“The Mother of All Black Swans”: Hydrinos and Cold Fusion (Tom Whipple)

Tom Whipple has written a new piece in the Falls Church News Press, a Falls Church, Virginia newspaper about what he considers could be a one-two punch that could save the planet from economic and environmental turmoil. The title of his article is “The Peak Oil Crisis: The Mother of All Black Swans”, and sees a good measure of hope in two new technologies that we have discussed at length on this site.

He writes:

What is desperately needed is a way for the world to stop burning carbon as quickly as possible without creating economic turmoil. There just may be an answer . . .

I am talking about the twin technologies of cold fusion and hydrinos, each of which, when widely deployed, will constitute a revolution in the history of mankind fully equivalent to the discovery of fire, the wheel, the agricultural revolution, or the industrial revolution

Whipple sees the work of Randell Mills at Blacklight Power, and Andrea Rossi at Industrial Heat, as the best hope for avoiding environmental catastrophe, and thinks that either, or both, could bring products to market within the next few years. He has written a number of columns over the years about LENR, and is one of the few writers to do so in U.S. newspapers. The newspaper reading population of Falls Church, Virginia are possibly the most educated about cold fusion in all of the country!

  • Kim

    The worm is awake and may be thinking of turning…

    • Kim

      A Brave New World is upon us.

      I completely understand how to build this thing myself.
      The Instruction booklet is now complete.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Mordriel

        Kim ^ So….confused….halp! In any case, I’ll be incredibly excited to see what kinds of changes these technologies being about. The sooner, the better. But, economic upheval can be the price to pay for successful, world-changing, ground-shaking innovation to come to market. It almost never starts full force. Textbooks would need re-writing, science and engineering education would have to be restructured. Not to mention the people who would lose jobs (necesaary as it could be). It’s going to take a while to get that ball rolling. The oceans didn’t fill from a single raindrop— as cool as that’d have been. This stands to be a long, steady downpour. Who wants to splash in some puddles?! I’m down. When it comes to rolling out tech that will save generations and the planet, I say, let’s do this, Leroy Jenkins!!!

      • Mark Underwood

        “The evidence for hydrinos is zero…” Dang, I wish I’d known that sooner!

  • Kim

    The worm is awake and may be thinking of turning…

    • Kim

      A Brave New World is upon us.

      I completely understand how to build this thing myself.
      The Instruction booklet is now complete.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Mordriel

        Kim ^ So….confused….halp! In any case, I’ll be incredibly excited to see what kinds of changes these technologies being about. The sooner, the better. But, economic upheval can be the price to pay for successful, world-changing, ground-shaking innovation to come to market. It almost never starts full force. Textbooks would need re-writing, science and engineering education would have to be restructured. Not to mention the people who would lose jobs (necesaary as it could be). It’s going to take a while to get that ball rolling. The oceans didn’t fill from a single raindrop— as cool as that’d have been. This stands to be a long, steady downpour. Who wants to splash in some puddles?! I’m down. When it comes to rolling out tech that will save generations and the planet, I say, let’s do this, Leroy Jenkins!!!

  • Gerard McEk

    I have tried several times to get a piece in our local paper, but it is totally ignored both times. I guess you must be a interested reporter and very persuasive to get it in a paper, or have a very progressive paper.

    • Charles

      I have had two pieces published in the Roanoke Times regarding LENR, the 2d about 1 year ago. My recent submissions have been ignored and I understand why. “Yeah, Yeah. show us one.”

      Andrea Rossi, in particular, is ALLEGED to have a unit out there at NASA or the USN, or wherever it may be, that has been operating (or not?) for at least two years. As I have said repeatedly, a trusted 3d party could be used to release the info and protect whatever secret needs to be kept.

      Help us out here Dr. Bushnell. I am getting old and want to see this in my lifetime.

      • Omega Z

        I would be happy to see it proven & gone public while I’m still here. Beyond that doesn’t matter because i know all else will follow.

