The Hydrino Hypothesis Chapter 12

An Introduction To The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics

This monograph is an introduction to Randell L. Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, Hydrino science, and the efforts of the company Brilliant Light Power (BLP) to commercialize Hydrino-based power technology, as told by Professor Jonathan Phillips. Out of necessity, it assumes a degree of familiarity with physics and physics history. An overview of the BLP story which serves as a helpful introductory piece to those unfamiliar with its sweeping scope can be found here. Readers should also read the previous chapters of this monograph prior to this one:

Chapter 1 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 2 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 3 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 4 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 5 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 6 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 7 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 8 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 9 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 10 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

Chapter 11 of The Hydrino Hypothesis

By Professor Jonathan Phillips

Preface: This monograph is intended to be an introduction to the GUTCP, structured like a sophomore level textbook. The organization I apply to my pedagogical efforts, an approach gradually developed during 30 years of teaching in academia, is very simple: tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and finally, tell them what you told them. Below is an effort to “tell them what you told them.” It is a brief review of the first eleven chapters.

Summary Of Main Teachings

Point 1

The GUTCP is a novel paradigm that assumes elementary particles obey classical (pre-1872) physics. The GUTCP model of bound electrons is one of bubbles of charged matter which symmetrically surround the nucleus.

Applying Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s equations to this physical model leads to predicted values for energy levels of electrons in atoms and ions that fit all spectroscopic data quantitatively.

In contrast, the currently dominant paradigm of atomic physics, standard quantum mechanics (SQM), rejects classic physics at the scale of h-bar, that is, the atomic scale. Moreover, SQM, in all its myriad forms, predicts nothing beyond one-electron species.

Notably, topics covered in this monograph represents a tiny fraction of the GUTCP theory of physics.

Point 2

The GUTCP predicts the existence of a new form of hydrogen which can exist in physically smaller and lower energy states than permitted by the current physics paradigm. These states are known as Hydrino states of hydrogen, and the postulate that they exist is known as the Hydrino Hypothesis (HH).

The HH is consistent with all observations made to date, clearly to the shock and dismay of many. Hence, it is concluded that the GUTCP, including the HH, a valid scientific theory.

The HH is consistent with a very broad range of empirical data and has tremendous explanatory power for a number of previously unresolved scientific mysteries, such as the nature of dark matter and the solar corona heating problem.

Point 3

The transition of ordinary hydrogen to the Hydrino state releases about 200 times the energy of combusting hydrogen on a per atom basis. Dr. Mills’ company, Brilliant Light Power (BLP), has engineered a device, the SunCell, that relies on the Hydrino reaction to produce electricity. Harnessing Hydrino production to create energy is a valid commercial enterprise.

In Depth Review

Part I: The GUTCP - Chapters 1-6

Chapter 1

The GUTCP is summarily dismissed by most of the scientific community without any scientific basis for doing so. The expert reviewers are not expert, and the “facts” presented, such as the BLP Wikipedia entry’s claim that the company has no patents, are either untrue or misleading. A point by point refutation of Wikipedia’s misinformation and falsehoods can be found here. The cognoscenti naturally collude to prevent any discussion. In short, the theory is “cancelled.”

The “cancel culture” treatment of the GUTCP is not an ahistorical phenomenon. Indeed, the heliocentric model of the solar system was suppressed by the Church for centuries. The Wright Brothers, who first flew in 1903, were derided in the United States until they took flight in Le Mans France in 1908 for over an hour. The original theory of plate tectonics was advanced in the 1920s by Wegener, but brutally “cancelled” until the 1960s. The discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria and thus can be cured with antibiotics was similarly ridiculed for years. Many other examples of resistance to new paradigms can be found in the history books.

Despite the dominance of the current nearly universally accepted paradigm, SQM, it has been rejected by some of history’s greatest physicists:

“God does not play dice with the universe.”
- Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921

“Quantum Mechanics is wrong.”
- Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2020

Clearly, challenging SQM is a valid scientific activity. Cancelling challenges, including GUTCP, is not.

Figure 12-1: The Wikipedia entry on BLP clearly implies the HH is dismissed by the US Patent Office. The list above of BLP’s many granted and pending patents shows this is misinformation, as is most of the commentary regarding GUTCP presented by “experts” in the physics community.

Chapter 2

To assist the reader scientifically evaluate the GUTCP model, and overcome the dismissive fury of the critics, a full explanation of the scientific process is provided.

To wit: science requires data-based falsification of a hypothesis (see Figure 12-2). Science is not based on expert opinion or the age of a paradigm.

Any hypothesis, no matter how revered, can be demonstrated to be false through experiment. No hypothesis can be proven, only disproven. Real science is open to the potential for any hypothesis to be falsified. Science is always evolving.

Figure 12-2: Minimum requirement of a valid theory: consistency.

Contrary to the position of the critics, to be provided a fair hearing, the predictions of the GUTCP must be tested against the highest quality data. Only if it fails to properly match the data can the GUTCP be considered falsified.

Another test of validation is consistency of a theory with existing, repeatedly validated, mathematical models. The GUTCP is completely consistent with classical physics, that is, mathematical models developed before 1872. In particular, the elementary particles in the GUTCP model are extended physical objects that obey Newton’s Laws and Maxwell’s Equations. The model explain magnetic behavior classically, and require no “variable parameters” to match observed atomic and molecular data.

