Due Diligence

To Whom It May Concern:

You contacted me recently with questions regarding Dr. Randell Mills’ hydrino theory. Before I go further, let me state that I am a mechanical engineer, not a physicist, and you should weigh my opinions accordingly.

Since March 2000, I have moderated an e-mail forum for supporters, detractors and lurkers that has centered on this theory. The list has over 70 members in varying fields. I have attempted unsuccessfully to persuade Mills’ Nobel laureate critics to participate in our list and offer their reasons for dismissing Mills’ theory out of hand.

Occasionally, Mills and his associate, Dr. John Farrell, will participate in our discussions. However, they did not participate in the discussion I will describe below.

The members of the online discussion forum Hydrino Study Group (http://www.egroups.com/group/hydrino) spent Memorial Day Weekend 2000 addressing the following two interrelated questions:

  1. Several scientists, including Nobel laureates, have discounted the concepts proposed by Dr. Randell Mills. By what criteria do supporters base their positive belief in Mills’ “hydrino” concept?
  2. How can Mills claim to have patented the basis for whole new technologies when the underlying theory has not even undergone the rigors of academic peer review?

This report is my consolidation of the many ideas exchanged over that weekend on these two intellectually charged questions.

INTRODUCTION

As you know, Mills owns and operates a high-tech energy research firm called BlackLight Power (BLP). Mills has proposed a Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (GUT-CQM) that professes to explain all observed phenomena from the subatomic to the cosmic level. Central to this theory is the principle that the same laws of physics apply on all scales. One of the implications of this theory is that hydrogen atoms can be catalytically shrunken to below the traditional ground state. Mills calls these smaller hydrogen atoms “hydrinos”.

CONFIDENCE THROUGH INDEPENDENT EXPERIMENTS

In general, supporters of the Mills theory (including myself) have confidence in the existence of hydrinos because of third-party independent laboratory results. These results, which include excess heat generation, extreme ultraviolet radiation measurements, and unusual behaviors of novel chemical compounds, all point to the hydrino as the most plausible explanation. Also noteworthy is the surprising match between astrophysical data and the predicted spectral lines of hydrinos. If this growing body of data did not support hydrino theory, we would have far less confidence in it.

From the beginning, Mills very wisely had key studies done by independent labs, not his own, and used a variety of them. The energy measurements and chemicals are themselves the proof. Theories will have to adjust to manifest physical, and hopefully commercial, reality.

Various Nobel laureates and other scientists have publicly ridiculed Mills’ concept of the hydrino and slandered him as a “fraud”. To the best of our knowledge, none of these scientists has studied in depth the experimental evidence supporting hydrinos or the theory that predicts them. The most vocal critics appear to be the least informed about the details. This is the key point supporters make in explaining why we can confidently disagree with the “authorities”. We have reviewed the experimental evidence and they have not.

Many people revere Nobel laureates as if they are infallible gods. They are not. While they are surely talented and able in their fields, they are still subject to human error.

Not all scientists have dismissed Mills’ theory. Freelance journalist Erik Baard (ErikBaard@aol.com) has interviewed numerous qualified scientists interested in Mills’ theory. You can find his stories and the quoted scientists by searching on the keywords “Baard” or “hydrino” at the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com) and Space (http://www.space.com).

The only valid way to do due diligence on BLP is to address the experimental results. Becoming entangled in arguments on theoretical grounds will not make the experimental results disappear. The experiments show phenomena that will be commercially valuable independent of what theory is eventually accepted as the standard explanation. As a commercial enterprise, you probably do not care about theory, but only a working process that has useful applications.

CONFIDENCE THROUGH THEORY

The new physics that Mills has derived is a separate matter, but it is so far the only attempt at a physical explanation for the experimental results. The GUT-CQM appears consistent, produces results in agreement with physics experiments (not physics theories), makes further predictions and is falsifiable. The GUT-CQM plays by the rules of the scientific method, and deserves a thorough examination on its scientific merits.

Occam’s Razor bears mentioning here. Occam’s Razor argues that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The GUT-CQM is a quantum theory without the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Current QM theory demands that we accept contradictions such as the wave-particle duality, half-dead-half-live cats and worse. Mills’ model overcomes these pitfalls.

ADDRESSING ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW

Admittedly, it would behoove Mills to get the GUT-CQM book into better shape if he cares about academic acceptance. It needs to be more like a textbook, developing the key points in a sensible order. Cutting out the redundancy could reduce the book’s overwhelming size.

One of our list members exchanged ideas with two mathematical physicists at leading universities regarding Mills’ theories. He was not at liberty to name these individuals, but both of them are well known. One claimed Mills made basic errors in his math, especially when it came to applying general relativity. The other, who investigated part of Mills’ theory for an unnamed party, did not find anything implicitly wrong with the area he investigated.