        The unit you mention I believe is in an NRL research lab.
        This was claimed by another LENR developer who had a device of his own under NRL testing. He claimed that he saw Rossi’s plant in operation. At the time, he also accused NRL of sharing information with Rossi. Actually, there is precedence for this in a sense.

        When you have 2 Corporations like Lockheed Martin & Boeing competing for a project & one hits an impasse in a certain area of development, They will nudge you in a certain direction based on what they are aware of from your competitors work. However, they don’t provide specifics. This is only to help you get beyond an impasse to maintain competition for the final project. They still expect you to come up with your own answer.

        The Big boys are well aware of this type of exchange. Only outsiders find an issue with this. Unless of course, they are the one getting the nudge. If I recall, This person was told his device didn’t measure up to claims. If it had, we would likely never of heard of this.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have tried several times to get a piece in our local paper, but it is totally ignored both times. I guess you must be a interested reporter and very persuasive to get it in a paper, or have a very progressive paper.

    • Charles

      I have had two pieces published in the Roanoke Times regarding LENR, the 2d about 1 year ago. My recent submissions have been ignored and I understand why. “Yeah, Yeah. show us one.”

      Andrea Rossi, in particular, is ALLEGED to have a unit out there at NASA or the USN, or wherever it may be, that has been operating (or not?) for at least two years. As I have said repeatedly, a trusted 3d party could be used to release the info and protect whatever secret needs to be kept.

      Help us out here Dr. Bushnell. I am getting old and want to see this in my lifetime.

      • Omega Z

        I would be happy to see it proven & gone public while I’m still here. Beyond that doesn’t matter because i know all else will follow.

        The unit you mention I believe is in an NRL research lab.
        This was claimed by another LENR developer who had a device of his own under NRL testing. He claimed that he saw Rossi’s plant in operation. At the time, he also accused NRL of sharing information with Rossi. Actually, there is precedence for this in a sense.

        When you have 2 Corporations like Lockheed Martin & Boeing competing for a project & one hits an impasse in a certain area of development, They will nudge you in a certain direction based on what they are aware of from your competitors work. However, they don’t provide specifics. This is only to help you get beyond an impasse to maintain competition for the final project. They still expect you to come up with your own answer.

        The Big boys are well aware of this type of exchange. Only outsiders find an issue with this. Unless of course, they are the one getting the nudge. If I recall, This person was told his device didn’t measure up to claims. If it had, we would likely never of heard of this.

  • Hydrinos is about to get thought a very important lesson – next quarter

    • Mark Underwood

      What do you mean?

      • GreenWin

        Jim, recall too, that Mills pioneered Ni+1H anomalous heat experiments going back to early 1990s. And as recently as 2008, independent labs at Rowan University replicated the BLP effect using Raney nickel. It makes a very interesting read: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf

        • GreenWin

          USPTO currently embroiled in a fraud investigation of Examiners billing for hours playing games and surfing the net — is a disgrace. It will need a complete overhaul to be anywhere near effective again. Or scrapped entirely; since it appears to be so corrupt as to be utterly ineffective.

          • telessar

            Honestly, the problem is mostly with congress – the USPTO has tried to overhaul their system several times, but congress keeps using them as a slush fund to pay for other projects.

            The USPTO is a self-funded department, meaning they take no subsidy from the federal government; they run entirely on the fees they collect.

            So far, so good.

            The problem is that whenever they raise their fees or save money for an overhaul of their system, congress swoops in and takes the excess to pay for other projects. The USPTO is actually being used to fund other parts of the government, which puts them in a financial position where they are constantly just making ends meet.

            There have been lots of attempts to fix the way the department runs, but it is not going to happen until congress stops using patent fees as a piggy-bank.

  • Hydrinos is about to get thought a very important lesson – next quarter

    • Mark Underwood

      What do you mean?

  • Herb Gillis

    The existence of the LENR phenomenon is now established, especially after Lugano and Parkhomov. Hydrinos, however, are a specific theory of LENR which many find particularly hard to swallow. I hope the latter does not delay the popular acceptance of the former. It would be better, in my view, if they were discussed separately.