In contrast, in SQM the bound electron is not an extended physical object, but rather an infinitely small point, which is found in space according to a probability distribution determined from the solution to the Schrodinger Equation, not classical physics. The electron, according to SQM, does not conserve momentum, have a trajectory, produce a magnetic moment from a current, have a finite density, etc. And to fit observation, variable parameters must be optimized.

In sum, SQM is inconsistent with classical physics in every manner.

Chapter 3

The GUTCP is a vast theory. The first half of this monograph is focused on a very narrow part: the predictions of the GUTCP regarding electrons bound to an atom or ion.

The GUTCP models the bound electron of atoms and ions as an extended object, specifically a 2-dimensional (albeit with “gravitational thickness”) spherical-bubble shaped object, known as an orbitsphere, that symmetrically surrounds the nucleus (Figure 12-3).

The orbitsphere is a real, physical object; hence, it obeys all classical physics laws, pre-1872. For example, the orbitsphere model obeys conservation of momentum, all forces arising from Maxwellian electric and magnetic sources, and Newtonian mechanical laws.

Figure 12-3 (Figure 3-6): The GUTCP electron orbitsphere- All electrons in atoms and ions are spherical bubbles composed of great circles of current. In a multi-electron system there are multiple orbitspheres of different radii set one inside the other like a set of Russian dolls. The speed of the current, and diameter of each orbitsphere (next chapter) is solved using classical physics equations. There is no probability; rather, the electron is a precisely shaped physical object. There is no “uncertainty.” There is no Correspondence Principle. And the magnetic behavior arises, as per classical physics equations, from the motion of the current loops.

Spectroscopy is briefly explained in Chapter 3. As scientists were unraveling the mysteries of the atom in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, spectroscopy led to the finding that there are distinct “quantized” energy levels of the bound electrons of atoms, ions, and molecules, rather than the continuous energy levels that one might expect based on classical physics theory.

This finding of quantized energy levels led to the development of quantum mechanics as a means to explain the observed energy levels. Classical physical laws were discarded at the scale of the atom.

However, the GUTCP is completely consistent with all atomic spectroscopy, without any need to introduce non-classical physics, such as the Schrodinger equation.

Postulate: If the GUTCP was developed in the same historical moment as SQM, it would now be the dominant paradigm.

Chapter 4

In this chapter the true mathematical nature of the GUTCP is introduced at the most elementary level, specifically one-electron systems, and successfully tested against highly validated data.

The quantitative, predictive, and simple mathematics of the GUTCP is based on classical physics, Newton’s laws and Maxwell’s equations. Each orbitsphere radius and energy are computed employing two simple algebraic, classical physics equations:

• A force balance.

• Conservation of angular momentum of the electron.

Applied to bound electrons/orbitspheres, for all atoms and ions, these simple classical physics/algebraic equations, with no variable parameters, yield predicted energy level values for bound electrons in ground and excited states. No computer needed for solution. The predicted values always agree closely (order +/-1%) with measured values.

It is noted SQM also “works” for one-electron systems, but only at the cost of the complete abrogation of classical physics. For example, the Schrodinger equation, the basis for SQM, does not include trajectory. It does not explain magnetism in atomic systems. The electron, an infinitely small and dense particle, is located only by probability, not related to a previous position. In fact, electrons, even in one-electron systems, can have negative kinetic energy. Clearly, negative kinetic energy is not a classical physics concept. It is not clear what the concept even means.

Two-Electron Systems

The next level of mathematical complexity, the GUTCP model the simplest two-electron system, helium, is fully developed. It is found to be completely consistent with all highly validated data for helium. In sum, the GUTCP, with no variable parameters, “predicts” all data derived from spectroscopy.

In contrast, the case for SQM completely collapses for two-electron systems. SQM is found to not only be non-predictive,and completely inconsistent (by design) with classical physics, but to be simply nothing more than a curve fitting routine.

As with one-electron systems, the mathematics of GUTCP for two electrons are two simple equations, a classical physics force balance and angular momentum conservation.

Each electron in a two-electron system experiences a different central force, hence has a unique force balance. The inner electron sees the Coulombic attraction of the two protons in the nucleus.

The outer electron is screened from the nucleus by the inner electron, hence feels a net Coulombic attraction of one electron; however, the outer electron also feels the magnetic moment of the inner electron.

In sum, each electron is described by a unique set of two algebraic, one-dimensional (due to symmetry) equations, just as with the one-electron systems. There are no variable parameters, and all constants are taken from the NIST webpage. The ground state energy of each electron is predicted by the GUTCP, and the predictions shown to be a near perfect match to data.

The GUTCP vs. SQM is a study in dramatic contrasts. The GUTCP model of two-electron systems (above) is simple and consistent with the model of one-electron systems. The predictions, with no variable parameters, match data nearly perfectly.

SQM applied to the same two-electron (helium) system is a massive computational nightmare (think world’s largest computer) and curve fitting exercise. In all the various SQM type models, variable parameters are optimized until the model matches the data. In sum, the SQM model, as shown below, is not simple, not predictive, and physically incoherent.

The Schrodinger equation for two electrons is shown to require a complete abrogation of classical physics. To wit: the electrons are infinitely small objects the position of which is described by a probability distribution over all six dimensional (!) space.

