Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • Greetings,

    I am following the LENR saga quiet a while and in this context I
    stumbled over Randell Mills and his theory. I am just a simple
    electrical engineer and by viewing over the vastness of Mills
    publications I could not grasp the important parts of his theory and why
    he thinks that there are hydrinos. Two weeks ago a former Co-Worker of
    Mills Bret Holverstoff released a book
    which covers parts of the history of Mills and Brilliant Light Power
    and also the most important parts of his theory.

    Besides it is a really interesting, well written, book and a must
    read for the LENR community (even if LENR plays only a siderole), I
    found one thing pretty awesome: in LENR we are struggeling with the
    engineering of a device which clearly shows LENR with an undisputable
    power output, just the same way Mills is struggeling to build his
    hydrino power generator. But with Mills there is one striking advantage:
    he has a theory which usefullness is easy to proof for somebody skilled
    in the art :-). I am referring to the fact that Mills derived closed
    form analytical equations to calculate the binding energies and the
    structure of all molecules. And even better is, that there is a ground
    truth of experiments in the literature and totally independent from
    Mills which measured the binding energies and structure.

    The theory itself is quite fascinating and if I had studied chemistry
    or physics I would by now calculate the s**t out of these molecules.
    But I dont feel capable of doing so. It would be great if somebody
    outside the realm of Mills could do the calculations and share the
    calculation process and the results. Perhaps someone on "the internet"
    finds this thread and feels the holy urge of duty :) Not only, because
    his theory (if correct) (*) could give us an energy source based on
    hydrinos, but it could also be the key to understand cold fusion. My
    feeling is that cold fusion and hydrino theory are somehow linked - that
    a hydrino can alter the atomic properties of a metal latice so that
    fusion might take place.

    I am trying to find someone of the people I know to verify or debunk
    the results. Perhaps someone of you knows someone who knows someone...My
    guess is that Bret Holverstoff would love to share the parts of the
    book and the equations necessary to do the math.

    Have a great day!

    (*) the question if a theory is correct or not is of course ill
    stated. A theory is a model of a process or of nature and is never
    capable of capturing all aspects. There will be errors in the
    predictions of Mills theory and no man alone can fix all the problems of
    all kinds of different disciplines like astronomy, atomic science and
    so on. But if Mills theory is capable of explaining the structure of
    molecules with analytic and deterministic (!!!) equations I would bet my
    a$$ that it is "more correct" than quantum physics which struggles to
    solve even simple molecules.

  • Mills has been making grandiose and largely unsupported claims for more than 20 years. Now, he's dumping a gigantic amount of power in a tiny volume and acts amazed that he gets a flash and some light. He's utterly ignorable. More than 20 years ago, he promised that high power plants were within a year or two of commercialization. Where are they?

  • Mary Yugo wrote " utterly ignorable"
    It's not original but will add it to my list of Yugoism's together with "I'm a nitwit. Makes sense".

    I think what Epimetheus was looking for was not a debunking by rhetoric , but by mathematical calculation.

  • I have no interest in math which attempts to explain a phenomenon which does not exist. Math is not my field. But scams are. And someone who lies by telling people he has a very low cost, highly energetic reaction which he has reduced to practice, has been properly tested, and will be operational in two years... has been sold to utility companies... etc. etc. ... and nothing happens after more than twenty years and the guy is still taking money for a razzle dazzle meaningless demo? That to me spells s c a m. I am really shocked by how often OBVIOUS and cofirmed liars are believed when they speak new lies. Believing Rossi despite his horrible and dismal record is how IH and Darden got snagged into the current multi-million disaster they are deeply into.

  • @Mary: My mother always told me: "Never feed the troll" - but who
    cares: I think you made your point clear - a thousand times and more
    says your post counter. If someone is claiming to have developed a
    device that produces (limitless) energy and if this someone claiming
    that this device will be ready within x days/months/years and if this
    someone is collecting money for R&D and does not have the claimed
    device after x days/months/years => fraud, scam, lier, sinner... This
    logic is not really hard to understand and I am not sure why one has to
    repeat it over and over again. This is a forum for people interested in
    LENR and not a forum of poor old naive ladys on the search for the
    investment of their life.

