University lecture on Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics

The following post has been submitted by Optiongeek

Prof. Huub Bakker, a senior lecturer in engineering at Massey University, presented the following lecture on Randell Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP). Prof. Tony Signal, representing the Physics Dept., responded with a critical view.

Prof. Bakker’s presentation is a survey of Mills’ 1800-page thesis and necessarily omits any deep analysis or mathematical proofs. Nevertheless, it is a fascinating introduction to the topic and he forcefully makes the point that Mills is either a fraud or the most gifted thinker of our time. According to Bakker, “there is no middle ground.”

The lecture begins at timestamp 04:30.

49 Replies to “University lecture on Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics”


    Invitational Public Presentation by Noted Speakers from Telecomm,
    Climate Change, Academic, and Market Strategy Fields with SunCell®
    Demonstration October 26th at BrLP’s Facility [reservations, prior presentations available]

  2. before making your mind up about Mills and Hydrinos, I suggest you read the following book:

    Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with the book’s views on LENR (they came about because of the, as it has since turned out, misguided controversy surrounding whats was then known as Cold Fusion that risked dragging all down with it), its background into the theory that supports the existence of the hydrino is well worth reading – and not too difficult for anyone with even a passing interest in science: a hydrino is a hydrogen atom whose electron shell has moved in closer the nucleus than the presupposed “floor” radius (the so called Bohr-radius), this shrinking of the electron shell being possible due to the vampiric transfer of energy in the presence of a catalyst that extracts energy from the atom and causes it to be emitted as light, mostly in the Extreme Ultra Violet (EUV) range of the elecromagnetic spectrum, speeding up the shell in the process (as the shell moves in toward the nucleus, it speeds up, much as happens when a spinning ice skater pulls their arms in closer to their body). Further, it explains in some detail how testable propositions of the theory are, in fact, borne out in actual observations. The book also provides some interesting discussions on how the same theory provides explanations as to:

    * why does the sun produce only 60% of the neutrinos it should given the other energy it is radiating – and, yes, it can be argued that the missing neutrinos are down to three flavours of neutrino oscillations, but these are mathematical constructs that do not seek to explain or understand the underlying physical causes that would see their producion in the Sun, but rather make assumptions based on the mathematics so that the “mathematics works” assuming “something” is going on in the Sun without any physical explanation – so, why could there not also be a simpler explanation? Occam’s razor is yielded often enough in LENR and other “practical” subjects, so why not with theoretical physics?

    * why have certain spikes appeared on emission spectra in experiments over the years that – up until now – have had no known causes?

    * why does time dilation occurs locally to a massive body but not across the vast oceans of the expanding universe between those bodies (you have to read the boook to understand this better)?

    * why were recently detected gravity waves accompanied within 0.4 seconds by a gamma ray burst from the same part of the sky, when merging black holes (the supposed source of the gravity waves) should not emit light of any kind when merging, at least according to current theories?

    * what is all that dark matter stuff that makes up a huge percentage of mass in the universe?

    Also, while reading:

    in which Aaron Lammertink makes one fundamental change to Maxwell’s reasoning, replacing an incompressible aether with a compressible one in, what is in effect, a fixed spacetime coordinate system – an empty room, as he calls it, he also points out a fundemental flaw in the concept of “bending” spacetime for, if objects (especially massive ones) bend spacetime, why does spacetime not push back? In other words, mass can exert a force on spacetime, without spacetime exerting an equal but opposite force? And then the idea struck me (and this still allows for a compressible aether), what if the aether DOES push back? So, say we have a large planet. The atoms of that planet are pushing against the aether, effectively pushing it out the way. The aether, however, is pushing it back, so that this planet – this large collection of atoms – is pushed into a ball. Further, any small mass (like a human) near the planet will also be being pushed by spacetime into the planet – this ball of atoms. Now, it’s not a very great force for a unit area / volume, so the atoms that make up our bodies don’t collapse in on each other or the planet (we’re not flattened out over the planet’s surface), but it is there. This push, in other words, is what we now call gravity, and is directly proportional to the mass of a body – that is, the mass of it’s electromagnetic-based atoms and the field forces they exert. No bending of spacetime needed. It is the pressure of the Aether that we experience as gravity. Turning to the very small scale, this would also fit with Hydrinos if it were imagined that the aether between the electrons and the nucleus were dimished in some way, so allowing the aether “outside the electon shell” to push the shell closer in on the nucleus, at which time, of course, more energy is liberated from the electron as a photon. Newton’s third law of “every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction”, in other words, when put back into play (as why should the aether not push back on protons, neutrons and electrons), is still consistent with the Hydrino, and vice-versa. Further, it is likely that as we approach toward the edge of the universe, the pressure of Aether on us would decrease – in terms of speeding objects, they would therefore accelerate, as there would be less pressure from the Aether to conteract their inertia.

