Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • 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.


    @Zephir: You shoot in the air I! I guess nobody here is a supporter of R. Mills in the sense as somebody is a supporter of a football team...


    On the one side there is the Mill's Hydrino story and dense deuterium (Holmlid and others) on the other. If you like to discuss these phenomenas then either present or point to some calculations. Deep electron orbits are a fact and thus QM is at challenge (as it ever was since it's beginning!).


    But the vast part of Mill's theory is not dealing with hydrinos! As long as the calculations of his orbit theory are confirmed by the experiments, they cannot be a priory wrong. As all theorys we know, it will certainly need some refinement, but this will never happen as long as QM is taught like a religion!

  • /* If you like to discuss these phenomenas then either present or point to some calculations */


    This imbecile argument is common in mainstream physics forums, which otherwise oppose cold fusion, hydrino the more just by the same sentence. The ability to compute something says nothing about physical validity of concept. The cold fusion is dismissed just because it contradicts the calculations. And vice-versa: Euler did prove hollow Earth mathematically, many theorists did the same later for string theory - without success in subsequent experiments.


    It's sorta funny to observe, how the people who cannot calculate anything use the calculations as an argument.


    /* As long as the calculations of his orbit theory are confirmed by the experiments */


    Bohr spherical model of atoms is also supported with experiments - yet it has been dismissed before years from good reasons. Why the people should believe again, that the electron orbitals are thin spherical shells? Such a silly adhoced pictures with sharp edges - they look like primitive space-filling models from school


  • As theory debate rages on, Mills continues on his march to market. Yesterday (26 Oct) was BLP's "Industry Day":


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ustry-disruption-in-2017/


    Artefact on ECW was so kind as to offer some thoughts he posted to yahoo about his remembrances of the presentation:


    Here are some quick thoughts from Industry Day. It may be that I am mis-remembering some things and will find myself corrected by the video. I am indebted to Dr. Mills and BrLP for the opportunity to attend.


    The general sense of the 3:30 hour presentation was that the field trial remains on track for 1H17 with limited commercial operations beginning in 2H17. The earliest prediction of "standalone" operations with CPV self-powering the ignition is January 2017.


    Here are some highlights:


    Dr. Mills began the presentation with an assessment of the theory and then discussed the substantial technical progress since the last presentation. He unveiled a prototype unit and asserted that the design is substantially field ready with the obvious exception of the CPV units. Mills walked through the various components of the device, which include:
    * electrode-less design using dual intersecting streams of molten silver ejected by electromagnetic pumps.
    * 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.
    * reaction vessel is held to near vacuum (mT pressure)
    * reaction vessel is designed for easy access for maintenance, CPV will likewise be designed for easy removal.
    * substantial control and telemetry instrumentation will be added
    * importantly, there are zero moving parts and Mills projected a minimum 20-year operational life and minimal required maintenance.


    During the discussion, a demonstration was provided of a live, remote video of the interior of a prototype unit during operation. Significantly, the ignition current was turned off completely at one point and the reaction was self-sustaining, presumably due to ambient heat.


    A few other notable facts from memory:
    * the prototype unit will weigh about 100kg and provide approximately 250kW
    * the reaction has been sustained a minimum of six hours, limited only by the laboratory working hours
    * unit cost is dominated by CPV and is the $100/kW range. Production scaling should allow the cost to decrease to $32/kW. Operating cost is about $0.001/kWH. Both production and operating costs are order(s) of magnitude lower than conventional technologies.


    Kert Davies, formerly of Green Peace and now heading ClimateInvestigations.org discussed the importance of BrLP technology for reversing climate change due to rising CO2.


    Dr. Jannson provided a recap of four independent validations performed in May by himself and three others using differential water bath calorimetry. Each of the validations found COP on the order of 50 to 500 with output measured as high as 2MW (maximum input was 10kW). The maximum power that could be generated from any of the reactants due to chemistry was calculated to be a 18W. A significant issue during the independent validations was the repeated melting of the tungsten electrodes and reaction vessel. Additional tests using the now stable electrode-less design are planned to be repeated in the near future.

  • /* Significantly, the ignition current was turned off completely at one point and the reaction was self-sustaining, presumably due to ambient heat. */


    This is the most interesting sentence, but I would want to see it on video.


    /* Production scaling should allow the cost to decrease to $32/kW. Operating cost is about $0.001/kWH. Both production and operating costs are order(s) of magnitude lower than conventional technologies.*/


    The electricity is currently sold for $15/kW - or not? It would correspond the COP 0.5, not on the order of 50 to 500...



  • That's the price for buying a reactor (100$/kW => 250kW Reactor => 25.000$ for obtaining the unit).


    "The operating cost is about $0.001/kWH"

  • /* can't figure out that the superposition of perturbed stable orbits delivers the same cloud picture as QM */


    Nice try, but the superposition of perturbed spheres is still sphere, not the fancy orbital shapes like these ones. These shapes just determine the angles of chemical bonds by geometry of resonating quantum waves, not additional calculations based on experimental values. Whereas in Mills theory they're all just a plain spheres, with no respect to quantum numbers and their counterparts in spectral lines. This is very boring model, actually lacking any imagination.