    • Jim Anderson

      Herb,According to Mills hydrinos are not LENR at all. Mills has his own theory of atomic actions which replaces quantum mechanics and is one of the reasons for being sceptical about what he is doing. The hydrino is an atom at an electron shell level lower than what is currently believed to be possible. When the electron enters the lower shell energy is released but it is not nuclear energy but more like chemical energy. There are many questions in this area that need basic research. Are both LENR and hydrinos real? If hydrinos are real do they have an effect on LENR? Mills may actually be farther along than Rossi. He has raised more money from investors and has a large number of scientific papers that support his results. Mills web site is Black Light Power and all of this is explained much better than I can.

      • GreenWin

        Jim, recall too, that Mills pioneered Ni+1H anomalous heat experiments going back to early 1990s. And as recently as 2008, independent labs at Rowan University replicated the BLP effect using Raney nickel. It makes a very interesting read: http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf

      • Omega Z

        Jim, Have you compared R. Mills earlier work to Rossi’s.
        I have no doubt they are one & the same. The difference being that Rossi figured out the key. Calling it something different is just semantics.
        Mills just ran into the same issues as everyone else & went a different route.

        I’ve noticed that Mills web site no longer shows his older work on Ni+H, but it doesn’t matter because this technology works with many different metals of the same class.

        • Mark Underwood

          Mill’s Raney Nickel cell activated at a mere 250 degrees C, and the production of heat from hydrino formation was very brief, I think on the order or seconds. As we know the eCat requires temps over 1000 degrees C and the heat can last for months. Very different dynamics, very different phenomena.

          • Omega Z

            Your description of Mills cell is pretty much the situation for everyone. Low output for long periods or high output for very short periods, tho there’s a few making gains.

            I was comparing Rossi’s Lt E-cat that is in the 1Mw pilot plant at this moment. The reactor operates at 200’C & it’s steam production is between 100’C & 120’C. There are images around that look very much like Mills reactor except Rossi was getting much better results. As I said, Rossi figured out the key.

          • Mark Underwood

            I had no idea that the non “hot” eCat ran at such low temperatures. Thanks for letting me know. I guess I’m a little late to the eCat party.

    • Axil Axil

      Nanoparticles are a major new field of chemistry. But I doubt that Mills covers the dynamics of nanoparticles or in fact any of the nano sciences in even the smallest way. In this lies his theoretical weakness. The behaviors that he ascribes to hydrinos really are a consequence of nanoparticle dynamics. Any positive results that he has gotten have come from a coincidental utilization and manipulation of nanoparticles. This includes his latest technology, the sun cell. This lack of nano theory is also true of Santilli.

      • optiongeek

        Huh? Mills has decades of spectrographic results that started with hydrogen plasmas. Nothing to do with ‘nanoparticles’ whatsoever. Please learn the basics about someone’s ideas before you criticize.

        • Axil Axil

          This discussion involves a field of science called dusty plasma. Do you know anything about this? You might want to Google it.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusty_plasma

          “A dusty plasma is a plasma containing millimeter (10−3) to nanometer (10−9) sized particles suspended in it. Dust particles are charged and the plasma and particles behave as a plasma.[1][2] Dust particles may form larger particles resulting in “grain plasmas”. Due to the additional complexity of studying plasmas with charged dust” particles, dusty plasmas are also known as Complex Plasmas.[3]:2

