The Tom Bearden
Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power
The following is based partially on a Dow Jones story written by Erik Baard:
U.S. GRANTS PATENT ON HYDROGEN ENERGY SOURCE Source: New York (Dow Jones)
U.S. Patent 6,024,935 has been granted to Dr. Randell Mills and his company, BlackLight Power, Inc. The patent is unusually large with 60 pages and 499 claims. The patent is for Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structure.
Dr. Randell Mills discovered in early 1989 that the hydrogen atom could be collapsed below its ground state and give up significant amounts of energy.
At first, it was thought that he had a new form of cold fusion.
However, in an early paper he showed that his discovery was indeed a new form of energy from the collapse of the hydrogen atom (which he calls hydrinos). Mills early report showed as much as 1,000 times as much energy out as input energy. This excellent amount of thermal energy was attributed to the catalytic reactions that provide a receptor for the energy emitted when the hydrogen collapses. The newsletter Fusion Facts named Dr. Mills as Scientist of the year for his work.
It has been a long struggle to get acceptance by the patent office for this excellent work of Dr. Mills. To obtain acceptance, Dr. Mills arranged for the following:
One of the most compelling reasons (to this writer) to believe that this is an important new-energy technology is because Dr. Robert Park (a so-called spokesman for the American Physical Society) stated, "I am shocked that they issued a patent on this! This indicates that the troubles at the patent office continue."
Parks likened the process to "a perpetual motion machine."
Brigid Quinn, replying to Park for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said, "We do not give patents on perpetual motion machines. That this patent was granted means it met the criteria that it is new, useful, and non-obvious, and fully disclosed as to how it works."
Perhaps, she could have added that her department did not have a patent office employee placed to deny patents in this technical category as has been done for an estimated 300 patents in the category where patent applications for cold fusion inventions are handled.
Dr. Robert Park is well know among the new-energy community for his valiant efforts to destroy the credibility of any new-energy developments that might threaten the flow of funds into the hot-fusion community. Therefore, if he is distressed, it must be a worthy new-energy discovery.
Mills explains that his process creates high-temperature gases (plasmas) without the use of large amounts of heat, microwave energy, or electricity.
The hot plasma will be a source of energy to drive turbines and provide thermal energy for other useful purposes. As an example Mills states the further development of a plasma-to-electricity system may be capable of providing a 5 Kw home unit for under $2,000.
The recent high prices paid for shares in companies producing
fuel cells may suffer due to the potential competition from this new
hydrogen-collapsing energy development. This announcement will most certainly
provide intense interest in the IPO planned for Mills company later this year.
This writer has been stating for many months that the most important part of Mills' discovery is the production of new forms of hydrogen (Mills' hydrinos). A vast array of new chemical compounds is likely to be developed from this new type of chemistry. A new and important chemical industry is expected to develop.
From a scientific view, the impact of Mills discovery will cause
a dramatic re-evaluation of the long-supported and strongly-defended mainstream quantum theory. This, of course, is an unacceptable concept to folks like Dr. Robert Park, who is a highly-vocal defendant of the current paradigms in Physics.
What will be the impact on the rest of the new-energy world? That is a question that only events will answer. However, it will be interesting to see if the patent office continues to prevent cold-fusion inventors from being able to protect their intellectual property. The impact from the proven, and well-funded new-energy developments from BlackLight Power, Inc. are a much greater threat to the continued funding of hot fusion projects than the perceived threat from cold fusion devices.
This special news release was prepared by Hal Fox, for New Energy News, the newsletter for members of the Institute of New Energy.
Tom Bearden comments:
This is an unprecedented bit of good news from Hal Fox, inclosing the article by Erik Baard. With 499 claims recognized by the Patent Office, the Mills invention becomes a great "Pioneering" patent, which is fully justified since Mills pioneered the entire field.It is significant that Mills demonstrated under independent tests the results that he claimed. The scientific method USED to be that, if the experiment refutes the theory, the theory must be changed. As one can see, that is no longer the case, and many scientists are far more dogmatic than the old medieval Aristotelian metaphysical system that scientists struggled for 300 years to get out from under. So they will defend a falsified theoretical model to the death. In short, they would throw away the experiment and retain the theory. And that is dogma, not science.
When you think of it, what is so
unbelievable in having an energy density
(potential) state below the ground state
(the ground potential level?" For
decades particle physics has used the fact
that such negative energy states
do exist, e.g., the Dirac sea of negative
energy states, usually considered
filled with Dirac electrons. We know
you can lift electrons out of there by
adding energy; that has long been
Well, classical electrodynamics already
assumes (and widely uses) the fact
that one is free to regauge the potentials
(change the energy density of the
system) at will, freely!
Electrodynamicists already do that, particularly
in applying the Lorentz symmetrical
regauging. There they do it twice, and
very carefully so that the two are 'equal
and opposite' so that you get no
excess net force with which you could do
So what mighty commandment says that one
cannot have just a single
asymmetrical regauging? Since
Lorentz, everyone already assumes you can
have such, anytime you wish. So what
"law" forces us to always seek and use
two equal and opposite regaugings?