    Brett Holverstott, who has recently published his book about Dr. Mills, has kindly compiled a list of published experiments by Mills et all Unfortunately all articles list Randell Mills as the first author - and this is the red flag and warning sign for me.

  • Quote

    As theory debate rages on, Mills continues on his march to market. Yesterday (26 Oct) was BLP's "Industry Day":


    March to market? ROTFWL! March to nowhere is more like it. March to more unsubstantiated claims and improperly tested devices. THAT march has been going on for going on 25 years with ever increasing claims and ever dumber so-called evidence. It's a joke, Shane. A silly joke ... unless you happen to be an investor in which case the humor gets lost just like your investment does.

  • /* It's a joke, Shane. A silly joke ... unless you happen to be an investor in which case the humor gets lost just like your investment does */


    Why not to simply write, you're patoskeptic by your very spirit and not willing to believe in anything? It could save lotta place and time at this forum.
    Whereas I believe in hydrino stuff neither, I can see many common things of Mills experiments with so-called plasma electrolysis of water.


    2 H(1) + O(18) --> Ne(20)* --> O(16) + He(4) + 16.1 MeV Or something more straight forward, like the:


    H(1) + O(18) --> He(4) + N(15) + 3.98 MeV


    H(1) + O(17) --> He(4) + N(14) + 1.19 MeV

  • Nice try, but the superposition of perturbed spheres is still sphere, not the fancy orbital shapes like these ones. These shapes just determine the angles of chemical bonds by geometry of resonating quantum waves, not additional calculations based on experimental values.



    Where did you read that QM needs no gauge?? Are you just guessing the mass of a nucleus?? And who is measuring the base (Bor equivalent) radius? The fact is that not even for Hydrogen the exact charge radius is known, because QM is no help in that case.. and many others. (Look at the QM calc for the elctron g-factor - way off!)


    Mills calculation just delivers the force relevant orbits for the static calculation of basic atom/molecule features nothing more. Mills would never deny the existence of an electron cloud, but for his calculations it is not important.


    Enviousness is never a guide to success, just think about it.


    (PS: Only the superposition of non perturbed spheres are still spheres! Just think of the overlay of rotation torque and bending torque vibrations! Even a simple molecule like H20 has two free degrees for torque vibrations!)

  • @Shane D: /* How about a crawl to market? */


    If the Mills device works, then it could find its way to markets rather fast, I believe. I've at least three reasons for it:

    • With compare to cold fusion research, Mills's research is already backed well with strong investors. These people would want their money back for sure.
    • The Mills reactor doesn't utilize nuclear reaction - at least proclamatively, which may be part of Mills strategy. So it's less threatened with nuclear proliferation and nuclear safety rules.
    • The Mill's technology is out of reach of common amateurs, so it there is smaller risk of unwanted competition and patent breaking from the side of distributed producers of electricity.

    Wyttenbach : It's difficult to follow the path of Mills reasoning through the opaque layer of math. But IMO the main reason, why Mills pushes his silly orbitsphere model of electrons everywhere is, the hydrino theory requires to do so. The spherical path of electrons of course doesn't follow from Maxwell's theory in any way, because electrons are charged particles, not massless waves. But the Gauss theorem says, that spherical antennae cannot radiate their energy into outside. It does apply not only to Maxwell's equations, from the same reason the lone spherical black holes cannot radiate gravitational waves into outside as well. If the electrons in hydrino wouldn't form exact sphere, then the hydrino would be unstable. (IMO it would be unstable anyway, due to nonzero proton-electron momentum, not to say about principal instability of subquantum states of ZPE).


    So that Mills apparently believes, the same condition, which requires the stability of hydrino must apply to normal electron orbitals as well. But as we know, the normal electrons radiate their energy rather easily, which indicates, they don't form orbitsphere with honest exception of forbidden transitions (where another selection and exclusion rules also apply). These things would be apparently over your head, but at least I did try to explain it.

  • 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.


    As you mention, we are not in a church. Hopefully we can use reason to talk through one specific difficulty with orbitspheres. I understand orbitspheres to be infinitesimally thin spherical shells comprised of great circles of circulating electric current. The key concept here is that the orbitsphere is a two-dimensional surface and not a volume. Have I misunderstood anything at this point?


    The current understanding of K-shell electron capture is that the nucleus samples some of the probability distribution of the low-lying electron orbits, which, in the QM telling, are three-dimensional volumes. This makes it possible for the weak interaction to operate on the inner shell electron at the very short distances that it is believed to operate, within the nuclear volume. If orbitspheres were the correct description of electron orbitals, I would expect this description of electron capture to be incorrect, for the electrons would rarely or never traverse the nuclear volume. In that case there would seem to be be a need to allow the weak interaction to operate on the order of picometers.


    How does Mills's model account for inner-shell electron capture?