One objection we see uttered over and over again by Mills’ critics is that he is “bypassing peer review”. They say this because

  1. He is self-published
  2. He secured private funding in spite of scientific skepticism
  3. He obtained patents before publishing

The peer review that keeps a paper out of print does not get published. An unpublished paper will not generate much of a reaction in the scientific community, if only because no one has read it. Positive academic peer review is not necessary to start a business. Mills self-publishes because he has no alternative other than silence.

There can be no doubt that Mills is not letting a lack of peer review stop him. Unlike most “crackpot” inventors in the past, Mills has associates who have made substantive contributions in developing the theory behind the invention. Independent laboratories have duplicated some of his results. This is not a lone madman, but a small crowd of madmen, with this use of the term “madmen” meant in a positive fashion to mean “people fanatical about a bold new idea”.

From what we can see, Mills has not been subject to “negative peer review”, only off-hand criticism. There have been failed attempts to duplicate Mills’ results, but these are not peer reviews. Negative peer review would be a detailed analysis of his theory from top to bottom by experts in quantum field theory, something that has not really happened from what we have seen. One HSG member wrote Dr. Robert Park suggesting that Park should not just criticize Mills’ theory, but should analyze it in detail. If Park and the American Physical Society still think Mills’ theory is bad, then they should write up the reasons instead of simply saying that they “know all there is to know about the hydrogen atom”.

Some people have argued that Mills’ papers have been rejected from “mainstream” peer journals because they challenge certain fundamental notions such as the absolutism of the ground state. However, a more likely explanation is that Mills’ writing style still needs work. After all, did the overturning of Newtonian physics by special and general relativity prevent Einstein from publishing his ideas in reputable journals? No, even though Einstein was an “outsider” not working in academia. How about Kip Thorne’s theories on wormholes and time travel? They are still published, crazy as they sound. The reason these ideas are published is because of their rigorous development and internal consistency. That is the criterion for publication, not whether or not an idea fits established theory.

Mills does not need academic peer review to proceed with his business. Mills should be able to sell his ideas to investors without academic peer review. But if he is ultimately going to propose a new theory of physics, then it should ultimately be subject to academic peer review.

ADDRESSING RISK

The idea floating in the background is that if Mills had achieved immediate academic acceptance an investment would be sounder than the current situation, where he is bucking the establishment. This is irrefutable. There is substantial risk in betting against the physics establishment, but that risk is also an incentive because the rewards could be high.

Mills persists in pursuing his applications in the business world, where academic peer review has some weight but is not the final authority. The market is the ultimate peer review and final authority when it comes to practical claims concerning new materials, methods or gadgets. The market’s peer review is still in progress.

An investment in BLP can be justified in two ways:

  1. A positive judgment equivalent to an academic peer review
  2. Merely a bet against the academic establishment

Potential investors who do not feel capable of evaluating scientific evidence and so rely upon established scientific wisdom should not be investing in technologies dependent on new physics insights. It would be irresponsible to risk falling victim to incompetence or fraud. Those investors who are capable of evaluating scientific evidence have a reduced risk because they provide their own judgment as substitute for academic peer review.

The opinion of academic peer review would probably change if presented with enough experimental evidence. An investment in BLP made before the change in opinion would undoubtedly increase in value substantially after the change in opinion. There is a temptation to bet here, but it does not follow that all investments in BLP are necessarily bets.

ADDRESSING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Protecting one’s intellectual property is a continual battle for scientists at the cutting edge of new technology. Edison had many battles over his inventions. There will be a battle over Mills’ ideas and he will need all the resources that a large Initial Public Offering (IPO) will bring.

Regarding patents, it is improper to regard filing for a patent before publishing as “bypassing peer review”. Patent law in the U.S. gives an author of a published paper a one-year grace period after publication to claim an invention disclosed in that paper. However, it is possible for a reviewer to file a patent application based on the same idea presented in a paper he is eventually planning to publish. It is poor business practice to submit a paper for academic publication before any associated patent applications are filed.

CONCLUSION

My candid recommendations are as follows:

  1. Obtain from BLP copies of the actual lab reports of the third parties who verified Mills’ results. Talk to the test conductors directly where possible to get their feedback on what they thought of the tests’ merits.
  2. Hire or contract a Ph.D. quantum physicist to scrub through Mills’ book and check out the many numerical results Mills obtains from his theory. Surely a Ph.D. physicist could be found who would be willing to examine the theory in critical detail without dismissing it out of hand. It needs to be examined by someone who is well versed in Ph.D. level quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and special relativity. Compare the resulting equations to existing experimental results widely accepted within the scientific community (i.e., n>=1 hydrogenic atoms). Verifying the numbers adds confidence.
  3. If you are considering investing large sums of money, consider contracting a well-equipped laboratory to conduct in-house tests of the chemicals and plasma cells.
  4. Join the HSG e-mail list by sending e-mail to hydrino-subscribe@eGroups.com. There, you may pose challenging questions to over 70 active minds!

I hope this lengthy report sheds some light on your questions. Should you wish to discuss these issues further, please send e-mail to LutherSetzer@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Luke Setzer
Moderator, HSG