math is pure logic, often remotely abstract. Obviously, the nature of the physical is logical, in its essence. It is consistent, particularly if a unified field theory, of relatively great simplicity, is upon us.
This evokes conspiracy to some, but there is no need. People are busying doing their own stuff, and who can be distracted to try to digest the teachings of a very unpopular theory of physics? However, I do believe that people conspire and there is opportunity to conspire in science.
What does it mean to solve the electron classically? It means using scientific data and pre-existing, classical theory to arrive at what the physical structure of the electron must be, particularly constrained by the facts that it is not radiating and it is stable in the traditional ground state. This had been an insurmountable problem for CP.
I have not worked through every derivation in the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Mechanics. Really, I have only worked through fairly simple portions of more basic things. I am interested in how this theory predicts so much correctly about the elementary particles from first principles of classical physics. The empirical investigation of a weakly explored realm of the electromagnetic spectrum just happens to be required, as it happens that the energies released by Hydrino formation are mostly in these extremely high frequencies. This is a place where test equipment is rare and very expensive, and calibration standards also more rare and expensive. Dr. Mills has made the investment to have this equipment available for recording spectra associated with an unexplored phenomenon of great importance. This is hard for me to believe, as strange as a claim of Hydrino itself, but Dr. Mills has presented the evidence, and how his theory relates it to the spectrum. These are transitions associated with reactions that emit intense radiation (compared to ordinary chemistry) produced by catalytic reactions, instead of radioactively. The radiation is weak for nuclear physics, and much more powerful than ordinary chemistry, but it is chemistry.
The light associated with Hydrino formation, the transition into a lower energy state releases energy in extreme ultraviolet and soft Xrays. These are so soft that they will be absorbed within a few mm of air. This is very abundant, benign, clean, dense energy, inexpensive in every way.
So, replications of some of the essential empirical work are difficult to accomplish, but not without success. There are discoveries confirming spectral data predictions made by GUTCP from accepted sources.
I know of no survey of opinion about GUTCP. Really, for most people, developing an opinion by learning it is not going to happen. So, any sort of opinion survey would be unrelated to the validity of the theory. I know of nobody who has an opinion, almost. The few that I know who have actually investigated to any degree, and are all technically inclined, are convinced that there is something there.
SunCell devices are in numerous labs, under development, now. It takes time. Field tests are next, and mass production close behind. How much time? How should I know?
I expect that more than a few have worked through the math, including one retired chemist who is friendly enough to chat with me. Some people really like doing stuff like that. I enjoy derivation, and at one time, enjoyed it a lot. But, that was basic physics and calculus problems, when my brain was more nimble. I might enjoy it more now, but I make so many mistakes. Math is what I did to get my BSEE, not what I did for a career.
One chemist, paraphrased in a recent Scientific American article, (Howard J.) " Wilk says he still can’t tell if Mills is a titanic genius, is self-delusional, or is something in between." I found myself in agreement with that statement, except the in-between part. There is either titanic genius or deluded. Deluded actions would not have gotten this far.
I suggest you watch some video presentation of Mills, and gather an impression. This kind of intellectual and technical feat is not what we would expect for an ordinary sort of person, but Dr. Mills has a well grounded personality. He developed a way of dealing with people that evinces a great spirit.
I invite you to try to find rational critics. I am no physicist, and trying to discuss this with quantum physicists, so far, is pretty pointless. I do not speak their language so well, and they are convinced that they know that what I am posing is utterly impossible, although there are efforts to try to explain it with SQM. One was extremely critical of Mills' math, claiming mistakes everywhere. Another commentor was more circumspect.