    So, fraud? No. At worst, a flawed theory (but, then, which current theory is not flawed in some way). At best, a useful theory that provides another piece in the jigsaw for understanding how the physical universe really works from the smallest to the largest scales – as Mills says, a Unified Theory (which, by its very nature, consequently “Grand”, although that term does remind me of Wallace and Gromit’s “A Grand Day Out” – – but, then, that’s just me).

    1. This gravity theory of Lammertink sounds odd to me:
      Would the gravity force increase when the diameter of the object increases? Why would the object’s mass have anything to do with this eather force? Is it perhaps: the more ‘solid’ the mass is, the the higher the ‘eather force’? Why? Lammertink does not come up with any theory of how this force is related to the object (yet?).

      Nevertheless, thanks Gordon, new ideas are always worth thinking about and are worth while mentioning, just as Mill’s ideas.

  3. Mills is either a fraud or the most gifted thinker of our time. According to Bakker, “there is no middle ground.”

    AR is stuck in the middle also.

    1. no, there is another possibility, that Mills have a bad theory and some experimental results.

      Bad theory however may lead to bad direction in engineering, thus difficulties to industrialize.

      The grandiosity of Mills claims, gives me a bad feeling anyway.

      1. I have been studying and closely following quantum physics since I was in high school in the early 1960’s. I also have a queasy feeling about Mills theory. The reason, as I identify the feeling, is that Mills theory is at great odds with the physics and math of QT as I understand it. The emphasis is on “how I understand it.” Although I am not a physicist, I can understand why anyone with a mainstream background in QT would have a queasy feeling, if not outright discarding of Mills’ approach and claims to physics grand unified theory in the classical realm of physics (GUT-cp) or any of his detailed claims that differ from QT. What it comes down to is my ego and the effort, time and work I have spent on understanding QT. When this is threatened to be undermined by something that is so different but apparently workable in fitting with reality, then I feel sorry for not having admitted to all of the shortcomings of QT where QT is missing being congruous with reality. I often depend on my gut feeling (no pun intended) for noticing when something is wrong. This time my gut feeling, upon close examination is showing where the wrong thing is, and it is beginning to look like QT has, after all, more wrong with it than does GUT-cp according to Mills. Back to the drawing board with Mills’ books and QT books side by side.

    2. What if we assume that Mills is straight up — that the results he is getting with his sun cell are honestly communicated? Could he be getting this result even if his theory is totally wackadoodle?

      I have watched LENR too long to doubt that LENR happens. If Mills’ theory does not allow for an LENR explanation, it is not, well, correct. If his theory doesn’t address LENR, well, we are still stuck with two radically different types of super-energy being discovered simultaneously. This is highly doubtful.

      1. Why could not be both right? We are missing a big piece of the puzzel. Something happens when you compress matter together, like other rules apply. Why does a bigger planet have more gravity? LERN is maybe using a for us yet unkown proces and Mills has discoverd another proces and tries to explaine it. I find his claims out of this world but then again why not. I wonder know how would a guy like Tesla function in this time of internet?

  4. This lecture is floating way over my head. What I do know is that Dr. Mills has produced what he claims to be a super-energy machine which seems very different from LENR. The question I have is, does Dr. Mills’ theory explain the Rossi effect — LENR? Somehow these two super-energy technologies must be a twist off the same thing. It is too great a leap for me to think that two truly different super-energy technologies would be discovered simultaneously.

    1. Mills at least claims that LENR is not possible, as LENR is the most dangerous competitor to SunCell.
      Mills may know well what is going on in the Rossi effect but he wont tell.

      1. If you look at the devices that Mills was working with 8-10 years ago, you would say, What is Mills doing with 1 of Rossi’s 2012 Lt E-cat reactors.

        Mills early reactors were also, Nickel/Hydrogen. He also obtained very high COP numbers. However, he wasn’t able to obtain the high temperatures that Rossi does that I’m aware of. Mills was also big on the hydrino’s even then.

