Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: PKF: New Energy, New Physics, part 1 of 3
Subject: New Energy, New Physics, part 1 of 3
Date: Feb 2, 1998
From: artr-AT-juno.com (Art B Rosenblum)
FOUR INTERVIEWS WITH DR. RANDELL MILLS ON NEW ENERGY, NEW PHYSICS
by Art Rosenblum,
Aquarian Research Foundation, Philadelphia.
<artr-AT-juno.com>, 215-849-1259 or 215-849-3237 day/eve.
RADIO FOR PEACE B'CAST
(500 Million people may hear this b'cast in 70 languages in the
next weeks. The full text appearing below along with Mills'
patent and bio will be published this month in Infinite Energy
Magazine. Copies will be available from Aquarian Research for any
donation.)
RADIO INTRO.
Abundant, clean, safe energy has been a goal of humanity for
centuries. Finally dawns a new millennium and with it a positive
solution to this problem. For decades, scientists have falsely
assumed that hydrogen (which burns to form water vapor) has no
additional energy to give us except by burning. Hydrogen is a
major component of oil and gas.
Dr. Randell Mills, a Harvard medical doctor with training in
physics and engineering, holding over a dozen patents, has
discovered that hydrogen atoms can also release a tremendous
amount of energy without burning. This happens safely in a small
container without any radiation or pollution.
The cost will be lower by far than solar or wind energy and
is a real solution to our global warming crisis, ending world
dependence on fossil fuels. This new system is suitable not only
for vehicles of all kinds but also for every village in the world
to have its own electric power to pump and purify water, provide
light, heat and energy for electronic educational systems that
could bring together all the peoples of the world, and water as a
source of hydrogen is the only fuel required.
Hydrogen is the simplest atom; one electron revolving around
one proton. Imagine an atom of hydrogen enlarged so much that the
proton is as big as a golf ball and you'd find the circling
electron three hundred yards away ! Dr. Mills' amazing discovery
is that hydrogen's electron orbit can collapse, becoming a much
smaller circle. When this happens, a tremendous amount of energy
is released and the new atoms (which he's dubbed "hydrinos") form
an inert gas that does not burn to make water or combine with any
other atoms except one other hydrino.
The energy released in this safe process is 1,000 times
greater than we use to obtain hydrogen from water. A common
element, potassium is a catalyst in the process. A catalyst
makes a change possible but is not changed itself and so is not
used up.
Full Text of Interviews (Part One)
AR: Dr Mills, this is Art Rosenblum, in Philadelphia. I'm
with the Aquarian Research Foundation. We've been doing
research on the future of the planet since 1970, a
small, tax exempt nonprofit, and I'm extremely
interested in your breakthroughs in energy.
RM: OK. In very layman's terms, we're catalyzing hydrogen
to go to a lower energy state. It's stable, and it explains
an enormous number of things that physicists haven't been
able to describe or reconcile . It came about from when I
was working at MIT. I got a paper on free electron lasers
from Herman Haus. He was applying non-radiation
radiation that analysed, basically, the mathematics of why
the free electron laser worked. And I said well, the
atom has an electron that's bound and it's not
radiating. Why don't I apply that math to the equation
of the atom? I did, and it permitted me to solve
everything from the masses of fundamental particles to
the rate the universe is expanding - quarks to cosmos -
and predicted there were these other lower energy states
of hydrogen. And we've amassed massive amounts of data.
We have two term sheets from utilities now, we have people
very eager to commercialise this and we've been able
to make independent validated energy cells that produce a
thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen.
AR: A thousand? I read a hundred.
RM: Well, that was Penn State University's test, but they
didn't do lifetime tests. They stopped after about
700, 800 hours ( something like that), or, excuse me,
minutes. They never did lifetime tests; they ran it for a
finite period of time. We have done lifetime tests here
with Atlantic Electric and gotten a thousand times the
energy of burning hydrogen.
AR: I see. Now what happens with the hydrinos? They, from
what I read, go off into space but would they also combine
with oxygen and form water?
