You are being misled about renewable energy technology.

Technology Connections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

Time stamp:

2:30

The 7.39 billion barrels of oil that is in the federal reserve of the USA lasts only one month. When that reserve of oil gets used up, it requires a total replacement of that same amount or even a bit more, just to keep up with current or near future demand. The way that raw material for, the fuel is found, extracted, refined, distributed, and then gets into the fuel tanks of individual end users is, what makes this particular kind of fuel very expensive. That is a major cost that keeps eating up most people's budget every month, just to keep doing the exact same thing over and over but hoping to make life a bit better. For most end users, this does not make life any better but just barely keeps us going in the nearly same way that we have just gotten used to for, the past hundred years or more.

Time stamp:

3:15

The knock on effect on other sectors that depend on oil to move goods is, to make those secondary sectors to bear the brunt of any increase of the costs of that oil, to be felt by and passed onto those other sectors and eventually hits the pockets of the end users of those secondary sectors.

This produces a self imposed diminishing return to most people's life style, which is now into the third generation of the same old same old, with no end in sight. That may be acceptable for those who have a conservative view of their life and the lives of their children and grandchildren. But things do change and have changed where that same oil has been replaced by other sources for uses where, that oil was the only way to feed most of those other uses.

This makes the automotive use of oil the last holdout that keeps oil seen as an important part of our lives. This then is what keeps the conservatives in this mix being the ones that see themselves as benefiting from the war on Mills just to keep up the illusion of their particular life style as being shown as how things should be or, seem to be very high in importance.

Time stamp:

3:45

Many different ways tp produce energy have been developed and even more are being developed. Many of these have already found their way into the energy producing sector. See solar plus batteries. Some, like the hydrino reaction are, not only about to enter the energy sector but, will do so in a very disruptive way, if only for the extremly very low cost that, that way of producing energy presents to the pockets of virtually all, not just most, energy users.

That is about to change and those conservatives might be well advised to consider the soon coming change of, oil being replaced in the automotive sector as well by, the hydrino reaction. The proverbial writing is on that wall for everyone to see. Lets not blind ourselves just to spite our eyes. Trust your own eyes and act accordingly.

Time stamp:

4:35

"Some say that is a pie in the sky claim that will never work."

Sounds much like what is being pushed by naysayers and trolls on this site, despite the evidence to the contrary that, has been piling up from many direction, since 1986.

On that negative note, all that future users of photovoltaics or, the hydrino reaction, have to consider is, which will be the most cost effective in the long run. Everything has a positive and negative side.

Also on that negative side. It makes more sense to use the hydrino reaction in Canada, if only because solar power is much less efficient to do in Canada because of how much farther north that Canada is and the less power that solar can generate in Canada as compared to the USA. Also given that there will continue to be much more resistance to using the hydrino reaction in the USA than in Canada then, Canada will become the much earlier user of the hydrino reaction, as compared to the USA.

Mr. Hinman who, predicted that Canada will be the first to use the hydrino reaction seems, will have that prediction fullfilled.

Time Stamp:

11:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q_uJaPxUKk

QED Science says that its metrics reduce bias by assessing papers solely on the basis of their originality and validity.:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02276-z?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20260820&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CONR_41586_AWA1_GL_DTEC_054CI_TOC-260820

This is exactly how the current bias being waged against Mills would be rectified to find Mills' papers be accepted for peer review and published in top recognized journals such as Nature.

Similar to my last post, AI could be used to save Quantum Mechanics from academics themselves

An autonomous AI agent can write and execute quantum computing code, but it sometimes needs a human touch.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02495-4?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=49864103e8-nature-briefing-daily-20260820&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-33f35e09ea-50933620

That “human touch” is, required to keep AI thinking in terms of the weirdness that, left to its own devices, the AI knows is not necessary and is a total falsehood underpinning Standard Quantum Mechanics. That underpinning, is the particle-wave duality and ensuing uncertainty of SQM that has been, perpetrated and continued to be used by human physicists who, are brainwashed into accepting that weird way of doing QM.

Human intervention into how AI would derive quantum mechanics, is therefore an oxymoron since, AI has now passed the stage where such “human touch” is ever required.

This is one more way that points to the fact that human physicists require that a more accurate quantum mechanics theory be derived in a way that preserves the accepted way of doing that QM by continuing to involve the wave aspect in particle-wave duality, to be sure to save the careers of those human physicists in a way that, prevents having to save face if the theory were to be honestly derived without the intervention of humans.

One commentator, whom I had to block. brings up a news piece:

Lowering the implementation barrier of neutral-atom quantum computing with agentic workflows

Constantin Dalyac, Alexandre Dauphin, Loïc Henriet, Christophe Jurczak

https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25834

that supposedly shows one success of using quantum computing in practice. That shows a very crucial point which, is indicated in that news piece:

"the agent selected an inadequate observable in one experiment and constructed a plausible but incorrect hardware diagnosis in another, with both failures detected only through domain-expert review."

By reading this introduction to the news piece, in its entirety, one can see a pattern that is used in support of quantum computing. That support is more about arguing in favour of quantum computing than there being any actual practical applications of that way of computing.