What fool seeking useful energy from the
vacuum potential, would use TWO
self-defeating free energy changes?
Obviously, if you wish the vacuum to GIVE
you something for free, you must
use only ONE regauging, which will a priori
be asymmetrical. Then you get a
free energy-density change in the local
vacuum, and you can certainly get a
"potential state" that is below
the ground level potential state. That is
just making a negative potential, and that
is just performing a selected
asymmetrical regauging of the system.
Apparently Mills has done precisely that.
The hydrogen atom and its parts
do not care what energy state the local
vacuum is in. If you externally
regauge that state, and put it below the
normal "ground state" potential
level, then certainly the hydrogen atom and
its proton and electron will
react and change!
Okay, so we haven't ever used that before
in conventional science. So what!
One is only asking whether or not it is
permissible. And the answer is,
it's permissible in spades, and implicitly
contained in experimentally
established regaugings already used and
known. So it becomes just a matter
of finding out "how to do it and how
to do it well". That's where the
creative inventor comes in.
Apparently that is just what Mills found out
how to do.
Even so, since he did it in 1989, he has
been 11 years getting his patent
granted. And he had to prove the
results all the way. Which he did.
Any scientist worth his salt should be
delighted that Mills has found how to
do something new in science, and therefore
advanced the field. That is what
science is supposed to be all about!
Many closed-minded arch skeptics seem
unaware that the Heaviside-Maxwell
equations, prior to arbitrary symmetrical
regauging by first Lorenz and then H.A. Lorentz, do indeed include open
electrodynamic systems far from
equilibrium in their vacuum energy
exchange. But these critics seem to have
only classical equilibrium thermodynamics
in their minds, with its second
law, and of course that does not even apply
to open dissipative systems.
Someone should explain to such strident
critics why Prigogine was awarded a
Nobel Prize. However, Lorentz's
arbitrary symmetrical regauging gave them
just exactly what they wish. It
discards all those permissible overunity
Maxwellian systems, and retains only those
which are forcibly in equilibrium
with their active environment. Once
in equilibrium, then classical
thermodynamics DOES apply, as does that old
second law, and that system will
never exceed COP = 1,0.
Interestingly, every power system our
engineers and scientists have ever
built, has been designed and built in
accord with the Lorentz-regauged
subset of Maxwell-Heaviside theory.
NEVER with the full theory, and NEVER
with asymmetrical self-regauging and thus a
violation of the Lorentz
Finally, let us return the skeptics' own
stuff back to them. The classical
EM they so staunchly defend, after
Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical
regauging, has simply discarded that entire
vast subset of permissible
Maxwellian systems that are open
dissipative systems and therefore permitted
to (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate or
self-rotate, (3) power
themselves and their loads (all the energy
is just received from the active
vacuum environment), and (4) exhibit
negentropy. The Lorentz regauged CEM
retains only those systems which HAVE BUILT
INTO THE PHYSICAL SYSTEM ITSELF
TWO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE ASYMMETRICAL SELF-REGAUGINGS,
SO THAT THE SYSTEMS
DELIBERATELY IMPLEMENT TWO "LORENTZ
DEMONS" TO FORCIBLY REGAUGE THEMSELVES
SYMMETRICALLY AND THEREFORE FORCIBLY
MAINTAIN THEMSELVES IN EQUILIBRIUM IN
THEIR VACUUM EXCHANGE.
In short, all power systems to date have
been built so that they themselves
forcibly keelhaul themselves continuously
into equilibrium with their active
external environment. Little wonder
that none of them exhibits COP > 1.0!
Now let us turn to the
"cherished" old CEM so loved by the skeptics.
well-known to be riddled with foundations
errors, limiting assumptions, and
non sequiturs -- see Wheeler, Feynman,
Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille,
Evans, Vigier, Lehnert, etc. Since
CEM omits the active vacuum exchange,
then it is faced squarely with its totally
unresolved problem of the "source
charge". Implicitly CEM
considers that the source charge CREATES all that
energy it pours out across the universe in
its fields and potentials, in
fact altering the entire vacuum potential
of the universe. Well, that
violates the most sacrosanct law of all:
energy can neither be created nor
So if anyone is going to point fingers and
cry "perpetual motion nuts", let
him point the first finger at himself.
At least we overunity researchers
know we must have open dissipative systems
far from thermodynamic
equilibrium. But in our wildest
nightmares, we could never dream of the
vast array of perpetual motion machines
already assumed by classical CEM and
its elimination of the vacuum energy
One can in fact show that every electrical
load ever powered, has always
been powered by energy extracted from the
vacuum, NOT by the energy we input
to the shaft of a generator or the chemical
energy in a battery. We have
adequately addressed that in full
In case the critic thinks the
"scalar" potential is a scalar entity, he
should be introduced to Whittaker 1903.