          • optiongeek

            Uh – I’m afraid you’ve lost me completely. I’ve been following Mills’ work for 10+ years and not once have I heard of a reference to “dusty plasmas”. Hydrino theory focuses on dynamics at the atomic level, specifically how packets of n x 27.2 eV can be resonantly (non-photonically) transferred from the H atom to a catalyst, resulting in the formation of a hydrino. In the most recent implementation, Mills’ team has discovered that the dynamics of the transfer are much more favorable under high current, hence the use of a highly conductive metallic slurry containing the catalyst and hydrogen fuel. It just so happens that the slurry works whether or not it has been “nano”ed into a fine power. He’s seen the same basic reaction in regular H plasmas (non-particulate/non-dusty, just plain old elemental H). The reaction is characterized by continuum radiation in the 10nm to 92nm range, which is completely unexplained by conventional chemistry. You generally only see this type of radiation in high-energy labs but Mills gets it with a just a few volts in H-plasma, high current slurries, and to a lesser degree, Ni-H setups similar to LENR rigs. EUV continuum radiation is a smoking gun, it can only be explained by a hydrogen atom “collapsing” to the lower energy state hydrino. And it’s been replicated by multiple researchers, including at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. It’s pretty cool stuff, but nothing to with nanoparticles, dusty or otherwise.

  • GreenWin

    Peering into my crystal ball this article looks like PTB prepaving the indroduction of both optical and thermal over-unity power systems. Mills’ SF-CIHT “SunCell” and Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat Ni+H2 system. Tom Whipple is a reasoned conduit to introduce both technologies and IMO, reflects certain PTB who can no longer stave off the inevitable.

    • GreenWin

      BTW, questions about PTB…? The former President of Standard Oil, John Miller (founded by John D. Rockefeller) joined the BLP Board of Directors in 2008.

      • Eyedoc

        What ?? Getotahere ! Are you sure its the same guy ?

        • GreenWin

          I dunno doc. That’s what the link to Rowan University’s validation says (see my post below.) Crazy mixed up program, ain’t it??

    • Omega Z

      You’ll notice that some take 1 side against the other. I like Rossi & I dislike Mills. It’s a personality thing. However, I don’t let my personal opinions of the men get in the way.

      My view is that Mills & Rossi’s different technical approach actually compliment the other. There is a large need for both electricity & heat/steam. Both technologies have their weak & strong points. Combined mitigates most of the weak points of both.

      • GreenWin

        We’re on the same page Omega. Agree, Rossi figured out a way to loop the sudden bursts of heat – something Mills did not appear to do. Or…

  • Thomas Clarke

    technology implies some understood (experimentally if not theoretically) physics that is applied to a given problem.

    The evidence for hydrinos is zero other than claimed excess energy in experiments which even by LENR standard are very flakey – and the theory as published by Mills internally inconsistent.

    The abundance of Parkhomov/Rossi replication attempts looks more like a possible technology, although the underlying effect can’t be understood experimentally till there are repeatable definite results. Thus far I have not seen these.

    We are used to many novel “technologies” that in batteries, solar cells, etc. In these cases the underlying phenomena is well understood and documented and the process of commercialising is about optimisation and cost reduction. Any claim here that the underlying phenomena is well understood is easily refuted – if it were then a repeatable experiment could be devised, and the matter would shortly become the subject of mainstream (large) physics efforts.

    If the speculation on this site were true then Ni powder / LiAlH4 mixtures have such extraordinary properties that it would be easily be demonstrated, and replicated, so you should expect solid replication within a few weeks.

    So far the many reports all seem much less convincing than Parkhomov’s original (interesting but not convincing) data. For example Parkhomov’s later experiment uses different calorimetry which has unknowable errors. It would be more convincing as replication if he had repeated the original.

    It seems to be a feature of LENR experiments that when a positive result is shown no-one wants to repeat the positive experiment, but instead shows positive results from some variant. That is unhelpful, and raises questions about whether an exact repeat of the original would confirm it.

    • Mark Underwood

      “The evidence for hydrinos is zero…” Dang, I wish I’d known that sooner!

      • Chris Blythe

        Not so fast, take the suns corona being hotter than the surface of the Sun, dark matter being produced by Suns everywhere is an interesting concept. A hydrino detector is what is needed, anybody got any ideas for building one, if so I’ll be happy to build one. The experiment I would like to see is a hydrino detector on a satellite at the halfway gravity point between the Earth and the Sun. Hydrinos fullfil a lot of parameters for being dark matter.

        • Mark Underwood

          Rest assured Chris, my comment was with tongue firmly in cheek.