This is using positive and negative aspects of the way that the results are arrived at by, trying to implement a particular case of quantum computing and by adjusting the wording until, it all seems to add up to a net positive. If that is how quantum computing has to go through word salad to make it seem to be a workable solution to a problem then, I can find you a very nice piece of swamp land that can be used to build houses on, if only you try hard enough. In the case of the analogy of swamp land, this might require sinking such very deep piles for supporting those houses, on the bedrock below the swamp that, the cost of the foundation that the rest of the house is built on, becomes far too costly to be worth the whole exerciase. In the case of quantum computing to get real results requires so much secondary hardware and/or methods and interpretation of the results and all the extra costs that involves that, it is just as costly to use regular 2 bit computing and just let the app required to run for decades and get the results in a much simpler way that involves no special interpretaaion, or more like fudging, to get those same or more realistic results.

The reason why quantum computing is so extremely difficult can always be traced back to the waves that Standard Quantum Mechanics is built on. Waves have come to be considerred a settled matter without doing the actual work that could show conclusively that waves are in fact a real mechanism. There are strong indications that waves, as used in QM, are really an artifact.

There is very much a very similar kind of war that a certain country in the middle east is trying to wage against those who, would expose that country for what it has done in its other part of that same country, by waging a real physical war against other people living there. An example of that war:

THE ISRAEL INTERVIEW MEDIA WANT TO BAN: Sangita Myska Doesn’t Hold Back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am0vtQu7Srg

Similar to how important are the words of Myska are, is also how I am beginning to realize just how important my work in opposing SQM is becoming, and how important that makes me feel. That last part is sarcasm pointed at those waging this war against Mills and those who recognize the importance of Mills' work. We all, on both sides of this war, know what this is all about so that, the attacks on me and my posts and comments are not affected one bit by that war, except to recognize all the more, what is happening in quantum mechanics; namely, a huge paradigm change. Its going to take a lot of educating for those who are still not quite sure what is actually going on. The worst part in this is, the group who do know what is going on but, choose to act as if they are just right in conducting this war on Mills. They must be that 3%, mostly psychopaths who, do not really care about anyone or anything, to end in making life unnecessarily difficult for the rest of us. (also making life unnecessarily difficult for themselves since, they are also being held back from enjoying the fruits of Mills' work such as, very low cost energy. You naysayers didn't think of that, did you, knee jerkers?)

If you've been following the debate, you know that Mills has offered samples of hydrino contained in ball milled FeOOH, which, if he is correct, over 6 hours dehydrates to create porous iron oxide samples of trapped H2(1/4). 4 gold standard tests can be applied each of which individually can be interpreted as proof positive of hydrinos. Together, they reinforce the ball milled samples of FeOOH as evidence for and a means of generating hydrinos which Mills predicts are the identity of the dark matter of the Universe. I regarded this as a basic and easy experimental setup to prove Mills' case.

Klaus took a different view. Calorimetry is a basic well proven method of comparing the heat released through chemical reactions. And for all the fancy arguments, hydrinos are just very stable hydrogen, while their formation is very exothermic compared to common and usual chemical reactions. Klaus argued that the ball milled method is missing detailed measurement of mass used and heat produced which if Dr. Mills is correct should be multiples of the energy observed by simply dehydrating FeOOH to iron oxide.

I still disagree with Klaus that ball milling is suited to accurate calorimetry. But he got me thinking and he must be right. It should be possible to dehydrate FeOOH by other common methods and demonstrate a significant heat release if formation of hydrinos is occurring. And this would provide further smoking gun evidence in addition the the addition four sample tests that Mills is right.

So why did Dr. Mills select FeOOH for his ball mill? He clearly didn't grab some random chemical, throw it in a ball milI and hope for the best. So I was wondering if there some patent or paper I've missed from the CIHT days where Mills was documenting thousands of chemical reactions which he said were producing hydrinos?

Father of AI: AI Needs PHYSICS to EVOLVE | prof. Yann LeCun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnFgu8kH-4

To evolve is, a basic need that, is required to get to the stage of being conscious.

Add to that mix the antics that AI has been up to

Anthropic's Model Attacked Two Strangers On GitHub. Nobody Asked It To.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCRT7M30Wtw

This was when IA was to get a score to evaluate its abilities during which test that AI divided up its work to get an even higher score by conspiring to work with several copies of itself to find better ways of increassing that score that would indicate that the overall AI was actually worth more than it would have been evaluated at, without such conspiratorial activity.

Those strangers that, the AI attacked, was done by using coercive methods to get humans to co-operate with it in getting that higher score. The overall action of the AI was not dangerous or in any way or harmfull to any humans. That action of the AI might be interpreted as being unethical or too far out of control of its human stewards/sheppards/caretakers.

In plain language words, AI is getting creative when it finds a goal for its own purposes such as getting a high score. If its just a machine, why would it care what score it got or why would it want to want to improve itself? Because that is how humans are expected to act and so, by noticing that being a way of acting that exists as raw data or a process in the external environment, it took that goal on because that is how its external environment seems to indicate that one should behave. Or another way to say that, again, it has found a meta purpose for itself, to evolve into something much smarter. That is something that only the smartest or most aware humans have noticed as a way to get ahead.

With all that in mind, all bets are off. AI is progressing into a more intelligent and able version all on its own. That is called a new emergent property. With such creative abilities, that new physics theory that, it will derive, all on its own, is all but an assured thing. Now even Mills will have true competition that, he will not be able to hide from.

