Hydrogen has the highest specific energy of all combustible fuels. There may now be a way to get 200 times as much energy from it than burning it--without needing fusion. An energy revolution awaits
Interesting that the man in the video (I remember him from years ago) mentions Verner von Braun who, I just recently heard, is Elon Musk's father ?!?!?
Engineering work with radically new technologies is prone to constant setbacks -- it makes sense and the fact that you need to invent new processes for almost everything magnifies the challenge. Sometimes you test two or three solutions a day and that continues for a half year -- that’s tiring but when you finally get the one that does it, you’re on to the next set of testing. What’s hardest is that really almost nobody undertakes this kind of Herculean project and frankly, the average people can’t differentiate the nature of the project from a rote task because they can’t imagine it. Lots of cognitive biases form a storm of disbelief. Is it worth it? Absolutely! You’re creating something REALLY new and it will change paradigms -- it’s not just a contribution to society but a huge one. Quitting isn’t an option but the vast majority people have trouble supporting it.
"We were unable to reproduce these results, even though our microwave setup was very similar, and our spectrometer was even better suited for these EUV wavelengths."
"There are two problems with [Mills’] the wave equation."
"The excess power generation, predicted by Mills, is not reproduced. The excessive broadening of the Balmer lines, conversely, is." [csg: but was later found to be due to charge exchange]
------------
Also, NASA spent some time trying to replicate stuff, but didn't see anything sufficiently unusual to be worth pursuing.
Also Jansson, Rowan u 2002 spent some time trying to make a hydrino-based rocket, but stopped trying eventually. I mean, that's a failure right. If you try to do something and don't manage?
To me it looks like there are *loads* of failures.
edit: one more (there are others too, if I had time to find them):
There are plenty of detractors, there always are in science, particularly when new ideas run head on into established dogma. So you've found some of the critics; now go review the man's work for *yourself*, unless you're content to let others do your thinking for you. He's published quite a lot.
You are now at the place where I began my journey back in 2014. Deeply skeptical. But then I forced myself to read his materials, and eventually reached a point where I got on a plane to Princeton to meet him so I could look him in the eye and judge his character. When I got there we talked physics and genomics (something we had in common.) He does have researchers who have validated his results; a little digging will reveal their names and credentials. You can read their reports, or better yet, you can contact them and interview them and judge for yourself.
I do recommend reading Brett Holverstott's book; Brett worked for Mills for several years. It will shed some light on the context of his early work. Also, please pick apart that powerpoint slide I made. It will help you evaluate his current claims.
If you'd like to pick apart his current work, I created this to help me zero in on the important parameters. I have met the man and do not believe he is either deceptive or insincere. That leaves two possibilities for me (you can reach your own conclusions) : he's innocently wrong, or he's correct.
I've talked to him at length and have been impressed by his breadth of knowledge and his almost childlike curiosity. I've read his books and papers and found breathtakingly brilliant ideas buried in them.
He is enigmatic, that's for certain; I've never met anyone like him. I last saw him in July of 2020 but haven't been able to travel since then to follow up.
I've given you some material to look at and pointed you at resources to allow you to begin answer your own questions (or formulate better ones.) I'm not telling you what to think; I'm giving you some resources to help you do your own thinking.
I created that energy balance diagram; I most certainly can parse that, as I created it. If you are relying on the 'you aren't a physicist' line of reasoning, you're using the credential fallacy. You'll find an article I wrote about that just a few weeks ago. Worth a read.
Keep pursuing this. Your irritation is a sign that your mind is wrestling with something. That's all good.
"...Severe inconsistencies in the deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino states with quantum mechanics is reviewed."
"We found that [Mills' particular] CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis...."
Please see my recent reply to you about your cursory Google search. You can stop here, and conclude that you're right, the detractors are right, and that Mills is an idiot. Or you can dig deeper on your own. The choice is entirely up to you. Please see the new updates at the end of the article that I put there for your convenience.
One further comment: you've done a few minutes of Googling, read some reddit posts, and reached a conclusion that you can freely dismiss as fraud or error the work that a brilliant man has spent 30+ years working on, including publishing a three-volume set of books that you can download for free from his website to read for yourself, all the while defending himself against attacks from critics. And yet he's still here, still working in the lab, still producing results that are challenging conventional explanation.
I will update my article with another slide; it's one with topics that I study and discuss from time to time with Mills. Feel free to add to the list and begin your exploration.
CG...great writing here and on a brilliant and great man. It seems though you're conversing with a bot....preprogrammed to argue for the narrative. Ignore these dead headed matrix dwellers for they quote nothing but the absurd strictures of base beliefs. Nothing was ever invented or created or discovered by people like this. Keep up the great work.