RM: No, they can't burn, it's kind of like, I had a
Utility Executive ask me this and he said, "How can I go
back and explain this to my Board of Directors? Once you
make this low- energy hydrogen, can it come back up to
its normal energy level?" Because it's at a very, very low
energy level, it's released quite a lot of energy, and it
turns out it can't. And the way to describe that, in layman's
terms, is if you take hydrogen and oxygen and burn it and
you get water, what is the likelihood that water will
spontaneously absorb energy and revert back into hydrogen
and oxygen. So, first of all, you cannot get low energy
hydrogen to revert back into normal energy hydrogen unless
you hit it with a cosmic ray or some very energetic
particle and completely knock the electron away from
the newly-formed low energy hydrogen. Secondly, the
electron's at such a very very low level, it's
impossible for it to react with anything other than
another low energy hydrogen atom.
AR: So, I see, the electron can only react then with
another low energy hydrogen atom.
RM: To form a molecule, and the molecules are very, very
stable. In fact, I have some beautiful data from the
infra-red spectrum, the sun, taken from a number of very
very prestigious telescopes from around the world, including
the National Solar Observatory, that match the rotational
spectrum of this new form of hydrogen,
with lines that they have not been able to identify
to six significant figures. I mean, they match at six places.
AR: Wow!
RM: Yeah. There's about, I don't know, maybe sixty
lines, something like that, that match up. And they haven't
been able to figure of what it is. And, all in, there's
about a hundred, there's probably about two hundred
spectral lines from stellar media from the solar corona and
a number of astrophysical studies that haven't been able to
be explained. Now let me tell you the significance of
that.
It turns out there's a long-standing mystery about the
Sun. Scientists don't know why the gases around the Sun are
two million degrees and the surface is only six thousand.
Usually heat flows from a hot body to a cold body, if the
energy is being produced in the core of the Sun how is the
gas around the Sun hotter?
Well, it turns out that the Sun has a very, very large
number of spectral lines that can't be identified and they
correspond to the energy transitions of this new lower
energy hydrogen. And the power from the intensity of those
lines matches the amount of power that can't be explained
by nuclear reactions occuring in the sun. I'm referring to
solar neutrino paradox which proves that the sun is not
making all of its energy by nuclear reactions. About half of
it is unaccounted for.
And the other thing that is a very big problem in astrophysics
is, that if you look at the Milky Way galaxy, it's rotating a lot
faster than it can possibly rotate and be stable, it
should fly apart because there's not enough gravity to hold
it together and that's why they propose that there is this
dark matter, material that does not emit visible light,
or light of known spectral characterisation. That is,
every element has its own particular spectrum and they
have found that, if they look at the known elements from
the spectrum of our Milky Way galaxy, there's not enough
mass there with known elements to hold it together. There
has to be some other, unknown, element holding the
galaxy together and they call it dark matter. I don't know
whether you have heard that.
AR: I've heard it, yes.
RM: And it could represent up to 95% of the mass
of the universe. It turns out that scientists have looked at
the extreme UV region of the spectrum that's much higher
energy than visible light, and every one of the spectral
lines in order of energy for these lower energy transitions of
hydrogen appear
in that spectrum. In fact, this lower energy hydrogen is
this missing mass, this dark matter.
AR: Aha.
RM: And that shouldn't be of surprise, because most
of the visible matter, about 95% of the visible matter
is, in fact, hydrogen.
AR: That's hydrogen at normal energy?
RM: At normal energy right.
AR: I see, so what causes hydrogen at normal energy to
become low energy hydrogen?
RM: Well, it turns out that there is another mystery of the
sun. If you look at the spectrum of the sun, you see when
electrons of atoms undergo transitions, there are very,
very sharp spectral frequencies. In other words, energy
is characterised by a very, very specific frequency. Do you
follow me?
AR: Yes.
RM: Like a radio station. It isn't very broad, it's one
particular frequency. The pattern of those identify the different
elements.
AR: Right.
RM: Well, it turns out if you look at the sun itself, at
the photosphere, that's the big glowing ball, if you look at
that through a spectrum, you'll see at about 912 Angstroms
going all the way to about 350 Angstroms is one big massive
broad band that is not a line spectrum. They call it the 912
wedge and it has - that's called a continuum peak. In addition,
there is another big wedge superimposed on that starts at
about 734 Angstroms. In other words, it's hundreds of Angstroms
broad and it should only be tenths of Angstroms, you follow me?