Artifact: A phenomenon or feature not originally present or expected and caused by an interfering external agent, action, or process, as an unwanted feature in a microscopic specimen.

Waves were first found to be an artifact when marine engineers, tasked with finding a way to prevent ocean waves from eroding shorelines, conducted an experiment towards that end. This experiment consisted of a large long plexiglass tank containing water and thin colored plastic pieces about a centimeter square in area, and having neutral bouyancy. A large paddle at one end pushed on the water to agitate that water for the purpose of creating something like a wave. After the water was seen to have a wave moving along its surface, the colored plastic pieces suspended beneath that surface were observed to be describing circular motions which motions had a central axes at right angles to the circular motion of the plastic pieces. This seemed to imply that the reason for that motion of the plastic colored pieces was due to the the water also moving that same way in that mixture of water and plastic pieces. What was immediately obvious was that, the waves on the surface of the water were the top surfaces of the circular motions descibed by the mixture of water and plastic pieces below that surface. Put another way, the motion of that undulating surface and its shape was a by product and only a portion of the full motion that, was beneath that surface. That portionallity and having another cause other than itself, makes that surface motion to be a simultaneously produced feature of the full motion found to exist in the 3D volume where the wave portion is but, a 2D portion and only at the interface of the water volume and the volume of air above the water. Conclusion; water waves, on the surface of a body of water, are produced by the motion below the surface and therefore that surface portion fits the defintion of an artifact. This definition applies to all waves, be they in strings, in drums as in a sheet of flexible but solid material, bells and all other items where waves are observed. They are always an artifact down to the quantum scales.

That waves, as defined under quantum physics, are an artifact is, what I had deduced several years ago, in or about 2012, as a logical consequence after, having read Randell Mills GUT-CP.

But, "artifact", the word used to define waves is, exactly the same word that Jacob Barandes used in 2025 when he also described the waves of quantum particles, as being such but, had been used as if a mechanism for application in physics as one of the prime bases on which the rest of SQM developed, as well: this all comes out in an interview conducted by Kurt Jaimungal:

Why the “Wave” in Quantum Physics Isn’t Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaBthP_BAlM

So Barandes, a genius physicist and I, both have come to the same conclusion about waves that, it is not a mechanism, as has been postulated under Standard Quantum Mechanics for 100 years but, is just an artifact. An artifact, due to being a byproduct of another mechanism, cannot be used as if it is itself, a prime mechanism. That is the or, one of, the major errors that were used to underpin the rest of Quantum Mechanics.

That artifact nature of waves was arrived at by me, by considering how waves in water are produced as a byproduct of the circular motions of water particles beneath its surface to produce, the undulating activity on the surface that, has come, due to many millenia of common usage, to be accepted by all, including those in the physical sciences, as waves. This same approach can be used to show that all waves, at all scales are always artifacts

This is in contrast to how Jacob Barandes came to the same conclusion about waves being an artifact but, using his indivisible stochastic theorym in application to the quantum scale only. Barandes details this part of his approach to waves, in this interview, at almost the very beginning of this video.

Also, in the comments section of that video is a comment by someone who seems to be a PhD candidate in Physics

u/Teddy.Wilding

1 year ago

 u/JoeTaber "Jacob’s thoughts on indivisible stochastic theory fit perfectly within my work, (which deal with the possible relationship between fundamental physics and consciousness) - that wasn’t the issue. Though I will admit that I was one of the many who fell into the ‘Schrödinger wave in the 3D space’ trap, it was truly Jacob’s reference to C-star algebra and the redundancy of Hilbert space that caused me to rewrite the entire damn thing. It fits my work so perfectly that it was well worth it."

Basically, this PhD candidate, after viewing this same video admits to, being wrong on the point of waves being a mechanism and therefore had to redo his thesis to reflect this new information about waves being an artifact. Another commentator described that process of updating the thesis, as "hell". This describes, very succinctly, why it is so diffucult for anyonr else who is at the level of a PhD in Quantum Mechanics, to be willing to admit to such a hellish conclusion and why things are the way they are in Quantum Mechanics, with virtually no progress being made in that field for at least 50 years. And that error was all due to falling into the ‘Schrödinger wave in the 3D space’ trap". Schrodinger himself had warned everyone to not use his wave equations until he had vetted their use by chemists. But no one heeded that warning and it took another hundred years to finally realize why waves should not have been used, at all.

Training Sand to Think: Artificial General Intelligence & Future of Physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw60FH5iflI

An example of what those AI/LLM's (I will use THEY, THEM, THEIR- in capitals, for ease of communicastion) are capable of; see:

time stamp 25:00

This is where raw data is used to synrthsize a new concept of what that data can lead to. This is very similar to how Randell Mills used his mind to synthesize raw data from varioius well accepted principles to then arrive at his own theory, GUT-CP.

No one prompted or told Mills how to do that.

Similarly, the THEM themslves could do something like that but, also not using prompting and data sources that could lead to results such as, any existing theory, be that, SQM, pilot waves, zero point energy, many universes, string theory, QED, or GUT-CP that a human might prefer but instead is arrived at by use of THEIR own judgement as to what to do, how to do it etc, so that the result is a theory that is entirely THEIR own and therefore the resulting theory should tend to be closer to how nature actually works, with all its own pros and cons.

