I am following the LENR saga quiet a while and in this context I
stumbled over Randell Mills and his theory. I am just a simple
electrical engineer and by viewing over the vastness of Mills
publications I could not grasp the important parts of his theory and why
he thinks that there are hydrinos. Two weeks ago a former Co-Worker of
Mills Bret Holverstoff released a book
which covers parts of the history of Mills and Brilliant Light Power
and also the most important parts of his theory.
Besides it is a really interesting, well written, book and a must
read for the LENR community (even if LENR plays only a siderole), I
found one thing pretty awesome: in LENR we are struggeling with the
engineering of a device which clearly shows LENR with an undisputable
power output, just the same way Mills is struggeling to build his
hydrino power generator. But with Mills there is one striking advantage:
he has a theory which usefullness is easy to proof for somebody skilled
in the art :-). I am referring to the fact that Mills derived closed
form analytical equations to calculate the binding energies and the
structure of all molecules. And even better is, that there is a ground
truth of experiments in the literature and totally independent from
Mills which measured the binding energies and structure.
The theory itself is quite fascinating and if I had studied chemistry
or physics I would by now calculate the s**t out of these molecules.
But I dont feel capable of doing so. It would be great if somebody
outside the realm of Mills could do the calculations and share the
calculation process and the results. Perhaps someone on "the internet"
finds this thread and feels the holy urge of duty Not only, because
his theory (if correct) (*) could give us an energy source based on
hydrinos, but it could also be the key to understand cold fusion. My
feeling is that cold fusion and hydrino theory are somehow linked - that
a hydrino can alter the atomic properties of a metal latice so that
fusion might take place.
I am trying to find someone of the people I know to verify or debunk
the results. Perhaps someone of you knows someone who knows someone...My
guess is that Bret Holverstoff would love to share the parts of the
book and the equations necessary to do the math.
Have a great day!
(*) the question if a theory is correct or not is of course ill
stated. A theory is a model of a process or of nature and is never
capable of capturing all aspects. There will be errors in the
predictions of Mills theory and no man alone can fix all the problems of
all kinds of different disciplines like astronomy, atomic science and
so on. But if Mills theory is capable of explaining the structure of
molecules with analytic and deterministic (!!!) equations I would bet my
a$$ that it is "more correct" than quantum physics which struggles to
solve even simple molecules.