Too Good To Be True or “I’m Skeptical”
Our team has spent more than a decade working in this area. Brett went to work for Mills in 2006 and worked with Mills for 4 years. After which he spent from 2012-2016 writing a book summarizing 80 years of quantum mechanics and 30 years of Mills work.
We know that after learning about this the responses are the same.
- “Too good to be true”
- “Seems like scientists disproved this a long time ago, do you think I am a fool?”
- “If it is so good why is it not on the market yet?”
- “I see there are a lot of scientists involved, but wouldn’t Harvard or Princeton want to be involved in something this big?”
- “How do you know the people involved like Berkshire aren’t just taking a swing on a moonshot idea because they have so much money?”
- “It took 24 years, how do you know it won’t take 24 more years?”
We have answers for all of these questions. There are always naysayers to revolutionary ideas. The physicists said this about the Wright brothers:
I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.— Lord Kelvin, 1895
In fact, the European media had a smear campaign and called the Wright Brothers “bleuffers” while they were actually flying.
Just like the invention of the light bulb, the airplane, the internet, and smartphones, here the future belongs to the truth.
Our experience with analysts is they make a snap 60 second judgements about something they know nothing about. Instead of reading our book and reviewing the materials we have. In our view if we were able to meet people in a one hour meeting, they’d come away with a vastly different world view.
After reading Wikipedia I am skeptical
The article on Wikipedia is page controlled by a “skeptical” ICU nurse from Virginia. Many scientists just could not believe that someone outside of their clique had overturned quantum mechanics – they made uniformed comments often based on a phone call from a reporter. At the bottom of this FAQ you will see we are dialoging with Nobel prize winners giving them a chance to take back their comments and look at the published science.
This is a risky investment
When exponential situations arrive economists, analysts, and other “smartest guys in the room” are made to look foolish. We have models indicating the extent and rapidity of the disruption will be unprecedented. This is an exponential technology and massive leap forward in energy – nothing can compete with it. Every $100k ticket in this technology will protect against $10mi in conventional fuel exposure. Nobody has hedges – many large energy investors in Oil sands (or other Tight Oil plays) are going to get wiped out and in a small timeframe – financial markets respond much faster than the real economy can. Why would you invest in a deep off-shore oil project with hydrino energy coming? You may have seen Tony Seba’s work on self-driving electric cars and their impact on the oil markets by 2025 – his models are wrong and we have the answer – hydrino power will impact oil even more.
What is the liquidation value of Brilliant Light Power? We feel that even in a liquidation situation this company is worth more than we’ll pay for it. This gives us a margin of safety and we thus feel confident we can meet our preferred return targets. We can value patents. Our team members have filed patents in the sciences. Patents for a technology that can replace oil and gas are worth at minimum more than the biggest patent sale in history:
TORONTO — Nortel Networks Corp. has auctioned off its remaining patents to a “rock star” group of technology companies in the biggest patent sale in history, ending a massive selloff that generated US$7.7 billion for the insolvent former Canadian technology giant.
Finally, don’t mistake cash as a risk-free asset when interest rates recently have been the lowest in the history of the world.
Playing Arm-chair Physicist
We have thousands and thousands of hours of training and insight into this subject. If you are an engineer or want us to talk to an engineer-friend – please be sure to have read at least one of the 100 scientific papers on this science (references). Brett also wrote a book to help every person understand Hydrino Energy and this new era in science.
We are connected to very noteworthy physicists who support Mills (i.e. Physicists at national laboratories like Los Alamos National Laboratory). Mills is on par with Sir Issac Newton in terms of his ability to solve fundamental mysteries, so getting validation from your engineering friend or local physicist is like asking a family physician from the 1800s how DNA is sequenced to clone sheep. The 1800s physician is decades behind and cannot imagine such a new paradigm.
Is the science independently validated?