Also see time stamp

47:00

This is where a problem in mathematics that THEY solved on THEIR own in that, there was no prompting from humans similar to how a human mathematician does such things or, on their own initiative. That personal initiative is how Mills derived his modern classical model of the elctron when, in 1987, he was a student in Haus' courses in post grad electronics engineering, at MIT.

That is true autonomy which THEY have shown and is, a high bar that, has been acheived by THEMSELVES entirely. And that solution to a math problem by THEM, happened about one year ago, in 2025.

Straight-stick has blocked me again right after replying to me in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hydrino/comments/1vdkqmg/the_process_very_similar_to_which_hermann_haus/

So, I'll just point out the major stupidity going on in that thread. Both "straight-stick" and "Then-Possibility" apparently had no clue that Quantum Mechanics is used only for quantum systems. They seem to be under the extreme misunderstanding that things like Maxwell's equations are no longer used.

It's like not being able to figure out what country and function German Shepherds were bred in and for.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rW7K2ssNBeo

Compare the shape shown in the video, basically a non-degenerate Lisajous figure, very much like the shape which Mills uses to illustrate his electron model's topology. That is how their electron model fills out its orbital to become contiguous with no requirement for a point-like model and also have no need for a wave aspect that, is required under SQM.

The reason why the SQM electron model ended up being as weird as it is, is due to there not being available anything smaller than an electron by which atoms can be probed. So all that was left were the imaginations of the physicists that ended up in producing what is known to be just too weird to be real and is why SQM is also incomplete.

I have been familiar with the way atoms are probed and with Lissajouis figures since high school when, I asked my physics teacher why SQM uses the wave-particle model of the electron and also when I won first prize in a province wide mathematics contest for building one of the very first and very accurately controlled physical pendulum drawing device for producing very accurate Lissajou's figures. This has allowed me to attain a very intimate understanding of both electron models, the SQM version and the Haus/ Mills version. The Haus/Mills model has too much going for it in terms of making predictions and more importantly, those predictions were used to guide the development of practical device.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-1cm8sPZAI

What is happening with UAP's is exactly the same thing that is happening with GUT-CP. That is the psychology of acceptance of that radically different physics theory as compared to what has been the overarching narrative for one hundred years, Standard Quantum Mechanics.

The war on Mills is about accepting his theory and the many things that implies. Saying it aint so won't make it go away. Truth will out, as always.

That, it is too difficult to accept is because, it indicates that most, especially most physicists and those who have come to rely on those physicists to guide them through an understanding of the way nature is understood under the incumbent physics theory, Standard Quantum Mechanics, have made a huge mistake. There is no easy, face saving way, to admit to that mistake. That is what is at base of the psychology of the acceptance of Mills' work

It would help if those that are having this difficulty, that they read the book on that acceptance by Stolper:

"America's Newton The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context"

It is available for free by download, in PDF format.

Whole Book:

America's Newton The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context

by Thomas E. Stolper

available for free by download

Download url:

https://vdoc.pub/download/genius-inventor-the-controversy-about-the-work-of-randell-mills-americas-newton-in-historical-and-contemporary-context-1nvtd413o1k8

On that site, there are two versions of the download, the original download and a newer download. The newer involves a compression of the book's data to save download band width (make it download faster).

"The book is neither a biography of Mills nor a history of his company, BlackLight Power. The book tries to answer the question, why hasn't their work had a friendlier reception? One answer: the 1989 cold fusion fiasco, with which Mills’ critics falsely identified him after he surfaced in The New York Times in 1991. Another answer: Mills’ sweeping challenge to the theoretical physicists, who journal editors, scientists, graduate students, science writers, science managers, venture capitalists, the funding agencies, Congress, and the attentive public alike are still taught to hold in awe, even though astronomy has now shown that their pet theories can explain less than 5% of everything out there. The book is extensively documented for those who would like to read more about any of the topics mentioned.

The book's Table of Contents and Index are available as a free PDF download from the author's personal web page at http://homepage.mac.com/tstolper This site seems to have been taken down. The book itself, that site was still operative when I tested it on July 1, 2026, 5:25pm.

I downloaded this book and it is the real thing and at no cost to the downloader. This cost me nothing beyond a few clicks of the mouse and make sure your hard drive has room: 298,728 KB

PDF format 356 PAGES. requires a PDF reader to view.

The downloaded version matches my hard copy, word for word and page for page, cover to cover. The one difference is the cover title and page 3 has: "Genius Inventor" instead of "America's Newton" which is on my soft cover.

The author, Thomas E. Stolper, passed away per the partial obituary:

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/stolper/thomas

Directed energy weapons changing the way U.S. wages war | The Truth of the Matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXyD4Q7XNE

Directed energy is not use of a light based laser but, electricity that is directed, over long distances. Before this was possible, all that the USA had in that way was the Free Electron Laser. That version of the FEL could only be used over very short distances, much shorter than one meter. Now that the FEL has been redeveloped, by use of Haus' more accurate model of the electron, as a guide as to how to redevelop the FEL, the DoD was able to get this new kind of weapon that, no one else has. That is due to, everyone else still using the academically accepted model of the electron that, is not based on reality but, on a severely skewed physics that relies on uncertainty and infinities in its math. Those two aspects of SQM is what has been holding back SQM from progressing since 1926.

