Are Hydrinos real?

Randall is very good at raising money, many many millions of dollars over several decades. The principal problem is that he has been on the verge of commercialisation for almost the same period, but it has never happened.

He can do science, if you look in LENR.canr.org and search his name you will find some early papers where he collaborated on NiH cold fusion research.

As for the hydrino, I really have no idea. The fact that he has written a huge scientific monograph on his theories means little on its own. As an experimenter rather than a theoretician, I am definitely not convinced by his demonstrations and almost total lack of rigorous and independent evidence that he is right, but maybe better brains than mine would like to give you a more informed opinion.

Mills is more relevant than Rossi because he’s an US citizen.. In this way his bullshit smelts better…

Quote from Alan Smith

Randall is very good at raising money, many many millions of dollars over several decades. The principal problem is that he has been on the verge of commercialisation for almost the same period, but it has never happened.

He can do science, if you look in LENR.canr.org and search his name you will find some early papers where he collaborated on NiH cold fusion research.

As for the hydrino, I really have no idea. The fact that he has written a huge scientific monograph on his theories means little on its own. As an experimenter rather than a theoretician, I am definitely not convinced by his demonstrations and almost total lack of rigorous and independent evidence that he is right, but maybe better brains than mine would like to give you a more informed opinion.

Here's the view from DTRA.

https://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/media-3rd-party/2010DTRA-nps56-072312-05.pdf

Quote from orsova

Here's the view from DTRA.

https://newenergytimes.com/v2/…0DTRA-nps56-072312-05.pdf

That's pretty funny. I agree with their recommendations:

• DTRA should be cautious in considering contractual relationships with BlackLight Power

 Reviews & assessments performed throughout the BlackLight Power history have generally revealed serious deficiencies in the CP theory
 Experimental claims have not enjoyed the benefit of doubt of even those in the LENR field
 No substantive independent validations (BlackLight Power exercises proprietary constraints)

I myself have no idea whether there is any evidence for hydrinos. None of the Blacklight experiments done in the last 20 years make any sense to me. Granted, I have not looked closely. Mills has spent appalling sums of money yet he seems to have to nothing to show for it. This DTRA paper from 2010 says he spent $60 million. I have heard of similar amounts from various sources. I have no idea, but I suppose DTRA is approximately right.

I am reminded of Wilbur Wright's last essay, written shortly before he died at age 45:

". . . When the detailed story is written of the means by which success in human flight was finally attained, it will be seen that this success was not won by spending more time than others had spent, nor by taking greater risks than others had taken.

Those who failed for lack of time had already used more time than was necessary; those who failed for lack of money had already spent more money than was necessary; and those who were cut off by accident had previously enjoyed as many lucky escapes as reasonably could be expected."

Quote

What do people think of the idea of Hydrinos? Obviously, mainstream Science calls it BS.

I usually support alternative theories but there is a fundamental flaw in hydrino theory: if their formation would generate an energy - as Randall Mills promises - then we would have hydrinos all around us in similar way, like we have water instead of mixture of hydrogen and oxygen all here. I even don't think that hydrinos are impossible but I'm skeptical that their formation would release an energy instead of consuming it - the concept of quantum degeneracy pressure contradicts it. If the Mill's experiments still generate a surplus of energy, some other mechanism should be taken into an account.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

if their formation would generate an energy - as Randall Mills promises - then we would have hydrinos all around us in similar way,

Randell Mills postulated special catalytic conditions..which don't occur all around us. the."generation of. energy" is by 'shrinking' of the hydrogen atoms below the size of the conventional Bohr atom.

From his latest technology he seems to have evidence not of the hydrogen atom shrinking but of one shrunken hydrogen molecule... what he calls. the dihydrino..with an energy output of 500ev. or. so... but again it forms only under special catalytic conditions

Quote from RobertBryant

but again it forms only under special catalytic conditions

Money is the original catalyst.

Quote from Cosmosaic

Hello, sorry if this has been posted elsewhere on this forum. I am fairly new to the work of Randell Mills but am quite fascinated by his theory of Hydrinos and the idea that electrons of atoms can reach a lower state than the ground state.

I agree a state of electrons, protons and neutrons different from classical QM, that could produce energy is fascinating. Of course, mass can convert to energy. In theory blackholes convert all of their mass.

Have you considered conversion of atomic nuclei to energy/mass? The view of T. Matsumoto is that the structure of the nucleus can be modified. Once this change is structure occurs, cluster of neutrons can become blackholes. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…oto-s-diy-blackholes-pdf/

Quote from Drgenek

Of course, mass can convert to energy. In theory blackholes convert all of their mass.

Whose theory? If black holes convert all of their mass to energy, why are they still so massive?

no

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Whose theory? If black holes convert all of their mass to energy, why are they still so massive?

hawking radiation - Calculating the black hole evaporation time - Astronomy Stack Exchange

The smaller blackholes evaporate but the larger ones may one day collide with another blackhole. Matsumoto blackholes originate from low integer numbers of neutrons, so they all evaporate out of existence quick enough to correlate the size of their images to the number of neutrons from which they were composted.

My opinion is that hydrinos are not real. What is real are the strings which make-up the images of itonic nets about clusters of neutrons. Because of nuclear structure modification, these clusters blow out their itonic nets when their nuclear cores transition to blackholes.

The quantum radiation which Mills uses for hydrinos belongs to catalyst which causes nuclear fusion. That fusion catalyst creates Matsumoto blackhole rather than neutrons. I have pdf presentations in the thread on electron gravity as a cause of nuclear reaction that explain these claims in detail.

Given that the pdfs I have provided document reality, then the bottom line for cold fusion is as follows. The images of itonic nets show physical strings about a nuclear core. An electron will form a physical string with a particle defined as m_c. The particle m_c is radiation that comes from a Matsumoto blackhole and most likely from celestial blackholes and all other stars. Hence, m_c is the most common and dominant mass/ energy fraction in the universe. It is the mathematical equal of the entropy term in the second law of thermodynamics and of dark energy in the mass/energy balance of the universe. When cold fusion occurs, it is because the method creates these physical strings. These physical strings assemble per quantum rules into the catalyst which cause nuclear fusion and produces Matsumoto blackholes. The free energy of reaction is distributed between heat and entropy, (mostly m_c). Because the entropy term is so large cold fusion produces very little heat for the amount of mass lost. One calculates based on mass balance and stoichiometry for Santilli's ICFP that of the total free energy based on E=mc², that Santilli measures only 2/100,000 as heat. This result is accurate to 4 decimal places. I imply then that the reaction produces the remainder of the expected free energy as radiation of m_c.

The pessimistic view associated with entropy is out of date and not warranted. It is a result of system analysis that could not imagine or account for m_c. The radiation m_c can be converted to energy. Otherwise, there would be no images of Matsumoto blackholes and no current in an LEC. I imply that m_c is dark energy. If so, then dark energy is the most available new energy source that research can exploit. It's like having a lump of coal and not quite knowing how to make it burn. It is time to critical look at the facts. Choose to be part a productive discussion rather than stuck in the past.