        Mills Nickel/Hydrogen reactors are the reason I think both processes are related, but initiated by different processes.

    2. Yes, they are a twist off the same thing. But since neither LENR researchers nor Mills have the right theory, they don’t realize it. Mills is closer than the mainstream, but still way off. They are both different ways of tapping what Miles Mathis calls “the charge field” (which is also what so-called ‘dark matter’ is, not hydrinos):

  5. They can image a hydrogen atom. All Mills needs to do is image a hydrino.

    I have heard it said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, a simple image would go a long way in this instance.

    1. All great inventions need to be first invented, then it takes some time to implement those. And Mills/BrLP have been busy implementing SunCell first. After that is time to implement this. Nobody else can implement these, because nobody believes these work before they are working.

  6. Just viewed the presentation. Very interesting and also informative as Prof Bakker did extra explanations that were not as well covered in the excellent Holverstott book.

    The takeaway advice that was best of all was for each person not to take Prof Bakker’s word but to do their own investigations. However, we all know that doing so requires effort and a certain intellect (investigative) that we don’t all posses. Most of us prefer to attach our research to someone else.

    The best advice I could offer anyone who saw this presentation, would be to see Prof Bakker for being the open minded person he portrayed himself as.

    IMHO The opposite applies to Prof Tony Signal, who IMHO didn’t really discuss the content and particular ‘ideas/discoveries’ put forward for evaluation by Prof Bakker, but who did perform the NZ version of a ‘skeptics haka’ (in other words an emotive rant) that came almost word for word from the procedures manual of die-hard skeptics and close-minded put-down specialists.

    What we can surely see from this event, is how very hard it is for even a teaching professor at a large NZ university, to talk openly about new ideas that deserve looking at, Prof Tony Signal offered the audience nothing helpful or useful while at the same time trying to kick the feet out from under Prof Huub Bakker.

    But, am sure we all grasp the issues well enough.

    Doug Marker

  7. Having sat through the 90 minute video, I must say I am impressed by the sheer volume of work that Mills has produced over the years. Prior to this, I didn’t realize how many areas of Physics, Chemistry and Cosmology his theory claims to verify and make predictions about. Then again, if it really is a Grand Unified Theory, it would, indeed, do that – whether AlainCo feels queasy about it or not!

    In reply, Prof Tony Signal “recited the Nicene Creed” of mainstream physics and came up with all the usual cliches (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; the laws of thermodynamics; Occam’s Razor, etc) but did, at least, cite the one testable criterion: he said that there is no evidence of the existence of hydrinos and that, they would have long since been detected if they did exist. Well, Mills claims that hydrinos are none other than dark matter, which main stream physics does claim to exist but, of course, we would need to tie the two together.

    So, here is how this might be do-able: If Mills were to attach suitable “glass plumbing” around his device and run it for long enough, a sufficiently large number of hydrinos could end up being trapped in, let’s say, a sealed glass flask. The sample would have all the gaseous properties of hydrogen – including pressure – BUT, on his theory and as with dark matter, it would be chemically inert. That would mean that the simple act of combining the sample with oxygen from another flask and providing a spark should produce NO explosion. More sophisticated tests aimed at proving the chemical and spectral inertness of these captured hydrinos could, of course, also be done.

    1. Good post 🙂 – re Occams razor, so often it can be seen that the people (like Prof Tony Signal) who invoke it, seem unable to apply it.

      Prof Signal would do well to ask what the simplest explanation for dark matter might be as per Occam’s Razor ?. We have good evidence that dark matter is ‘out there’, it exerts gravity, it appears to be made from the same quark soup as visible matter, we know hydrogen is the most abundant known element in the universe, we are told dark matter is even more abundant, we know Hydrogen is unque because it is normally one proton and one electron, if we take the logical progression down the periodic table from the multi-proton elements, one next logical step down from the known hydrogen atom seems likely to have a strong relationship to dark matter. Occam’s Razor at its best.


      1. Good posts by you, also. And, yes, as you say, the most fundamental claim about dark matter is that it exerts gravity. So an even simpler test for my glass flask full of hydrinos would be just to weigh it, correct for the weight of the glass and the effect of the surrounding air’s buoyancy (or, better, weigh it in a vacuum) and there would be the proof – all using very simple equipment.