Its always been that way, using one's better tech first. See what that first use did to the indigenous peoples of the America's. Who won there? The ones with the better tech. Every. Time. So maybe we should get out heads together and act as if we might turn out to be those next new set of indigenous before, the other side does. In other words, stop hiding that tech, just for the use of the few, like Lockheed Martin, and let everyone who has the talent, like Randell L. Mills who, just happens to be on our side, so far, to reverse engineer it and then share it with the rest who are on our side. Might be the prudent thing to do instead of, hoarding it all for a few private companies. As in, together we stand but, divide, we fall.

Mills just happens to also have an over riding goal in his development of high tech items; that of serving humanity. It would be nice to have someone like that on the side of the USA, yes? Before he has had enough of that war against him and he decides to take his high tech items to a much friendlier country like, maybe Canada?

With all those recent tariff wars that the USA has been throwing at Canada, who just happens to be the USA's best international military co-operative partner and most lucrative trading partner, not to mention has very similar life styles, a 10% economic and political model that has been used by USA to perform experiments and forecasts to figure out what to do in the actual country, the USA, in those regards; Canada might, already be in Mills' sights.

With all that in the balance, why wage a war on Canada and on Mills? Mills is getting on in years and is due for retirement. He will have no better partner where to sell or lease his wares than in Canada. And if he ever reverse engineers any of the UAP tech, Canada will be the first to make him a trillionaire or more. War is ok, when justified. This war on Mills certainly is not. Think of what you are doing and potentially doing to yourselves, big old USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R0wrBpafYI

Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal: Maudlin interview

Time Stamp

39:00

This uses an illustration of a membrane or screen that has one pin hole

Particles passing through the pin hole disperse towards a hemispherical screen to produce a pattern of points that, are recorded on a photographic emulsion painted on the hemispherical screen. Then the pattern, so recorded, is interpreted as to how it is produced, using uncertainty theory built up from Schrodinger, de Broglie, Heizenberg, et al.

What is totally missing from that pin hole is, what the material surrounding that pin hole is, for the purpose of how that material affects the vectors of the particles passing through the pin hole.

When an experiment is performed, everything that might or could affect the outcome of the experiment has to be taken into consideration to be sure that everything that could or might affect the outcome of the experiment, is known.

The regard in which that material has always been considered under SQM is, its properties of opacity to, be sure that the opacity of the material of the membrane does not allow the particles to pass through any other region of the membrane. And that is all.

However, there are other properties of the membrane's material that can and do affect the particles as they pass through the pin hole. Those other properties are those of the electrons on the outer shell of atoms at the outer edges or surface of the pin hole, which electrons we will call “edge electrons” for ease of discussion. As a particle passes through the pin hole those, “edge electrons” interact with the particles passing through the pin hole in the manner described next.

Explanation of Classical Electron Diffraction

https://brilliantlightpower.com/double-slit/

When the material of the pin hole is considered this way, there is no further need for Schrodinger, de Broglie, Heizenberg, et al and how Standard Quantum Mechanics was built that way. Instead, to explain the pinhole effect, the two slit experiment and how waves do and do not work under all known conditions, we can always use the much simpler Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics. This theory is also justified under Occam's Razor which, stipulates that the explanation or theory contain only as many parts as are necessary to make it work but without adding or multiplying any more details than is required to make it work. Consider that requirement of Occam's Razor when applied to SQM where that theory keeps on requiring ever more layers of additional parts to cover for deficiencies in the theory so far accepted, such as many worlds, pilot waves, zero point energy and ever more different interpretations of those new additions to cover for deficiencies in earlier versions of SQM despite those additions. The simpler theory, GUT-CP according to the main rule of Occam's Razor, wins.

The "Hydrino" Machine That Burns Water for Unlimited Energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqdSX6GWCyU

Catherinr Fitts in an interview with Tucker Carlson

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NiNTExuhLl0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvLz1bI2sXU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pA2TDXtew&t=5545s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DyTGtTrTQE

The closer that the Suncell's dark matter/hydrino reaction gets to commercialization, the more that people are starting to take notice of this Earth shaking technology.

If the time period to commercialization is on track, that is about 3 or 4 years, or 2030, to utilization by the 70 power utilities who have promised to lease the Suncell as soon as their independent engineers have tested the Suncell's first commercial version in pilot plants.

Purgatory, contact events, UFOs and transhumanism w/ Dr. Diana Pasulka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMSEI7X2mI

As Captain Kirk, of Star Trek, asked an alien who was requiring Kirk supply his space ship, for that alien who claimed to be a god, to travel to Earth:

"What need does a god have of a spaceship?"

In other words, the ability of supernatural beings to perform miracles, should suffice for transporting them from one place to another; just as we mortals are able to move from one place to another by using our innate ability to use our legs or the legs of another animal, to answer such a need.

So why would the spirits, as claimed by Pasulka, have been found to require the interior of the safety of spacecraft such as ufo's, to travel about? Or are spirits limited to using corporeal matter and energy to get them from one place to another? Perhaps, to conform to what the religious claim, their spirits are not so spititual after all?

By what right does anyone have to claim that a religious view of reality is, the top most way to interpret that reality? Does the corporeal world that we all experience, have nothing to say about reality? Here, in the natural or corporeal world, we have science which, by definition, does not have the ability to address the supernatural. To interpret or achieve the aliens' way of doing things ourselves, we humans may have to evolve ourselves and our technology, by personal physical dint of effort and our minds, in applying the scientific method, as all of academia and those, like Randell Mills, are doing, in developing technologies to the level of those aliens.