    I have a different view on this topic through my work as a software
    engineer: the first guess on how long a task needs to be finished is
    most times wrong - and always just in one direction - delay. Sometimes
    you are working on a topic and you think all problems are solved and
    promise delivery soon and than you run into a problem that is hard to
    solve or cannot be solved and you have to start all over again or have
    to give up. These things happen to all of us even in areas that are well
    known and potentially don´t bear many surprises. How much more is this
    true for completely new things that you cannot look up in a book or ask
    your collegue etc.

    I can easily imagin the young Mills sitting at his desk full of
    excitement because his idea of altering the wave equation of the
    electron to better fit the physical reality yielded some equations, that
    could describe the hydrogen atom. And as he tried to solve the helium
    atom and the equations gave the exact results in contrast to a theory
    that stood for 70 years with thousands of physicists working on it. That
    must have been overwhelming. Than taking his formulars into the
    laboratory and working on a device that could produce 20W of thermal
    power - and all he has to do is to scale the process up! I would have
    gathered money with no bad feeling because I was totally sure they soon
    would get their investment back tenfold. And than scaling up and basic
    engineering struck...and he had to start with a new concept...and
    again...and again. Ask a chemist about scaling a process up or a
    biochemist with a new medicine which looked fantastic in the mouse
    model, awesome on human cell cultures - and killed 5% of the human test
    persons. Curing (more or less) Aids took 20 years - curing cancer is
    lightyears away with vast amounts of money and research.

    After 25 years it is totally ok to be pretty sceptical. But to
    conclude that it is 100% fraud/scam/etc. and totally ruling out the
    possibility that Mills ran into many engineering problems and
    undererstimated the task by far is not justified in my view. He
    definitly has to learn when it is time to announce a breakthrough - not
    when 90% of the problems are gone but when the device is ready.

    And that is where the topic of my thread comes to play: we have the
    possibility to proof if his theory is correct regarding the binding
    energies and the structure of all molecules. This cannot be done in
    closed form with quantum THEORY and if he is able to do it than the
    chances that all his other claims regarding hydrinos and so on are valid
    are increasing enormously. I dont have the money the skillset to
    conduct LENR experiments but I can do some calculations with Mills
    theory - hiding behind "SCAM-FRAUD" is not doing mankind any favor.

    Zeus46: I know this software, but there are post on some internet
    forums where the skeptics assumed, that this software is just a huge
    look up table - to rule this out there is no other way to calculate it
    by hand and show the complete approach step by step. They also have some
    excel sheets online so i have a reference. I am currently looking for a
    starting point - solving the wave equation with the orbitosphere
    assumption is too hard for me - I have a wife, kids and a job. The next
    time I have time for studying quantum physics in depth on my own is in
    35 years. I hope by this time the pharmaceutical companys are able to
    calculate chemical reactions for hundreds of new medicine candidates in
    parallel and in realtime with Mills formulars. Could be the medicine
    that cures my cancer or alzheimer :)

    robert bryant: I appreciate the efforts of andrea but in the comment
    you mentioned I don´t agree with him. Of course it is always better to
    first try to expand the current theory and improve it iteratly. But at
    some point it does not make sense anymore. An analogy from software
    engineering: All software developers know software that is grown over
    time. To the question "why is this so f*cking complicated here...and
    there" you get the answer "this has historical reasons". You start your
    software architecture with the knowledge that is available to that time.
    And than your boss says you have to include this feature. And then a
    customer wants to include that feature. And than you realise that a part
    of your system could be much more efficient, but you cannot improve it
    without changing the interfaces to other parts of the software so much,
    that they would stop working. So after some time it is a pain in the a$$
    to implement new features and to find bugs because the software is full
    of magic numbers, hacks and special functions for special functions
    which are active when condition A,B and C are met but not D.

    In my eyes this is the state of quantum theory. Try to google how
    many magic numbers you have to use to calculate the binding energies and
    angles for molecules. There are special theories for quantum mechanics
    and quantum electrodynamic and gravitation and assumptions with no real
    explanation (if you dont assume the property in this way it is not
    working...). The founders of quantum theorie saw the flaws and they were
    always searching for a way to fix it. Neither 11 dimensional spaces nor
    strings are able to patch this mess together. If Mills did not fake
    1500 pages of formulars it is a huge improvement over the current
    theory. He predicted the mass of the top quarks in a publication months
    before the discovery in a particle accelerator in a range nobody
    thought. This is pretty huge regarding the fact that quantum theory can
    not predict any mass of a fundamental particle. Mills theory predicts
    the masses for all of them.

