Are Hydrinos For Real?

Is This For Real?

Ok, these folks:

claim to be revolutionizing just about everything, but especially power production, by turning hydrogen into a form they call “hydrinos” at a lower quanum level, a fraction of the usual base state.

They seem to assert that mixing a bit of hydrogen in with a nobel gas and hitting it with a bit of microwaves makes is very hot (per the abstract of a paper linked below). Excess energy out. Now this sets off my BS-o-meter big time. But digging through their site they have a section that references papers the look to be in peer reviewed form at relatively normal science paper sites:

Like this one that is at Science Direct

They also claim a university has verified their net energy claim in a PDF you can get.

So I’m in a quandary. On the one hand it looks like real “perpetual motion changes everything!!” with hand waving BS-o-Meter stuff. On the other hand it would take one heck of a lot of skill and work to hack a site together enough to simulate all this (including what acts like real links to real sites). So I’m left wondering:

Is this for real?

The physics community seems to think he has real theories, but is split over any truth they might contain:

And this implies he has really published (but that it might be junk).

Wikipedia is similarly split, but a bit skeptical:

And these folks seem to be an aggregator without much comment:

Anyone who can access the papers (i.e. has Science Direct type account) or has the needed real physics background to check in to this is invited to please post a comment saying if this is real, or just BS…

(The rest of us are invited to indulge in rampant unfounded speculation and wide spread puzzlement 8-)

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Earth Sciences and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Are Hydrinos For Real?

  1. anna v says:

    hi there

    I would answer in the negative, from perusing

    4. Conclusion
    In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both
    within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and
    within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several
    serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited
    states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we
    found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum
    mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them.
    Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests
    that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be
    reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the
    experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the
    experimental results presented by Mills et al, it would be helpful if these were independently
    reproduced by some other experimental groups.


  2. E.M.Smith says:

    Hello Anna,

    Thanks! So it looks like they reviewed his work and found the theoretical part full of holes (at least, inconsistencies and omissions) and are skeptical about the existence proof of his experiments due to them being only available from biased sources.

    Not calling it BS, but also not endorsing it. Sort of a “nice try – try again… this time with more rigor.” response.

    OK, I guess that means we wait and wait and wait while this plays out to an eventual BS or Ahah! moment.

  3. froarty says:

    Fractional quantum state hydrogen, also coined the hydrino only exists as a mathematical construct to calculate values that cannot be physically measured between different inertial frames. The confusion arises because it wasn’t made clear the equations solving for such states were from a relativistic perspective where the observer and his ruler exist in different inertial frame from the faster moving orbitals inside the cavity. Like the Twin paradox from Physics 101, IF the twin on earth using his earth bound ruler could somehow measure his twin at high acceleration he would find his twin and the hydrogen atom each carried with them both appear shrunken due to displacement on the time axis which has no distance unit of measure but still reduces an objects perspective as it displaces in either direction. The “high velocity” twin and his own ruler would likewise see the earth bound twin shrunken from his temporally displaced perspective regardless of spatial proximity. Of course neither is really shrunk but the High Velocity twin exists at fractional seconds per second compared to the relatively stationary twin on earth who ages more rapidly. Similarily, the hydrogen that diffuses into a Casimir cavity experiences an “equivalent de-acceleration” the reverse of an ” equivalent acceleration” a spaceship would experience in a deep gravity well like an event horizon where it appears to “hold a stationary spatial position” in opposition to the falling gravitational field but still experiences time dilation just like the “high velocity” twin. The hydrogen inside the Casimir cavity doesn’t have to move spatially anymore than the spaceship approaching the event horizon does, this is relative motion to a gravitational field measured between an object remaining spatially stationary inside the cavity(like the spaceship in a deep gravity well) and a reference object outside that cavity where the gravitational field and therefore relative motion is different. The reference outside a Casimir cavity also remains spatially stationary so the differential in relative motion to the field outside vs inside a cavity is on the temporal axis where X,Y,Z of X,Y,Z,t remain relatively stationary while confinement of spatial axis as defined by Casimir cavity allows the temporal acceleration vector to accept donations of heat energy from the other axis most notably the diminishing axis of the closing plates (normally considered X axis) in 3D it approaches a 2D limit just before closing completely.

  4. John says:

    [quote]“perpetual motion changes everything!!” [/quote]

    What about this makes it a PMM?

    Because as far as I can tell it’s a matter of ‘using up’ hydrogen, turning them into hydrinoes. The output energy is simply greater than what is needed to break the HO bond. This isn’t much different then burning some petro to extract more than what is being consumed.

    As for the gross misinterpretation of relativity above, all I have to say is…

    High velocity twin relative to what?
    Stationary twin relative to what?

    Because depending on what you compare their velocity to you could end up with one twin decelerating instead of accelerating and this leaves you with your high velocity twin actually moving slower than your stationary twin. Basically that part of relativity is pure speculation.

  5. Jeff says:

    Has Mills constructed an actual machine that pumps out significantly measured energy?

    All the hoopla and debate and angst and talk would go away if he’d just make a machine that would do what he says it would do.

    Has he?

