/* Getting angry because people are stupid and can't see the obvious and then after using good communication */
The people boycotting or even blocking frontier research should be fired or even prosecuted ASAP - this is the best (and actually the only effective) way of ignorants handling.
Can anybody calculate this?
How many hydrogen atoms (hydrinos) exist in the volume of tea cup (150 millileters) at a temperature of 7000K at a presumed pressure of 1 bar.
How much power does each of these hydrinos in the teacup volume need to produce in order to sustain a reaction that lasts for 2 minutes at a continuous power output of 2 megawatts?
How many hydrogen atoms (hydrinos) exist in the volume of tea cup (150 millileters) at a temperature of 7000K at a presumed pressure of 1 bar.
You should first read some Mill's stuff. A simple business presentation would be enough...
The sun shell runs at a pressure, some already call "vacuum". (Not 1 bar!)
You should first read some Mill's stuff. A simple business presentation would be enough...
The sun shell runs at a pressure, some already call "vacuum". (Not 1 bar!)
I wanted to assume the worst case condition to determine through the use of the ideal gas law how many hydrogen atoms participate in the hydrino reaction within the plasma ball. If a vacuum is assumed, then not many hydrino atoms can transfer their energy of reduced orbitals to the plasma reaction. The hydrino carries just tens of electron volts when a hydrino is formed and then from that point does not contribute to the energy density accounting.
How many vacuum constrained hydrinos can keep a two megawatt plasma reaction going for two minutes?
In the vacuum of space, the space in the core of the galaxy. the density of hydrogen is 1000 hydrogen atoms per CC in the absolute zero cold temperature of space. That means that in teacup volume 150 cc there would be (150) (1000) = 150,000 hydrogen atoms producing energy in the best case.
If that volume is heated to 7000K, the number of hydrinos in that volume is greatly reduced. Something about the energy density produced by the SunCell and the hydrino theory does not add up.
Can anyone get things to add up and explain to me what I am missing?
I wanted to assume the worst case condition to determine through the use of the ideal gas law how many hydrogen atoms participate in the hydrino reaction within the plasma ball. If a vacuum is assumed, then not many hydrino atoms can transfer their energy of reduced orbitals to the plasma reaction. The hydrino carries just tens of electron volts when a hydrino is formed and then from that point does not contribute to the energy density accounting.
axil: The hydrino model – at his best - works well up to H 1/13 because you can construct a three body statistics for this range. Thus lower levels will/must? directly lead to fusion events or a more or less final hydrino states. I do not understand why Mill's does no measurements for Helium.
Thus, as we don't know the final picture, we cannot make an estimate. You will have to ask R. Mills how much H2 he is constantly providing for his self sustain mode.
One more thing: The self-sustain mode must have been a big surprise for Mill's! He certainly never expected this to happen, because he always was thinking of a kinetic three body reaction...
Now he is clearly on the LENR path!
QuoteI 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!
QM, and QED, are vastly powerful and accurate to very high accuracy over a wide set of phenomena, as I'm sure you know.
it does indeed not solve all physics. But it does provide predictive skill with greater accuracy over a much greater range of phenomena that anything of Randy Mills. Nor is it contradicted by experiment in any way over the very phenomena that Randy Mills claims to explain better (though I dispute this).
Randy Mills GUT is incoherent in many ways, it also has as far as I know no predictive ability, except where it is making semi-classical equivalent computations that you'd expect to be reasonably good.
I can do better predicting planetary orbits with Newton.
self-sustain and 1MW power.
The BLP PR's on this, and associated "validation reports" have all the hallmarks of aspiring non-science.
Take the power output verification they highlight. It is meaningless, because it does not imply excess energy and transients are notoriously difficult to instrument. Instantaneous power gain is just not a useful indicator of anything. The self-sustain mode they claim has no details (that I can discover) and no validation. I'd expect however that it was on a very different system, with low power out, or they would say.
Because they link these two phenomena in one sentence (though if you pasrse carefully they do not claim both at once) people here view the evidence as undeniable.
I've never seen evidence from BLP that was even remotely good. But their PR is heaps better than Rossi.
A few comments.
(1) "Mills said" is not the same as "theory predicted".
(2) Mills cannot have predicted the value of the Fine Structure Constant. It was known beforehand, and working backward to a desired goal is very very different from prediction
(3) Increased expansion is a 50/50 bet. And teh sot of thing astrologers win at by making many predictions and remembering the ones that come out right.
(4) Do you have a ref for this top quark mass prediction?
- The predictive and describtive power of GUTCP is by far better than QM because it incorparates the origin of mass and includes special relativity - one of the biggest flaws of QM-
That is untrue, QM plays beautifully with SR hence QED. And untrue again: QM predicts with very great accuracy (10s of sig figures) most of physics, GUTCP does not preduict anything with great accuracy.
