Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

Quote from Eric Walker

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.

I now accept the reduced orbital behavior of the atom below base level as a characteristic of gainful (overunity) technologies, because Holmlid has deminstated it experimentally. Mills is wrong in his interpretation. These compounds and elements which show low electron orbits are described in high pressure physics as metalized hydrides. One of those hydrides is metalized water. Mills calls it HOH.

I am using Mark LeClair's name for the metalized water nanoparticle, the Water Crystal. Connecting this subject to LENR, Randall Mills has found that water crystals are the active agent in the SunCell. Mills describes this special form of water as having no covalent chemical bonds. This lack of chemical bonds is a result of charge separation between the positively charged "hole' core of the nanoparticle and the electron cloud that orbits on the surface of the core of the superconductive crystal.

In the 1960s, Joe Papp used this process to produce a patented water explosive that could shred 5/8 inch stainless steel pipe. People have been injection HHO into their engines for many years now.

I beleive Holmlid, high pressure physics, and LeClair about the details of fractional electron orbitals, and not Mills.

The primary difference between the two interpretations of factional electron orbits is the nuclear nature of the interaction between these collapsed elements and other matter.

What Mills would discover if he set up multiple liquid metal fountains comprised of multiple liquid metal jets, that a single primary powered "Cat" fountain can ignite a self sustaining plasma reaction in the other unpowered secondary drone "Mouse" fountains so that they all are also self sustaining.

This is how I would beat Mills in the marketplace with a high COP Cat/Mouse systems architecture as demonstrated by Rossi.

If Rossi can get a system to self sustain and so can Mills then I reason that Mills and Rossi are basically using the same physics.

Mills has now verified Rossi's tech through replication. This replication shows that Rossi has the goods.

It will be interesting to see who gets the patent on Self Sustained mode, Rossi or Mills.

Quote from Shane D.

They don't say they were messing around in the lab with an arc welder, observed excess heat, then came up with the Hydrino theory to explain it. Now granted, this is all Millssays, but he and his engineering team say they "engineered" the SunCell around the Hydrino theory. Pretty sophisticated piece of hardware also. Not something you throw together willy-nilly without first having some idea what to expect. Just that molten silver idea...good stuff.

This amounts to simply reporting what BrLP's promotional literature says. I was hoping for some information that would substantiate the claims made in BrLP's promotional literature.

Quote from Shane D.

That's Axil's job; I'm just the low tech messenger guy.

Don't strain yourself, I will do the hard work even when that effort is unappreciated.

Like Rossi, Mills can also use lithium as fuel. A 50/50 mix might be nice at 500C. A full lithium electrode might also work. Here is a phase diagram for silver lithium alloy:

Quote from gameover

Using your lingo, Mills seems to be mostly concerned with the energy liberated by the metallization of hydrogen (which can be considered a chemical process) and not that caused by nuclear reactions involving it. So they may be using different aspects of the same process.

Holmlid says that 600ev per atom is liberated when the orbit of the hydrogen atom constricts. Mills does not account for the energy derived by the nuclear LENR reactions.

Mills is very open in describing his technology far more openly than Rossi has been. Mills is also able to get his ideas patented with no problems. Is that because his theories are based on chemical energy production only? LENR can't get patents through the system and this has caused Rossi to become tight lipped about his tech and looking for IP thieves behind every bush and around every corner.

Its no wonder that Mills has not checked for isotopic changes. A positive result would be the end of his chemistry only ploy and the beginning of his issues with the patent office.

Raising money from investors has been easy for Mills. He has spent 10 million so far on the SunCell. investors buy into his chemistry only ploy.

Come on now, who can beleive that 5 megawatts can be generated inside the volume of a teacup using chemistry only. Electron orbitals don't produce that much power. Mills must doubt his hydrino myth when he sees 5 kilograms of tungsten electrodes vaporize in 20 seconds.

Rossi could lose the overunity energy race by being honest about the underpinning of his reaction as Mills sails free and clear into product development, manufacturing, and product release into the market place.

Does Mills really beleive in the hydrino or is it a ploy to make his system development easier. Maybe Rossi should also claim that his tech is based on the hydrino, then he can get his stuff patented and everybody can understand it in detail. I am sympathetic about the hydrino for that reason...propaganda.

In my time at looking at nuclear reactor design, one key competitive advantage is power density. The more power that a reactor can produce with the smallest input of structural material makes the highest power dense reactor the winner.

The pebble bed reactor never appealed to the electric utilities because it was a low power dense contraption. Customers want economies of scale and minimal structure in plant construction. Its simple, the bigger the plant, the more it costs,

Mills will beat the pants off of Rossi with his 20 watt Quark nonsense. Who wants to buy a megawatt reactor the size of a shipping container when a reactor the size of a breadbox will serve.

Mills has the edge in this race.