Scientists have written articles critical of GUTCP, and I read them long ago. There was a charge of severe plagiarism, because Mills had quite a bit of stuff that was parallel to what is found in Jackson, but I see extensive footnoting for Jackson. It's really a trivial charge, made to make Mills seem like a fraud, which he is not. I think that what I have seen of the criticism is based mostly on misunderstanding GUTCP, sometimes saying that Mills is not doing quantum mechanics correctly. They missed the point. They have not studied GUTCP. Competently criticizing GUTCP is no small undertaking. One cannot expect a non-specialist, a polymath, like Mills, to be expert in the ways that physicists judge each other. He is not a regular part of that community, so it would be natural to see an impedance mismatch. Kuhn offers insights here. Before rejection of a paradigm can be considered, a new one is desired, in complete and perfect form, which is ludicrous. The SQM paradigm has been under intense development for generations. The replacement was recently developed by one man. Trying to compare two systems of thought in such extremely different points in the paradigm development (one just born and one beyond pathetic), without even being aware that a paradigm exists, leads to a lot of mis-communication. Dr. Mills bent over backwards to do what he did, but maintain some perspective, here. He is not an institution. He is thoroughly human.
He made a profound discovery in applying the non-radiation condition, and simply followed the implications where they lead. So, first, there was math. Then there was the physics implications, followed by numerous hypotheses that could be tested. Then there was decades of testing and theoretical developments, mixed with technology developments that substantiated Hydrino energy claims, but failed to compete with fire.
He took it from a math solution to a physics solution to theoretical exploration and massive expansion into a theory with massive confirmations to technological breakthroughs of a kind we can recognize from science fiction. This took 25 years. Anything remotely comparable in other areas of science and technology took generations. Examples are too numerous to count. This is one of many facts that can be hard to accept.
Criticizing Mills for not reaching his goals yet, is more than unfair. It is stupid.
Dr. Mallove liked to say that physics is too important to be left to physicists.
I like to point out that people have criticized the computer code written in the Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin Whitepaper, as amateurish by professional standards. This is a similar situation, maybe. The discovery is expressed correctly, but not how physics aficionados might expect, or even know how to see. First, it is very difficult for anyone to just ignore what they have held up to be the most important and valuable theory of physics ever developed, of great personal value to them. If I had to totally ignore Newtonian mechanics, and try to imagine another system ... not happening. Yet, Bitcoin works, and so does the Hydrino reaction, theoretically, intuitively and physically.
The mere notion of a quantum theory based on classical mechanics is laughable to many professional scientists. They believe it has been strictly ruled out as a possibility. Going below ground state is a contradiction to them, forbidden.
The politics makes for difficulty in maintaining respect for scientific principles, for some people. The potential money does things to people that nothing else will do.
Scientists get money and prestige based on how funding agencies see them practicing the best science. So, how can "best science" be best judged? Probably not like a popularity contest, but if you have been breathing for very long, you probably know popularity, however highly overrated, drives emotions, because people envy, and want, popularity. We want popularity to equate with some kind of competence or benevolence, but the art of gaining and maintaining popularity tends to benefit from Machiavellian thinking, an arguably incompatible competence with scientific discernment. We want scientists who really know what they are doing, and are doing a lot of it, to be receiving a lot of money and building big labs and stuff like that. Who are the best scientists? Some government guy at the National Science Foundation looks at who got what awards, published how many papers, and in which journals. How many of those papers were referenced by other authors, and which journal published those author's papers, etc. What gets funded is then called science, and what does not is shunned.
On the other hand, we have the rise of Dr. Mills, which has been about as independent of government or corporate (to my knowledge) or any other institutional financial support, as I have seen for such penetrating research. Do I need to argue that money always comes with a cost, and people do not often reliably give away money out of their irrepressible altruistic impulses? Dr. Mills is funded because he is convincing investors, for decades, to give him more money than he needs. A man is always more careful with his own money than he is with another man's money, which is why government funding creates so many unintended consequences, like institutional inertia.
Which process better reflects the scientific method? Institutional science, so-called Big Science, really changed how science was done. It split it into public and classified domains, and the institutional power combined with arbitrary secrecy has created a situation that Eisenhower warned was happening. Driven by cost and importance of physics research, research facilities became like temples, very expensive and mysterious to the masses. Experiments were conducted by large teams over years. The push for ever greater facilities, to push the knowledge envelope, never ceases. What news stories do not say is that all scientific work is within the context defined by a paradigm. A paradigm is an overarching set of ideas that form the beliefs, within which the science takes place. This is informed by philosophy and even religion. I think of it like a backdrop for a play, the context to frame the theories. What is GUTCP, the theoretical and empirical claims, and apparently imminent technology in the face of the military-industrial-political-academic complex? It is a total rejection.