AR: Right.
RM: It turns out if you have three hydrogen atoms
collide simultaneously, two of those hydrogen atoms
interacting with a third can make the....excuse me ... two of
the hydrogen atoms, say the second and third acting with the
first, can catalyze it to go to its fractional state, one half.
AR: What do you mean -fractional state, one half'?
RM: Well, if you take the Rydberg formula, you know
the principle energy level formula of hydrogen, 13.6 - maybe you
write this down, this will tell you exactly what we're doing.
Very simple, take the formula 13.6 eV divided by
n-squared.
In the theory - alright, let's go back even further -
in 1886, Rydberg recognised if you look at the spectrum of the
sun and you look at all the infinite number of lines coming
from the sun, if you are going to put integers in that
formula, and take the difference between those energy levels,
it would assign every line coming from the sun, with the
spectrometers of the day. Because the lowest energy transition
in that formula was n is 2, until they developed the UV
spectrometer and then the lowest energy then was n is 1 and
that's called the Lyman series. And then, in 1886 Rydberg put
the whole thing together, Balmer, Paschem, Lyman, Funt. That's
all the different transitions, transition series in the sun
going from 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, that would be the Lyman, and going
from 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, that's the Balmer series. Follow me ?
AR: OK.
RM: And Paschem's 4-3 5-3, 6-3 etc, you know where 3 is the
final state that's the Paschen series. So, there are all these
series of lines and Rydberg completely summarised all of them
by saying -Well 13.6 over n squared, where n is an integer
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 to infinity. Now, of course, Bond (?) did the
ionised electron. Well, what I'm saying is that n can not only be
an integer, n is 1 is the first non-radiatove state but n is one
half is non-radiative and n is one third is non-radiative
and stable, and n as a fourth is non-radiative and stable.
AR: Non-radiant and stable, you're saying?
RM: Stable, stable, yes. And to go from these non-radiative
states from one non-radiative state to another non-radiative
state you need a catalyst. You need a resonant energy transfer
that takes away part of the energy in a resonant transfer,
makes the atom unstable and then the rest can be emitted as
light and that's what you're seeing from the Sun and from the
interstellar medium and no-one knows why flares occur. The
Extreme UV Explorer looked at a flare on a DM planet called
a-Microscopae, about this time two years ago and, it was
published in Science last year by Boyer at Extreme UV Center out
in Cal Berkley and every single line in order of energy fit that
formula, 13.6 over n squared where n was 1 over I, I being an
integer, in other words a half, a third, a fourth, a fifth, a
sixth in that principal energy formula. Do you follow me?
AR: Yes.
RM: And all of them were noted in Science - the magazine
Science - as being unidentifiable. Do you follow me?
AR: Yes
RM: So, it turns out that the electric field between the
proton and the electron has a lot of energy stored in it.
Right, if you talk to the Tokamak guys up at Princeton, which
are now closed down, because they wasted total world-wide
about $40 billion of taxpayers money, but there's a much more
elegant way of making energy from hydrogen. They didn't
have to push the protons together to get fusion. There is a
tremendous amount of energy between the electron and the proton,
they just have to find a way of releasing it.
Like they are putting in the equivalent amount of energy of
a million electron volts because there is, in fact, a
million electron volts of potential energy in the proton's
field, so two like charges repel each other with that amount
of energy. If you had the opposite charges you should get that
much energy back out, right? But you can only get out 13.6
because that is the first stable non-radiative state, and you have
to have a mechanism to release more energy from hydrogen. Of
course, it's known that hydrogen atoms react to form
molecules and release even more of that energy, right? But
they do not do it radiatively over the entire universe
you'll never see the bond energy of molecular hydrogen
formation, you have to have a third body to take away the
energy.
Do you follow me? That's what we're doing, we're taking away
the energy with a resonant, like an energy sink, that
matches the amount of energy that hydrogen will give off
to undergo transition to these other non-radiative states.