Other non-classical concept include no trajectory, negative kinetic energy, and no accounting for magnetic forces.

Mathematical infinities, such as those arising from the inevitable overlap of electrons, are whitewashed with arbitrary additions to the canon such as “correlated motion,” and mathematical wizardry readily shown to be incorrect. Also, for each added electron, three additional orthogonal spatial dimensions are required in the mathematical description of SQM.

Finally, in SQM there is no physical meaning to the multi-dimensional probability distributions solutions. Probability of what? Multiple electrons are present at a location? Where are the six dimensions of two-electron systems? Where are the (infinitely small) electrons?

A further critique of SQM is that the actual Schrodinger equation is never used for SQM computations! The mathematics is universally acknowledged to be unsolvable.

Instead, massively “approximated” models are solved solely because they are mathematically tractable. For example, in the approximate models the required “indistinguishable” nature of electrons is replaced by “distinguishable” electrons, and the required six dimensions of two-electron systems is replaced by three dimensional space.

Also, there is an entire alphabet of “approximate” models, all using the same words (e.g. wave function, expectation value), but each approximation has a distinct mathematical formulation. In conclusion, these are not approximations, but distinct theories!

Also remarkable: some principles of SQM are found inconsistent with observation/spectroscopy. So inconsistent that it is puzzling these principles were ever promulgated (Figure 12-4).

Figure 12-4 (Figures 4-7 and 4-8): The GUTCP, (according to this author’s Mod I) indicates the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) is wrong. A. Combining the PEP and the requirement of energy conservation leads to two “beyond Schoedinger’s Equation” additions to the SQM canon: i) relaxation and ii) the existence of energy states for which there is no spectroscopic evidence. B. Mod I, shown, is based on ignoring the PEP and assuming correct the computed energy levels of helium according to the GUTCP. This model is completely consistent with all spectroscopy and energy conservation.

In sum, the GUTCP survives the scientific falsification test. In contrast, SQM, even for two-electron systems, is revealed to be a mathematical curve-fitting routine that predicts nothing. GUTCP critics crushed.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth, Shakespeare

Chapter 5

A detailed three-electron GUTCP model and comparison of the GUTCP model with many electron systems data is provided in Chapter 5.

The “two equation” GUTCP classical physics approach is next applied to modelling multi-electron systems. In particular, the three-electron system model is developed in detail.

The modifications of the GUTCP force balance equations, relative to the one- and two-electron models discussed above, for three-electron systems (e.g. Li, Be⁺, B²⁺) are:

1. The increase in Z, number of positive charges in the nucleus, for the Coulombic term.

2. Modifications of the magnetic force terms.

In this chapter the basis for the modifications and the specific details of the magnetic terms in the force balance for three-electron systems are reviewed in detail. In all cases the resulting equations are readily solved. Again, no fudge factors, no optimization, and only four constants from the NIST webpage. As with the two-electron systems, the agreement with data is nearly perfect.

For systems containing more than three electrons the same modifications are needed: change in Z, and appropriate consideration and modification of the magnetic force terms. No details are provided regarding the structure of the magnetic term herein, but the Source Text contains all required detail. In any event, the agreement with data is nearly perfect (see Figure 12-5).

Figure 12-5 (From Table 5-4): The GUTCP-computed and measured ionization energies of all ionic states of iron are in quantitative agreement. The same level of agreement is demonstrated in the Source Text or first 25 atoms and related ions. Simple algebraic model from the GUTCP, force balance and angular momentum conservation, with no adjustable parameters, leads to predictions that are remarkably close to measured values.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 reviews the GUTCP computations of the excited states of hydrogen.

In SQM, modelling the excited states of hydrogen is very complex. Herein the GUTCP method for doing so is shown to be far, far simpler. Indeed, as with all the calculations, the excited state model in GUTCP is expressed as two simple algebraic equations: the Newtonian force balance, and angular momentum conservation.

The GUTCP method for computing excited state energies does require a new definition of photons. To wit: photons are trapped particles of electromagnetic radiation in the dynamic resonator cavity that is the bound electron.

The above definition of a photon provides an elucidating contrast between GUTCP and SQM. In SQM a free, unbound photon is a particle. When captured by an atom/ion in the SQM model the particle disappears. All that remains of the photon is its energy, which is transferred to a bound, now excited, electron.

In contrast, in the GUTCP model the photon captured by a bound electron, is literally a captured particle. This particle reduces the Coulombic interaction between electron and the nuclear positive charges in a very consistent and simple fashion. This leads to a temporary enlargement of the orbitsphere due to the change in force balance. The photon and its energy are still present.

Another interesting aspect of the GUTCP model of excited states is the explanation for the very short lifetimes (~10^-7 s) of excited states. The starting point is the notable experimental finding that circulating current in a superconducting ring never radiates.

That is, a superconducting current never loses energy, as shown experimentally with large macro systems!

This macroscopic observation is consistent with the prediction of several classical physics models. In these models circulating currents with no components (velocities) moving at the speed of light will not radiate. In sum, data and model perfectly coincide: superconducting currents never lose energy, as postulated for the sub-light speed currents of ground state orbitspheres.