The technological basis, the infrastructural machinery, of the complex is facing obsolescence, as is much of the workforce, and it is a new day. It will take a while for the shock to hit, but discerning minds will quickly be assessing the affects, as they have for years, and making plans to adapt. Somehow, that does not include alerting the public.
I requested from the Defense Intelligence Agency, via FOIA, confirmation that a certain memo, that appeared to be theirs, was authentic. They confirmed that it was. Not surprisingly, the military is quite interested in this stuff. At least that one was not classified.
The current zeitgeist is rooted in the belief that the lone scientist, the maverick, the contemplative thinker, has had his time, and now we moved onto a much better way to do science, with lots of money and political control, and meetings. What is the point of alerting the public, when they will be contributing nothing to advancing the state agenda? They would getting in the way, by trying to understand (read the Philosophy paragraph). Big Science has scored quite a few points, starting with nuclear weaponry, and we are addicted to the technological benefits of a lot of very high quality work and scientific thought taking place. Big Science has become a welfare program for the scientific class, with some important benefits.
The individual has always been the origin of ideas, and individuals have a tough time remaining individuals within science institutions. It uses up political capital every time you disagree, and alliances with others need re-balancing. From what I have read from people who know Mills, he set things up to be in control. He is much like an airline captain. Just the fact that he has kept this going for so long, in the face of such resistance from those who believe they know and control science, let alone that BrLP is in a very good financial condition, tells us something.
Critics reflexively chime that it shows Barnum was right, and there's plenty of suckers to scam. If you take that bait, then you need to explain how Mills has attracted the talented people he has to his Board of Directors, and Board of Advisers. This has been treated in the business community as a soon-to-be breaking technology for quite a while. Such serious and wealthy people know about due diligence. Mills has had operating experiments open for inspection since this all started.
Think of the lengths attained in making nuclear energy as benign as it is, starting from a very high energy reaction and dangerous fuel. It would absolutely make no sense to stick with that technology and ignore Hydrino technology, so, of course, government would do it, if only they knew. They would do it to save the environment. They would do it to reduce foreign dependence for all nations, to bring world peace. Therefore, they could not possibly know. Or, maybe the government knows it is false.
They know it is real. A retired Central Intelligence Agency Director, and former Undersecretary of the Navy, James Woolsey, is currently listed on the BrLP board of advisers.
Many naive citizens expect government to act in the best interest of constituents, community, cities and countries. They do, but they also have agendas that directly oppose what many citizens want. People suppose that with the difficulty of keeping secrets, that maintaining a concerted and prolonged effort to suppress new technology, or even new knowledge, is impossible. I do not believe this. People are ignorant, suggestible, persuadable, forgetful, vain, unethical, etc., assuring their vulnerability to exploitation. The unaware target of a skilled disinformation campaign had better keep his insurance paid. The really bad part is that we are all targets of disinformation campaigns.
Mills would probably not say that his technology has been suppressed, but I would disagree, because a failure to do their jobs, once they knew that this was important, is a passive way to suppress. I suppose it is a disagreement about responsibilities of the powers that be. I suppose that the society of scientists in the world, who live off government, which is to say, taxation, have a responsibility to pursue knowledge for the welfare of the planet and particularly, our species.
Dr. Shelby Brewer, PhD in physics, CEO of two energy related corporations, and Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy under Reagan, was on the board of directors. Brewer was much in the news, and a close associate of Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear US Navy. Brewer certainly understood energy measurement, reactor design and what was supposed to be possible, and he staked his reputation with Mills, endorsing the basic empirical science, and defending GUTCP from Dr. Bob Bass.