          Thomas Clarke had said, “The evidence for hydrinos is zero other than claimed excess energy in experiments which even by LENR standard are very flakey”

          If Thomas Clarke really knew about the work of Dr. Mills, he would know that excess heat from hydrino formation is only a small part of hydrino evidence.

          For instance, here’s a sentence taken from one of Mills’ many papers:

          “The predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product of the CoCu tape cast as well as Mo-based and CIHT cells by MAS 1H NMR, electron-beam excitation emission spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and photoluminescence emission spectroscopy.”

          There are many more papers to check out, with more lines of evidence.

          And speaking of excess energy, the late Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy magazine and an early champion of cold fusion, regarded Mill’s work in generating excess heat as much more robust that what workers in cold fusion had attained at that time.

          So Thomas Clarke is just spouting from ignorance. And, he is far too assured of the veracity and efficacy of mainstream science. Nothing new there.

    • GreenWin

      In spite of the lack of evidence for hydrino, that darned USPTO issued a patent to Blacklight Power, – Mills, Good, Phillips, and Popov titled:

      “Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures” http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6024935&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP

      It’s like cats and dogs sleeping together. If USPTO issued a patent for this process, why would they not… oh, never mind.

      • Thomas Clarke

        USPTO is not about validating technology. Think about it, if the tech does not work it really does not matter whether a patent is granted.

        However, when a device obviously can’t work the patent gets chucked out. If you want to patent LENR you just have to be a bit careful about it and not make the “not working” bit too obvious. Or you get lucky and hit a patent examiner who does not care…

        • GreenWin

          USPTO currently embroiled in a fraud investigation of Examiners billing for hours playing games and surfing the net — is a disgrace. It will need a complete overhaul to be anywhere near effective again. Or scrapped entirely; since it appears to be so corrupt as to be utterly ineffective.

          • telessar

            Honestly, the problem is mostly with congress – the USPTO has tried to overhaul their system several times, but congress keeps using them as a slush fund to pay for other projects.

            The USPTO is a self-funded department, meaning they take no subsidy from the federal government; they run entirely on the fees they collect.

            So far, so good.

            The problem is that whenever they raise their fees or save money for an overhaul of their system, congress swoops in and takes the excess to pay for other projects. The USPTO is actually being used to fund other parts of the government, which puts them in a financial position where they are constantly just making ends meet.

            There have been lots of attempts to fix the way the department runs, but it is not going to happen until congress stops using patent fees as a piggy-bank.

  • gh

    The current Popular Science specifically calls these two technologies ‘Dead Ends’, around page 30.

    • TomR

      I almost cancelled my subscription. I couldn’t believe they would talk about the subject and write the words they did. I probably won’t renew.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Regarding Mills theory. I read parts of it and it does look like a very interesting theory. Anyone who knows some math should go straight ahead to the derivation of the landau’s g-factor for electrons. It’s a neat calculation that is clear and deduced from first principles. Anyone arguing that Mills theory is quirky has to explain that strange fact. In my book there is no chance ever that Mills is wrong in his theory and the deduction is valid at the same time. You cannot argue away mathematical facts and that his derivation has an amazing number of correct decimals for this g-factor. I have only found one critique of Mills theory that looks interesting (the rest is word farts) and that’s Rathkes paper about inconsistances in Mills theory. The miss-take Rathke does is basically to assume that Mills solution need to satisfy the wave equation in order for special relativity to be valid. But that is not true, that is only true if you at the same time assume that the solution is regular e.g. twice differentiable e.g. does not contain jumps cusps etc.Mills solution is by construction not twice differentiable and hence Rathke’s critique falls down like a house of cards. Also strangely, Mills tried to get a discussion by publishing a rebutal, but got the cold hand, so he self published it, that rebutal is almost never mentioned at the same time as mentioning Rathke, which is not what you do if you try to be objective. It all looks like some mad bulling and incompetence to me.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Regarding Mills theory. I read parts of it and it does look like a very interesting theory. Anyone who knows some math should go straight ahead to the derivation of the landau’s g-factor for electrons. It’s a neat calculation that is clear and deduced from first principles. Anyone arguing that Mills theory is quirky has to explain that strange fact. In my book there is no chance ever that Mills is wrong in his theory and the deduction is valid at the same time. You cannot argue away mathematical facts and that his derivation has an amazing number of correct decimals for this g-factor. I have only found one critique of Mills theory that looks interesting and that’s Rathkes paper about inconsistances in Mills theory. The misstake Rathke does is basically to assume that Mills solution need to satisfy the wave equation in order for special relativity to be valid. But that is not true, that is only true if you at the same time assume that the solution is regular e.g. twice differentiable e.g. does not contain jumps cusps etc.Mills solution is by construction not twice differentiable and hence Rathke’s critique falls down like a house of cards. Also strangely, Mills tried to get a discussion by publishing a rebutal, but got the cold hand, so he self published it, that rebutal is almost never mentioned at the same time as mentioning Rathke, which is not what you do if you try to be objective. It all looks like some bulling and incompetence to me, but this is what one would expect concerning how we humans have treated great thinkers throughout the history.