The Possible LENR Reaction Occurring in SAFIRE (Axil Axil)

The SunCell is very close to the Safire system. In Safire, DC current is passed through a ball of hydogen and after a time, bursts of power up to 10 megawatts spring forth on the surface of the hydrogen ball. The interesting thing about Safire is that helium 3 is produced from hydrogen when these bursts occur.

I predict that the SunCell will produce electrons from sub atomic disintegration of nuclear matter such has been seen in another like system, the plasmaton.

The hydrino cannard is politically beneficial but it is not truth; it is not how the SunCell works.

Quote from Epimetheus

And it pops out with no (additional) struggle - here you see how alpha comes into play:
vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/b…/latest?cb=20160427021229

I took a look at p. 12 of Jeff Driscoll's slides (he has been a contributor to Vortex in the past), where he describes the "transition state orbitsphere," which is said to be special case of the orbitsphere that purportedly occurs during pair production.

• The electron is said to orbit the positron at the speed of light.
• The principal quantum number n is not only a rational number (as in Mills) but is also, amazingly, what appears to be a floating point number (1/137.035999).

Relativity forbids any massive object from moving at the speed of light, but the electron has mass (511 keV/c^2). Conclusion: (1) Driscoll is not or is incorrectly summarizing a conclusion or implication of Mills's theory, or (2) Mills's theory is at variance with an important result of relativity. Note also that with n=1/137.035999, we have moved very far from the integer quantum number that we are familiar with from atomic physics. All of this is in Driscoll's discussion of the fine structure constant, in connection with which you have approvingly cited his slides. Do you know whether Driscoll is accurately relaying Mills's theory here, or whether he's added some details of his own?

Quote from Epimetheus

And your other accusation that the equations are just meaningless applications of mathematical operators: I took a deeper look and can say that this is not the case. If it holds for the deepest depth of GUTCP remains to be seen but Mills is doing real science there and everyone willing to spend a few days of work can see that. It is all written down. In the later chapters there are some formulars which seem to come from nowhere - read the corresponding text and you most times will find a chain of references which leads you back and forth through GUTCP.

With this kind of statement you have moved beyond someone reporting a claim of Mills into the position of someone taking that claim on as your own. As such the burden of proof in this discussion shifts from Mills to you. Can you walk us through a specific example of an equation from GUTCP that you investigated and found to be something other than a meaningless collection of operators? Hopefully something other than the hydrogen atom, which is a simple enough system that Bohr was able to approximate it before QM came along.

Quote from Epimetheus

A simple "crackpot" statement perhaps was enough in the 90s but not anymore. Proving Mills wrong on his core idea is freaking hard work and NOBODY did this in the last 25 years. Show me a SINGLE proof and I will shut up.

Since Mills's theory is not yet established, the burden of proof properly lies with you and others who are convinced by it to prove that it is right.

Quote from Epimetheus

I gave the reference to two papers that clearly show, that with this approach it is possible to derive stable fundamental particles. How can this be possible when all Mills is doing is just randomly mixing symbols and operators? Link1 and Link2

I took a look at Link1 and Link2, which you associate with Mills. Link1 has a single footnote and a small paragraph in which the authors give the Mills hydrogen atom as an example of what they're illustrating. And Link2 shows no clear connection to Mills, although perhaps there are some shared concepts. Can you clarify what you had in mind in citing these links as support for Mills?

In LENR, there is a special case that applies. This case is beyond the standard definition of the atom, a standard case in which QM always applies. In LENR a superatom forms where a cluster of atoms joins together in a coherent aggregation. A Bose condinsate produces a superconductor based atomic formate where electrons orbit the positive superatom core at very low levels. The way that light interacts with this configuration is unlike what happens with standard atomic structure. The electrons orbit close in to the positive core of the cluster and this leads to very high frequency light generation when photon transition energy occures.

Mills mistakes the Superatom state with the standard state of the atom. He rejects QM because he sees how QM cannot predict what the photons will do in their interaction with the superatom. Simply put, Mills is mixing concepts and applying data he is seeing in one context to the standard concept that science most often works under.

If one accepts that there is electric potential between a separated electron and proton then one must accept there is latent energy in that system irrespective of whether some humans arbitrarily decide to define a ground state and write it down in a book.

Really all Mills has done with the SunCell is to show that certain catalysts through resonant multipole/dipole collisions can destabilize the electron orbitsphere causing it to radially accelerate inwards and release electric potential that exists in the form of high energy uv and euv photons.

Essentially a catalyst with enough kinetic energy collides with an electron destabilizing the surface currents creating nascent multipoles/dipoles. These areas of differing charge then resonantly attract and collide until the catalyst is ionized and the hydrogen electron radiates very high energy photons, beyond known chemical energy but not as energetic as that associated with nuclear processes.