However; a trapped photon, that is a trapped bit of light, will be traveling at the speed of light. Thus, the electron/photon combination of an excited state according to GUTCP and classical physics, should not be stable.

Once again, perfect correlation between experiment and the GUTCP.

Summary of Chapters 4-6

The GUTCP is far simpler than SQM, and unlike SQM does not throw out classical physics at any scale and is a simple and quantitatively predictive theory.

Occam’s Razor.

And then the story gets interesting…

Part II: The Hydrino Hypothesis - Chapters 7-11

Chapter 7

The Hydrino Hypothesis: There are 137 stable forms of atomic hydrogen, 136 of which are orbitspheres, that is Hydrino states of hydrogen, which are both smaller and lower in energy and thus more chemically stable than the presently recognized “ground state.”

Figure 12-6 (Figure 7-2): Illustrated energy levels, and relative radii, of first five Hydrino states. The precise sizes and energies of 136 stable orbitspheres which are smaller and lower in energy than Bohr-radius orbitspheres (the traditional “ground state”) are predicted by the GUTCP theory. Mechanisms for the creation of these states are also identified in the GUTCP. These lower energy state forms of hydrogen are called Hydrino/small hydrogen states and are the possible identity of dark matter. (Excerpted from Source Text.)

Is it rational to test this dramatic rejection of conventional physics and chemistry?

YES!

The reason: as demonstrated in previous chapters, the GUTCP is credible. It predicts all atomic and ionic spectra with remarkable accuracy. There are no fudge factors. It employs only two classical physics-based equations, and only uses a handful of constants taken from a certified source, NIST.

The HH cannot be dismissed, nor its predictions ignored, by any real scientist.

The mathematical model of the GUTCP employed in determining the energy level and radii of the stable Hydrino states are the same as those employed in determining the size and energy levels of the well-known excited states (i.e. Balmer Series, Lyman Series) of hydrogen, per Chapter 6.

The two equations required:

1. The classical physics force balance with fractional quantum numbers (Figure 12- 7).

2. The conservation of angular momentum.

Only the principle quantum number, “n”, is different for the mathematical models of the accepted excited states of hydrogen atoms, and the 136 smaller-than-ground-state Hydrino states.

Specifically, for standard state atomic hydrogen the principle quantum numbers in the force balance are natural numbers (1, 2, 3….). According to the HH, fractional integer values are also permitted principle quantum numbers in the force balance: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,…1/137. As with the GUTCP model of the accepted states of all atoms and ions, there are no variable parameter in the Hydrino model.

The fractional number stops at 1/137 as the equations also predict the velocity of the electron’s surface currents, which increase with each decrease in Hydrino radius. At 1/138 the required velocity is greater than the speed of light. Not permitted in the GUTCP!

Figure 12-7: For the GUTCP force balance only the nature of the single quantum number “n” differs. For excited states n is a natural number. For Hydrino states, n is a fractional value, ½, 1/3, 1/4,…1/137.

The GUTCP model of Hydrino formation quantitatively predicts the energy of each of the 137 allowed stable hydrogen states; hence, it also predicts the energy difference between Hydrino states. This leads to the prediction of the magnitude of the energy release during Hydrino formation, and for transitions between Hydrino states.

These quantitative predictions can be tested with spectroscopy, and have been, thoroughly.

The chapter also reviews processes, particularly catalytic processes, that are theoretically predicted to induce atomic hydrogen in the ground state to transition into Hydrino states.

These processes are the basis for achieving the commercial objective of Brilliant Light Power: a controlled method for forcing H atoms to shrink to form Hydrinos, releasing stupendous amounts of energy. The energy generated from this process is predicted to be orders of magnitude greater than the hydrogen combustion process. Harnessing the “brilliant light process” yields a new, ultra-inexpensive, non-polluting, primary energy source that renders all other power sources obsolete.

Overview Chapters 8-11

Summary: Experimental Testing of the HH

The scientific process was employed and many experiments were conducted over decades in several laboratories to determine if the signals, primarily spectroscopic and calorimetric, predicted by the HH to arise during Hydrino formation were present in those environments the HH indicates should generate Hydrinos.

Specifically: the HH predicts Hydrino formation can only occur in environments in which both H atoms and proper catalytic species are present.

Experiments carefully designed to test the predictions of the HH were run. These included experiments conducted in parallel where H atoms were generated in test chambers both with and without predicted Hydrino catalyst species. All tests were designed to falsify the Hydrino Hypothesis, per proper science.

In many of these experiments H atoms were generated by plasma process in a chamber which also contained one of three HH-predicted catalyst species:

• Ar

• He

• H₂O

According to the HH, the catalytic species absorb a specific amount of energy (an integer multiple of 27.2 eV) from atomic hydrogen, destabilizing the force balance that exists between the hydrogen atom’s electron and proton and causing the formation of a transition state.

This predicted process leads to the ionization of specific catalysts, as only specific catalysts (e.g. Ar -> Ar+) have the precise energy levels required to absorb the energy of the first stage process.

Alternative routes to transition state hydrogen are also predicted by the HH. For example, very short lived transition states, the species generated in the first stage of Hydrino formation, can form when the energy of the transition is converted to kinetic energy, rather than light energy. For example, it is postulated that hydrogen molecules can absorb, kinetically, the energy of transition. This results in the creation of extremely fast hydrogen atoms of quantified, specific, energy levels. As one species (H₂-> H + H) becomes two in this mechanism, the requirement of momentum conservation is satisfied if the two product H atoms move in opposite directions with equal momentum.

