Randell Mills New Results from Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectrometry, Gas Chromatography, and Implications

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 analysis 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 the time it arrives.  This problem of providing samples has recently been solved.

Dr. Mills discovered that there are substances formed within his reactors that trap Hydrino.  These substances can be removed from the reactors and shipped.  The Hydrino will be released when the substance is heated.

                                                                       GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY

The horizontal line is the minutes spent waiting for a pulse to arrive at the GC detector.   The pulse is detected by a Thermal Detection device.  Different gasses have different heat conduction characteristics. This is a result from recent gas chromatography analysis of gas emitted from Mills' reactor.

The GC has a very long, very thin tube, called a column.   At one end, a mixture of gasses from the Hydrino reactor is introduced into the column.  A vacuum is drawn at the other end, sucking the gas mixture down the tube.  Some gasses move faster than others (dissipation rate), so they separate as they travel down the column.

Every gas has a known dissipation rate.  The smaller the molecule, the faster the rate.  Hydrogen is well known to dissipate faster than any other known gas.

In that image, we see another gas is dissipating a lot faster than hydrogen. 

That mystery fast gas is labeled H2(1/4), which is a form of Hydrino.  It is unknown in the world of normal science.

The mystery gas also has a thermal conductivity greater than any known gas.

Observing and understanding this doesn't requiring believing anything claimed by Dr. Mills.

Unlike other Mills experiments, this experiment uses equipment that is easily understood by beginner science students, that is available in many chemistry labs, maybe even high school labs.  A GC like the one Mills uses, which is common, can cost a few thousand dollars.

So, the only thing that thousands of labs presumably need to produce this result for themselves is the gas that comes from the reactor.  Dr. Mills has recently stated that he is planning on providing it, and has developed a way to make the gas containing substance in a reactor that is much simpler than the SunCell.

Dr. Raj Pala, chemistry professor at Indian Institute of Technology, is one such candidate scientist.  He has 10 graduate students.  One of them, Nandita Sharma, is doing a doctoral thesis based on Mills' theory.  She recently published these results from her doctoral research, which is a comparison of computer simulation of a chemical substance with different software, showing that the Mills simulation software is remarkably accurate.

Dr. Raj Pala is totally convinced that Dr. Mills is one of the greatest scientists ever, and he wants his students to do Mills related topics for their advanced degrees.  

Imagine having multiple dissertations appear, each one based on a student's own empirical results, under supervision within a university, repeated in many institutions worldwide.  This would constitute what many would call proof of something that requires attention, because this is such a simple thing and errors are likely not much of a problem.  Hydrogen has been studied more than any element.  For something this novel to be discovered related to it, would be very big news.

The Hydrino is an allotrope of hydrogen, which is a structurally different form of an element, a different electron configuration from other allotropes.  Hydrino allotropes are different from the conventionally accepted forms of hydrogen in that the electron is at an energy below what the standard model of quantum mechanics allows, the "ground state".  The rejection of Mills' theory, the Grand Unified Theory of Quantum Mechanics (GUTCP), is upon theoretical grounds.  It violates the standard model.

However, a molecule that can pass through a GC column much faster than the conventionally recognized fastest gas, is presumably much smaller than that (formerly fastest) gas, which would agree with GUTCP.  Similarly, the expected thermal conductivity would be better with Hydrino because smaller size means a longer period of time between collisions for the molecule, so it creates the thermal transmission effect faster.

What has not been reported, perhaps because it has not been performed, is mass spectrometry performed on the mystery gas.  One would assume this would be a simple task, however, Hydrino electrons change their energy state through Resonant Transfer, not by absorbing and emitting photons.  The orbitals of Hydrino tend to be very stable, which is a good thing, or the Universe would collapse into a singularity, I suppose.

Dr. Mills has hypothesized that the much anticipated dark matter of the Universe is constituted from Hydrino.  There is much to support this idea.

What would be expected from mass spectrometry analysis of Hydrino gas?  The gas will remain inert when subjected to the method that typically ionizes the sample.  It will not emit or absorb photons.  It will presumably remain dark.  So, how would one know that anything was analyzed, if no signature was detected?

The image above shows three peaks.  If all three pass through the mass spectrometer, a characteristic line spectrum will be displayed as each gas passes, individually.  One would therefore know when to expect the mystery gas to be producing a spectrum, yet (presumably) none would appear.

In addition, as the different gas spikes leave the mass spectrometer, they could be fed into another Thermal Conductivity Detector, which would presumably produce roughly the same image as above, proving that the mystery gas was analyzed in the mass spectrometer and nothing detected.  A candidate for dark matter would have mass and be dark, so what else is required as proof that Hydrino is dark matter?  I do not know, but this appears to be the first time that scientists will have a candidate dark matter substance within their labs.  It would move the issue of dark matter from theory to experiment.

Then, there is paramagnetism, which is a result of having an unpaired electron.  Hydrogen and nitrogen molecules are diamagnetic, not paramagnetic.  They do not interact with magnetic fields.  Hydrino is predicted to be paramagnetic.  The recent work that Dr. Mills and Dr. Hagen performed using EPR reports that the spectrometry matches, almost perfectly, a simulated EPR spectrum based on GUTCP modeling.  This shows that Hydrino gas is paramagnetic and that GUTCP based modeling is so precise that the simulation is a direct reflection of reality.  Dr. Mills termed this dispositive evidence of the correctness of the theory.

This image is produced by a resonation related to the spin flip interactions of an electron in a Hydrino molecule.

The paramagnetism is thus detectable using EPR and it also produces macroscopic effects.  Filaments appear in an exploding wire reactor that are paramagnetic.  Another macroscopic effect might be observed by placing the GC column within a strong magnetic field.  The progress of the nitrogen and hydrogen would not be affected, but the Hydrino gas would be impeded, affecting the timing and shape of the TCD pulse.  

All of these results invite rapid and easily repeatable demonstration.  In fact, the manufacturer of the EPR equipment, Bruker, reportedly became involved by testing a sample provided by Dr. Mills.  They used two separate instruments to repeat the EPR spectroscopy and found results like Drs. Mills and Hagen.  To my thinking, this eliminates operator error as an issue.

In summary, numerous anomalies have been or are potentially observed for the mystery gas that Dr. Mills has labeled H2(1/4).  These are:

• GC measured dissipation rate
• TCD measured thermal conductivity
• EPR conclusive evidence of theoretical accuracy of GUTCP in the Hydrino molecule as paramagnetic
• possible confirmation of identity of Hydrino as dark matter
• possible GC evidence of Hydrino gas as paramagnetic

All of these findings are or would be consistent with the HH.  None of these phenomena are consistent with the standard model.