    Puh...what a wall of text. I wish you a great day :)

  • Gee Epimetheus, it's not all so difficult. Suppose what you say is true. All Mills would have had to write to retain credibility was that he was wrong about the timeline, exactly what error was made that led to the wildly overoptimistic time estimate, why he had made that error, how he had corrected it, and so on. Does he do that? Did he? Of course not!

    nstead, what does he do? He follows the usual scammer script. He keeps on making extravagant claims, never admits failures, makes more ridiculous projections, shows different and even more absurd demonstrations and on and on and on. You really need to become conversant with some scams we know are scams. Like the Steorn case, the Carl Tilley case, Dennis Lee, Bedini, Papp and all scammers way back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely. And let's not leave out Rossi and Defkalion. The pattern is always the same. The obvious victory and widespread vindication by main line science are always just around the time corner --next year, in two years and so on. And the device changes all the time. There is never time to do a proper consistent experiment proving that the current device works with replication. There is always a newer better QuarkX around the corner. Classic. Mills is different mainly in that he has convinced more smarter people. They should be embarrassed for never requiring him to deliver on his constant promises.

    Edited once, last by Mary Yugo ().

  • This link provides a short analysis of the math and CQM in general.

    This is about third appearance of the Rathke paper in this Forum. If you believe that Wiki is God, then go on and believe the paper...

    Rathke had to withdraw is conclusion because he made some severe mistakes. We don't need abstract papers! There are many papers out there dealing with low orbits. Just make a search for Holmlid und you will find experimental confirmation of low orbits of H/D(0).

    We need more (sophisticated) and better experiments not silly QM papers. QM only works for a range of some few 10 eV.

  • Rathke used errornously the 3D and not the 2D wave equation and even with that he made a sign error. He said in a yahoo forum that he published the paper just to prevent ESA to put money into the evaluation of Mills theory. So no...this is not a valid critique.

  • I'm with Mary Yugo in this matter. To be fair, prof. Randell Mills is pretty smart a truly modern genius. His derivations of fine structure constant α and particle mass are worth of attention by itself. In addition, he's incredibly productive, given the immense pile of textbooks and articles, which he already produced. Also these books are well organized and thoroughly written and skillfully illustrated - which is in striking contradiction with many crackpots.

    Some other things about Randell Mills look more suspicious to me. His models of atom structure, Millsian software and electron orbitsphere models look quite naive with compare to standard quantum models, and they cannot explain the angled structure of water molecules, for example. The spherical shell models of chemical bond simply lack any deeper geometry.

    My objections against hydrino model were already presented here. In dense aether model the subquantum states could exist in essence but only as a highly metastable and endothermic states of hydrogen. Why hydrino doesn't condense all around us, if it's so dense? We have lotta iron and nickel in the universe, because these elements are product of many exothermic nuclear reactions - but no hydrino meteorites are still raining on our heads. And the attempts for characterizations of various hydrino compounds isolated probably didn't even pass Mills own standards - they were never attempted to replicate by his own team. Which is strange, because just these tangible samples would confirm the relevance of hydrino model in most reliable way.

    At the end the BLP's experiments with evaporation of silver by supercap discharges apparently lack the basic control of energetic balance, so I'm forced to consider them only as a visual shows for investors without deeper substance. So that whereas Mills definitely deserves a success with compare to many other apparent fraudsters, I'm still forced to consider his own research poorly substantiated and ill defined.

  • Hydrinos according to mills are dark matter - so it is pretty plausible, that we have not "seen" any hydrino meteroids, yet.

    But then again - maybe we have (Tunguska Incident) ...

  • It supposedly does not have different properties.

    They even connect their measured spectra to space spectra where there is a lot of dark matter. It actually would make sense, that hydrinos are dark matter cause H is the most abundant Element in the universe - the only thing that is more abundant is dark matter (which would then be a lower energy level of H).

