Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: PKF: New Energy, New Physics, part 3 of 3



Subject: New Energy, New Physics, part 3 of 3
Date: Feb 2, 1998
From: artr-AT-juno.com (Art B Rosenblum)


Part 3
Interview with Dr. Randell Mills on New Energy, New Physics


After the personal interview, I called Randy Mills again:

RM:  Oh,  how are you doing, Art ?

AR:   Better and better, except I just learned that there's an
airworthiness directive on my old Cessna and that's going to cost
me over a thousand dollars.

RM:   Oh, God I hate that.

AR:  Do you fly ?

RM:  No, I was just being facetous. 

AR: The reason I'm calling you is to try to get you to just tell
me the story of how you discovered this new form of energy.

RM:   OK, I was working on the theory, you know that theory, I
gave you that book, and I applied that non-radiative boundry
constraint to the hydrogen atom.

AR:   What led you to work on a new theory?

RM:   Well, 'cause I knew the old theory was wrong.  It doesn't
work. It causes a division between classical, you know, the large
scale physics and atomic physics. And Bohr, back in the early 19th
century said he couldn't get the theories to work out and be in
agreement with classical theories, so he just said it just obeys
different physics which was a very bad move.  And we've inherited
that ever since. So what I said is physics has to apply on all
scales because everything is made out of atoms and the laws that
apply on the large scale must apply on the atomic scale since they
did not solve the equations correctly.

AR:  Did that lead you to this electrolysis experiment?

RM:   Yes. So what I did was I went back and I solved the atom by
invoking a constraint - you know this, whenever you solve the
atomic equation you have to have a condition to solve it, a
constraint.  There's an infinite number of solutions to all
equations, so I picked as my constraint 
something that you'd observe all over the universe that is
hydrogen at the 13.6 eV energy level, is non-radiating. So I said
I will solve the atom with the constraint that it doesn't radiate
at that energy level and the atom solved in closed form without
any postulates or fudge factors or added on junk that they
have today.  And it matched all the various measurements that have
been made on the hydrogen atom which permitted me to solve the
electron, that is the free electron, the photon, excited states of
atoms and it also predicted that there are these other low energy
states of hydrogen that involved transitions without the release
of radiation.

AR:   What you are saying is that you started out then from the
mathematical point of view?

RM:   A very sensible theory derived the solution to the atom, it
predicted these other states of hydrogen and how to make these
transitions occur, that is I had to use a catalyst that will
absorb the exact amount of energy 27.2 eV and I looked in the
literature and said, Oh, look, potassium has a reaction that can
absorb that amount of energy and then I ran the reaction.  Simple
as that, it's all from theory.

AR:   I see.  You started out to be a medical doctor, is that
right?

RM:   Yeah, but I invented a lot of cutting edge technologies and
I was always in the high-tech end of things and I took an
electrical engineering program at MIT.

AR:   We know that I see that from your biography.

RM:   Then, that's why I picked up on this non-radiative
constraint from one of my professors who was working on free
electron lasers, then I applied that to the atom and solved the
atom correctly and by solving the atom correctly, I found that
there are these other states of hydrogen that could exist and how
to make those states in a reaction.

AR:   How come if the normal state of hydrogen as we know it has
more energy, how come that so much of it exists at the higher
energy level.

RM:   Because that is the first non-radiative state.  That means
you can't get it to go to a lower energy unless you take energy
out of it with a non-radiative mechanism.  In fact, normal
molecular hydrogen forms without emitting light also.  It has to
have some third body take away the energy, namely  the bond energy
for molecular hydrogen to form.  So it's the same principle.  In
fact, if you look over the entire universe you'll never see
light being emitted from molecules forming from atoms of
hydrogen.

AR:   With other atoms, that happens?

RM:   Well, I don't think it happens with any atoms.  I had a
chemist in here the other day and he said, "You know I think
that's true of all atomic reactions that form molecules. I don't
think there are any of them that emit light that they have to have
a third party.  You know in molecular reactions.

AR:   So, you started out as a medical doctor working at the
high-tech end of inventing new medical procedures.