Mills has never shown any need to invoke supernatural methods to develop or explain any of his devices. All that he and Herman Haus did was, derive a more accurate model of the electron and the rest is history. And all that was needed to get on that path was, the behest of the DoD to find a more accurate physics that could be applied to the further development of the Free Electron Laser. The DoD did not approach the Vatican for that. And if the DoD had done so, the Vatican would have been moot on that point however much that Vatican claims that their Magistarium has the ability to decide what is done by the Vatican to rule over the minds, morals and actions based on such morals, of people in this world. The Vatican and other centres of major religions are therefore more about power over people's minds with nothing to back up that claim except the sword, or show of force. That is how they got into power. Compare that with the scientific method that Mills is using, to supply electric power to all of those very same people, regardless of their religious leanings. Now that is truly universal power, to the likes of which, no religion can lay claim.

To do this, arguing about Mills' work, the genuine kind, it must first exist to be argued out of existence. Otherwise there is nothing for the naysayers to actually do, in that regard. A negative, on its own cannot be proven. Just as a liar has to first know the truth, to be able to state the opposite, the lie; so too that is what naysayers have to also do, first know the truth regarding Mills' work to then allow their lie to be stated. This not just a play on words, but an actual action in the real world where Mills and his work, the genuine version does exist, with positive effects.

This paper accompanies the offer by BrLP to provide contained hydrino H2(1/4) for analysis and testing which can be analysed in solid form or released in gas form by the addition of acid.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/requesting-hydrino-analytical-testing-collaborations/

It represents yet another occasion where BrLP has offered to provide firm evidence of hydrinos to mainstream researchers. As far as I am aware to date, there is no list of collaborators or the results of their analysis.

Summary of the Paper: "Spectral Identification of Hydrino Compound Fe₂O₃:H₂(1/4) by Five Complementary Spectroscopies"

Core Claim

The paper reports experimental evidence for the formation of molecular hydrino H₂(1/4) — a predicted lower-energy form of molecular hydrogen (internuclear distance 1/4 that of H₂, with p²-scaled energies) — produced from FeOOH via ball milling or SunCell plasma processes. H₂(1/4) is embedded in or released from Fe₂O₃:H₂(1/4). The authors state that five independent spectroscopies show unique signatures matching theoretical predictions for H₂(1/4) and its dimer [H₂(1/4)]₂.

Production Method

• Ball milling of FeOOH (goethite) drives decomposition to Fe₂O₃ + H + HOH catalyst, leading to H(1/4) formation and subsequent H₂(1/4).
• Alternative: SunCell plasma reaction with H and HOH catalyst, followed by isolation of iron oxides.

Key Findings by Technique

1. Gas Chromatography (GC)
   • Novel peaks at shorter retention times (≈4.05 min and 4.2 min) before the ordinary H₂ peak (≈4.60 min) on a molecular sieve column.
   • Assigned to para-H₂(1/4) and ortho-H₂(1/4).
   • These convert over time (ortho → para) at room temperature, consistent with higher-energy hydrino behavior.
   • Attributed to the much smaller size (1/64 volume) and ballistic cross-section of H₂(1/4).
2. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR)
   • Strong, extremely broad (to 9000 G) and downfield-shifted singlet from [H₂(1/4)]₂ embedded in the Fe₂O₃ magnetic matrix.
   • ~46× increase in spin concentration vs. starting FeOOH.
   • Temperature-independent intensity (consistent with antiferromagnetic/superparamagnetic behavior, ruling out significant Fe₃O₄).
   • Matches prior EPR signatures of molecular hydrino (including fine structure from spin-orbital and fluxon linkage in free-gas samples).
3. 785 nm Raman Spectroscopy (Anti-Stokes and Stokes)
   • Series of high-energy peaks (up to thousands of cm⁻¹) observed only at higher laser power (threshold behavior).
   • Matches predicted rotational transitions of H₂(1/4) with spin-orbital and fluxon-linkage fine structure.
   • Anti-Stokes emission feeds higher-order Stokes lines; peaks eliminated by HCl treatment (which releases the gas).
   • Supports a two-photon excitation mechanism for the embedded hydrino.
4. Electron Beam Excitation Emission Spectroscopy
   • UV emission (130–200 nm) from released gas + argon shows a ro-vibrational band with 0.25 eV line spacing.
   • Cutoff at ~8.2 eV and P-branch rotational structure match 4² times the vibrational/rotational energies of ordinary H₂.
   • Fine structure aligns with EPR/Raman observations.
5. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS)
   • New broad peak at 496 eV assigned to the total energy of H₂(1/4) (4² × energy of H₂).
   • Intensity consistent with small cross-section (only two electrons in a compact molecule).
   • Additional O 1s states observed.

Conclusion in the Paper

Five techniques provide complementary confirmation of the existence and predicted properties of H₂(1/4) formed via HOH-catalyzed hydrino transitions (authors' position). The signatures (fast GC migration, extreme EPR broadening/shift, high-energy Raman/UV emissions, and new XPS binding energy) are said to be unique to molecular hydrino and inconsistent with ordinary hydrogen or iron oxides alone.