It will literally take me days to study and absorb everything about this. I must say, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for the thought provoking article!
A couple of terms led me to these videos, for anyone (like myself) interested to dive deeper from a surface start.
I first came across Dr. Mills work in 2014 and I approached it from a place of deep skepticism. But the more I read (for myself; not simply trusting the pronouncements of others) and the more I understood the man and his sincerity (having met him several times to try to figure out for myself whether he was credible) the more I came to accept that he was likely onto something truly remarkable. This book will help shed light on him.
I'm back! FYI, hydrazine is a hypergolic liquid fuel that can be used as either as a monopropellant with a catalyst or a bipropellant when used in combination with an oxidizer, such as dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). MMH/N2O4 was used on shuttle for its Orbital Maneuvering System / Reaction Control System (OMS/RCS) pods which, while they could be and were used on rare occasions during ascent, weren't generally used for orbital insertion. Solid rocket motors, such as the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) on shuttle do not contain hydrazine and are most-commonly powered by "solid" composites of ammonium nitrate- or ammonium perchlorate-based oxidizers in combination with metals such as magnesium or aluminum as fuels. (~ worked Shuttle at Vandenberg before/when Challenger blew up.)
you're a gem! Very cool that you worked on the Shuttle at Vandenberg. I got the 'hydrazine' part somewhat wrong for the shuttle, but the idea of SRBs in relation to liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen -- the rationale for them -- is what I was aiming for.
Interesting that the man in the video (I remember him from years ago) mentions Verner von Braun who, I just recently heard, is Elon Musk's father ?!?!?
Best article ever, keep it coming Sir. I’m a CA Central Valley computer tech from a different district, south of you.
Yandex is far more informative than searches controlled by the globalist parasites: https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=Physics.+“randel+Mills”&mda=0&lr=110200
Engineering work with radically new technologies is prone to constant setbacks -- it makes sense and the fact that you need to invent new processes for almost everything magnifies the challenge. Sometimes you test two or three solutions a day and that continues for a half year -- that’s tiring but when you finally get the one that does it, you’re on to the next set of testing. What’s hardest is that really almost nobody undertakes this kind of Herculean project and frankly, the average people can’t differentiate the nature of the project from a rote task because they can’t imagine it. Lots of cognitive biases form a storm of disbelief. Is it worth it? Absolutely! You’re creating something REALLY new and it will change paradigms -- it’s not just a contribution to society but a huge one. Quitting isn’t an option but the vast majority people have trouble supporting it.
Very exciting article Sir.
10 sec. search: csg_2 noted many published negative results, below. (Mills' original company, HydroCatalysts, was founded in '91.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/tkb2t6/gutcp_prediction_of_hydrino_reaction_tested_by/
...4 examples of negative results:
Gerrit Kroesen 2008, 4 papers:
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/46931617/758063-1.pdf
“In none of the conducted experiments are the extraordinary results reproduced that are published by Mills.”
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/67737806/854079-1.pdf
"In the setup of Mills it is possible that the use of this power supply invalidated results."
"the same power supply is used for the experiments of R.L. Mills [2], it might have contributed to the peculiar results of his experiment."
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/46930964/756929-1.pdf
"We were unable to reproduce these results, even though our microwave setup was very similar, and our spectrometer was even better suited for these EUV wavelengths."
"There are two problems with [Mills’] the wave equation."
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/46931320/757950-1.pdf
"The excess power generation, predicted by Mills, is not reproduced. The excessive broadening of the Balmer lines, conversely, is." [csg: but was later found to be due to charge exchange]
------------
Also, NASA spent some time trying to replicate stuff, but didn't see anything sufficiently unusual to be worth pursuing.
Also Jansson, Rowan u 2002 spent some time trying to make a hydrino-based rocket, but stopped trying eventually. I mean, that's a failure right. If you try to do something and don't manage?
To me it looks like there are *loads* of failures.
edit: one more (there are others too, if I had time to find them):
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/46981437/610097-1.pdf
"Contrary to Mills' observation, no anomalous plasma afterglow has been seen in this type of plasma."
There are plenty of detractors, there always are in science, particularly when new ideas run head on into established dogma. So you've found some of the critics; now go review the man's work for *yourself*, unless you're content to let others do your thinking for you. He's published quite a lot.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- evidence Mills hasn't provided in 30+ years.
(i.e., reproducible excess-energy results, not a mere story)
Or did the other researchers overlook actual reproduced results, somewhere?
You are now at the place where I began my journey back in 2014. Deeply skeptical. But then I forced myself to read his materials, and eventually reached a point where I got on a plane to Princeton to meet him so I could look him in the eye and judge his character. When I got there we talked physics and genomics (something we had in common.) He does have researchers who have validated his results; a little digging will reveal their names and credentials. You can read their reports, or better yet, you can contact them and interview them and judge for yourself.