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    Don’t know. But I suspect that given the silence the answer is ‘no’. It’s one of the best ways to spot a ‘nogo’. In stock trading it’s ‘failure to advance’ and in infinite energy schemes it’s ‘failure to provide energy’.

  7. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Stable hydrinos, they must not be very stable as I don’t recall ever having encountered one in 60 years, and I thought I met all of hydrogens’ relations. I don’t know for sure but this sounds like techno babble to me.

    Glad to have this brought up as it has been pointed out to me by internet trawlers about this wonderful new process and I have not actually come across it myself.

    I only know of 4 energy states of the proton/hydrogen atom/hydrogen element/neutron entity. Hydrinos are new to me. pg

  8. Jake Starling says:

    I read through the short functional explanation of the CHT (Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition) Cell. It is junk science. I happen to have hands-on experience with various fuel cell types and also with water electrolyzers, and have NEVER had the experience of a self-energizing water electrolyzer from ANY type of electrolyzer (PEM, Alkaline). Power must be applied to decompose a water molecule into H2 and O2 gases. No way could power be generated from such a process. The “Laws” of Thermodynamics won’t allow for 100% efficiency, so the water electrolysis process isn’t reversible (ie: not 100% efficient). Also, one does not get more elements (H and O) out than one started with when those elements were in water molecule form.

    I found no patent numbers quoted at ANY place within the website ( You’d think they’d at least list one…. Small/Low power CHT (since when is a water electrolyzer a power plant?) have allegedly been constructed by other researchers in other labs, and the reproduction of said scientific claims has been achieved So, has a major physics journal published this result? Himmmmm.

    Help, my BS Meter has fallen and can’t get up!

    Jake Starling
    May 2012

  9. Jake – try reading the independent verifications. I agree that the explanations leave a lot to be desired (translate that as BS) but it looks like more energy is coming out than is being put in. I tend therefore to believe that this is a real technology but that the theory behind it is not there yet. Or even close. The patents have (again) not been granted, but that is possibly because the USPO have a policy to not accept them if they have any references to LENR, CANR, Cold Fusion etc.. Not knowing why your device works is not a barrier to getting a patent, but in this case thinking you know why it works certainly is. There are similar bars to publication in major scientific journals – anything to do with “Cold Fusion” and its homologues is automatically refused as “pathological science” (to quote Wiki). So until it’s accepted by a consensus of scientists, it’s not going to appear in any believable publication, and until it’s read in a believable publication, the consensus will remain as it is. Catch-22 until someone produces one and sells it, but they will have to do that without patent protection.

    If, as I think, energy is really being produced here then it is not chemical but nuclear in origin. Given the theory they are running on, you can expect the progress to be slow and the improvements to be as a result of serendipity rather than directed research, but they will in time get the process sorted. Given that this process produces electricity directly rather than heat which needs to be converted into electricity at normally 30%-odd efficiency, it is something that will be very useful when it is truly available.

    Meantime, they have another $15M to play with to get it a bit further on. I’m glad someone is financing it, and also glad it’s not me.

  10. adolfogiurfa says:

    Hydrines are nothing else but the old “Hydrides”. That name it is a “proprietary” name just to make it look new and cool.
    Common reaction between NaOH and Aluminum:
    sodium aluminate
    Al + NaOH + H2O = NaAlO2 + 3H (1)
    But they obtain Sodium Hydride, that would be like this:
    sodium hydride
    2Al + NaOH + 2H2O= NaH + Al2O3 + 3H (1a)
    and, to make the reaction reach its next step, there must be a reduction reaction:
    Al2O3 + 6H = Al + 3H2O (2)
    Which, in turn, it is produced by decomposing H2O with electricity.

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    It looks to me like a lot of folks are just trying to come up with new names / processes for the same real event. Hydrogen protons get pushed inside the electron shell of a metal atom. Then “something happens” and net energy is produced (along with the hydrogen reacting with various things to make what look like new elements).

    All the rest of the explanation looks to me like hand waving to come up with something unique and / or patentable and / or impressive to funding agents…

  12. EM – I think it _is_ a real event, and while you have pointed out very well that we’re not going to run out off “stuff” or energy until we’ve eaten the planet, the cost of energy could do with being a lot cheaper in real terms. If energy were nearly free, then refining our trash to get the raw materials re-usable would be cost-effective and the doom-mongers would lose quite a few targets.

    Given the benefits to the world in general, and also the pecuniary advantages to the consortium who solves this puzzle, it’s not surprising that people are still trying after a lot of failures and scams. Maybe this time it _is_ different. I’ve looked at the work of Stringham (try for a start) and wondered why this is not more publicised and funded – this seems absolutely solid to me and with VC funding could quickly be developed commercially. Such a power-source would be small, not need refuelling often, and should be cheap enough for everyone to find it cost-effective to go off-grid. The cost of Palladium would rise for a while until a substitute was found.

    This is still going to be the realm of crackpot ideas for a while until a commercial unit goes on sale in Walmart – it takes a crackpot to go against consensus opinion and keep working at something like this. After this, maybe a comprehensive understanding of the real science behind it can be worked out and we’ll get better and more powerful/compact/cost-effective devices made (and maybe even patented). My best guess is a few years from now, but less than a decade.

Comments are closed.