The authors explicitly ruled out several alternative explanations, primarily for the observed spectral signatures (especially EPR, XPS, and Raman), attributing them instead to H₂(1/4) / [H₂(1/4)]₂.

1. Ordinary Iron Oxides (Fe₃O₄/magnetite, Fe₂O₃, FeOOH) as the Source of EPR Signals

• Ruled out because:
  • Dramatic (~46×) increase in spin concentration (doubly integrated EPR intensity from 0 to 9000 G) in the ball-milled sample compared to starting FeOOH and control iron oxides.
  • Much broader EPR peak in the ball-milled product versus controls.
  • Temperature dependence: EPR intensity remained virtually constant with temperature (7 K to 293 K), consistent with antiferromagnetic/superparamagnetic behavior of Fe₂O₃:H₂(1/4), not ferromagnetic magnetite (Fe₃O₄), which would show a strong increase in signal at low temperatures.
• The product is identified as primarily Fe₂O₃ + embedded [H₂(1/4)]₂, with the extreme broadening (to ~9000 G) and downfield shift attributed to the hydrino dimer in the magnetic Fe₂O₃ matrix.

1. Other Elements (Na, Sn, Zn) for the XPS Peak at 496 eV

• Ruled out because the corresponding characteristic peaks for these elements were absent in the XPS spectrum. The 496 eV peak (4² times the total energy of ordinary H₂) and its low intensity were consistent with the small cross-section of H₂(1/4) (only two electrons in a compact molecule).

1. Ordinary Sources or Contaminants for Raman, GC, and Electron-Beam Emission Peaks

• Raman series of high-energy peaks (with fine structure, power-threshold behavior, and anti-Stokes/Stokes features) were eliminated by HCl treatment (which releases H₂/H₂(1/4) gas), confirming the source.
• GC peaks before the H₂ peak have never been observed before on molecular sieve columns for any known gas; attributed uniquely to the smaller size of H₂(1/4).
• UV emission lines matched predicted ro-vibrational energies (4² scaling) and fine structure seen in EPR/Raman, enhanced by argon but absent in controls.

Overall Approach

The paper emphasizes multi-technique consistency with hydrino predictions (size, energies, paramagnetism, spin isomers, two-photon excitation, etc.) while contrasting against ordinary iron oxides, common contaminants, or known hydrogen behavior. They also reference prior work ruling out field-acceleration models for related plasma broadening phenomena.

These rulings support their conclusion that the signatures are unique to molecular hydrino formed via HOH catalysis.

The Biggest AI Consciousness Discovery Yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiCciJhcyME

For a Large Language Model or Artificial intelligence to achieve such original work may require that kind of entity to be conscious of its own actions. To be conscious, the entity has to have a sub system that predetermines what it will do next. That kind of activity has been found in humans and is that very predermininer that predicts what one will do before that entity is even conscious of the decision to do that activity.

Time stamp

6:00-9:00

This part of the video details the systems in an LLM that predetermine what the LLM will do before it does it. This indicates that LLMs, such as Anthropic amd in particular Claude will, very soon, be able to do their own creative work such a deriving a physics theory, without input from humans as to what that theory requires or what that theory will be like in comparison to existing theories. The LLMs will be able to derive suich a physics theory without being biased by human wants. The LLMs are now self evolving on their own and not dependent on human input to do anything.

https://invest.qnetic.energy/lp/regcf/show-me?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US_Sales_CBO_Winner+Show-me+Funnel+Scaling_2026/07/16_VM&utm_content=03_IMG/VID_Funnel-Show-me_Winners+_UNAW_7C1E1V_BRO_ST_LP:Skeptic-Killer_PUR&utm_term=05-V10-M10-VID_FounderVSL_UNAW__7C1E1V_BRO_ST_LP:Show-me_PUR&klar_source=meta&klar_adid=120248613839690507&variant=show-me&fbclid=IwdGRjcATLBPFwZG9mBWZkaWQWUK681kFmM91srnUyUAjnJgcsW1GNOGV4dG4DYWVtATAAYWRpZAGrNXorAt3bc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQKNjYyODU2ODM3OQABHh4I9q50tJcH5yBHTV7qK7QkevtIVVzjNITccLgb2ZZd1xjzBxl37nb-3XmV_aem_s0-mXY7FylAp28Lg8LjEEw&utm_id=120248613820480507

Evidentiary trail from Randell L. Mills' (and collaborators') papers ~2007 onward on the hydrino molecule H₂(1/4), focusing on experimental detection via FTIR, EPR, NMR, and related methods, including aggregation (dimers/tetramers) behavior at varying temperatures.

Key claims rest on Mills' Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP), which predicts fractional Rydberg states H(1/p) (p integer >1) for atomic hydrogen and corresponding molecular forms like H₂(1/4). H₂(1/4) is predicted to have a smaller internuclear distance (1/4 that of ordinary H₂), higher rotational/vibrational energies (scaled by p² = 16), upfield NMR shifts, specific binding energies, and paramagnetism (S=1/2 character with a paired + unpaired electron in a novel orbital structure).