Once the transition state forms per one of the catalytic mechanisms, the second stage is predicted to take place nearly instantly.

In the second stage, a stable Hydrino state is created by the very rapid collapse of the unstable transition state. This process results, per energy conservation, in the release of a photons of specific energy. Moreover, the HH predicts that the radiation released by this process should be very broad, similar to bremsstrahlung, or braking radiation, which is produced by the deceleration of free electrons.

Summary of Experimental Tests

All data from experiments designed to falsify the HH, using a wide variety of experimental approaches, was consistent with the predictions of the HH.

The GUTCP remains a valid theory.

Chapter 8

Balmer Series Line Broadening

A thorough review of independent experiments conducted at BLP, University of New Mexico, University of Wisconsin, and at Eindhoven University of Technology (Figure 12-8) clearly established that the Balmer series line broadening observed in Resonant Transfer (RT, the name for the energy transfer process from a Hydrino catalyst species to atomic hydrogen) plasmas is consistent with the extreme kinetic energy predicted for H atoms (e.g. >25 eV in Ar plasma) absorbing the energy of transition state formation.

Note: An RT plasma, generated by DC, microwave or RF, is one that contains all the required elements for Hydrino formation, specifically a catalyst species, e.g. helium, argon, or water, and atomic hydrogen.

As predicted by the HH, the observed line broadening was independent of the direction of the EM fields, or the magnitude of those fields. As predicted, the magnitude of the observed broadening was a function of the catalyst species present, and broadening, undiminished in magnitude, even far from high field regions. Also, repeated control studies in which no catalyst species was present yielded no line broadening.

Figure 12-8: Summary of Balmer line broadening studies in RT plasmas conducted at Eindhoven University of Technology. All results consistent with the HH. (Figure 8-21, From Ref. 8-31)

The standard physics models of the phenomenon based on a field acceleration (FA) mechanism, failed to be consistent with all the data.

Observations contrary to the predictions of the FA models of Balmer series line broadening:

1. Line broadening was not restricted to high field regions.

2. Line broadening was not independent of the gases in the plasma.

3. Line broadening was not dependent on the field direction.

The FA models have been debunked.

The HH was not falsified by any line broadening study, hence remained viable.

Final note: the HH indicates that Balmer line broadening should be observed in stars.

It is.

Occam’s Razor.

Chapter 9

EUV Spectra

According to the HH, the second step of Hydrino formation radiation will emit radiation as broad Bremsstrahlung-type peaks. These peaks are predicted to have minimum wavelength (maximum energy) of specific values corresponding to the HH-computed energy release.

This radiation is emitted in the EUV range (very high energy), thus the emitted radiation can only be detected under high vacuum conditions. This is because EUV radiation does not penetrate gases such as our atmosphere well.

Although only a few terrestrial experiments were conducted, all spectra collected were quantitatively consistent with the HH. Also, radiation of wavelengths corresponding to the HH-predicted wavelengths has been detected by satellites above the earth’s atmosphere, both from gases in the interstellar medium (ISM) and individual stars.

The alternative/standard physics explanations for the ISM spectra require the existence of highly ionized species, specifically oxygen or iron, at fantastic (ca. 3 10⁶ K) temperatures.

None of the mechanisms advanced for creating, and maintaining, these temperatures in interstellar gas or stars is fully (arguably remotely?) plausible.

Figure 12-9 (Figure 9-2): EUV spectra of He/H2 plasma consistent with HH predictions. Lines corresponding to 13.6 eV x 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13 are present (marked in red), and consistent with predicted radiation from Hydrino formation convoluted with the Bremsstrahlung process. That is, the anticipated wavelengths are at the high energy, shorter wavelength, end of the observed peaks. The line at 30.4 eV is possibly an overlap of a standard He line found repeatedly in pure helium plasmas and a HH-predicted emission. The lines at 37.4 nm and 44.2 nm are not anticipated directly by the HH but can be explained as resulting from a two step process. Specifically, radiation produced by Hydrino formation is partially absorbed by electrons in helium atoms, leaving less energy, producing longer wavelength peaks, as described elsewhere (Ref 9-2). Also note the spectra obtained with pure H₂ gas (dotted curve) produced in the same instrument under the same conditions of power, pressure, etc.

It is also clear that the prediction of the HH that Hydrinos can be generated in any chamber containing a population of H atoms and a catalyst species. For terrestrial tests, a very low pressure plasma was generated in a chamber containing both H₂ and catalyst species, for example Ar or He.

The outcome: EUV lines corresponding to those predicted by the HH (Figure 12-9).

Remarkably, there are also previously puzzling EUV data from astrophysics that can be explained by Hydrino formation. For example, the ISM contains H and He, a catalyst species; hence, according to the HH, the ISM has all the necessary elements for Hydrino formation. Is there evidence of anticipated EUV spectral lines are generated in ISM?

Yes (Figure 12-10)! As discussed in Ch. 9, the standard explanations from the astrophysical community for the presence of these high energy lines are implausible.

Figure 12-10 (Table 9-5 from Ref. 9-3): Agreement between observed lines from ISM and predictions of the HH.