RM:   Not procedures, new medical technologies.  Pharmaceutical
technologies and medical imaging technologies things of that
nature. And I was working on theory to predict new technologies
and I went back and I reworked atomic theory correctly and it
predicted this new source of energy by making a form of hydrogen
that exists in nature but no one knew how to make it or was aware
of its existence.

AR:   So hydrinos do exist naturally?

RM:   Yes, they make up dark the matter and they - it accounts for
part of the energy, about 40% of the energy coming from our Sun,
for example. It accounts for the flares that you see in the Sun.

AR:   Flares?

RM:   Solar flares.  The mechanism behind that is these lower
energy hydrogen transitions.

AR:   Tell me something else.  Some people who claim to be
scientists, although I don't know if they really are, say that it
isn't possible for people or animals to get all the energy that
they have simply from the oxidation of food; that there must be
something else that goes on in the body that gives us our energy.

RM:   Hey, I'm not sure about that.  Well, if you get me some
literature.  I mean I've never looked at - I know you can put
people inside a closed chamber then you can feed them and figure
out how much chemical energy is there and measure all the heat
they give off, etc.  I don't know I've never looked at that data,
maybe they're right, maybe'they're wrong. I'd have to look at the
data.
 
AR:   What I've seen of it isn't scientific enough to -

RM:   It's probably not accurate enough to tell. So, you really
can't comment on it then. 

AR:   Right. My theory is that if you took all the food that
someone ate normally and burned it in pure oxygen you'd get a
certain maximum amount of energy from it.

RM:   That's correct, that's thermodynamics.

AR:   Then if you took the work that that person does physically
and determined how much energy he puts out, if he's putting out a
lot more than you can get by burning the food, then he must be
getting it from some other source.

RM:   You could do that experiment by putting him into a closed
environmental chamber and seeing how much heat his body releases.

AR:   Right, but I mean the heat is minimal compared to the
physical work.

RM:   What I'm saying is by moving things around, that mechanical
energy has ultimately got to be converted into heat.

AR:   So, you were working at inventions having to do with
medicine and healing and you came upon -  you started working on
the mathematics -

RM:   Of atomic theory

AR:  Of atomic theory, and finding that the theory was evidently
wrong.  

RM: Yes.

AR:   And it's not only your discovery but other people have seen
so many inconsistencies.

RM:   That's correct.

AR:   That you had to say there must be something wrong with this
whole mess.  Einstein saw that.

RM:   Yes, Einstein saw right through that at the very beginning.

AR:   And he said that his theory was, at least, not complete.

RM:   He was correct though.  His part of it was correct and his
intuition was correct, but he couldn't finish it.  I think I've
finished what Einstein's dream was.

AR:   Right.  And yet - but people seem to doubt -  so many other
scientists seem to doubt that hydrogen could have a lower energy
than what they call the ground state. 

RM:   Well then that's OK because this - you know - is something
that's really quite new and it's been ingrained in them that there
is something called the ground state, and the reason they're 
ingrained with that ground state because that's a postulate of
quantum mechanics in order to solve the hydrogen atom.  

     In other words, the theory - they invented the theory to
match what their conception of the hydrogen atom was; it dates
back to 1886.  'Cause they had some data that said here's a
hydrogen goes this lower state, so we'll make a wave function 
that has that as it's lowest state but it didn't have any physics
built into it, it wasn't based on physics, it was just a
mathematical model. It didn't have to do with physics. 'Cause
remember they said that physics was different on the atomic scale.

AR:   Right.

RM:   So people have been taught that 13.6 eV is the lowest, or 
the ground state of the hydrogen atom, but in fact it's not,
there's no reason why it can't go lower, in fact, the potential
energy between the proton and the electron could release a million
extra electron volts of energy.  And it doesn't and you ask, well
why can't it go to these lower states because it does it
spontaneously when you form a molecule of hydrogen, it goes
to the lower states when you form water.  The reason it doesn't is
because that's the first non-radiative state and that's the
condition I used to solve the atom correctly. Do you follow me?

AR:   Well, more or less.