For nearly a century it has been
rigorously shown that the
"scalar" potential is not a scalar entity at all,
but is a harmonic set of bidirectional EM
longitudinal wavepairs. It is
composed of a vast set of multiple wave
energy flows, in both directions
(radially out from the source charge, and
radially back into it). We can
also replace fields and waves with two
scalar potential functions, since
Whittaker in 1904 showed that any EM field
or wave -- any whatsoever -- is
just two such dynamic scalar potentials
with dynamics functions imposed. So
everything in the classical EM text anyway
is comprised of sets of
bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs,
with imposed dynamics. Everything
is comprised of dynamic sets of internal
longitudinal EM energy flows. A
whirlpool in a river may appear completely
static, but inside it is highly
dynamic, with water constantly flowing
through it. So is a "static"
potential or field.
So the electrodynamics that the skeptics
are so certain of, already
implicitly describes every charge in the
universe as a PERPETUAL MOTION
MACHINE OF THE WORST KIND, CREATING ENERGY
RIGHT OUT OF NOTHING.
Even worse, as a residue of the old material ether assumed by Maxwell (and still in the equations; nary an equation was ever changed after the material ether concept was falsified), CEM then "defines" a potential as its own reaction cross section with a unit point static charge, and "defines" a field as its own reaction with a unit point static charge. Well, that is a gross non sequitur because it totally confuses the cause (the EM entity prior to interaction) as the effect (the small EM entity diverged after interaction). In fact, not a single CEM textbook or paper in the Western world shows the form in which an EM wave exists in space, prior to interaction. All illustrations are of the E-H effect wave in matter after interaction, not the Et-Ht impulse wave that exists in spacetime prior to interaction.
What a way to run a railroad!
When the arch skeptics explain how the
source charge produces those fields
and potentials and their energy, WITHOUT
interaction with the vacuum and
WITHOUT broken symmetry in that interaction
(which two things have been
known and experimentally proven in particle
physics for more than four
decades), then one should consider
listening to them, AND NOT BEFORE. When
they correct the "definitions" of
field and potential, and use the field and
potential themselves rather than the
reaction cross sections of each of them
at a point, then one can believe they may
understand EM energy flow. But
not till then.
Anyway, slowly the experimentalists are
showing that the old EM theory is
not finished yet, and electrodynamics is
still very much an embryonic
science that is still developing, with a
long way to go.
Mills put one solidly on the scoreboard,
and that is simply delightful. For
once the "good guys" won one.
I'm reminded of the same kind of
pontificators who blasted the very notion
of an amorphous semiconductor. They
thundered that every fool knew that a
semiconductor had to be crystalline.
They crucified Ovshinsky, calling him
every kind of charlatan and scoundrel.
Then one day they suddenly woke up
to find that Ovshinsky had put his
amorphous semiconductor into Xerox copy
machines, under contract, and they were
working just fine, thank you! Not
too long after that, students began doing
Ph.D. theses in amorphous
semiconductors. So how many of the
ardent critics then apologized to Ovshinsky? Not a one.
You can tell a true scientist from a
dogmatist easily. When the scientist
makes an error, he admits it
straightforwardly and corrects it. When the
dogmatist makes an error, you never hear a
peep from him, only more of the
same, just louder.
Understand, everyone needs a friendly
skeptic, to keep him honest and point
out his errors. Such a scientist
friend is one of the most valuable friends
one can have. But one sometimes
cannot help feeling harshly toward
"scientists" of strongly bigoted
ilk. In the long run they delay, harangue,
and suppress far more innovative science
than they allow down the pike. As
a result, science often requires 40 to 100
years to do what can be done in
four years in the proper environment, with
funding and the proper team. The
literature is full of vivid examples, as
every historian of science knows
well. Even Max Planck, at the time
the most prestigious scientist in the
world, pointed out wryly that one finally
gets a new science not by sweet
reason, but by the old diehards who so
bitterly oppose it finally dying off
and getting out of the way.
In the overunity EM systems area, it has
often appeared that we would indeed
have to wait until the "diehards"
died away. We've had more than our share
Now maybe, just maybe, an end run around
them has been accomplished -- at
least in one new area where they had failed
to set up their usual strong
The energy problems of the entire earth can
be solved in four years, anytime
the organized scientific community will
permit it and fund it.
Lee Mills et al., "Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and
Structures," U.S. Patent 6,024,935, Feb. 15, 2000 with 499
claims recognized. Randell
Lee Mills, "Energy/Matter Conversion Methods and
Structures," Australian Patent No. 668678, Nov. 20, 1991.
See also Art Rosenblum, "Randall L. Mills — New
Energy and the Cosmic Hydrino Sea," Infinite Energy, 3(17),
Dec. 1997-Jan. 1998, p. 21-34.; Eugene Mallove, "Dr. Randall
Mills and the power of BlackLight," Infinite Energy, 2(12),
Jan.-Feb. 1997, p. 21, 35, 41.
Excerpted from "On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum," IC-2000, by Tom Bearden.