Could/would any of you fill me in on the particulars of a theory by Randell
Mills concerning:
(1) his discovery of "The Grand Unified theory of Classical Quantum
Mechanics"--"a theory that explains the workings of everything in the
universe, from the quark to the cosmos".
(2) as a corrollary, a lower form of hydrogen (called a hydrino) which can
be exploited as an energy source by converting ordinary hydrogen
(conveniently found in water) into hydrinos using a potasium catalyst, thus
releasing heat. Hence, a fantastic new source of energy. No attempt is
made to explain why these haven't been observed before, nor what one would
do with all these hydrinos if used in an application. (Maybe they
continually are formed & decay--sort of like virtual sub-atomic particles.
Then the catalyst, like Maxwell's demon, preferentially forms hydrino plus
heat. An engine would use the heat, and the hydrinos would eventually
decay--soaking up ambiant heat.)
There was a major article in a local paper concerning him (in a positive
light), since he's from here (in fact, my wife went to school with him). He
got his chemistry degree from Franklin & Marshal college (Lancaster, PA),
and later graduated from Harvard Medical School.
The article was relatively positive, with some skeptical input from academic
physicists who express optimistic skeptism. Also, he claims that to have
"30 research reports from national laboratories validating the production of
energy using his process", and is "confident that within a year, he will
have a contract with a major power company to license his technology."
It does of course sound like cold fusion, which the article distinguishes as
"being nuclear", while this is chemical in nature. The explaination for not
getting a wider reception for the concept is that researcher's are afraid to
tarnish their reputation after the cold fusion fiasco, don't want to
jeapordize thier careers, their funding, etc.
Now, I have an edjekated opinion about the topic, but since my wife went to
school with him, I wouldn't want to jeapordize any future career
opprotunities by expressing them ;-^)
Suffice it to say, (1) it sounds like a violation of the free lunch
principle (i.e., there is no free lunch), (2) crank theories of similar
description are common (so why not one more), and (3) does Harvard Medical
School teach more than medicine?.
On the other hand, weirder things have turned out to be true, though rarely
with such potential.
So, I'd welcome any info on this subject, and the more specific to this
theory the better.
Grace & peace,
Dennis Sweitzer