    I am not saying that his theories are correct (i just started to read his book), but at least in the first part i could not really find any flaws in his argumentation. Of cause you have to follow him with his idea of the electron but if you do that, everything else derives pretty straight forward.

    But: If his assumption about the elctron is wrong - everything else is wrong as well.

    They predict to have first field tests of their reactor in H1 2017, so i guess we won't have to wait that long to see if his predictions are accurate. It would however be remarkable, that it took us nearly 100 years to realize that the current theory is wrong

  • /* If his assumption about the electron is wrong - everything else is wrong as well */

    Not actually necessary, as the Mills ideas already pervaded wide branches of physics - but I'm pretty sure, electron orbitals don't look like the hollow spherical shells.
    The plain spheres cannot explain complex shape of molecules, like the angled character of water molecule.

    The resolution of microscopes already enables to confront quantum mechanical models with the real shape of molecular orbitals

  • The plain spheres cannot explain complex shape of molecules, like the angled character of water molecule.

    The water calculations of Mills are one page 476 ff. (GUTCP 2016). The angle calculated matches the measure one. The value on your post is that of vapour you will find it in Wiki too. It's a little bit smaller because no Hydrogenbonds must be accounted for.
    But the Mill's formula provides no correction for the Temperature which influences the average state of water...The Mill's modell is good for a starting point (low Temp), but for the fine structure you need QM.

    But best thing to do would be to go through the math and verify it .. it's only about 10 pages...

  • Zephir, you are missing the whole point. Spherical models were abandoned because they did not lead to stable orbits and could not explain many observations. But back then they just used postulated spherical orbits. That were equations solely designed to match experimental data. Of course this failed.

    Mills is totally different. He starts with Maxwells equations and derives stable orbits that obey Maxwells laws. If you don´t see the difference I cannot help you. That Maxwells equations are valid is known. If Mills claims that he uses just Maxwells equations,Newtons laws and special relativity the only valid answer is to show where his derivations are wrong. All the laws Mills builds upon are valid so you have to show the error and not just state "I don´t believe this.". We are not in church.

    The orbitospheres are spheres for atoms and ions. If you combine them the electrons of course interact and so they show a more complex behavior. I calculated the water molecule with Mills equations and your statement "The plain spheres cannot explain complex shape of molecules, like the angled character of water molecule." is simply wrong. I am going to post my calculations by tomorrow I think here in this forum.

    Your second aspect with the microscopic shape is definitely a valid objection. But to take only these pictures as a proof that Mills is wrong is not valid: In these pictures you see through the eyes of very complicated measurement equipment. We cannot judge how this is influencing the results on the screen. And assuming that these pictures are 100% valid it is totally possible to get the same results with Mills model.

    Of course you have the right to dislike the theory and ignore it for being naive and so on. But than I would ask you to stop reading threads about Mills and stop posting wrong statements over and over again. Of course his theory can explain complex molecular shapes and tomorrow I am going to invite you to use Mills equations to prove him wrong.

  • /* He starts with Maxwells equations and derives stable orbits that obey Maxwells laws. If you don´t see the difference I cannot help */

    I don't see the way, how Maxwells equations would lead to stable orbit for electrons if it didn't lead for Bohr. To be honest, I even don't understand, why/how the Maxwell's theory of light should work for massive particle like the electron. In general, whole the orbital physics is governed with quantum mechanics, which is inconsistent with Maxwell equations, which don't support quantization. At any case, the fact something is derived mathematically still doesn't imply, it's physically relevant. Euler did prove hollow Earth mathematically, many theorists did the same later for string theory - without success in subsequent experiments. Time will show us - but in this moment I don't believe nearly anything about Mills. And I still support most of alternative physics: from scalar waves over water clusters to overunity devices just by my physical intuition and knowledge of abandoned evidence.

    What I would recommend the supporters of prof. Mills is less flame wars in discussions and more actual attempts for replication of his work at both theoretical, both experimental basis. Note that in this matter Randell Mills still strikingly differs from researchers of cold fusion (which isn't supported with mainstream in the same way) - his research is still one man show for bunch of supporters, who accept his work non-critically and without any attempts for replication. This sectarian attitude is what bothers me here.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.