Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • 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 .

  • 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.