RM:   Well, let me put it this way.  Around 1900, scientsts said
well, we've got some spectra that we see hydrogen has this state
that we feel is the lowest energy state. So what we're going to do
is we are just going to make a mathematical - we're going to
describe the hydrogen atom; same way you would use words, they 
use mathematics.  They said the hydrogen atom is 13.6 over n
squared where n can't go below 1.  They just proclaimed that. 
Didn't have anything to do with physics, just proclaimed: "That is
the ground state".  And what I did, is I said, "No, it's physics. 
If you go back and solve the problem from the principles of
PHYSICS, the electron can, in fact, go to low energy levels and
you just haven't FOUND it yet."

So, though they found the hydrogen in one half state, they just
say "We proclaim that hydrogen can be 13.6 over n squared where n
is one half, one, two, three, four, five you know up to n is
infinity.  They just found it in that state and they just said
we'll proclaim it.  Now, you can describe it in words, or you can
describe it in terms of mathematical formulae, both mean the same
thing.  You follow me ?

AR:   Yeah, I follow you, without the math, I'm not that good at
math. Physics is a hobby of mine. I -

RM:   Well, all I'm saying is that they found hydrogen in a
certain state and whether you describe it in words or in a
mathematical equation that is equivalent to words, they just said:
"I proclaim hydrogen is - and they set this out, - said that's
what it is.  And what I'm saying is if you solve it correctly from
first principles of physics, it says that is not the end of the
story and that is not the full description of what hydrogen is. 

     You have these other states that you can cause to happen
by a non-radiative mechanism and that's what I did, I solved that
and I went into a lab and tested it and it made energy and then I
did some experiments that showed that this new form of hydrogen
exists and then I looked in the literature and alas there is a ton
of data in the literature that supports the existence of this new
form of hydrogen and explains many, many problems that before
could not be explained.

AR:   You say there's a ton of data in the literature?

RM:   That's correct.

AR:   But have you got specific literature in mind.

RM:   Look on the web page, [www.blacklightpower.com] there's a
ton of it, there's things from solar flares there's light from
interstellar media, there's transitions in the solar corona,
there's microwave background from deep space, there's been nuclear
hyperfine transitions, there's proton atom scattering, that shows
a back-scattered electron peak that has the characteristic feature
of being caused by a one to one half fractional hydrogen
transition.  There's a lot.  - but look, my wife's waiting on me.
I got to run home now.

Well, ring tomorrow if you want to talk some more.



Mills Interview #4- June 19, 1997-- What led to discovery.

AR:  I want to ask you a bit about your life and what led you to
take on the career that you took on ?

RM:  I'll have to think about that. 

AR:  Naw, you really know it all. 

RM:  Yeah, sure. 

AR:  I mean you might want to think about what you tell me - sort
of
informal - I don't want a whole bunch of details or anything.

RM:  OK

AR:  Tell me a little bit about how you came to be in that
situation. I wanted to be an inventor too, but when I was a
teenager I discovered that most of my inventions would be used by
the military, or something - 

RM: Well, I just decided that's what I wanted to do, and I just
stuck with it and did it, to put it succinctly. You know, like a
person would want to be a doctor , or a lawyer, or a dentist. You
just work through all the issues, and just keep focussed and do
it.

AR: What led you to want to be in that field?

RM: I enjoy it. It's like anything. If you try tennis and you like
it, you try and do it as much as you can, and I decided I wanted
to do it as a business.

AR: Did you have any medical problems in the family or things that
led you to go into that?

RM: Not really. I just decided that was what I was interested in.

AR: As an inventor, or as a healer?

RM: All of it's the same to me, whether you're inventing medical
or inventing energy. To me there's no such thing as a specific
discipline. I think that's kind of an artifact,  just the way the
educational system is. But I don't see any sharp boundaries
between medicine and energy and physics and electronics or
anything. I think they're all interrelated.

AR: All healing is a matter of healing the planet.

RM: Everything's interrelated. Sure, I mean the chemistry that
goes on in molecular biology - some of the concepts can be applied
to atomic physics to cosmology. I mean, they're all basically
working with similar types of reasoning processes.

AR: How old were you when you first decided that you wanted to be
an inventor?

RM: I started working when I was, like, six.

AR: Really?

RM: Yeah, pretty young.

AR: With what kind of things?

