Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • The principals of ITER are not promising commercial power stations in the next two years. And what they do and claim for their current experiments is verified by hundreds if not thousands of credible and reliable scientists. It's slow and doesn't work right but the scientists on ITER admit that. Bright Light Power's people? Not so much.

  • The principals of ITER are not promising commercial power stations in the next two years.


    Actually they are not promising anything for at least 35 years....


    The original version of the road map, published in 2012, forecast that a demonstration fusion power plant known as DEMO could be operating in the early 2040s, in order to supply electricity to the grid by 2050.

    But in the updated version, yet to be released, DEMO would not start running until "early in the second half of the century".

    A related document that provides more detail on DEMO's design says that operations would start after 2054.

    The setback has been caused largely by delays to ITER, a 20bn-euro reactor that is currently being built in the south of France to prove that fusion energy is scientifically and technically feasible.

    In fact, according to EUROfusion's programme manager, nuclear physicist Tony Donné, DEMO's schedule could slip further, depending on progress both with ITER and a facility to test materials for fusion power plants that has yet to be built.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40558758


    And what they are currently doing is only being verified by people shovelling concrete.

  • @Epimetheus I have a couple of questions:


    have you done any more molecules? I have been running Millsian 2.0 and using it to calculate energies of "difficult" molecules that are not included in its internal library (e.g. cyclopropane, N2, nitrogen trifluoride, sulfur hexafluoride...). I am comparing the atomization energies ("bond energies") and heats of formation (two quantities which the Millsian SW prints out for every molecule it can solve) to NIST experimental data. This is in order to make my own version of the plot Mills published (shown below).


    After I double-check my answers, I will also compare the experimental values to more accurate traditional ab-initio results, since Mills's plot on the right side (below) assumes HF theory with the 6-31G* basis set, which is old-school and notoriously bad for "difficult" molecules.

    Have you used Millsian? What are your thoughts.


  • Some more claimed evidences of Hydrino,


    As expected: No evidence for the expected hydrinos family except for H1/4. It looks like the first step of H-H condensation to 2H (deuterium) can be modeled like a dense hydrogen molecule.


    But it's great news to see an intermediate product of LENR being produced by Mills reaction. More interesting to know would be how long H(1/4)2 is stable?

  • A critical analysis of the hydrino model. A Rathke, Published 19 May 2005Abstract

    Recently, spectroscopic and calorimetric observations of hydrogen plasmas and chemical reactions with them have been interpreted as evidence for the existence of electronic states of the hydrogen atom with a binding energy of more than 13.6 eV. The theoretical basis for such states, which have been dubbed hydrinos, is investigated. We discuss both the novel deterministic model of the hydrogen atom, in which the existence of hydrinos was predicted, and standard quantum mechanics. Severe inconsistencies in the deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino states with quantum mechanics is reviewed.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

  • A critical analysis of the hydrino model. A Rathke, Published 19 May 2005Abstract


    This (Rathke) is old rotten cheese based on wrong assumptions. But also Mills hydrino idea is only speculation and not properly modeled at all because crucial details are missing. But it looks like the linking with the quantization of proton magnetic moment could explain H(1/4).

  • Rathke did a sign error in this paper. His whole argument was based on this sign, so it is not worth the paper that it is printed on. I would be more interested in a paper "A critical analysis of the hydrino model. J. Wyttenbach". You need people in science that can acknowledge the progress someone did, even when it forces you to throw old stuff over board. Rathke is in the well known "we alone know the truth and all the others are heretics" mode. He once wrote in a forum that he wrote this paper to prevent ESA (?) to put money into ivestigating Mills results. Great - more money for even greater particle colliders, ITER or the human brain project. I could cry...

