Excess Heat

 Dear Dr. Mills, Congratulations with the remarkable progress you have made with the SunCell.  You have obviously been working very hard and the rug-pull of getting evicted from NJ (the move alone was bad enough) months prior to lease termination had to be really tough, but you pulled through it well. This is being written a few days after the 2025 Shareholder Meeting .  From some conversation with others and comments during the meeting, it seems that there is frustration with the lack of recent quantitative data from the SunCell, which I share.  This is likely caused by the fact that your lab work has been halted by the grinding labor of relocating.   I am a degreed electrical engineer.  I worked for Dr. Eugene Mallove, who held a strong interest in your work.  The focus of my work was laboratory investigation of anomalous energy claims, so my experience may offer direct suggestions for you, despite that you are a far greater scientist than I wil...

 A recurring theme in my blogging is that people tend to have unexamined assumptions about what creates business success.  I know I have.   With the right unconscious assumptions, Mills is easily rejected.  It is easy to believe that if Mills is correct, this would be easily determined by observation and once observed by credible people, word would spread and business success would be his.  What are the assumptions built into this belief structure that supports rejecting Mills? Building the better mousetrap might result in a profitable business, but more likely, it will result in others copying it.  Patents were invented because the founders of the US wanted citizens to be able to claim the fruits of their own minds to have defensible economic value, if they met certain criteria.  The history of the development of patent law reveals that those criteria are not easily determined or fixed in time.  I am not a patent expert, although I did study...

Marc Andreessen is one of the earliest tech entrepreneurs of the information age, a Democrat and major league venture capitalist.  His many successes give reason to take his thoughts very seriously.  He has been quite skilled at recognizing value in the complex and competitive emerging fields.  Did all that recently change?  Probably not. This recent ZeroHedge article about a Joe Rogan interview of Andreessen is focused on the statements from Andreessen about meetings in Spring of 2024 with Biden officials.  Andreessen is influential for obvious reasons, besides being a fountain of capital to fuel the aspirations of tech innovators.  Influential people are those with whom politicians want to somehow join forces.  In this case, it backfired because of the policy that shocked Andreessen concerning startup businesses, which have been his 'bread and butter'. How does this differ from a merchant being approached by a mob made man who makes him 'an offer ...

The last two papers available from Brilliant Light Power's Randell Mills are about Electron Paramagnetic Resonance spectroscopy (EPR) and Gas Chromatography (GC) studies performed on samples of gas from the Hydrino reactor. These are in addition to many other analyses performed relating to Hydrino.  The staggering number of types of analyses that confirm the Hydrino Hypothesis (HH) strongly contrasts with the lack of acceptance in the scientific community of the claims made by Dr. Mills.  Why is he rejected? One major reason for rejection is that his ideas are built around the existence of the Hydrino, which is not generally accepted as real.  Naturally, skeptics request samples of Hydrino in order to perform their own analysis, and Dr. Mills was unable to provide them.  The reason for this is that storing Hydrino is not simple.  It is so small that it leaks through any usual container quickly, so if a quantity of it in a bottle is shipped, it will be gone by...

 This is a test link .

The research work of Dr. Robert Bush, Dr. Robert Eagleton and student James Djunaedy was the subject of an article published in Dr. Eugene Mallove's magazine, Infinite Energy , number 12, 1997 .  I was working for FAA when I received this issue and it strongly influenced me to attempt a Mills replication.  The article describes a situation that is not supposed to happen.  It was one thing to believe that Fleischmann and Pons blew it and claimed experimental results of excess heat that could not be reproduced.  I do not believe that to be the case, but it is believable to most people.  In this instance, at Cal Poly, was a team producing results in a robust and highly reproducible fashion, if their reports are to be accepted.  Why would someone not find their reports credible, or at least worthy of consideration? This group reported strong calorimetry results using light water electrolytic cells, run at sufficient input power to exclude the possible confound...