My mistake. I shouldn't send anything prior to caffeination.

Mills had contracted with utility companies, back when it was BlackLightPower. The deals were real. My friend contacted a NM utility to check.

The deal was for production of a low energy density device, utilizing emissions from a vacuum tube. The utilities are very conservative. Their owners obviously know something about measuring power, which I do, as well. I'm an electrical engineer, and I have designed and built numerous calorimeters used in experiments, at the direction of Dr. Eugene Mallove, my employer, a former MIT professor, who departed MIT in protest over data fudging issues that their administration refused to address.

A low energy density requires that a very large device be built to produce something that would interest a utility. This would result in something much more than a mere retrofit to existing infrastructure, which would require a great deal of regulatory overhaul, as well. The cost would be very high. It was a business decision. It is hard to compete against entrenched energy technology that has been under intense development for many generations.

While Mills announced prematurely, it was with the support of a competent buyer who had done due diligence into the related phenomena. It was significant that it had gotten that far, by itself. The utilities did not work for Mills.

Utilities amortize their massive capital expenditures far into the future. If they went ahead with hydrino technology, they would still be paying for their obsolete equipment, which would mean raising rates to pay for the new technology, and it would be quite expensive. The directors might like that they were using a new technology, but raising rates so much to pay for it was a non-starter. A utility is not a laboratory.

The regulatory burden would be a nightmare, and would require many years at great expense, so that path was abandoned. While that is an instance of Mills promising something that he did not deliver, one must be circumspect.

There were other dead ends, but how many did Edison encounter?

People tend to assume that if such a great discovery is made, that widespread confirmations will soon follow. Heavier than air flight was accomplished by the Wrights, and they were almost totally ignored for years. Much like the promise of "free energy", such flight was the stuff of dreams for centuries, and people tended to believe that anyone claiming to have done it was dreaming. The Wrights took advantage of the lack of interest to develop their technology without much competition, and Mills has done the same, accumulating a very large intellectual property portfolio.

This is not just a totally new technology. It is a totally new branch of physics, one that comes straight out of the trunk built by Newton himself. A realistic comparison would be to some new technology based on a new physical discovery, and there are countless examples. The physical discoveries that caused people to realize that it would be possible to move heat from one area to another, and thus enable refrigeration, occurred generations prior to commercial device availability. In modern times, nuclear reactions were considered impossible, until they weren't. Once they were discovered, the prediction of small, safe for home use reactors, soon, was made (too cheap to meter!).

For the time between basic physics discovery to marketable successful product to be only a few decades, is extraordinary, particularly when swimming upstream against powerfully backed conventional theory.

Predicting the future is notoriously difficult, but the people predicting nuclear reactors were not basically wrong. They were making projections based on assumptions, which were wrong. Mills is not perfect, and he was basically right, but he assumed that the knowledge about hydrino reactions would create enough interest to be sufficient to overcome technical difficulties, and that was wrong. He accepted responsibility to overcome those difficulties himself.

Especially after the explosion of interest into the claims made by Fleischman and Pons, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that a credible scientist making claims would find sufficient interest to at least broadly establish existence of the phenomenon. Mills assumed that, and he was wrong.

It is disappointing to consider that we have a large number of very sophisticated laboratories in the world that could verify the measurements made that confirm anomalous energy of great value. Yet, there was only one such (to my knowledge) attempt made (NASA) to confirm calorimetry of a Mills nickel/light water electrolytic device. These are notoriously finicky devices, and the calorimetry is prone to undetected error at such low power density. Most scientists would simply disregard calorimetry data unless it is gobsmacking, because they know this. The NASA attempt was negative.

There was a scientist at Los Alamos National Lab who published a number of articles after his experiments showed strong confirmation of large anomalous energy and inverted ion populations in a gas mixture of hydrogen and a little helium. He still stands by his results, and conclusions, despite being castigated by management for straying off the reservation. He is not alone.

The power density of the arc phase reactor (SunCell) is so high that it vaporizes everything. That is the kind of problem we want. The power density hurdle was passed, in spades. Rocket engines have plasmas that run at similar temperatures, so there is a lot of applicable design technology available. Nonetheless, it is hard to build something with extreme heat adjacent to cold components. It CAN be done.

Mills is very much an optimist. Do not mistake his optimism for delusion. The people providing the $100,000,000+ spent so far by Mills conduct due diligence. Look at the board of directors and board of advisors.

The validity of Mills theory normally would be enough to create vast interest, but this is not what Kuhn would call normal science. Mills' theory shatters the rice bowls of many, many scientists. Nobody likes to learn that what they have dedicated their minds and lives to doing, has been a big waste of time. It is much easier to shoot the messenger than to return from Wonderland.

The supposed failure of classical physics was that the Bohr model, and other attempts, failed to account for observed features of the atom. Mills' orbitsphere model does account for every observed feature of the atom, and this is easily verified. It has been verified by a number of those who can understand the theory well enough.

This theoretical breakthough could be compared to a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which lingered since 1637. The importance of a classical physics solution to overcome the need for a new physics cannot be overstated. I do not know why proof of Mills' theory makes so few waves, while proof of Fermat's theory was impactful, despite relative obscurity and lack of utility. Of course, after Maxwell published his treatise, it was almost all crickets for decades.

True skepticism is founded by an emotional basis of "disbelief" ontop of which a whole lot of rationalization, and argumentation is heaped. The argumentation when heaped on enough starts to sound reasonable, even when it is a bunch of lies. CSurveyGuy isn't so much interested in the truth but as much as arguing that the subject is full of landmines and you should "be careful." He doesn't care about hydrinos since isn't discussing experimental evidence for them which is absolutely unequivocal - he stays away from that topic and fills the air with doubt.