Chapter 10

Calorimetry Testing Of HH Predictions

Sophisticated calorimetric studies repeatedly showed more Energy Out than Energy In from reactors containing H atoms and HH-predicted catalytic species. This is called over-unity energy.

The same calorimeters showed no excess heat from controls, that is, reactors missing either hydrogen or a catalyst.

It was argued that the only plausible explanation for over unity energy production in all cases was Hydrino production. Systems tested were based on:

1. Activating Hydrino production by simple heating

2. Creating Resonant Transfer plasmas

3. Electronic ignition leading to explosion in bomb calorimeters.

The latter systems produced up to 7 times more Energy Out than Energy In (Figure 12-12).

Figure 12-11: Sufficient over unity energy production sufficient for commercialization (>3) repeatedly observed with Parr bomb calorimeter. (From Table 10-4 and Figure 10-9, Ref. 10-17)

In sum: all experimental test outcomes are consistent with, hence provide evidence in support of, the HH

Commercial Development

The current design of the proposed commercial SunCell reactor is based, largely, on the over unity (up to 7 times reported in the scientific literature) energy production observed in electronic bomb calorimetry studies employing low voltage high current electric pulses to initiate Hydrino formation from very small batches of material.

Whereas the bomb calorimeters are designed to record energy produced by a very small batch of reactant and catalyst, the SunCell is designed to continuously generate energy.

The SunCell employs a constant low voltage/high current discharge into which a constant flow of a source of hydrogen and catalyst are flowed. This creates a brilliant plasma which emits very high intensity light. This light will be captured by photovoltaic cells to generate electricity. Engineering work on the SunCell remains ongoing.

Chapter 11

Dark Matter = Hydrino

The EUV radiation from stellar objects that is not explained by conventional physics, described above, is not the only astrophysics phenomenon best explained by the HH.

In fact, many unsolved mysteries of the cosmos, not just the origin of EUV lines from ISM, have simple explanations predicted by the GUTCP and HH.

In particular, in the final Hydrino-data chapter, Chapter 11, one unsolved mystery, so-called “dark matter” is resolved by a simple explanation consistent with the GUTCP. It is argued herein that among the multitude of dark matter models that only the postulate that dark matter is Hydrino matches all data.

What is dark matter? This unseeable matter, estimated to be 5 times more common than the ordinary matter we can observe, is postulated to exist in order to explain the fact that there is not enough visible matter in galaxies to create the gravitational attraction needed to keep galaxies from flying apart due to centripetal force (Figure 12-11).

Figure 12-11 (Figure 11-1): Flat Velocity Curves for Galaxies- To keep matter in the Milky Way from spinning away from the galaxy a large quantity of “dark matter” is required. As shown (Green) the observed velocity of visible stars in galaxies does not drop with distance from the center as anticipated (Blue). This suggests (dotted curve) that most dark matter is at the outer edge of galaxies. In sum, standard gravity models explain the failure of galaxies to spin apart as due to a halo of dark matter at the outer edge of galaxies.

After: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/134159/what-is-a-flat-rotation-curve

There are a multitude of models of dark matter, ranging from the existence of copious amounts of virtually undetectable non-baryonic matter, to gravitational force being non-constant, that is, gravitational strength of matter is postulated to be a function of the position of standard baryonic matter within a galaxy, for example stronger as distance from the center increases.

The reason there are a multitude of models? None of the phenomenon predicted by the models match the experimental data.

Indeed, if Hydrinos exist, as postulated by GUTCP, they would account for the missing matter, yet have the “dark” nature (invisible) that matches observation. In other words, a testable prediction of GUTCP is that material with the properties associated “dark matter” must exist in significant quantity because Hydrinos are predicted to be generated in the corona of stars. Apparently, as one would expect, after billions of years of process, copious quantities exist.

GUTCP Subjects Not Covered

Einstein had his annus mirabilis, his miracle year, in 1905, in which he published 4 groundbreaking papers on the following topics:

• The photoelectric effect.

• Brownian motion.

• Special relativity.

• The principle of mass-energy equivalence.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the first.

Randell L. Mills had a decennium mirabilis, his miracle decade beginning in 1986, when Professor Hermann Haus of MIT fatefully handed him a pre-print of a paper explaining why accelerated point charges radiate using classical physical laws.¹

Mills realized that Haus’ use of Maxwell’s equations in this context could be applied to a very fundamental problem that was sidestepped by SQM: why is the bound electron stable to radiation? The seed of what would become the mighty oak of the GUTCP took root with Mills’ answer to this very fundamental question.

Over the proceeding decade, Mills turned his sights to many of the unresolved mysteries in physics, chemistry, and cosmology. All problems fell way to his unrelenting genius and the proper application of classical physical laws.

The scope of that genius is so deep and broad that this monograph was necessarily restricted to a small portion of Mills’ work. The first part was restricted to bound electrons in atoms, ions, and the second part to Hydrinos. These topics are only a small subset of the vast array of topics covered by the GUTCP.

Free Electrons

One example of a topic not covered in this monograph is the application of the theory to free electrons, including the physical form of free electrons. This model is employed to explain how observed/repeatable phenomenon such as electron diffraction are consistent with the extended particle model of electrons.