RM: I wouldn't want to mention;\ -  they were pretty far out. I
think
we ought to stick to the things we actually got working. 

AR: I see. Someone wrote the following: "For the sake of argument,
let's accept that this is true (meaning Blacklight Power works).
What are the plans for this wonderful new energy source? Is it to
be held in the hands of Dr. Mills, who would surely become the
richest man in the world overnight, if it were, or, is Dr. Mills
beholden to some corporation or consortium, or, are there plans to
make such wonders available to all, like the air and sunlight that
surround us as a right of mankind?"

RM: Ah, well, that's kind of a Utopian dream, but the realities
are, when you commercialize something, someone's got to pay for
the hundreds of millions in development costs, the infrastructure
changes, and it's got to be organized as a business. You know,
penicillin wasn't developed, except by the military, because it
was "given" to the world and then, no one could get patent rights
on it, so no one wanted to spend the money to develop it, because
they couldn't derive any revenue from it. So, I've got
shareholders I have to answer to, and corporate investors and the
like. But, if you believe in the free market system, if it's the
best energy source, everybody's gonna get it at the cheapest
price. That's basically the way the system works. And I think it
is competitive to coal and gas and nuclear power. And, in time,
you're gonna see everyone's standard of living come up and the
environmental issues improve as a consequence of the introduction
of this technology and adoptation of it. 

AR: Right. 

RM: If you're asking, I've got about 160 shareholders. It's a
private corporation but we're intending to take it public which
means that anybody can buy ownership in the company, in other
words anybody off the street could own shares in it if they had
the money to buy the share price, and the units it will be in, it
will be relatively affordable to anybody. 

AR:  Any idea when that mighty go public ?

RM:  We're trying to get it done in 18 months. I mean that's kind
of the business plan, but we can't guarantee anything. 

AR:  Right, but in the meantime do you expect to have a powerplant
running ?

RM   We're working on prototypes, you know, on the cell itself and
also on - prototypes on the cell - we're looking at conversion
equipment right now. We're trying to do some research into that,
what would be the most effective conversion equipment.

AR:  To convert the heat to electricity ?

RM:  Yeah, it looks like maybe turbo generators look like to be
the forerunner right now, but that could change.

AR:  And are you working at all on mobile systems yet ?

RM:  Sure. Yeah, as a matter of fact there's some real good
synergies between the mobile and distributive applications -
equipment required so there could be shared development costs and
increased mnarkets, that type of thing. 

AR:  What about the poor countries - presently poor countries of
the world -  where they have no electricity ?  Would you see this
as
being made available at a price people could afford in those
places ?

RM:  It's probably the only thing that would really work for those
countries 'cause they don't have the infrastructure for fuel and
they don't have any central grid, and they don't have the economy
to put any of that in. So deriving the hydrogen from water with
part of the energy of the process, and then having a small compact
unit that's relatively simple, is probably the only solution for
them. In a lot of countries I think this would be very, very
beneficial.  

AR:  Right, I can see that. I've lived 12 years in the jungles of
Paraguay and the remarkable thing is - 

RM:  You don't have any fuel, you don't have any wires you don't
have any engineers there, so if you can just drop in, parachute in
a self-contained unit that's relatively simple - you know the
advantages of that. 

AR:  Where I came to was a Christian cooperative community of 600
people and they had a couple engineers, and they had steam engines
after 8 years there, and they had electric light all through the
village, whereas the Mennonites who'd been there for thirty years
already, could not do it because they would have had to have
electric meters in every house. And the cooperative community
didn't have to worry about that because nobody paid nothing. 

     They had electric light. It was a very impressive sight, the
night that a Mennonite brought me first to his home a few miles
away and I looked in the direction we were going and there was a
glow in the sky which wasn't the moon, and I said "what's that ?".

     He said "Oh, that's Primavera. They have electric light". 

RM:  Wow !     

AR:  It was very impressive !

RM:  Yeah, 

AR:  So, I got there and they had these ancient steam engines, and
the newest one was from 1913, the German Wolfe, but the old one
was from 1898, and still running. And we built a charcoal gas
engine system to do it a bit safer. Anyway, the other question is
that an engineer that I was on the phone with, who works with a
lot of physicists in the field of cosmic rays - and I mentioned to
him that I thought you said that hydrinos could capture the energy
from a cosmic ray and revert to hydrogen atoms.