    2. Silly rabbit, you cannot capture even the first smaller hydrogen neutrino because they being much smaller than hydrogen atoms will quickly leak out and through any and all containers. Only the tiny loss of mass could be measured, and the accuracy of that would create great debate since even regular hydrogen is also somewhat subject to escape. Good try but no go.

      1. We are not talking neutrinos – which travel at the speed of light and have almost no mass (in fact, they could have no mass at all on a simple relativity basis). We are talking what Mills is claiming to be a hydrogen atom whose electron has collapsed down to what he calculates to be a very small radius. What he calls an “hydrino”. These particles – if they exists – WOULD have masses almost identical to hydrogen atoms and would also, presumably, behave as a gas – .i.e exert pressure just as hydrogen gas does. Presumably twice as much if they behave as single particles in the gas versus half that number of hydrogen molecules that would have produced them.

        And, yes, the glass flask would need to be sealed off with melted glass itself. During the course of my MSc thesis, I was shown just such a sealed glass flask containing tritium, sent from Harwell. The tritium was safely contained.

        1. Corrected misprint to hydrino. If you go to page 29, paragraph I.119 of Mill’s newest Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics you will find that hydrino diameters decline with the 1/p hydrino state, thus 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 etc. Consequently, the small size hydrinos will escape through the glass flask. In contrast, Hydrogen and Tritium are about the same size at about 25pm with the same charge and energy for ground state and will remain trapped longer. Glass has a bond length of about 161pm for alpha Si-0 bond.

          So, the leakage rate would be much higher. Due to the slow rate of production in a mixture of H2, O2, H2O, N2, it’s unlikely hydrinos can be separated, bottled, and contained. It’s more likely residual oxygen can be accumulated accurately.

          1. OK, well reasoned. Perhaps hydrinos could, instead, be trapped inside Nickel or any of the other metals that can absorb hydrogen, deuterium or tritium (as Rossi and many others have done). Then, by reheating the hydrino-saturated metal in an evacuated tube and quickly running a spectral absorption test, the point could be made. So, really, could a mass/weight test. The mass of a hydrino and a hydrogen atom would be almost identical because, remember, that this would be virtually all due to the mass of the protons that both would still have in common.

  8. They are impressive but they never seem to mention the duration of these large surges in power. The integral of the power with time gives the total energy produced and it is this that must be compared with the input energy over that same time in order to prove that was is a net energy gain.

    But, even if the above seemingly checks out, mainstream physicists will, no doubt, dispute the methodology in much the same way they have disputed the net energy claims of LENR. What they would find impossible to dispute would be an actual sample of hydrinos in a sealed glass flask. After all, Mill’s device is allegedly producing trillions of these. In fact, assuming he is “on the level”, he could just as easily have called his device a “Hydrino Generator” instead of a SunCell. If he were to send each of his critics such a flask full of Hydrinos (aka “Dark Matter”, as Mills claims) with permission for each to test it in whatever ways he chose (but to then publish the results), I’d say the PR battle would be won instantly and the Nobel Prize committee would need to convene urgently.

    – all assuming, as I indicated, that Mill’s is a genius and not a fraudster!

    1. They integrate the power in and also do control runs but that requires careful review of their studies.

      I am replying to note that it is scientifically irrelevant to describe Mill’s as either genius or fraudster when he is a good scientist with in depth but generally poorly understood and actually superior spectroscopic work. BTW, I understand the outstanding spectroscopic work.

      Since the typical error on the frontiers of science is to dismiss excellent observational scientists, each should be acceptable until science can prove otherwise(statistically reject the null hypothesis about their valid science). No such valid science exists that can dismiss Mill’s results so-far.

      Old scientists that vociferously cling to existing theory based upon no observational work or statistics have ZERO validity in this observational research process.

      Consequently, Mill’s is doing acceptable science with no valid proof otherwise.

      1. OK, If they have actually integrated the power and thereby obtained the
        energy in joules produced, then what, exactly is the figure for the net energy gain? Or what, in this forum, we are calling the Coefficient of Performance (COP)?

        I hope you are not including me as one of the “Old scientists that vociferously cling to existing theory based upon no observational work or statistics have ZERO validity in this observational research process”.