A further prediction of the GUTCP with respect to free electrons is that they possess inertial mass but no gravitational mass. Further testing of the hypothesis is required, but a tantalizing clue lies in a 1967 experiment conducted by Witteborn, which measured the gravitational acceleration of free electrons in a drift tube.² The rate of acceleration was found to be no more than 9 percent of Earth’s gravity.

There are many difficulties associated with experiments of this type, and further testing is required, but this author believes such experiments will prove the GUTCP hypothesis correct.

Molecular Binding

Another topic not discuss herein is the GUTCP model of molecular binding for accepted molecular forms. The simple models predict everything from widely reported binding energy values, to physical shapes as observed in the most advanced microscopes, with remarkable precision. Yes, the GUTCP perfectly predicts Other Peoples’ Molecular Data.

One form of molecular binding not covered herein is the application of the GUTCP to the molecular form of Hydrino.

In a recent study Mills published with Professor Fred Hagen, it was reported that electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy signals consistent with molecular Hydrino were found.³

These signals could not be produced by molecular hydrogen, as it is not paramagnetic and thus cannot produce an EPR signal, nor did it arise from H or any other species as the EPR signals from all these species are well known. The signal observed did not match any known conventional species but were shown to perfectly match the GUTCP predicted (Source Text, Ch. 16) signal arising from H₂(1/4).

The paper concludes thusly:

A plasma reaction has been carried out intended to produce molecular hydrino using non hydrogen bonded water as the catalyst and with liquid gallium as one of the electrodes. Polymeric Ga(O)OH with a spherical particle structure, presumably containing H2(1/4), was purified from the reaction mixture. H2(1/4) is proposed to be an S = 1/2 paramagnet with complex fluxonal and spin-orbital coupling level structure. The solid Ga(O)OH compound exhibits a complex gas-phase-like X-band EPR spectrum at ambient temperature whose fine structure semi-quantitatively agrees with hydrino-theory predictions. This analysis is consistent with frequency-dependent studies, while alternative, conventional interpretations are judged to be extremely unlikely. In summary, the present study provides compelling EPR spectroscopic evidence for the existence of hydrino*. In view of the possible far-reaching implications of this conclusion for the theory of quantum mechanics, for hydrogen-related chemistry, for astronomy, and for energy transduction and production technology, it is also offered as an urgent invitation to academia at large to repeat and extend the described experiments in lieu of refutation on quantum mechanical theoretical grounds.

*Bold for emphasis.

More recent using gas chromatography (unpublished but available on the BLP website) also shows outcomes clearly consistent with the remarkable GUTCP predictions of molecular Hydrino behavior.

Cosmology

A third topic not covered herein is cosmology. The summary prediction of the GUTCP cosmology is most succinctly stated in the dedication of the first book of the GUTCP:

The GUTCP leads to the carefully computed conclusion that the universe expands and contracts, repeating the cycle every trillion years. Although it is beyond the scope of this monograph, Hydrino states of hydrogen play a fundamental role in this expansion and contraction cycle.

Brings new meaning to the common phrase employed at parting: “See ya later!”

As per this author’s definition of good science, a scientific theory should make testable predictions. Dr. Mills made an astounding cosmological prediction in the mid-1990’s: according to his model, not only should the universe be expanding, but that expansion should be accelerating. In 1998, this prediction was borne out, much to the surprise of the scientific community.

Bottom Line

The depth and breadth of Mills’ genius hasn’t even begun to be recognized. The GUTCP further explains and/or predicts:

• Quantum gravity

• Superconductivity

• An anti-gravitational “fifth force”

• Mysteries in solar physics

• Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Many other topics are covered in the massive 2,000 page tome as well. You name the unresolved problem in physics and chemistry, and the GUTCP likely has the answer.

As scientists come to grips with the reality of the Hydrino, they will recognize that the broader GUTCP deserves a proper evaluation.

It appears to this author that Dr. Mills has indeed crafted the long sought Grand Unified Theory of Physics, fully unifying all physical laws on all scales into a simple, coherent, and consistent whole.

Present Situation, Early 2025

We await the definitive demonstration by Brilliant Light Power of prolonged production of over unity energy generation by Hydrino formation.

Author’s Personal Summary Aphorism

SQM is incoherent metaphysical gibberish.

As applied to atoms and ions, the GUTCP is transparent, quantitative, consistent, and plausible.

Personal Notes

Comment 1

What went wrong? Why has the GUTCP been almost universally shunned?

Short Answer: “Sci-Fare” is real, and it is not new.

As noted in the first chapter, the Wright Brothers were “cancelled,” until they flew for over an hour in France! (Jesus: “No one is a prophet in their own land”). Galileo, on threat of death, had to recant his ideas, and the strong evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe was suppressed for hundreds of years. Wegener, the first public voice for continental drift, was derided by the scientific community. The fact that ulcers are caused by bacteria, and hence can be cured with antibiotics, was derided for years by the medical complex. And now we know with near certainty that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was “created” in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (with US support?), and subsequently, accidentally (?), released.

Sometimes the labels “misinformation” and “pseudoscience” really mean “threatening to my authority,” or “threatening to the narratives that gives my community power.”

I personally, and repeatedly, experienced Sci-Fare.

Example: most recently I was scheduled to make a presentation regarding the GUTCP to a prestigious (?) club in a major US east coast city.