RM: Yeah, but that's a rare event.

AR: A rare event, but he said cosmic rays are essentially protons,
for the most part.

RM: Yeah, but if  they smash into a hydrogen atom, they can knock
the electron loose. Hydrogen or lower energy hydrogen. I don't
think anybody would refute that. No matter what the electron is, a
cosmic ray will ionize anything. They're very high energy. So they
just smash into something and rip the electron loose.

AR: So, it would not restore it to a hydrogen atom.

RM: Yeah, it wouldn't, but once you ionized it, then the electron
would be captured by - see, you'd have a free electron and a free
proton then, and of course it would form a hydrogen atom.

AR: So that could actually happen. But it would be a rare event
that we don't have to really worry about.

RM: Well, no, it would be a good thing, right, because then it
would block the cosmic ray somewhat, and it would revert back to
normal hydrogen, so it wouldn't screen some of the cosmic rays,
albeit  it's not gonna have much of an effect, because there's not
much of it, and the cross-section what they call, the chance that
a cosmic ray will hit it, because it's real small, is low.

AR: Right. The other question - if hydrogen is not at its lowest
energy state, how could there be so much hydrogen in the universe,
and around everywhere at this high energy state?

RM: Everybody that I talk to has missed that. That's such a common
question. You know, well, 95% of the matter that we see is
hydrogen. Why isn't it in a lower energy state? Then you gotta
point out to people that the 95% of the matter that you can see,
that's hydrogen, that only represents 5% of the total mass of the
universe, from what gravitational measurements have been made. So,
what's this other 95% of all the matter in the universe? What is
that? Well, that's lower energy hydrogen, also. I mean, that's
hydrogen, but it's in a lower energy state. So, there is a lot of
it, there is an awful lot of it in the universe in this lower
energy state. You know what I mean, you're only seeing the tip of
the iceberg.

AR: Right, so, is it also present in our atmosphere and
everything?

RM: No, it's lighter than air, so it's not in our atmosphere, but
it does make up a very large constituent of the mass in the
universe, and there's a lot of it in the sun. It's being produced
in the sun. And that's where a major fraction of the energy is
coming from, by this transition reaction occurring in the sun.
Namely, if you look at the spectra of the sun, there's a bunch of
lines that haven't been assigned that match the Rydberg formula,
which is the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, with fractions,
rather than integers. That is 1 divided by I, where I is an
integer, substituted for n squared in the denominator of the
equation. That gives you very high energy levels in terms of the
energy of the light coming out from these transitions.
 
     And that's seen from the sun. It's seen from interstellar
media; it's seen from solar flares, etc. So, it's just a matter of
misidentification or lack of making the connection between
spectra, a very large constituent of matter that could not be
identified, and lower energy hydrogen. If they had made that
connection, then they wouldn't ask that question. But, not till
now has anyone done that.

AR: Caroline gave you a disk of the material on cold fusion that
came in from the internet. 

RM: Yeah, I don't really pay much attention to that.

AR: Right, and the problem is that they don't understand how the
energy comes, where it's coming from.

RM: Well, I don't even know if they're getting energy. I agree
there are some experiments done in very reputable labs that said
they're maybe getting 10 or 20% heat from palladium and lithium
electrolysis. And, it turns out that palladium 2+ and lithium+ is
a transition catalyst. So, you could get some hydrogen
transitions, get some heat, and then (trace amounts) of nuclear
products. But, then, there's a lot of junk on there, talking about
everything in the phone book - transmutating the periodic chart, a
lot of really strange stuff that really isn't - I don't think -
well done experimental work. You know, like, there's a company,
CETI, and they were saying that they had a device they could show
in public that was making a thousand watts. And now, the paper I
looked at he showed me said  may be getting 10 to 50% excess
power. And that makes me really question their credibility. And
they said they were getting a thousand watts with, like, a few
milliwatts input, which is tens of thousands of times multiplier.
And, now they're saying, well, we're only getting 10% excess heat.
So, what happened in between? So, they really lose a lot of
credibility, and you really trust what they're telling you as
being accurate.  
     I haven't seen independent research labs saying that either,
and that's the difference between us and those. Because we have
top, credible labs saying, "We've independently tested this, we
tried to disprove it, and it really does work". That's a big
difference, rather than them, themselves, who are selling it,
trying to raise money from investors.

