And, no, he’s not re-invented the (water)wheel.

According to an article in UK broadsheet “The Guardian”, by their science correspondant Alok Jha: -

“It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.”

Full text here.

It seems Randell Mills has let a number of physicists look at his equipment and data, and they appear fairly positive (except the quantum physicists, who were still uncertain).

uh-huh. yeeah. “quantum physics must be wrong”

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
- Albert Einstein

Cold fusion, anyone?

I made this same doscovery as a child. around 10 yr. old….....I once operated a “Water Rocket”....It would travel at least 60 ft. into the air, and it was only powerd by water…...what amatures, lol….

Citizen Premier - 07 November 2005 02:49 PM

Cold fusion, anyone?

But if he’s really succeeded in making the GS of Hydrogen smaller, we’ll be able to pack much more of it into a palladium electrode and maybe get that to work too!*



[*] This is basically the principle behind muon-catalyzed cold fusion.

David B. - 06 November 2005 02:09 AM

And, no, he’s not re-invented the (water)wheel.

According to an article in UK broadsheet “The Guardian”, by their science correspondant Alok Jha: -

“It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.” I wonder if he tried a topical analgesic to rub into his sore muscles after getting that news. I don’t know about all that but I do know I had really bad nail fungus disease one time and I had to use a toenail fungus treatments to get rid of it!

Full text here.

It seems Randell Mills has let a number of physicists look at his equipment and data, and they appear fairly positive (except the quantum physicists, who were still uncertain).

Ancient thread bump, I had to comment as I just read an article concerning this. After this theory was presented, Mills company Blacklight Power, got 50 million dollars in investment around 2005-2006. Within 2 years the theory was proven impossible and the concept of ‘hydrinos’ to be completely mythical. Despite this Mills continues to run the business and look for investors to this day !!  Basically the article I read was warning people against investing is pseudosciences like this. Imagine the amount of pain that news caused investors. I guess they knew the risks though.

Hydrogen continues to be a viable alternative fuel, but Hydrinos are a figment of imagination.

I’m a little confused, this is hardly my area of expertise BUT, it’s also pretty easy to say the mathematics are flawed, that his papers are ‘riddled’ with mathematical flaws etc., yet like Einstein’s quoted statement earlier here, if the major critique is about flawed math, then I believe all are owed the exact flaws to be carefully outlined and published from the first stroke to the last summation. 

History is rift with notions that certain ideas and science were static and unchangeable and then were proved very wrong.

I find this fascinating. I am convinced that it is only a matter of time, before we discover a viable way of producing endless amounts of energy which does not involve burning fossil fuels. The problem of course, is that once this type of technology is discovered, it threatens the oil companies. I believe that these Fat cats will do everything they can to prevent this technology from being released as it would threaten their very existence. Has anyone heard of the milo academy, I am looking for some information on it. Thank you.

hulitoons - 15 February 2011 01:38 AM

History is rift with notions that certain ideas and science were static and unchangeable and then were proved very wrong.

This is true, but it’s up to the originators of the new theory to show that it has merit.  If you’re going to change the world then you have to actually do some work to convince others you’re correct - this they completely failed to do.  Nor did they adequately address the complaints brought against them.  It seems to be a classic case of ‘ignore your detractors and milk the funding for all it’s worth before they wise up’.