  • I cannot answer your question because I would need hours to understand it properly Eric, but Mills has a small paragraph and an equation for K-Capture (p. 1620) and a chapter about Nuclear Forces and Radioactivity (p.1609 ff.).


    @ Zephir: The analog in Mills theory of the "fancy orbital shapes" that you posted is the interaction of the orbiting electrons which produces orbitospheres with nonuniform current densities. You find pictures of that on p. 60 and p. 300.


    BTW. how is it possible to embedd pictures to a post?

  • Wyttenbach : It's difficult to follow the path of Mills reasoning through the opaque layer of math. But IMO the main reason, why Mills pushes his silly orbitsphere model of electrons everywhere is, the hydrino theory requires to do so.


    @Zephir: The math is straight forward. Your comment (silly) only shows a lack of understanding it... The Mills formalism uses all the QM quantization(spin, orbit etc.) rules too. The question is only what can the Mill's formalism do better than QM and what is missing there and QM can do better. Whole physics is about modells and none is perfect!


    Mills Hydrino levels are very speculative as his concept only works if you assume an increase of the (less screened..) central charge... But (also independent) experiments show that 'these low level orbits' exist as resonances. The attempt by Winterberg - related to Holmlids dense Deuterium - using superconduction, is far more promizing for an explanantion of these obviously stable higher level deep orbits.


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5414.pdf


    This makes it possible for the weak interaction to operate on the inner shell electron at the very short distances that it is believed to operate, within the nuclear volume. If orbitspheres were the correct description of electron orbitals, I would expect this description of electron capture to be incorrect, for the electrons would rarely or never traverse the nuclear volume. In that case there would seem to be be a need to allow the weak interaction to operate on the order of picometers.


    How does Mills's model account for inner-shell electron capture?


    @EricW: I would be very surprised if any QM shell model could exactly predict the electron capture rate based on an electron cloud model. IT's just a nice visual picture to explain an effect...
    K-shell electrons are highly relativistic and rarly behave cloud like. Further on the structure of the nucleous seems to be more important for the finestructure details of K-capture and Alpha decay.


    I just checked the new Mill's compendium. There he started some new calculations for the alpha decay (p.1621). May be you check once, how off it is.

  • /* The Mills formalism uses all the QM quantization... The question is only what can the Mill's formalism do better than QM */


    No comment..


    /* 'these low level orbits' exist as resonances */


    The Winterberg's work cited has nothing to do with subquantum states, on the contrary - Rydberg matter is made up from highly excited atoms, if you know what it means.

  • I cannot answer your question because I would need hours to understand it properly Eric, but Mills has a small paragraph and an equation for K-Capture (p. 1620) and a chapter about Nuclear Forces and Radioactivity (p.1609 ff.).


    You owe it to yourself to read up on this topic, because as you begin to understand it, I think you'll gain an intuition of at least one reason that Mills's theory is likely to be unphysical. The two topics I would suggest starting with are electron capture and the weak interaction.


    I think I recall us having a discussion of Mills a few weeks or months ago. You might have been the one who was interested in going through and double-checking his calculations. Is my memory correct? Have you had a chance to do this? Specifically I was interested in any suspicious, unexplained fitted parameters that might be hiding here or there.


    BTW. how is it possible to embedd pictures to a post?


    It's a bit of a pain. On my mac, I save a screenshot using CMD-SHIFT-4, upload the screenshot to Imgur and then copy their "BBCode (Forums)" link from the "Get share links" menu. Once that link is available, you can drop it in a message and click "Preview" to make sure it's showing up right. Perhaps someone else knows of a better way to do this.


    @EricW: I would be very surprised if any QM shell model could exactly predict the electron capture rate based on an electron cloud model. IT's just a nice visual picture to explain an effect...
    K-shell electrons are highly relativistic and rarly behave cloud like. Further on the structure of the nucleous seems to be more important for the finestructure details of K-capture and Alpha decay


    The point I was making was not a quantitative one about rates, but a more basic one: (1) the weak interaction works at very small distances (several orders of magnitude less than the strong force); (2) because of this, if any electrons are being captured, they must be present within the nucleus (and probably passing through a nucleon) when it occurs; (3) Mills's theory posits two-dimensional orbitals that do not intersect with the nuclear volume. Together these three things mean that Mills will have a hard time explaining electron capture.


    I just checked the new Mill's compendium. There he started some new calculations for the alpha decay (p.1621). May be you check once, how off it is.


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


    Sorry to reply to you in the same message. LENR Forum appears to have tweaked a setting which makes the "reply to" button go away for long periods of time after a post (I think this was just set back to five minutes again, which should fix it).

  • think I recall us having a discussion of Mills a few weeks or months ago. You might have been the one who was interested in going through and double-checking his calculations. Is my memory correct? Have you had a chance to do this? Specifically I was interested in any suspicious, unexplained fitted parameters that might be hiding here or there.


    Yes that was me. I did and I finished (at least for now) two days ago. I am going to upload it when I am back home. I am not going to spoiler any results, but from my answers in this thread you can guess the bottom line :P .