I do recommend reading Brett Holverstott's book; Brett worked for Mills for several years. It will shed some light on the context of his early work. Also, please pick apart that powerpoint slide I made. It will help you evaluate his current claims.
If you'd like to pick apart his current work, I created this to help me zero in on the important parameters. I have met the man and do not believe he is either deceptive or insincere. That leaves two possibilities for me (you can reach your own conclusions) : he's innocently wrong, or he's correct.
I've talked to him at length and have been impressed by his breadth of knowledge and his almost childlike curiosity. I've read his books and papers and found breathtakingly brilliant ideas buried in them.
He is enigmatic, that's for certain; I've never met anyone like him. I last saw him in July of 2020 but haven't been able to travel since then to follow up.
https://1drv.ms/p/s!AuV9cr6jNGcfiZ1785YU912oRhJs-g
And who exactly is talking about motive here? You're not his mother, so don't assert his motive.
Neither are you a physicist. You're dismissing reproducible "dogma" you can't parse.
You don't want to be a click-bait artist, cc. Show more respect for reproducible results.
I've given you some material to look at and pointed you at resources to allow you to begin answer your own questions (or formulate better ones.) I'm not telling you what to think; I'm giving you some resources to help you do your own thinking.
I created that energy balance diagram; I most certainly can parse that, as I created it. If you are relying on the 'you aren't a physicist' line of reasoning, you're using the credential fallacy. You'll find an article I wrote about that just a few weeks ago. Worth a read.
Keep pursuing this. Your irritation is a sign that your mind is wrestling with something. That's all good.
As though reproducibility were _fallacious_. No, your article is just baseless. You should delete it.
-----
Mills' results could not be reproduced, not least because his theory doesn't hang together, not even _mathematically_.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127
A critical analysis of the hydrino model
"...Severe inconsistencies in the deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino states with quantum mechanics is reviewed."
"We found that [Mills' particular] CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis...."
Please see my recent reply to you about your cursory Google search. You can stop here, and conclude that you're right, the detractors are right, and that Mills is an idiot. Or you can dig deeper on your own. The choice is entirely up to you. Please see the new updates at the end of the article that I put there for your convenience.
One further comment: you've done a few minutes of Googling, read some reddit posts, and reached a conclusion that you can freely dismiss as fraud or error the work that a brilliant man has spent 30+ years working on, including publishing a three-volume set of books that you can download for free from his website to read for yourself, all the while defending himself against attacks from critics. And yet he's still here, still working in the lab, still producing results that are challenging conventional explanation.
I will update my article with another slide; it's one with topics that I study and discuss from time to time with Mills. Feel free to add to the list and begin your exploration.
CG...great writing here and on a brilliant and great man. It seems though you're conversing with a bot....preprogrammed to argue for the narrative. Ignore these dead headed matrix dwellers for they quote nothing but the absurd strictures of base beliefs. Nothing was ever invented or created or discovered by people like this. Keep up the great work.
It will literally take me days to study and absorb everything about this. I must say, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for the thought provoking article!
A couple of terms led me to these videos, for anyone (like myself) interested to dive deeper from a surface start.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOHYT5q5lhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3GQk9ETRU
I first came across Dr. Mills work in 2014 and I approached it from a place of deep skepticism. But the more I read (for myself; not simply trusting the pronouncements of others) and the more I understood the man and his sincerity (having met him several times to try to figure out for myself whether he was credible) the more I came to accept that he was likely onto something truly remarkable. This book will help shed light on him.
Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1983015075/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_TPDS9F076KKC7H1F46ZW
I'm back! FYI, hydrazine is a hypergolic liquid fuel that can be used as either as a monopropellant with a catalyst or a bipropellant when used in combination with an oxidizer, such as dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). MMH/N2O4 was used on shuttle for its Orbital Maneuvering System / Reaction Control System (OMS/RCS) pods which, while they could be and were used on rare occasions during ascent, weren't generally used for orbital insertion. Solid rocket motors, such as the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) on shuttle do not contain hydrazine and are most-commonly powered by "solid" composites of ammonium nitrate- or ammonium perchlorate-based oxidizers in combination with metals such as magnesium or aluminum as fuels. (~ worked Shuttle at Vandenberg before/when Challenger blew up.)
you're a gem! Very cool that you worked on the Shuttle at Vandenberg. I got the 'hydrazine' part somewhat wrong for the shuttle, but the idea of SRBs in relation to liquid Hydrogen/Oxygen -- the rationale for them -- is what I was aiming for.