How does it happen in space? Well, once you make one
half it becomes auto-catalytic; turns out that the
potential energy of the hydrogen atom is 27.2. The amount of
energy you have to remove in order to undergo these transitions
between, let's say from the n is 1 state, to the n is half
state is 27.2, that's the amount of energy you have to remove and
then once you form fractional hydrogen it has a binding energy
of a multiple of 27.2 and becomes auto-catalytic.
So, what you are seeing in space is, in fact, lower
energy hydrogen, auto-catalysing to lower and lower energy
states.
AR: I see.
RM: That's all explained on the web page, I mean the
balance reactions etc.
AR: OK, but I'd have to be a physicist to fully understand
it. My brother is one.
RM: Let him take a look at it, he can translate it for you.
AR: OK. Tell me one simple thing. Say the world was producing
a tremendous amount of power this way, all over the world, there
would be this huge number of hydrinos going off. What would be
the effect of that?
RM: Actually, it's very, very little because there's very, very
little mass balance because, in other words, low mass flow
because you get a tremendous amount of energy. I mean we have
independently validated now a thousand times the energy of burning
hydrogen, so you'd use very, very little material.
You would use water, it would be consumed, the water would be
going to releasing oxygen which would be good for the environment
and it would be releasing lower energy hydrogen. In fact, there
is enough water just released in the atmosphere, in the
biosphere, from the burning of fossil fuels, it'll last for
hundreds of thousands of years just removing that water.
AR: Water is plentiful, we know.
RM: Not only that, I mean if you look at a car application. A
two hundred horsepower car going 60 mph using this process will
go a hundred thousand miles on a tank of water.
AR: Aha.
RM: With no pollution because what you form is a lower
chemical energy form of molecular hydrogen that does not react.
In fact, you can look at the spectrum of the sun and you can see
the spectrum ofthis lower energy molecular hydrogen, and it's
stable at 2 million degrees. It won't even react or fall apart
at 2 million degrees.
AR: I see.
RM: It's lighter than air so it goes out into space. And if you
are worried about a gas, it's non reactive, I mean, you can
breathe helium, you can breathe argon, you can breathe neon.
Every time you breathe 80% of the air you are breathing is
nitrogen that doesn't react with anything in your body.
AR: Exactly.
RM: This is much more stable than nitrogen. Much much more
stable. In fact, you couldn't even keep it in your body, you
couldn't even keep it in the atmosphere, it would just diffuse
out into space because it's very, very light and it travels
through containers very easily.
AR: Could it be kept in balloons?
RM: Well it would be very difficult, you could probably keep it
in a mylar balloon for some period of time but it would be
difficult.
AR: I see. So much more difficult than ordinary hydrogen?
RM: Oh much more difficult to store than normal hydrogen.
AR: You don't think it would have an effect on the ionosphere?
RM: If anything it would absorb cosmic rays which would be a
good thing and it would revert back to normal hydrogen which,
again, is lighter than air and will end up in space anyhow.
So if anything it would be a preventative, you know, it would be
like replenishing the ozone layer it would have some screening
effect. But there would be so little of it would be negligible.
It would have no impact on anything.
AR: Well it sounds extremely interesting. Do you have fuel
cells at your laboratory presently producing, or capable of
producing energy from, say, hydrogen or water?
RM: We have cells running here that produced a thousand times
the energy of burning hydrogen running now. We are doing some
tests with Atlantic Electric and, we're not unreasonable about
showing that, but - there's independent validation reports that
we've put out on the web if you needed some validation of it.
For example, the Penn State University report. Jonathan
Phillips is one of the authors, he's a member of the
International Calorimetry Society and the other author is
Stuart Kurtz, who's Vice-Chair of the Material Research Institute
and a double Chaired Professor at Penn State University in the
Chemical Engineering Department, he runs the Material Research
Institute.
So, and there's a summary of reports from MIT Lincoln Labs, Idaho
National Engineering Lab, Atomic Energy Canada, Limited, Lehigh
University, Brookhaven National Labs, NASA, Lewis, a whole bunch
of labs are on the Net if you needed other validation.
AR: Why do you think that this information is not published in
daily papers and the New York Times?