        – My suggestion about isolating an actual sample of hydrinos is 100% based on testing Mill’s claims on a very direct observational and experimental basis (i.e never mind arguing about the theory for now). It would be a very simple way of showing the world that Mill’s is (or isn’t) correct when he claims that hydrinos are produced at all and that their observational parameters are identical with what other scientists are claiming to be dark matter. Among those scientist are some who glibly dismiss him as a fraud but I am not one of them. I’d be over the moon if Mills were proven to be correct.

        Try reading all my other posts in this forum and then read through my blog posts at before you jump to any more conclusions about where I’m coming from.

        1. In July 2016 Mills posted the following :
          “We are producing continuous sustainable power at 100X gain … ”

          Mills has long ago isolated dihydrino gas and performed several types of tests that confirm its predicted properties.

          75 years ago the physics establishment would have been scrambling to reproduce these type of results. Things are very different today and it’s a shame.

          1. – That is very good news! It doesn’t exactly jump out at you from the website but that would be just a PR fumble. I therefore repeat my suggestion that, to win that PR war with the mainstream, Mills could just send sealed samples of that dihydrino gas to trusted, independent labs for a publishable report. So, if the physics establishment cant be bothered reproducing Mills’ device, they could, at least, run a few simple pressure, weight and spectral absorption tests and verify that the samples have the same parameters as dark matter is supposed to have or, at least, that no other substance yet isolated could account for the test. That’s Nobel Prize territory in itself, not even counting the energy generation.

            But, in any case, the latest public demo would be going about now – does anyone have an update?

          2. Of course, Mills has long ago sent out hydrino hydride compounds for analysis. The results came back as anomalous as one might expect.

            Brett Holverstott, who has recently published his book about Dr. Mills, has kindly compiled a list of published experiments by Mills et al at

            Optiongeek attended the Industry Day today and wrote up a brief report which I copy below. Hopefully the the video will be available within a week or so.

            From Optiongeek:

            Here are some quick thoughts from Industry Day. It may be that I am mis-remembering some things and will find myself corrected by the video. I am indebted to Dr. Mills and BrLP for the opportunity to attend.

            The general sense of the 3:30 hour presentation was that the field trial remains on track for 1H17 with limited commercial operations beginning in 2H17. The earliest prediction of “standalone” operations with CPV self-powering the ignition is January 2017.

            Here are some highlights:

            Dr. Mills began the presentation with an assessment of the theory and then discussed the substantial technical progress since the last presentation. He unveiled a prototype unit and asserted that the design is substantially field ready with the obvious exception of the CPV units. Mills walked through the various components of the device, which include:

            * electrode-less design using dual intersecting streams of molten silver ejected by electromagnetic pumps.

            * fully-refractive graphite reaction vessel with no expected sublimation (i.e. no deposits on CPV due to operation) nor any apparent need for a halogen cycle.

            * reaction vessel is held to near vacuum (mT pressure)

            * reaction vessel is designed for easy access for maintenance, CPV will likewise be designed for easy removal.

            * substantial control and telemetry instrumentation will be added

            * importantly, there are zero moving parts and Mills projected a minimum 20-year operational life and minimal required maintenance.

            During the discussion, a demonstration was provided of a live, remote video of the interior of a prototype unit during operation. Significantly, the ignition current was turned off completely at one point and the reaction was self-sustaining, presumably due to ambient heat.

            A few other notable facts from memory:

            * the prototype unit will weigh about 100kg and provide approximately 250kW

            * the reaction has been sustained a minimum of six hours, limited only by the laboratory working hours

            * unit cost is dominated by CPV and is the $100/kW range. Production scaling should allow the cost to decrease to $32/kW. Operating cost is about $0.001/kWH. Both production and operating costs are order(s) of magnitude lower than conventional technologies.

            Kert Davies, formerly of Green Peace and now heading discussed the importance of BrLP technology for reversing climate change due to rising CO2.

            Dr. Jannson provided a recap of four independent validations performed in May by himself and three others using differential water bath calorimetry. Each of the validations found COP on the order of 50 to 500 with output measured as high as 2MW (maximum input was 10kW). The maximum power that could be generated from any of the reactants due to chemistry was calculated to be a 18W. A significant issue during the independent validations was the repeated melting of the tungsten electrodes and reaction vessel. Additional tests using the now stable electrode-less design are planned to be repeated in the near future.

            John DeCarlo, CTO of Columbia Tech, provided a synopsis of his firm’s prototyping efforts. He confirmed the planned delivery schedule.