    • optiongeek

      Electron g-factor is but the tip of the iceberg. Other closed-form results from Mills that are unattainable by mainstream methods include the ratios of the lepton masses, ionization levels of atoms with 1-20 electrons, molecular properties for essentially all molecules, identification of dark matter, unification of the fundamental forces, physical manifestation of alpha, and many others.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    Regarding Mills theory. I read parts of it and it does look like a very interesting theory. Anyone who knows some math should go straight ahead to the derivation of the landau’s g-factor for electrons. It’s a neat calculation that is clear and deduced from first principles. Anyone arguing that Mills theory is quirky has to explain that strange fact. In my book there is no chance ever that Mills is wrong in his theory and the deduction is valid at the same time. You cannot argue away mathematical facts and that his derivation has an amazing number of correct decimals for this g-factor. I have only found one critique of Mills theory that looks interesting and that’s Rathkes paper about inconsistances in Mills theory. The misstake Rathke does is basically to assume that Mills solution need to satisfy the wave equation in order for special relativity to be valid. But that is not true, that is only true if you at the same time assume that the solution is regular e.g. twice differentiable e.g. does not contain jumps cusps etc.Mills solution is by construction not twice differentiable and hence Rathke’s critique falls down like a house of cards. Also strangely, Mills tried to get a discussion by publishing a rebutal, but got the cold hand, so he self published it, that rebutal is almost never mentioned at the same time as mentioning Rathke, which is not what you do if you try to be objective. It all looks like some bulling and incompetence to me, but this is what one would expect concerning how we humans have treated great thinkers throughout the history.

    • optiongeek

      Electron g-factor is but the tip of the iceberg. Other closed-form results from Mills that are unattainable by mainstream methods include the ratios of the lepton masses, ionization levels of atoms with 1-20 electrons, molecular properties for essentially all molecules, identification of dark matter, unification of the fundamental forces, physical manifestation of alpha, and many others.

  • Mark Underwood

    Rest assured Chris, my comment was with tongue firmly in cheek.

    Thomas Clarke had said, “The evidence for hydrinos is zero other than claimed excess energy in experiments which even by LENR standard are very flakey”

    If Thomas Clarke really knew about the work of Dr. Mills, he would know that excess heat from hydrino formation is only a small part of hydrino evidence.

    For instance, here’s a sentence taken from one of Mills’ many papers:

    “The predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product of the CoCu tape cast as well as Mo-based and CIHT cells by MAS 1H NMR, electron-beam excitation emission spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and photoluminescence emission spectroscopy.”

    There are many more papers to check out, with more lines of evidence.

    And speaking of excess energy, the late Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy magazine and an early champion of cold fusion, regarded Mill’s work in generating excess heat as much more robust that what workers in cold fusion had attained at that time.

    So Thomas Clarke is just spouting from ignorance. And, he is far too assured of the veracity and efficacy of mainstream science. Nothing new there.