The surface currents on the electron increase until they are just below the speed of light in the lowest orbital forming a physical basis for the true ground state.

Hydrinos also are not observable due to their high binding energy unless ionized by highly energetic photons far outside the range of the visible spectrum.

Wrote this on a phone thus apologies for any errors.

Quote from B Yoshikazu

If one accepts that there is electric potential between a separated electron and proton then one must accept there is latent energy in that system irrespective of whether some humans arbitrarily decide to define a ground state and write it down in a book.

Really all Mills has done with the SunCell is to show that certain catalysts through resonant multipole/dipole collisions can destabilize the electron orbitsphere causing it to radially accelerate inwards and release electric potential that exists in the form of high energy uv and euv photons.

Essentially a catalyst with enough kinetic energy collides with an electron destabilizing the surface currents creating nascent multipoles/dipoles. These areas of differing charge then resonantly attract and collide until the catalyst is ionized and the hydrogen electron radiates very high energy photons, beyond known chemical energy but not as energetic as that associated with nuclear processes.

The surface currents on the electron increase until they are just below the speed of light in the lowest orbital forming a physical basis for the true ground state.

Hydrinos also are not observable due to their high binding energy unless ionized by highly energetic photons far outside the range of the visible spectrum.

Wrote this on a phone thus apologies for any errors.

Display More

I have listed a number of systems that are very close in design to the SunCell that produce helium and other elements as a transmutation products. Someday, when a LENR supporter get a sample of the hydrogen and/or silver from the SunCell, transmutation will be detected...mark well these words.

Nuclear reactions involve meV energy release; transition reactions involve between 100 and 250keV energy release. The reactions and products are well characterized by euv spectroscopy, calorimetry, nMRI, and other rigorous analytical tests. If you don't believe it contact any number of these validators and see for yourself. None of these reactions involve any products or signatures of nuclear reactions.

http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/

Quote from B Yoshikazu

Nuclear reactions involve meV energy release

Nuclear reactions involve eV, keV and MeV energies (not meV). Q values are in the MeV and keV. Photons and electrons excited as charged particles are stopped have energies in the keV and eV.

@Eric
yes you read me right with more than babysitting is a term I like and use. Please note that I too asked to be baysitted through the correct meaning and mathematical + physcial interpretation of the reference system changes. But I also maintain that this lack of understanding is a weak critique. Because the same transform is used over and over again and I can't fathom that this could yield an oppertunity for delicate fudging to so correct formulas.

To note I tend to be a bit critical to some of the bashing of QM - it really has to have a value. For example QM is non radiating if you interpret the wavefunction as a representation of a physical field. QM with it's combined lagrangian with the maxwell equation will not radiate as I understand for eigen values solutions. This is known. But still you can see that Mills is bashing QM to be radiating. On the other hand the physical meaning of the wavefunction as what forces are working seams to be way to complicated to be representing a good base to found the physics on. Mills is much better here where the rules is just to let the electron shell centrifugal force balance the coloumb force (in it's simplest form) e.g. what Mills teach us is that there is a great oppertunity to base our modelling on plain ol physics and as a croelaruim you may derive what QM represents.

Also something you can hear is that QM is all fudge factors does not really match my interpretation of how QED is derived. The basics is that you assume the space is filled with a soup of waves and that locally to get the momentum you take the derivative, to get the energy you take the time derivative etc. Then you say that einsteins special relativity should be satisfied and voila Klein Gordon appears and as a small extention also the final QED equations. So what we have done is modeled the world as a soup of waves and constrained it to satisfy some known fundamental law there really is not much fudging here and it do yield a few good predictions. Mills is right and more probable as a theory because it doesn't need much new complex physics. We should be able to see a correspondance between QM and Mills but the true exact mathematical nature of this correspondance is unknown to me.

I don't think that it is impossible for Mills theory to explain low orbit electron capturing. He does indicate how to treat this case in his latest versíon of the book and it does so by using the traped photon(s) that is indeed in contact with the nucleus and will when it colappses into the nucleus drag the charges with it. This is basically what you shohuld have in the QM representation as well, the atom sized wavefunction of the electron needs to collapse into the nucleus as well. (I think that the probability of a particle formulation is wrong here, the wavefunction corresponds to a physical field).

Also the correlations of spins you get in the "teleportation" experiments is just a correlation that are created at the source of the rays. Mills claim that his theory predict this to a great degree so entanglement is reproduced as it should cause it is well known and actually quite natural and ordinary physics of conservation of spinn.

Quote from Eric Walker

Since Mills's theory is not yet established, the burden of proof properly lies with you and others who are convinced by it to prove that it is right.

Eric: It should be very easy to disprove Mills. Just find a reliable experiment, which shows that the exited hydrogen radius does not evolve in the manner of r = n*a0 (Mills), instead of the Bohr way n*n*a0!