An Open Letter to Dr. Randell Mills

 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 will ever be.  Prior to working for Dr. Mallove, I worked many years installing and commissioning FAA air traffic control equipment.  The equipment had to work flawlessly and I had to persuade technicians and controllers that it worked right.  I became proficient with testing, instrumentation and group acceptance that has direct relevance to the kind of investigation suggested herein.

Please understand that I am not endorsing or asking for agreement with any conclusions regarding LENR activities.  Physics Professor Dr. Robert Duncan was asked by 60 Minutes (aired in 2009) to investigate claims of cold fusion.  The interview showed that Duncan had an ordinary view of the claims for cold fusion as some kind of mistake, that was mostly forgotten.  This episode followed Duncan into a cold fusion lab and saw him come out convinced that the excess heat was definitely real.  He became a participant at international LENR events and was convinced that a major discovery had been made and should be investigated, which he proceeded to do.

People applauded this journalistic and scientific approach because Duncan was not initially an associate of any cold fusion lab.  He was apparently completely impartial, yet became thoroughly convinced of an important anomaly.

I do not propose that a similar journalistic effort be taken to repeat this with your lab.  I propose that a similar effort, for business purposes, be considered.  

You have contact with numerous wealthy persons who are willing to invest money to accelerate your continued development and commercialization.  The one hour goal of SunCell running at high power  that has been placed as a threshold in order to qualify for the massive wealth infusion seems fair.  Investors want to see a specific level of performance that they can easily understand, to know that progress is successful.

Wealthy people become wealthy and maintain that wealth by being smart, which often includes consultation with experts.  You could suggest to your potential strategic partners that they each find and hire an expert who is capable of observing and assessing performance of the SunCell.  For this purpose, the one hour high threshold is not required.  The specific qualifications of the investigator would be up to the partner, but you might suggest hiring a professor of physics or electrical engineering, affiliated with a major institution or corporation.  This work requires no knowledge of GUTCP or sophisticated instrumentation.

Suppose there are multiple investigators, each separately selected by different partners.  They would then get on a recorded Zoom call with the purpose of comparing the methods of investigation they would like to see, and arriving at a specific protocol on which they all agree.  Basic considerations such as them providing their own calibrated test equipment and tanks of gasses, etc., so as to remove any possible doubts about exactly what elements are contained with the reactor, would be expected.  Alternatively, samples of the gasses from your tanks could be taken.  The test equipment is commonly available as rental.  These results would be submitted to you for review, as well as with the partners.

I suggest that multiple video cameras be set up around the room to capture both the experiment and the faces and conversations of the investigators. 

Although I am not expert on your experiments, I suggest the protocol consist of three parts:

The SunCell can be run without any hydrogen, just the molten tin electrodes and electrical current provided to produce some mild sparking behavior, and no clouds of plasma.  This establishes a baseline.  Then, introduce a small quantity of hydrogen with the required bit of oxygen to make the catalyst and provide fuel for Hydrino formation.  The observation would be of the formation of a cloud of plasma.  This, as you say, should not exist.  It provides the first observation of anomaly on which the investigators would have some expectations and observations.

Once the cell is running at approximately 1300 C, with yellow color, the power to the electrodes can be cut, yet the anomalous plasma would continue existing, correct?  Doing so would prove that the plasma is not a product of the electrical current, but it must be chemical in origin, and the candidate elements for reaction are not known prosaically to do anything like this.

The third part would be to use optical power measurement to measure intensity of the light from the cell (after resuming the required hydrogen feed), concurrent with measurement of the input power.  10X gain is not necessary for a scientific investigation.  What is needed is steady performance for a sufficient time.  Variation in electrode current and hydrogen feed could demonstrate the relationship between those parameters and output power.

This procedure would advisably be repeated multiple times, because repetition is at the heart of empiricism and doing so is quick, cheap and seemingly easy.

Video interviews of each investigator separately after completion could be quite interesting.  Each would be provided a full set of acquired data and videos (including Zoom call), and asked to submit a written report that answers the questions that you and the partners would like to see answered.  Each investigator would provide their identity and qualifications, include any possible conflict of interest, as well as any prior knowledge of your work, or any relationship with you or anyone associated with Brilliant Light Power.

After the strategic partners have had a while to digest these reports, they would be released to the public.  This step is for the sake of shareholders like me, many of whom expressed serious concerns during the recent meeting.  Whatever journalistic outcome that may follow is outside of our control.

The purpose is to remove doubts and eliminate the need to trust unnecessarily, to "grease the skids" going forward and remove much of the irrational skepticism to which you have been subjected.  It would also presumably help the strategic partners decide if they wish to go forward with their investments.  The cost of hiring these investigators should fall on the partners, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Of course, you retain full control of what gets published, but I suggest that avoiding edits and letting the uncertainties and fears felt by the investigators be on full display.  It is a profound experience to realize that one is witnessing one of the greatest discoveries ever made, and that there is a responsibility to explore it and advance acceptance as appropriate.

A video like this could easily become popular among many kinds of people, including people who would seek the next step, Hydrino analytical testing collaboration.  

You wrote to me in email once, when I had said that I was skeptical about the idea of Hydrino, "What is it that you are skeptical about, Ed?"  I did not answer.  That was a turning point for me, not that I was forced to accept the idea of Hydrino, but that I needed to find a reason to reject it, and believe me, I tried hard.  That kind of confrontation and fear of being exposed as an infidel is what the public needs to see, because science is not religion, despite Herculean efforts to make it so.  There really are postulations and half-baked ideas in what is orthodox.  You can only give it your best effort, and I believe that you have.  The reality needs to be displayed.  We have discovered that we cannot rely on institutions to carry science forward without getting prodded.

Best Regard,

Edward Wall  

 

Addendum: (4/8/25)  I just noticed that at about 1:04, Dr. Mills does describe how he plans to bring in investors to witness testing and make measurements themselves.  We need to be patient.