But make no mistake: "mainstream physics" is in the dark about the subject, both for and against. Mainstream means the millions of people with physics degrees, and of course in that total perhaps only 0.1% have every heard of Mills theory - so of course, both "belief in" or "belief against" Mills is totally outside Mainstream physics. The same number of mainstream professional practicing physicists / electrical engineers have heard of Mills theory. When 99.9% of people haven't heard about something, making arguments that suggest the "weight of opinion" is one way or the other is SLEIGHT OF HAND argumentation.

​

When it comes to facts, a skeptic will never be dissuaded by facts, they will slither to some other fact that justifies their position. Let's watch this process in action now.

CSurveyGuys says this: He has shown no interest in engaging with physicists on the theory.

There are two published books which talks about the extreme efforts to promote a new understanding in physics. America's Newton available on Amazon is a good one. Here are 3 pieces of evidence (of probably 100s one could produce that show CSurveyGuy's statement is TOTALLY FALSE:

1. Two Penn State professor Jonathan Phillips drove down to meet Mills right away in 1990. He said, "I thought it was more likely to meet a talking giraffe in Malvern, PA than someone overturning quantum theory." Dr. Phillips is on the Navy's Energy Academic Group, worked at Los Alamos National lab, has produced hydrinos in his independent lab, and even wrote a paper on how quantum mechanics is not a validate theory (anybody who reads this paper will have to agree). He's basically saying it is a bunch of concotions that are LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with each other and with experimental data (e.g. energies).
   
2. Mills visited many professors in 1990s. One said to me: Randall Mills was trained at MIT in the EECS department prior to becoming a medical doctor.  He has no training in theoretical physics.  His approach to theory starts by throwing out quantum mechanics and most of the associated physics which people have worked really hard on since the 1920s.   In the 1990s he visited me at MIT twice... Such states are ruled out in quantum mechanics, but not in Mills model.  Mills and collaborators claim to have observed some spectral lines which are identified as being due to transitions to these shrunken orbital states.  Now, were this actually true, then matter would be unstable... The stability of matter which is the starting point for Mills work is one thing this professor mentions as a flaw. You can't make this up! The MIT professor hasn't done the work to understand it. Perhaps more relevant is this phrase: "people have worked really hard on since the 1920s." It suggests a high degree of disruption - like Mills is throwing out the baby with the bathwater - physicists don't want to throw out their baby. Further, there is the sleight "no training in theoretical physics." Mills has a degree in Chemistry, advanced grad courses in electrical engineering, worked with a HP physicist on the mathematics of an alternative to MRI, and we have know from insiders he has a photographic memory for much of physics and chemistry. He can read almost anything in physics and integrate it (why do you think he has a a thousand page opus which is logical and solves many topics across both physics and chemistry). People who turn over a new leaf in mankind don't normally go to MIT and get a PH.D - learning how to disrupt everything from their mentor.
   
3. Boots on the ground, Mills engaged tons of labs in the 90s to get independent production of hydrinos. I can assure you that for them to start testing and reproduce these results required TENS OF CONVERSATIONS IF NOT HUNDREDS with physicists. Here are some of the labs (Brookhaven, MIT Lincoln, Chalk River, Idaho National, NASA- Lewis, SDIO - Wright Patterson) - for a full list see "Randell Mills and The Search For Hydrino Energy. Here is a snippet of the energy gains. You can also watch a 1994 movie "Too Close To The Sun" which features Mills. BTW, in that movie the top scientists in the nation say on camera they took Mills seriously and he is onto something, but the work on hydrinos was stopped for political reasons (too close to cold fusion work so the lab may lose funding).
   
   ​
   
   To recap CSurveyGuy said: This evasive, non-engaging behavior puts him outside of mainstream physics.
   
   Mills based on the above evidence is not evasive, and totally engaging.
   
   True skeptics never apologize, never do the work to really understand. Like an obstreperous child, people put up with their behavior and let them get away with it. They have no accountability for their words which quickly border on slander. The words do have affect because many physicists are not system thinkers and they also do the same thing - jump on reddit for evidence that justifies their preconceived notions.
   
   I hope we all cite this message the next time CSurveyGuy posts. I admit it is hard for those who don't know the subject to catch the corruption of the truth he fabricates. Pathological skepticism or criticism is an actual phenomenon in evidence here.
   
   We'll look for an apology. We'll look such doubters to read "America's Newton" which is extremely well documented book about a transformational figure in history. The interest of all should be the facts, the evidence, the papers not opinions. I'll end with this:
   
   

   “In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”
   

   
   ― Galileo Galilei

When photons (moving at the speed of light) are converted to matter, space-time has to contracts a little to accommodate the associated relativistic correction. The opposite happens (i.e. universe's expansion) when matter is converted back into energy. This contraction is the origin of gravity.

I think you'd really enjoy Holverstott's book on how Mills developed his theory but targeted to the non-expert. While it is fairly comprehensive, unfortunately it stops short of describing how Mills' theory deals with gravity.

http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/BrilliantLightPower_Wiki

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/blacklightpower/images/5/58/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20160427021229

https://www.amazon.com/Randell-Mills-Search-Hydrino-Energy/dp/0692760059/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1494308053&sr=8-4&keywords=brilliant+light+power

http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2016/12/9/video-of-november-12th-talk