Yes, By many over 20 .years. You likely read something that scared you. We have a 30min deep science movie we can see here (endofpetroleum.com/presentation). Our movie will turn into a professional documentary. Hint: hit full screen button for best experience
How do they make energy? (simply put)
All chemical energy comes from moving electrons around. When two chemicals react and heat comes out, the electrons have moved to more stable states and energy is released. This energy is called potential energy.
When a waterbottle is sitting on a shelf and you knock it down on the floor, you release energy (not chemical, but a form of potential energy). The water bottle and the center of the earth have a gravity potential between them and you can release that energy.
Ok, so the electron sits at the top of the shelf in the hydrogen atom. It turns out you can push it down levels, not all the way to center of the atom, but down.. That is electromagnetic potential being released (electron and proton in atom are attracted to each other and have a stored energy).
Let’s say it in distance terms to the center of the atom: 1/2 the way down, 2/3 the way down, 3/4 the way down, 4/5 the way down.
Let’s say it in radius terms to the center of the atom: 1/2 the radius, 1/3 the radius, 1/4 the radius, 1/5 the radius.
When you move that electron down, a “new” form of hydrogen is made. BLP mostly makes the 1/4 Hydrino because of the catalyst they use (water). This new hydrogen can form a gas, and can be detected by every lab. Hydrino compounds have also been made and can be seen here.
This doesnt happen spontaneously just like waterbottles dont fall off shelves randomly. Something has to catalyze (push) that. There are amazing and beautiful reasons this all occurs in integer steps. (see GUTCP pg 62 of the PDF).
These are physical models of real stuff photons, electrons, atoms – the equations of them and how they act – you can’t make this up because it has to predict actual physical reality and all data known to mankind which is a massive testing ground. Now, take a look at a paper on quantum field theory for comparison and you will see it is an invented mathematical universe.
What is the strength of your team?
We are the only team in the world in this area. What does that mean specifically and how can we prove it? We are the only team in the world who can explain this correct theory of nature produced by Mills. If we were lawyers we would be paid $1500 per hour, except we would be the only such lawyers in the world.
Without our deep design, and science understanding we could not make you into an investor. Energy VCs missed the boat on this one, and many many others did (e.g. Bloomberg New Energy Finance) because they cannot penetrate this subject.
No chemistry known to quantum physics or any other-pre Mills physics can make explosions from water. The experimental data is an open and shut case. End Of Petroleum has already met with university professors and challenged the top physicists at Google. We will pay anyone anytime $50k for any challenge to the experimental evidence or theory of Mills. We also know other investors of BLP will pay much much more. It will never happen since fiction cannot displace truth. See the video in our presentation deck by Jonathan Phillips where he says “every physicist he encounters says “somebody smarter than me has to know the answer as to why this isn’t real.”
In terms of finance, we have a world-class asset managment team with extensive experience as a GP.
Can I forward your materials?
No. Our presentation materials are highly confidential and copyright. We offer consulting services if you wish to train your sfaff.
Tell me more about your firm.
As a GP we have extensive experience on the operational side. Our experience as a scientific team is world class. It is easy to get to know us.
It seems that many people seem to rely on web-searches as “due diligence.” How about asking questions and discussion?
Our mission is much greater than financial – we want to transform civilization with this technology. We prefer to work with impact investors.
Jessie, our financial analyst, has worked for us since June 2017. Most of the time full time. She now also works with the hedge fund group at TD Bank. She still works for us and supports her models. She has a Masters in Finance from Wilfred Laurier Univerisity. Go checkout her Linked In
We are the worlds-elite team in this area because we have talent, years of training and focus.
CNN Video on Brilliant Light Power
CNN Featured Brilliant Light Power. In this piece it shows the electrical generation version of the SunCell. The manufactuers of the concentrated photovoltaic have had to redesign those modules. They were not designed to be around a 3000k plasma furnace, and were not meeting their service life. These generator can’t come back in 2 years off the market, it needs to work for 15-20 years. Separate companies involved in microcooling (to keep the CPV) cool are designing solutions. The new CPV modules are now in testing. We have had discussions with many of these engineering firms.
Blacklight Power – the former name of Brilliant Light Power – was featured on CNN Money in 2008. In 2008, they were getting low power densities and were not commercially competitive. On January 14 2014 in front of their investors they were able to make hydrino reactions explosive and that was a pivotal moment in history. (easter egg: that moment has been recorded and is here to see). For a few moments on our site turn off your “skeptic” hat and realize you alive to watch someone who is perhaps more important than Isaac Newton, James Maxwell, or Albert Einstein to science. Just enjoy it. We can go as deep as you want into the science, far far deeper than any other team. Brett Holverstott sat in the Princeton Archives for a long time, trying to understand the history of Quantum Mechanics and probably knows more than anyone alive on how we got here.
This article shows how heavyweight investors like the Chairman of Morgan Stanley, Dick Fisher, backed Randell Mills. He said, “””We have stayed supportive of this in the face of fairly significant scientists saying it can’t be.” In this article you can see what the Head of Energy Banking said, and other investors. In our People dataroom we interview many early investors.
Good article from BBC Focus. Dr. Jonathan Phillips (Los Alamos Staff Scientist, University of New Mexico, and now Naval Postgraduate School) makes some great comments. The detractor Rathke, made serious errors in his criticism which were dispatched immediately by Dr. Mills. There is no scientist, ever, who has written a peer reviewed paper against a single line of Mills. On the other hand, a massive stream of 100+ experimental peer-reviewed articles supports Dr. Mills (easter egg: we even have Major Chemical companies like WR Grace saying hydrinos exist. Go here for that audio interview)
This article covers off the personality of Dr. Randell Mills. You’ll see that unlike many mathematical physicists he is grounded in reality, like an engineer. Surely, he will go down as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist in human history. (easter egg: to really understand the person that is Dr. Mills, listen to Brett and I talk here)
A good article on some of the controversy initiated by a dire skeptic named Robert Park who obstructed Mills patents. Park’s – despite being a physicist – had no idea what he was talking about. Which goes to show you there are “bad guys” in every profession, at every level. But it also covers some “good guys”. Some of them mentioned are Dr. Shelby Brewer – a top nuclear official in the Department of Energy, Dr. Johannes Conrads who says he reproduced high energy hydrinos. Even NASA is mentioned which
says they are encouraged. Don’t be confused or get lost in all of the science, we can make that clear to you. These were the early days.
What are you guys doing about the Wikipedia article which tells all those lies about Brilliant Light Power?
In the past, when Nobel laureates made ridiculous comments Blacklight Power lawyers contacted those physicists to stop making “defamatory comments.” But they got away with it, and changed the course of science by turning people away.
Mills is like Newton. He works alone (with his close collaborators). He doesn’t call Stephen Hawking and tell him his equations are all wrong. He doesn’t travel the world to lecture. He isn’t into public relations. He let’s his work stand for itself.
We aren’t sitting idle. We’ve contacted Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia and told him that the BLP article is page controlled by “skeptical” nurses and other “authorities”. No response.
Next we gave some physicists a chance to come clean, to look at he evidence and admit they weren’t so sure anymore. Here is what happened. Notice the trend with 100 journal articles (see the list here) and all the mudslingers are “unaware” of any relevant updates. This should make you angry.
Wolfgang Ketterle, Physicist, Nobel Winner, MIT – He said 10+ years ago: “This is scientific nonsense—there is no state of hydrogen lower than the ground state.” In 10 years he isn’t aware of “any relevant updates.” I suspect he won’t put his hand inside an operating SunCell to stand by his claims…?
Aaron Barth, Physicist, University of California – Barth was a minion for physicist Robert Park. Park kept harrassing Mills and even made secret calls to get the patent office to revoke a patent on the basis of “going against laws of physics.” Aaron Barth was a post doc Park used to review Mills work. Barth said Mills has some “unjustified assumptions.” Notice, Park did not actually review Mills work or that of many independent publishers (Phillips, Conrads, Kroesen) – all of which totals at least 3000 pages.