RM: Oh, it will be. We've kept it all very secret while we
worked it out. Because it's been a very, very difficult process
because what I proposed, I mean, I tell lay men this, they say
well hydrogen was experimentally known to have this 13.6 over n
squared formula back in 1886 and then they tried to build
theories around it and none of the theories really worked
because they tried to make the universe mathematical rather
than physical. They conflict with the large scale physics,
there's a big problem in physics now, you know, they're up to
eleven dimensions trying to unify gravity and atomic theory
and it's just an absolute nightmare. Then after all these
decades and millions of man hours it is not coming about at
anything convenient in terms of a solution.
And I have something that unifies Maxwell's equations, general
relativity, special relativity and predicts everything from
quarks to cosmos. It works over 45 orders of magnitude. Now
the problem is that massive amounts of experiments that I can
explain in terms of astrophysics, cosmology, like the entire
thing and I have very, very pre-eminent people. I've had
probably 200 top physicists from Cal Tech to Westinghouse, you
know from national labs, multi-national corporations, to top
universities who looked at this and no-one can find a mistake with
it, or a single experiment that proves it's wrong. It's very
easy to find an experiment that proves quantum mechanics wrong.
The Aspect Experiment proves it wrong. Electron scattering
experiments prove it wrong. It's not reconcilable with gravity.
There are plenty of things that prove it wrong. Even if you look
at the fundamentals, it's not even a wave equation. There is an
internal contradiction inside the equation itself because they do
a substitution with the de Broglie wavelength and it turns out
that it doesn't even satisfy a wave equation. That's why the time
dependent has a first derivative with respect to time, not
a second because it's not even really a wave equation.
Nonetheless, I'm not going to beat up on it too bad, it predicts
negative energy states, and they've got to use virtual particles
and all these compactified dimensions, all this just weird,
crazy stuff. But all this comes out of first principle
physics and clues from equations from my theory.
And thing of it is, if I came up with a new theory and I came
up with, say, an eleven dimensional theory or a thirteen
dimensional theory that would be OK, that would be perfectly
acceptable. But it turns out that my theory says that there
are other lower energy states of hydrogen which violates, or is in
contradiction, to the solutions of one electron wave equation
solution to the hydrogen atom, which is based on
probability. And says the universe is not probabalistic at
the atomic level, but a fundamental particle is a fundamental
particle, it's not a probability density function.
It didn't even make sense to apply probability to a single
particle, you know what I'm saying? It's like trying to do
statistics on one person. Mathematically it doesn't even make
sense but they used it because they could do these averaging
techniques and they could do all these perturbations and get
experimental answers, so mathematically it's very convenient.
It's like trying to fit the stock market after you know the
answer, you know what I'm saying? AR: Right.
RM: You apply all these curve-fitting techniques and that's what
quantum mechanics really is, it's a bunch of curve-fitting. You
add different dimensions, you add virtual particles, and you keep
adding negative energy states until you get the right answer. Well
here I'm saying that everything's deterministic all the way down
to the atomic level. That's going to make these guys look like
fools. They're off on the wrong tangent talking about
probability, and Einstein, de Broglie, Dirac, Schrodinger himself,
they all said You guys are wrong, you shouldn't talk about a
particle being a probability, it's a particle. And that's the
problem, that's the rub. That's why it took a lot of
confidence building and testing and the other thing was this
damned cold fusion. If I did anything I'd rip that out of the
history books because those guys are saying, Hey, there's some
heat source, we've got some nuclear reaction and, of course, all
nuclear products magically disappear, and it's the same sort of
thing, you know the quantum guys are pulling tricks out of their
sleeves and just trying to hand wave explanations without anything
substantial. Do you know what I'm saying ?
AR: But doesn't cold fusion produce tritium, which is
radioactive?
RM: No, it doesn't. I mean, even if it does, let's suppose it
does. Even if it does, even if you take the numbers that they
say it produces as tritium, right? If you take - you got to obey
E=mc2 right? So you got to take deuterium and then you make
tritium and E=mc2 and if you look at how much energy they are
getting compared to the amount of tritium they get, it's off by
14 orders of magnitude. I mean that's a big mistake. That's not
like 20%, its 1 followed by 14 zeros.
AR: Right.