The structure of molecules can be calculated by analytic expressions with GUTCP - QM uses iterative Hartree-Fock and yields an inferior precision
That is a statement about skill in numerical solution. Like saying that planetary orbits have closed analytical solutions under Newton but must be approximated numerically under GR. No determinant of theoretical goodness. It is also out of date. QM uses whatever advanced numerical techniques our computers can currently handle. Finally those GUTCP analytical techniques don't produce exact answers, which makes it likely that they are tractable semi-classical approximations of some deeper theory: as you'd expect given the nature of GUTCP.
/* QM predicts with very great accuracy (10s of sig figures) most of physics */
QM predicts only few things by itself and its precision is nothing special (which is why for example the Schrodinger equations gets replaced with Dirac's ones, whenever possible). IMO you're talking about quantum electrodynamics, which has quite narrow scope of validity instead.
/* Mills cannot have predicted the value of the Fine Structure Constant. It was known beforehand */
Actually he does. This prediction was never published before, so that he does nothing "backward".
Zephir
Your link does not work. I don't understand how you claim Mills predicted alpha when its value was known in 1916. He would need to be 120 years old, assuming he was an infant prodigy and could make this claim at age 10.
QM predicts a very great many things, as does its relativistic counterpart QED. The two theories are coherent, just as Newton and GR are coherent.
Basically, anything involving microscopic interactions needs QM. Since photon interactions are very often quantum scale, this extends to anything involving matter at small scales or light. And since quantum coherence has been measured over very long distances it is not restricted in applicability to microscopic scales, just more usually found relevant there.
QM made many ultra surprising predictions which were later shown correct. Do I need to list them?
all major physical experiments are covered by GUTCP (yes even tunneling and double slit experiment)
Hopefully you will be able to point us to where GUTCP covers inner shell electron capture?
So I think we need a detailed quantitative walk-through of how GUTCP "covers" this stuff: or for you to admit it does not.
Eric has an option.
I have another: coherent photon EPR paradox (not really a paradox) experiments that show correlated photon spins over long distances where the two separated detectors influence each other (though not, it turns out, in a way that allows acausal signalling). More generally, quantum entanglement as is now widely used in quantum cryptography.
These are highly surprising predictions of QM, validated by experiment after prediction. If GUTCP makes them correctly then it is probably just another way to write QM. If it does not, then it has a problem because these phenomena are real.
I'm very deeply suspicious of Mills GUTCP because it is very easy to write long elaborate apparently mathematical descriptions that are rubbish, and many people do this. Nor is it easy for a non-mathematician to know. But there is a way to distinguish real from rubbish, which follows what I've been asking for. Here (from a quick google search) is somone doing this and proposing an example:
QuoteDisplay MoreReal physics vs making-it-up-as-you-go-along
Many people experience physics like this: There’s a list of equations that the instructor wrote on the chalkboard, and you try plugging in different numbers into different formulas until, hopefully, you calculate something that matches the answer at the back of the book. Then you (optionally) make up a one-sentence ad hoc justification why that’s the right formula to use. This activity, while very common in poorly-taught intro physics courses, is not physics, and has nothing to do with physics.
When I read this book, it seems to me that Mills engaging in this activity page after page. It seems like Mills knows the right number or equation for this or that famous physics phenomenon, and he just writes down a formula that more-or-less matches it, and makes up a few sentences qualitatively describing why this formula is what it is.
In proper physics, by contrast, you need to write down an equation that applies in many different situations and stick to it. It’s gotta have variables with specific definitions, it’s gotta have a specific domain of applicability, etc. Everything has to be specific, specific, specific—so specific that in any conceivable situation, there is a right and wrong answer to the questions: “Does the equation apply here? And if so, what exactly do the variables mean in this context?” That’s how you know that you’re not making things up as you go along.
Moreover, once you have that fully-specified equation written down, you need to apply that equation to many different situations, and find that it always gives the right answer. That way you’re getting more out of it than you put in.
Numerology and more
Mills does not do this. It looks like he does, but really he doesn’t. As one random example, Table 34.1 (p1536) is a set of four formulas for the ratio of the masses of the electron, muon, tau, and neutron, in terms of just the fine structure constant. (No such formula is known or believed to exist by mainstream physicists.) It sure looks like he just tried adding and multiplying things randomly until he wound up with a number that matched the experimental mass data. [This activity, ascribing significance to meaningless random relationships between numbers, is dismissively called numerology.] He suggests that it is not numerology, using the word “derived” (“The masses of the leptons, the quarks, and nucleons are derived…”). So where is the more basic equation from which these can be mathematically “derived”? I can’t find it.
Indeed I can’t find a single case in the whole book where a general law is used to derive a more specific law quantitatively (and where the general law is not part of mainstream physics, and where the more specific law is known to be correct). He does plenty of that qualitatively, but not quantitatively. Key concepts like “orbitspheres” used throughout the book are never defined quantitatively (by which I mean, writing down one or more equations / criteria that allow anyone to figure out what the orbitsphere is in any situation, objectively, uniquely, and completely.)
So the key issue is, how does Mills get those equations? From what basic axioms are they derived, where is the derivation? What is the domain of applicability of those axioms? Is every step of the derivation definitive? If Mills can just wave his hands and insert whatever equation he likes, it is awfully easy to get those matches.
Equally, if Mills makes strongly unlikely predictions, even if we don't understand his reasoning, we must take him seriously. That needs to be detailed, quantitative, pre-published, numbers that turn out to be very unusually right (for example correct to within 1% of the prior expected range). Astrologists are good at making weak predictions. If you say 20 things each of which has a 50% chance of hapenning you can quote 10 correct predictions and even (incorrectly) say that the chances of those being right without precognition are 1/2^10 = 0.1%.
I'm very deeply suspicious of Mills GUTCP because it is very easy to write long elaborate apparently mathematical descriptions that are rubbish, and many people do this. Nor is it easy for a non-mathematician to know. But there is a way to distinguish real from rubbish, which follows what I've been asking for. Here (from a quick google search) is somone doing this and proposing an example:
Mills does not do this. It looks like he does, but really he doesn’t. As one random example, Table 34.1 (p1536) is a set of four formulas for the ratio of the masses of the electron, muon, tau, and neutron, in terms of just the fine structure constant. (No such formula is known or believed to exist by mainstream physicists.) It sure looks like he just tried adding and multiplying things randomly until he wound up with a number that matched the experimental mass data. [This activity, ascribing significance to meaningless random relationships between numbers, is dismissively called numerology.] He suggests that it is not numerology, using the word “derived” (“The masses of the leptons, the quarks, and nucleons are derived…”). So where is the more basic equation from which these can be mathematically “derived”? I can’t find it. <-- may be this guy needs some basic lectures about how to read a text book...or he mixed up formula numbers with page numbers...
Indeed I can’t find a single case in the whole book where a general law is used to derive a more specific law quantitatively (and where the general law is not part of mainstream physics, and where the more specific law is known to be correct). He does plenty of that qualitatively, but not quantitatively. Key concepts like “orbitspheres” used throughout the book are never defined quantitatively (by which I mean, writing down one or more equations / criteria that allow anyone to figure out what the orbitsphere is in any situation, objectively, uniquely, and completely.)
@THH: It's Saturday, time to take a rest and may be also for some reading.
Adding to a discussion with citations of “an intellectual plumber”, who rarely reads more than tree sentences per page is not very helpful.
Mills derivation of the muon mass is straight forward, albeit the needed formulas (mentioned in brackets) are somewhat dispersed within the text.
Just to give you a little help with your imagination. The masses of all three electron like elementary particles are related by the same calculation base formula. The variation in mass (e.g. between e and muon) depend on relativistic changes in the resonance of the particle generating cavity. So the wild looking formulas (Table 34.1, now page 1548 )with lots of alpha are quotients of the respective formulas.
Of course you ( me too) will have to read a lot, to fully understand what Mill's is arguing. But he really gives some deeper insight like: Correction of general relativity due to a bug in Schwarzschilds original paper..( David Foit posted the correction some months ago!), Deeper insight into gravity and a proposal for particle generation on the base of space-resonance and many more.
He is not a junky that juggles around with numbers, until he has a formula that delivers the muon mass up to 0.01% off to the measured value...
(And even if a lucky gambler would find the same formula by mere luck, I would try to find out why he was lucky...)
Quote from WyttenbachMills derivation of the muon mass is straight forward, albeit the needed formulas (mentioned in brackets) are somewhat dispersed within the text.Just to give you a little help with your imagination. The masses of all three electron like elementary particles are related by the same calculation base formula. The variation in mass (e.g. between e and muon) depend on relativistic changes in the resonance of the particle generating cavity. So the wild looking formulas (Table 34.1, now page 1548 )with lots of alpha are quotients of the respective formulas.Of course you ( me too) will have to read a lot, to fully understand what Mill's is arguing.
i judge content, not bringer of content. as should you.
In this case you appear to be missing the point.
QuoteMills derivation of the muon mass is straight forward, albeit the needed formulas (mentioned in brackets) are somewhat dispersed within the text.Just to give you a little help with your imagination. The masses of all three electron like elementary particles are related by the same calculation base formula. The variation in mass (e.g. between e and muon) depend on relativistic changes in the resonance of the particle generating cavity. So the wild looking formulas (Table 34.1, now page 1548 )with lots of alpha are quotients of the respective formulas.Of course you ( me too) will have to read a lot, to fully understand what Mill's is arguing.
Now, if you can understand what Mills is saying and validate for yourself (and presumably others) how every formula in the derivation for mass is forced by the theory, no handwaving and insertion of formulae that allows cherry-picking, I accept all that you say.
Otherwise this "intellectual plumber" seems to me to have a sounder manner of judging whacky theories than you, because he is alert to the obvious way in which people can work backward from results unless every step is rigorous. I believe you are being lazy here and without quantitative understanding of Mills ideas (I don't believe in the case of these masses that they provide any such quantitative understanding) you are accepting hand-waving and Mills writing down random equations.
I'll welcome us deconstructing this stuff to show whether I or you are right. But I want to point out that unless you know you are right, because you have gone through this stuff and can justify precisely every step as an inevitable consequence of the axioms (what are these?), your faith in this stuff is based on fantasy. That would be true even were mills in fcat correct.
@THuxley
You need to follow the clues (references) and it is useful to have a piece of paper and pen and good reference materials, wikipedia can help many times etc. So to follow the origin needs you to do some research. So in a sense I understand your conlclusion the work is not easy to comprehend. A lot of material is spread out. A linear read of the book is hard. One deciphers fact after fact and surprisingly where I were in your position thinking that smething was fudge, further work by me could fill in the gaps and things got more understandable. Atm after all my
work the only fudge I can see is the conclusions drawn from changing reference frames. I find this difficult to follow and is used almost everywhere. The only bulls eye simple derivation I know of is the calculation of the ionisation energy of the hydrogene atom.If you skip the magnetic part you will be able to see the deduction without the change of reference system. I can give you the resolution and derivation from physical quantities if you explain where you get stuck. This still is not easy to do but but is the easiest fact to babysit someone through.
Also anybody if you can explain the physics and mathematics of the change of reference system to me I would be super glad. Anyway this current weakness has not the amount of freedom (he uses the same trick over and over again) to fusdge much so I consider all this a weakness in the presentation and my ability.
Not only does Mills have a theory, he has built a machine that functions in accordance with his theory. Even more importantly, he has had numerous authentic, qualified, third parties validate his machine, which indirectly verifies his theory.
That is the reason he keeps getting funding, and some respect.
i judge content, not bringer of content. as should you.
A prerequisite of judging/discussing content is to read it yourself... Just try as I proposed. I will not waste my time for a FUD-ing plumber that obviously only did read three lines/page!
Atm after all my work the only fudge I can see is the conclusions drawn from changing reference frames. I find this difficult to follow and is used almost everywhere. The only bulls eye simple derivation I know of is the calculation of the ionisation energy of the hydrogene atom.
I conclude from your post from which this is quoted that (1) almost everywhere (in almost all derivations) a device (the changing of reference frames) is used that you are unable to verify; (2) this device is not used in the calculation of the ionization energy of the hydrogen atom; (3) you have gone through Mills's derivation of the ionization of hydrogen yourself and have been able to personally verify it; and (4) you have not been able to personally verify almost all other of Mills's derivations, because of the device mentioned in (1). Have I misunderstood anything?
This still is not easy to do but but is the easiest fact to babysit someone through.
Let's let anyone who makes a claim on behalf of another be willing to provide support for that claim. If I point out that Mills claims to derives calculations as an alternative to QM that very accurately cover all of atomic physics from basic postulates, this is hardly controversial, because I'm just reporting a claim. If, by contrast, I claim that Mills derives calculations as an alternative to QM that very accurately cover all of atomic physics from basic postulates, the claim is now one I am making, and so I am on the hook to substantiate it. This is not babysitting. This is a reasonable expectation one has in any discussion.
Not only does Mills have a theory, he has built a machine that functions in accordance with his theory. Even more importantly, he has had numerous authentic, qualified, third parties validate his machine, which indirectly verifies his theory.
I'm always careful to separate BrLP's experimental claims from Mills's theory. On the experimental side, I consider the matter far from settled, even with the purported replications. I followed up on one such replication that was advertised as having been connected to the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). It turned out to have been done on the CfA premises by an independent contractor with no clear connection to Harvard, and the purported confirmation lent itself, it seemed to me, to other interpretations. Despite this underwhelming experience, I am open to the possibility that BrLP have an experimental phenomenon.
Is there a necessary connection between anything that BrLP might be seeing in their lab and Mills's theory? And have there been replications that have supported elements of his theory? This part is even less clear to me. But judging from your confidence I gather that you have done the footwork on this and can fill in some of the details for us.