Cancel culture intervened.

A coven of club member “scientists” persuaded the club board that the GUTCP is a complete fraud. My talk was cancelled. I believe this group is truly clueless, not only having no knowledge of the GUTCP, probably never read a word of it, but also having no understanding of the scientific process. Coven members should be required to read Chapter 2.

Another, more personal, example: my students and I postulated and published both experiment and theory while simultaneously presenting extremely strong supporting experimental evidence that placing dielectric material on the outside of a parallel plate capacitor is just as effective as placing the same material between the plates.⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸

The current mathematics of parallel plate capacitors indicates this is impossible.

Indeed, in the standard paradigm the dielectric value of material outside the region between the plates has no impact on capacitance. In fact, the dielectric character of material outside the region between the plates cannot mathematically be included in any computation regarding capacitance.

Clearly, our work shows the very mathematics of computing capacitance and dielectric constants must change. This marks our finding as major. The textbooks, including first year physics and engineering texts, require major revision as they are clearly not remotely consistent with observation.

From the perspective of the dominant paradigm, we showed the impossible is real.

How was that received? All manuscripts were rejected, without review, at major journals. Yes, we eventually published, but in “minor” journals. I was only once permitted to present at a conference on this topic. And like the GUTCP, our results are almost universally ignored. And yes, the “experts” have “ghosted” me.

I don’t believe the reception to the GUTCP, nor to our findings about the real workings of dielectric materials, represent special cases. They are merely anticipated behaviors as they are reflective of normal human and institutional natures. This leads to the following postulate:

Postulate of Increasing Resistance- The resistance to consideration of a challenge to an existing paradigm is proportional to the significance, financial and reputational, of the existing paradigm to those with power. The GUTCP challenges one of the central paradigms of all physics: SQM.

Without question, adopting the GUTCP is a threat to physics theorists, to fusion research, to dark matter studies, journal editors, governmental science agencies, professors of physics, book authors, publishers, physics influencers, the UN (below), etc. All stand to lose stature, money, and security unless GUTCP is marginalized. There is no need for active conspiracy. The collective behavior of individuals acting independently, each defending self-interest, is equivalent to a centrally organized conspiracy.

The Sci-fare attacks take every form:

• Refusal of journals to review.

• Refusal of major conferences to permit presentation.

• Refusal to consider applications for grants.

• Deliberate distortions of the theory.

• Non-experts posing as experts.

• Personal attacks.

• De-platforming and “de-patenting.”

• Boycotts.

• Proclamations of the unsurpassed genius of the current paradigm and its supporters.

It is clear from Part I of this book that based on scientific principles the GUTCP represents a spectacular advance of physics.

It surpasses all physics and chemistry breakthroughs that led to Nobel Prizes.

If the HH leads to the birth of a new primary form of energy, Randy Mills will have sealed his position as history’s greatest scientist and technologist. Conclusion: don’t expect the GUTCP to receive accolades anytime soon.

Is there anything to be done? Given the notion that “cancel culture” is a reflection of human nature and institutional self-preservation, I think not.

A related question: What will the inevitable and rapid advance of AI do to our understanding of the truth? Will AI be captured by some narratives and powerfully control information and commentary to support those narratives? Will we, collectively and individually, be able to distinguish AI generated presentations, starring avatar humans, from presentations by actual humans sincerely seeking truth? Will the power of AI be such that “think for yourself” becomes a forgotten aphorism?

Are we five minutes from midnight on the Orwellian clock?

Think for yourself.

Comment 2

According to the United Nations, 2025 is designated as the "International Year of Quantum Science and Technology," meaning it is considered the "year of physics" focused on celebrating the advancements and applications of quantum mechanics, as it marks the centenary of its initial development.

Consider recent expensive debacles the physics community has “contributed” to human progress: fusion energy, string theory, dark matter…

Comment 3

I want to thank all those who have contributed to this effort by reading this monograph! Truly appreciated.

I am now considering creating a hard copy book version of this monograph, but only if more than the six regular readers are interested… Please let us know!

1. H.A. Haus, “On the radiation from point charges,” American Journal of Physics 54(12), 1126–1129 (1986).

2. F.C. Witteborn, and W.M. Fairbank, “Experimental Comparison of the Gravitational Force on Freely Falling Electrons and Metallic Electrons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 19(18), 1049–1052 (1967).

3. W.R. Hagen, and R.L. Mills, “Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 47(56), 23751–23761 (2022).

4. J. Phillips, “Toward an Improved Understanding of the Role of Dielectrics in Capacitors,” Materials 11(9), 1519 (2018).

5. J. Phillips, and A. Roman, “Understanding Dielectrics: Impact of External Salt Water Bath,” Materials 12(12), 2033 (2019).

6. J. Phillips, ‘Capacitors employing dielectric material outside volume enclosed by electrodes’ US Patent 11,501,917 (2022)

7. F.J.Q. Cortes, A. Suarez, and J. Phillips, “Towards a Universal Model of High Energy Density Capacitors,” in Innovations in Engineered Porous Materials for Energy Generation and Storage Applications, (CRC Press, 2018).

8. J. Phillips, “Theoretical and experimental basis for the super dielectric model of dielectric materials,” Physics Essays 33(3), 306–318 (2020).