            Brian Siskavitch of Masimo described the planned delivery of the Concentrator PV units. He showed a prototype panel (minus the PV material) and provided some performance targets. The first delivery will use single-junction PV and operate at 11% efficiency. This is intentional and meant to allow the team to learn more about how the CPV-equipped unit will behave. A second generation of CPV using double-junction PV and 21% efficiency is planned to be plug-in compatible for rapid turn-around. It appears that the unit operating efficiency will depend on the overall operating temperature, with 3000K – 3500K being the target range. Brian suggested a 2017 production capacity of 1000 units but indicated that production scale up is possible.

            Finally, Dominic Jones of BrLP provided an updated Go-to-Market strategy. He described a preliminary focus on stationary power generation partnerships with both traditional and non-traditional power generation companies. He also emphasized mobile power applications. BrLP is actively seeking partnerships across a range of applications. The topic of IP was raised a number of times and Mills described “massive” patent applications and essentially no competitors. BrLP is taking multiple steps to ensure that IP will be protected.

            I’ve left out loads of important details I’m sure. Hope I haven’t messed anything up too badly.

          3. Thank you for sharing this information. I can not find any news about this on the internet. Do you have any links to more info?

        2. No such negative implication intended Phil, you’re all right obviously are willing to embrace change and ambiguity on the frontiers of science!

  9. From what I understand the lynch pin of mills hypothesis is the weird spectra. It is repeatable and unexplained.

    He then connects the spectra to many people’s surprise, to space spectra where there is a lot of dark matter.

    That is a pretty fascinating correlation that on any other planet deserves notice.

    1. – but, if dark matter is so inert – it surely wouldn’t have any spectral lines at all. The only thing it would definitely have is mass – enough, in large enough amounts, to increase the orbital speed of spiral galaxies, which was, I believe, the original “smoking gun”.

      But, again, if Mills could actually isolate enough hydrinos and trap them in a sealed glass flask with, say, an identical flask of hydrogen as a control, it would be all on. The two samples would weigh the same and have the same pressure (assuming hydrinos are gaseous just like hydrogen) BUT, whereas the sample of hydrogen would obviously exhibit the standard hydrogen absorption spectrum, the sample of hydrinos would not exhibit any absorption spectrum known to chemistry.

      If that happened it would be “case proven” and all just using tests that a high school lab could do!

      1. Well I think it is a stretch to then say it’s dark matter, although I think he suggests it is (but I’m not going there), but the correlation is none the less interesting.

        I will say that the experiment you are suggesting is a little like what he is doing. Except I think maybe it might be a tad harder to isolate a neutral “proton sized particle” (if that is what he claims hydrinos are) than hydrogen. That is why he captures the spectra “as he makes them”

  10. The other interesting thing is that (and I’m not an expert) the current methods for looking for dark matter particles probably discount hydrinos

    1. – yes, and Mills would probably say that this is why they will never find it. The dark matter they are looking for (so they believe) is in the form of neutrinos or MACHO’s or some other exotic particle that is only fleetingly detectable in the LHC or other ridiculously expensive toy.

      Its as though they were looking for a rare bird said to exist in the remote Brazilian jungle when they could just be looking at the nearest pigeon they are throwing their McDonald’s buns to from a park bench.

  11. Very interesting. But does that mean that we would be left with a range of hydrino energy states with only the most de-energized ones – those that have emitted the shortest wavelength of EUV – being, in effect equivalent to dark matter?

  12. Presuming a first level hydrino(as per Mill’s theory) is formed at 1/2 diameter, p=1/2, it will remain in that stable condition until it is given precise quantum energy to achieve hydrogen Ground state n=1. The required high energy photon is extreme UV(2×13.6ev as I recall from the report), apparently little to none of this precise energy is available in space. Consequently it cannot be “seen” until it is resurrected into seeable(i.e. hydrogen alpha line, etc). This also explains the long term stability because it does not have available the energy to reach ground state. Per Mill’s theory epitomized.

  13. Above ground state hydrogen electrons spontaneously give up energy to emit photons to drop the hydrogen into a lower state electron orbit. Below ground state in hydrino states the spontaneous interaction is to receive energy as photons to rise back up to ground state.

    Your description is for the catalytic formation of a hydrino by taking away energy, not the elimination of a hydrino by adding energy to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *