Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • Copper is more reactive than silver and it would react with vater vapor under formation of hydrogen. This reaction is actually enothermic, so that heating to elevated temperatures would promote it. This for example happens when copper is burnt under water during underwater welding .


    Cu(s) + H2O(g) ——→ CuO(s) + H2(g)

  • Copper is more reactive than silver and it would react with vater vapor under formation of hydrogen. This reaction is actually enothermic, so that heating to elevated temperatures would promote it. This for example happens when copper is burnt under water during underwater welding .


    Cu(s) + H2O(g) ——→ CuO(s) + H2(g)


    The Mills chemistry in the SunCell must work differently.

  • The Mills chemistry in the SunCell must work differently.


    Of course, because it doesn't contain copper. The speed of copper oxidation probably wouldn't prohibit the plasma formation, but it would mean, that the metal evaporated from plasma would cumulate on the inner surface of cell in oxidized form, so it couldn't be recycled in situ. Whole the reactor would get encrusted with copper oxide fast, which is just what the new self-cleaning design of SF-CIHT reactor avoids ("fully-refractive graphite reaction vessel with no expected sublimation (i.e. no deposits on CPV due to operation) nor any apparent need for a halogen cycle.")

  • Since you find Mills credible, perhaps you'll have a moment to review the calculations and champion them here?


    You misunderstand my part: Some aspects of Mill's formalism are very compelling, where as others are doubtful or at least just as vague as QM or other models. The part (Alpha decay) I mentioned is a new adding, not very well reflected, but looks as 'odd' as well accepted formalism...


    In dealing with Mills. I'm just picking these parts out of his compendium, which 'are better' than the current models, or better suited to calculated base figures needed to make estimations.


    Physics is not a religion as you seem to believe. Even the magnetic monopole recently 'must have been' introduced into the Maxwell equations, because some experiments have shown quasi particle magnetic monopoles...
    What would Daddy Maxwell say? Heureka!

  • 1.
    I find Mills the calculation correct in that the formulas yield the correct answer


    2.
    It is not only spherical shells it can be ellipsoids and other forms as well. Also the charge distribution on the shells are not
    uniform and actually time varying usually. It's amazing that the only allowable stable spherical distributions of charge that does not radiate
    is described by his equations. That I have verified in direct calculations. That this phenomologically matches the quantisation of atoms
    would raise anyones eyebrow - but the world is insane.


    3.
    If you consider the addition to Maxwells equation neede to model the atom is a nonlinear term, then Mills is quite natural in that it describes a situation where space have been shifted like a continental drift. You would then expect the cavities formed to allow for standing waves in such a way that the disruption in space is mainitained the exact nature of this is not known, but a more detailed analysis of this would be a great task for a phd. IN any case if you consider these models should specify just a force drop at the shell we could model this with putting a sperical delta measure of source terms. when these are in balance we would expect that it wouold not radiate and that this setup should have interesting properties like beeing self sustained. Note that the surface elements should not be seen as a set of electron charges, just the mathematical surface correction to create a non radiative condition and the nature of that surface may be very different and it is to put too much assumption on it to say that it can be instable it is really built by infinite surface element and not point charges. I find Mills model very natural due to this.


    4.
    Mills assumes a really simple force balance, you can say that you want to build a uniform sphere shell with loops all with charge at uniform distribution and the same velocity. Don't bother that these intersect (use superposition) Building a continues sphere like this is very special and should have interesting properties. Now because we know the spin and total charge and mass we can calculate the velocity for a certain radious. We say that everything is in balance if the ceterfugal force equals the electrostatic attraction and out pops the radious and a matching ionisation energy to 3 digits precition. If you use QM the force balance is through some very complex interaction - which is simplest? This basic fact would basically mean that a legion of physists and matematiciance should digest what Mills is doing. But no we are asssumed to believe in QM crazies and Mills is a crackpot, sigh!


    5. The more advanced calculation means moving between reference frames in a certain way. I have not understood this but the same trick is employd multiple times and he get's the correct formula in the end. There is some tweaking beeing done to get to the highest accuracy that means that it can be marginally wrong but the main 3 digits are correctly nailed in all ionisation energies for not Hydrogen but is it over 20 atoms - something is really good with his method.


    6. The total subject of knowledge and by pushing the goal you will hinder a take up of these good thoughts. Stop it embrace his ideas and modify it if needed. That's have a much better prospect than using QM.


    7. I don't understand hydrinos. They are really not well exposed in his book for me to follow their validity. But his test has over a 100 in COP. With the new validation reports presented it is bloody obvious that it's either a very advanced scam or real. That is obvoius. If Mills spend time to refine the exposition of his theory, making it more digestable, and actively talk for the theory he would end up with a Nobel Price. But I'm told that he instead went for a scam. Beats me - that is weired. So to me it is obvoius that Mills have what he claims to have anything else is highly unlikely.


    8. Because of the exposition of the book clerkial minds get stuck on the few first pages. If you know your math you can see that the book weighs much more than the first chapter. Also there is no document on the internet as far as I know of that has a valid technical argument about what Mills is doing wrong in his calculation - I can point to many errors, some severe like one of the proofs of non radiation seams to be bogus and that there is some tweaking done in the ionisation energes on decimals 4 and above.


    So to me the world is upside down and I will delightfully sit in my armchair and watch it turning right again the coming decade.

  • /* It's amazing that the only allowable stable spherical distributions of charge that does not radiate is described by his equations.*/


    This is just what I'm talking about here. It's not amazing - it just points to the idiotic crackpot trait of R. Mills. His hydrino theory requires nonradiating subquantum states - so that he postulated all electrons orbitals nonradiating and he even adopted this idea his Millsian software, which renders all molecules like the oblate shapes.


    Despite it we know, that the electron orbitals can be of many types (whole the coordination chemistry is about it) and they usually radiate energy willingly (whole the laser and spectroscopic technology is about it) - so that they cannot be formed with non-radiating spheres. It's rather easy to falsify Mills by his own logics.

  • This is just what I'm talking about here. It's not amazing - it just points to the idiotic crackpot trait of R. Mills. His hydrino theory require nonradiating subquantum states - so that he postulated all electrons orbitals nonradiating and he even adopted this idea his Millsian software, which renders all molecules like the oblate shapes.



    You should keep some crack for your pot...


    If you ever read into the matter, only the orbits are non radiating. Spin-Spin orbit - spin-coupling remains radiating... May be you just hate Mill's...

  • I don't care about Mills person at all, this is not my way of thinking at all. He just models all atoms in his SW like nonradiating spheres or ellipsoids. With such an approach you cannot understand anything about chemistry. The contemporary understanding of electron orbitals is way deeper than Bohr's model from 30's of the last century.


  • I don't care about Mills person at all, this is not my way of thinking at all. He just models all atoms in his SW like nonradiating spheres or ellipsoids


    What else would you do, if you were just interested in the steric stable molecule conformation information (angles, bond distances, base frequences) and nothing more??


    Mills molecules orbits do not replace QM. They do just the core work chemists are interested much faster...Just look at them as the relevant orbits for the searched information!


    As I said before: For most molecules there are at least three independent degrees of rotation and vibration/ bending, which let these orbits wobble around.

  • OK, it actually doesn't matter - I don't need Mills theory for anything useful. I just presented my view of Mills story - so we can confront it with future. I'm merely testing my physical intuition with it. Personally I hope in fast progress of overunity technologies instead of cold fusion/hydrino technologies controlled with greedy capitalists and warlike militarists. And I think, what R. Mills develops is just more sophisticated form of this experiment. If Mills believes, it's powered by hydrino, the better for the rest of us - it wouldn't interfere with his "intellectual property" at least. That is to say, you have absolutely no chance to convince me about your truth with your arguments in this moment.

  • They do not radiate UNLESS they possess Fourier transform components synchronous with light speed. That's clearly not the same as stating they do not radiate ever.
    It's called the non-radiation condition.


    This is not even coming from Dr. Mills this is from a proof done by his professor Herman Haus at MIT in the 80s. Why not learn to read critically beyond a third grade level before hurling insults at people and things you obviously don't understand.

  • /* They do not radiate UNLESS they possess Fourier transform components synchronous with light speed */


    And so? All orbitals in Mills theory are spherical, so that all they should radiate in the same speed, because their Fourier transform components are zero. The spectral lines in Mill model should be all of the same (and very low) strength/intensity.

  • 1. I find Mills the calculation correct in that the formulas yield the correct answer


    What is correct about the Mills calculation? What is the correct answer? Presumably you're talking about experimental results that are being explained. What are those experiments? Also, given the confidence with which you express yourself, you will no doubt have worked through those calculations yourself and will not simply be reciting phrases from BrLP promotional literature that you have read. Given your unqualified confidence, I look forward to your walking us through what you have learned.


    We say that everything is in balance if the ceterfugal force equals the electrostatic attraction and out pops the radious and a matching ionisation energy to 3 digits precition. If you use QM the force balance is through some very complex interaction - which is simplest? This basic fact would basically mean that a legion of physists and matematiciance should digest what Mills is doing. But no we are asssumed to believe in QM crazies and Mills is a crackpot, sigh!


    Let's set aside the complaint about complexity and the point about precision for a moment. A difficulty I have with the orbitsphere explanation is that it does not take into account basic experimental results that have been around for decades, such as electron capture. Orbitspheres provide no insight into this phenomenon. Indeed, if orbitspheres were the predominant understanding, we would have to conclude that the weak interaction works over long distances, or that an electron is not actually being captured and that something else is happening, or that the process is inherently mysterious. Perhaps I am mistaken in this conclusion, and you will be able to explain how orbitspheres help us to understand electron capture.

  • And so? All orbitals in Mills theory are spherical, so that all they should radiate in the same speed, because their Fourier transform components are zero.


    May be you should read your physics text book once more. And orbit only radiates if it absorbes a quantum that lifts it above ground state! And as astonishingly as it may sound for you, most atoms are in ground state. Now, may be, you understand that you yourself answered your question...
    The rest can be read in Mills compendium. And please only ask question if you really find something that is off! (I'm sure there are points off!)


    By the way: What do you mean with radiate the same speed?


    Perhaps I am mistaken in this conclusion, and you will be able to explain how orbit spheres help us to understand electron capture.


    To repeat it once more: Mill's does not much deal with nuclear physics. If you really believe that QM can correctly predict (<1% off) most electron captures, without an experimental gauge, then please point us to the publication!

  • To repeat it once more: Mill's does not much deal with nuclear physics. If you really believe that QM can correctly predict (<1% off) most electron captures, without an experimental gauge, then please point us to the publication!


    You have missed my point. With QM it's possible to envision how electron capture takes place, because there is a 3-dimensional electron probability distribution that intersects with the nucleus. In Mills's account, there's no intersecting of the electron current distribution with the nucleus. While the QM calculation may be complex, the physical interpretation is comprehensible. By contrast, the orbitsphere obscures rather than helps understand how electron capture might happen. That has the hallmarks of a theory that is unphysical. Perhaps you do not care.

  • Quote

    What else would you do, if you were just interested in the steric stable molecule conformation information (angles, bond distances, base frequences) and nothing more??


    Mills molecules orbits do not replace QM. They do just the core work chemists are interested much faster...Just look at them as the relevant orbits for the searched information!


    Perhaps we will work through Mills's stuff in detail.


    Without that the fact that he has 10 pages of eqns that when applied approximate the experimental values is all we can know. This does not show that his theory has any skill because:


    (1) It may be equivalent to a semiclassical approx of QM (from the above it sounds like it is), in which case better look at the vast work done on such techniques but now superceded.
    (2) QM has enormous validation from diverse areas of physics as well as (numerically) correctly predicting bond angles etc. Look at the latest numerical approximate models, they are very powerful.
    (3) Most (a vast number) QM phenomena, very well validated by experiment, are not encompassed by Mills' stuff. A less complete theory can more easily be adjusted to fit a limited set of observations perhaps using hidden mathematical symmetries such as equivalence with semi-classical approximations.
    (4) Mills may in any case be cherry-picking equations etc to get the right answer. I'd need to understand why every equation applied was necessary from the axioms to rule that out.


    What seems like good evidence is not that unless a lot more work is done. The evidence presented does not look promising for that to work out, but in any case in the absence of that work there is no reason to expect Mills' theory to be physical.

  • With QM it's possible to envision how electron capture takes place, because there is a 3-dimensional electron probability distribution that intersects with the nucleus.


    I know! It's as easy to grasp like the Bor Orbits.


    But as long as we don't have any reasonable explanations ( <1% failure) for the nuclerar force(s) it's just a nice picture nothing more!


    I guess, there is no need to remind you, that even very well know laws (finally an empirical formula..) like Gammow sometimes are off more than a factor of 1000!

  • Quote

    What seems like good evidence is not that unless a lot more work is done.


    Maybe I can save you some trouble. Since Mills is rushing to market, maybe it would be best to avoid all that work until the devices are actually shown to work. Which, I suspect, like Mills' claims and promises for the past 25 years, will not happen.

  • Maybe I can save you some trouble. Since Mills is rushing to market, maybe it would be best to avoid all that work until the devices are actually shown to work. Which, I suspect, like Mills' claims and promises for the past 25 years, will not happen.


    Mills only gets a COP of 3. That is not competitive when Rossi is now getting 300.

  • Such a COP cannot justify the alleged cost of electricity produced. For example, the SunCell does not seem to take more than 20 watts to run after it melts the silver which can stay melted for 20 years. If the cell is producing megawatts of power, the notion of a COP is simply silly. The ratio is hundreds of thousands to one. And Mills talks about operating cost of his reactor abut $0.001/kWH.