RM: That's big. So these physicists are saying, Hey the
nuclear reactions aren't accounting for the heat, even if there
is trace tritium there, that's not what's making the heat. You
see what I'm saying because you're off by 14 orders of magnitude.
AR: Right.
RM: So they keep saying, Well somehow the tritium magically
disappears, or you know, whatever and that doesn't cut it in
science, you know, you got to have the experimental data. If you
come here, you look on the walls I have gas chromatography
results, mass spectroscopy results, x-ray photo electron
spectroscopy results, infra-red spectroscopy, uv spectroscopy.
I have proved that we're making this product from our heat
cells, you follow me? That's what people want.
So, over the years I've been building up all this credibility
and getting all these validated research reports and now I
have two term sheets from utilities, Pacific Corporate which
is like the third largest generator, put a million bucks in.
We've got other utilities that we're working out deals
with for millions of dollars. We're just doing a stock
offering, it was a $5m offering sold out in a week, we are
probably going to close it out at $10 million.
AR: Is stock available at present?
RM: Well, there is but we are only selling it to
accredited investors, that's people with like a million net worth.
AR: So my brother couldn't buy stock in the Corporation?
RM: Well, we're trying to just sell to accredited investors;
people that make like 300,000 plus a year, have more than a
million net worth that type of thing. But there's a lot of big
corporations, you know, that are -
AR: Going for it?
RM: Yes it's very, very interesting to see the turn of events
because in terms of the development time line. I mean what we
originally used is, you have to have the catalyst and you have to
have hydrogen in contact with each other. The most convenient
way of generating hydrogen was with electrolysis. So the first
cell that I made back in 1991 was with electrolytic - with
the transition catalyst dissolved in the water and served as
the electrolyte and reacted with the hydrogen and I got excess
energy and I validated at MIT Lincoln Labs and Idaho
National Engineering Lab and a number of labs that got very large
multiples of the power out relative to the total input power. But
I got linked to cold fusion, people were saying - Oh, well you
know, this is cold fusion'. What we are doing now is a
gaseous reaction at about 100 millitorrs which is about one one
thousandth the pressure of atmosphere at up to 2,000 degrees, so
you are looking at a very, very low pressure reaction with just
hydrogen and trace amounts of vapourised catalyst in a gaseous
reaction, we're getting a
thousand times the energy of burning hydrogen. And the
companies, and Westinghouse validated for example, but what people
said is: "OK we believe your theory, we know this is working,
we are making lower energy hydrogen but we don't think it
will be commercially competititve."
AR: Why is that?
RM: I'm saying that's what they'd said historically.
AR: Oh.
Then I developed about, Oh, I don't know, 18 months ago, I
worked out all the theory for this new gas phase cell and then
Bill was working on testing it and it works! And now we have
people, you know, fighting to get in. And I mean I get unsolicited
calls from utilities, you know, I've got people coming who
are CEO's and COO's and Chairmen of utilities flying up in
their Lears and coming here and wanting to licence it. Now, like
I said, we got two term sheets already from two different
big power generators, and we've got, just last week, I have three
more utilities called me. I'm on the road constantly. I mean,
the entire next week I'm going to be on the road every single
day going to different meetings. So, you know, the whole tenor
has changed because now we have a commercially competitive
process and I have people from Stone (?) & Webster, Flor (?)
Daniel, Westinghouse and, you know, a lot of big power
companies have said -If you can get this new vapour phase cell
independently validated', they said "we feel that this will be the
dominant source of power for essentially all power applications."
AR: Right.
RM: Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out if you're
getting a thousand times burning you can use a fraction
of the electrical output to make the hydrogen.
AR: Of course.
RM: And you're running very low pressures 100 millitorrs so
it's safe and reliable, if you punched a hole in it, it
would just suck air in and shut it down immediately. But
because it's very low pressure you can control the hydrogen
gas and the catalyst pressures and you can get very very
exquisite control on it. The mass balance is very very low
because of the tremendous amount of energy per atom and the
product is a lower energy chemical form of hydrogen that
doesn't burn, that's lighter than air. So it's very
environmentally friendly and it turns out that the capital
cost is very low for the equipment also. And you can use
existing power conversion equipment because it runs at very
very high power densities and very very high temperature.
So it's like the ultimate power source.
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005