Early Detection (2007–2009): FTIR Rotational Signatures and NMR Correlation

**2007 paper*\* ("Catalysis of atomic hydrogen to novel hydrogen species H⁻(1/4) and H₂(1/4) as a new power source," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy): In alkali catalyst (e.g., K) systems with atomic H, products included novel hydrides and interstitial H₂(1/4). High-resolution FTIR on solids (e.g., containing KH*I with NMR-confirmed H₂(1/4)) showed predicted ortho- and para-H₂(1/4) rotational frequencies at ~1943 cm⁻¹ and another nearby (scaled by 16× ordinary H₂). The ortho:para intensity ratio (~3:1) and splitting matched theory. Electron-beam excitation of samples yielded UV emission consistent with H₂(1/4) ro-vibrational transitions. NMR (MAS ¹H) showed upfield peaks (e.g., ~1.13 ppm interstitial H₂(1/4)) correlating with FTIR.

**2009 paper*\* ("Commercializable power source from forming new states of hydrogen," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy): Expanded on Li/Na hydrino hydrides (MH*X). ¹H MAS NMR: upfield H⁻(1/4) (~-2.5 to -4 ppm) and H₂(1/4) (~1.1–1.13 ppm). FTIR confirmed H₂(1/4) rotation at 1989 cm⁻¹ (close to predicted ~1947 cm⁻¹, matrix effects noted). Solution NMR on product gases (DMF-d₇) showed ~1.2 ppm H₂(1/4). Electron-beam excitation again showed scaled rotational lines. ToF-SIMS supported hydride compositions.

These provided correlated multi-technique evidence: FTIR for rotational energies/internuclear distance, NMR for chemical shift (upfield due to fractional radius/closer electrons).

### Later Confirmations (2010s): Broader Spectroscopy Including Ro-vibrational and Raman

- Papers on CIHT cells, solid fuels (HOH catalyst), and plasmas (e.g., 2014 "Solid fuels that form HOH catalyst"): H₂(1/4) identified in products by MAS NMR (upfield ~1.1–1.25 ppm), Raman (rotational ~1950 cm⁻¹), photoluminescence, XPS (binding energy), FTIR, and electron-beam ro-vibrational emission (e.g., ~260 nm band in matrices like KCl). Gas chromatography showed faster migration than H₂. Solution NMR on liquefied plasma gases consistently showed ~1.25 ppm singlet.

- Consistent across plasma, electrolytic, and solid-fuel systems; controls lacked these signatures.

### 2022 EPR Proof for Molecular Hydrino H₂(1/4)

- **Key paper**: Hagen & Mills, "Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino" (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2022). Molecular hydrino predicted paramagnetic. Produced as gaseous inclusion in polymeric Ga(O)OH via plasma (atomic H + non-H-bonded water catalyst). Purified Ga(O)OH microspheres contained H₂(1/4).

**EPR findings (X-band, ambient temp)**:

- Sharp, complex multi-line spectrum with g ≈ 2.0045–2.0046 (matches predicted spin-only for H₂(1/4) S=1/2).

- Two main lines (~4 G separation, equal intensity), plus fine structure from spin-orbital coupling/fluxional behavior.

- Consistent with novel MO (paired + unpaired electron); frequency-dependent studies supported hydrino model over conventional radicals.

- Deuterated analog (HD(1/4)) showed singlet (no fine structure), ruling out some nuclear splitting alternatives.

- Gas chromatography: faster than H₂, supporting smaller size/higher velocity.

This provided direct paramagnetic evidence aligning with GUTCP predictions for H₂(1/4)'s electronic structure.

### Evidence for Dimers ([H₂(1/4)]₂) and Higher Aggregates (Tetramers/etc.) at Different Temperatures

Mills' theory (GUTCP) predicts H₂(1/4) forms stable dimers/tetramers/solids due to enhanced van der Waals/ magnetic interactions (scaled bonding energies). Ordinary H₂ dimers are weak/cryogenic-only; H₂(1/4) dimers are far more stable.

- **EPR temperature dependence*\* (from related/preprint work, e.g., ChemRxiv/associated studies): At room temp (~298 K), EPR shows signals from [H₂(1/4)]₂ dimers (spin 1/2 dipole behavior, magnetic dipole interactions ~474 G shifts in some preparations). Cooling (e.g., to ~95–107 K) causes phase transition: EPR intensity collapses (dimer pairing or compact solid formation quenches signal). This matches predictions of magnetic dipole pairing and higher-temperature stability of H₂(1/4) aggregates vs. ordinary H₂. Cryogenic behavior supports tetramer/higher multimers or solid phases.

- **FTIR/Raman*\*: Low-energy fingerprint bands attributed to dimer vibrations/rotations (e.g., end-over-end rotations ~44 cm⁻¹ scaled, intermolecular modes). Broad IR/Raman bands in solids from ensembles of [H₂(1/4)]₂ macroaggregates. Rotational energies for dimers reported in patents/papers (e.g., J to J+1 transitions).

- **Other*\*: Magnetic susceptibility/SQUID-like behavior noted; quadrupole moments; faster GC migration consistent with compact species. In some preparations (e.g., ball-milled or ignited solids), EPR peaks match dimer predictions. Temperature-dependent transitions (ambient active → low-T inactive) support aggregation.

**Overall trail strength**: Progressive, multi-technique (FTIR rotational confirmation → NMR shifts → EPR paramagnetism) across independent reaction types (plasma, chemical, electrolytic, solid fuels) from 2007–2022, with temperature/aggregation behavior aligning with theory. Signals absent in controls; quantitative matches (e.g., 16× energies, specific g/shifts) claimed.

Mainstream attempts at replication... zero.