If you read that linked email from Dr. Bass, you will see the central complaint about Dr. Mills is, where is the device? That is still the central contention. To me, a device can be a well designed experiment, but most people want something more like a commercial product. Sure, I want a SunCell Tesla, too (don't hold your breath).
I have a lot of experience in doing the kind of tests that Mills has done in his lab. But, I have a very tight budget, and no institutional affiliation. So amateurish, in fact, that Mills refused my request to be allowed to do calorimetry of a detonating titanium slurry. I cannot call my effort replication, more of a hobby, something that might work (or might create false negatives), but would contribute nothing but noise for Mills' purposes. I really intended it as a science fair project. I enjoyed imagining judges in the corner of the high school gym (or, wherever they hold those science fairs), with jaws dropped, pointing fingers and yelling about what they were seeing, and what to do about it (way too optimistic, yes).
The demonstration device must be of impeccable quality. The SunCell fits that description, particularly the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) design. It is stunning. Something you might imagine finding in a UFO, and have no idea how it works. I can see how it works, because I can see where the energy originates, and how MHD transforms it into useful low voltage power. The MHD is well developed, but rather obscure, technology. When this rolls out, as people take them apart, they will be utterly mystified. When you look inside of an MHD, you see nothing. Two opposing walls are magnets and the other two are electrodes, from which massive current can be drawn when an ionized, compressible fluid, like a plasma, passes through the device.
During operation, the walls are coated with condensed molten silver, which protects them from the highly reactive plasma. If a little more internal coating is required by plasma flow densities, just add some cooling in the area needing a thicker silver coat. Silver is ideal, both for the SunCell that creates the plasma and the MHD that extracts useful power from the flow. Neither have moving parts, in steady-state operation, except minor peripheral components. This was the vision revealed by Mills in 2017, and there is evidence of a newer version of it, perhaps enhanced by an apparently new thermodynamic cycle just invented and filed, that some are supposing involved using a liquid metal for the electrically conductive flow, and not plasma.
Every scientist thinks his work is important. Mills is important because what he did is more than profound. He is a credible man and his work is incredible, has been widely scientifically publicized for 25 years in many peer-reviewed physics journals, with over 100 such papers. By all professional standards (if we allow him the right to disbelieve the incumbent SQM theory), Randell Mills is highly accomplished and competent, obviously very intelligent, and very outside of the mainstream of modern physics thought.
Human institutions are not the safest place to do science. Your physical safety may not be threatened, but your integrity can be. Institutions are run by people who have human characteristics, so can be incredibly short-sighted and selfish. Careerist ambitions can really wreck an organization. The last image you would want to cultivate is that of somebody who is not sure of what he is doing, if you wish to survive the competition. But, the act of learning is first realizing that something is not really understood and then seeking to rectify. Science is an idea risking enterprise, but you risk your sociability (and maybe a lot more) in a situation where you are trying to prove something is true that spells disaster for your associates, if you are right. Dogmas are supposed to be at risk, always, if our skepticism is to be healthy. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron, a projection of institutional control onto the society.
Generally, the quality of an idea depends greatly on the anchoring of that idea to what is understood widely to be real. Also, it must add something of essential understanding to science. New insight and making correct predictions counts for a lot. The proved predictions, or rather, the failed efforts to disprove predictions, are what really validate a good theory. Ideally, it should work perfectly in all conditions, all extremes. A physics theory that fails to produce results that tightly correspond with what is known is a bad theory, but sometimes you have to take what you can get. SQM itself totally failed to correspond with what was established, that is, Classical Physics (CP), and this is not in dispute. SQM demanded an entirely new physics. Newton and Maxwell need not apply for jobs in the domain of SQM.
This was a severe crisis in science, when the most valuable knowledge we had, our physics, stopped working, or so it was believed. A crisis is resolved sometimes in far less than optimal ways, because conditions are extreme, and must be mitigated somehow. If a crisis persists (and this one has, but sub rosa), it would become obvious to everybody, especially the people who are making funding decisions, that scientists do not know what they are doing.



No one has reviewed this piece of content yet