RM: "Yeah, we're getting a kilowatt", and then not getting anybody
to independently test it, and then later saying, no, we're not
getting a kilowatt from a milliwatt in. We're really putting
a kilowatt in and we're maybe getting a 10% excess energy on top
of a kilowatt, which is really within the experimental error of
measuring heat.

AR: When I read the stuff, I also saw mention of yourself.

RM: Yeah, they tried to latch onto what we're doing and pull us
into that, but I don't encourage that. I condemn it rather than
condone it, but there is a free press, and they'll do what they
want to do.

AR: What they actually said was that you seem to have the best
system, (and this was last year), but they thought you were
secretive. And I thought, well, gee, you wrote this whole book.

RM: Right, I'm not secretive. And I published three papers; and
I'm working with a lot of companies. It's just I'm not working
with them, and I think they always put their spin on stuff to try
to promote what they're doing. I don't put much confidence in what
they're doing as really real.

AR:  Well, I mean if you published this whole book that explains
everything, it's hardly secretive.

RM:  It's not secretive. You made a good point. they do try to put
their spin on things. 

AR: When they have no answer, they say it's secretive.

RM: Right. There, if I'm disagreeing with them, and I'm saying I'm
not making a nuclear reaction, (and who would even want a nuclear
reaction - they act like a nuclear reaction is a great thing). 
And
I say, no, it's not a nuclear reaction, and then, because I'm not
going along with them, they say, "He's secretive". Like it is a
nuclear reaction, but he's not telling you. I think that's what
they're implying. And that's absolutely not true.

AR: Right. And tritium production is one of the most dangerous
things on the planet.

RM: Dangerous. Gets incorporated in your DNA, for example.

AR: Right, and it's impossible to contain it forever.

RM: Right. It leaks out, permeates through metals. It's a very
dangerous stuff; gets in your water supply, and then you're stuck.

AR: That's what I'm hearing, too. I like what you're doing,
because it doesn't involve that.

RM: Yeah, They say: "Oh, we're producing harmless tritium. And
without radiation, nuclear reactions, and we have no radiation, We
have no nuclear products. "Well, I tell them, that's like saying
that Sun Oil Company is cold fusion. There's a reaction that makes
heat with no nuclear products, right, so that's cold fusion.

AR:  Well, yes, anyway, I really appreciate your telling me all
this, and I think that's really what I wanted to know. 

RM;  OK, well good luck with your story.   


END OF INTERVIEWS

     Years from now, I believe, we'll look back on these times as
the great turning point in our planet's history. With non-
polluting energy available for all, there will be few excuses for
war. We can now devote ourselves to working together in peace to
solve all our planet's needs. 

     Of course we're also aware of human ego and selfishness and
the fear that this new energy will be controlled by multinational
corporations who will keep it from the poor. There is still much
need for people of loving concern to change the social systems
that divide humanity, creating the inequality and suffering that
causes violent revolutions.

     Yet the very nature of this new physics, new energy which is
efficient in small units, tends towards decentralization, the very
opposite of huge corporate systems. Very soon every village, every
community or even each household can have its own clean energy.

     Developing a truly loving society remains the work of
Aquarian Research which also looks at cooperative lifestyles,
better health, the elimination of violence, fear and sexual
repression. For more information about all these new discoveries,
you may subscribe to our newsletter. Sample issues are sent for
any donation. Write to Aquarian, 5620 Morton St., Philadelphia, PA
19144 U.S.A. (215-849-1259)

Peace and love, Art Rosenblum

    Aquarian Research Foundation
    5620 Morton St.,  Philadelphia, PA 19144-1330
    (215) 849-1259 or 849-3237 day/eve.
    (Finding ways to a positive future for the earth since 1969)



**********************************************************************
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