  • A critical analysis of the hydrino model. A Rathke, Published 19 May 2005Abstract

    Recently, spectroscopic and calorimetric observations of hydrogen plasmas and chemical reactions with them have been interpreted as evidence for the existence of electronic states of the hydrogen atom with a binding energy of more than 13.6 eV. The theoretical basis for such states, which have been dubbed hydrinos, is investigated. We discuss both the novel deterministic model of the hydrogen atom, in which the existence of hydrinos was predicted, and standard quantum mechanics. Severe inconsistencies in the deterministic model are pointed out and the incompatibility of hydrino states with quantum mechanics is reviewed.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

    A curiosity is that Mills made a rebutal to this critical analysis but couldn't get it published in the journal, strange that the journals does not support an honest scientific discussion. Hence you need to google Mills rebutal rathke to get it, or click rebutal. Of cause there is a lot of junk arguments that should not be included in scientific journals, but the faults discovered in Rathke's critique is so basic that they should be published. And yes one can propose critique of Hydrinos, but Rathke fails totally in showing the correct arguments against it.


    What I'm totally missing is a scientific discussion with Mills and traditional scientists. There is some effort to discuss it and the main ongoing discussion is in the international sceptics site where some clueless person which is not capable to argue for MIlls theory is against a pack of nerds that don't do science but continue to spill nasty comments. This is actually typic of science nerds which does not know how to do a proper scientific discussion. I would dream of a site that keeps a vivid discussion about Mills and whyttenbachs theories like what's done in AGW with antropologic global warming, if you have good arguments aginst some facts in AGW you get a very good discussion and there are a few very good argumenters on both sides on the discussion parts of those pages with high quality and level on the discussion. This is moderated, but what's moderated is junk and I don't think that sceptics of AGW get a bad treatment there.

  • Using Gas chromotagraph and getting negative peaks, as Mills gets, seams from a internet search be an indication that something is wrong,

    perhaps an artefact. Is there anyone who knows anything about GC's who can comment? I am not an experementalist.

  • They must be too shy do discuss new things when they contradicts established dogmas

    I agree that there is a controlling elite that represents exactly what you say, but normal scientists like to discuss new ideas

    but does not get funding or help to discover new ideas, also they have family and not much time to divert to these things.

    as side interests. I'm talking about my coworkers from before, basically all of them, people who linked me to Mills and his

    ideas. Yes Mills is well known but we all dare to speak about him in proximity of the elite. Waiting for tide to change and

    ... more proof.

  • To raise the mind from the microscopic to macroscopic,


    RM predicted the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and his calculated value seam to be smack in the middle or a little high.

    Recent calculations of the accelleration seam to prove that value was correct making the case for his theory really strong (e.g.

    he blidly prediced a value that is smack in the middle or a little high statistically speaking of 5 or so different measurments). That feat is

    actually of a magnitude that deserves a Nobel Price. Was it just pure luck?


    Heres the link

    BLP POST

  • I dont think it is pure luck because in my opinion his model that connects space, mass and energy has a high chance to be correct. But I think he got lucky with the exact number. The text at Eq. 32.142 shows the basis of this value. It is the number of galaxies, the mean number of stars per galaxy and the mean mass/energy conversion rate of each star. I have no idea about the error bounds of these values but I guess they are rather high. And I dont know about the sensitivity of the final value in regards to these input values.


    Such an analysis would be interesting.

  • The GC results look interesting. However, in a typical thermal conductivity gas analysis, the peaks for a standard of hydrogen are negative going as hydrogen has a higher thermal conductivity than the He carrier gas. Instruments are set-up to invert the peaks in a certain time frame. Did the authors have the instrument invert peaks in a window - i.e. around H2 elution but not before or after? If a window, than perhaps the window was too narrow and for some reason the retention times of the gases shifted slightly. Thus, the split peak could be an instrumental artifact where the system is only reversing the polarity in a too narrow of a window. Why they should have a positive going peak before the negative peak would not be consistent with this explanation unless the positive peak is deuterium or HD or switching polarities causes an electrical artifact. The peak shapes of the sample is not the same as the standards, which causes me concern. The presentation mentions running the TCD at 60C to make the peaks positive. I an too ignorant of TCD detectors to know if that statement is correct. A brief reading of the literature indicates that hydrogen should retain its thermal conductivity difference over He at most temperatures so to me this statement does not make sense.


    If the authors are observing hydrogen by MS, then what is the expected binding of the electrons in this shrunken hydrogen? The MS typically has an electron energy of 70eV (mean) so if the ionization potential is above this, then the MS should not show the shrunken hydrogen. Coupling the MS to the GC would have been helpful and varying the electron energy of the MS would also have been helpful to show that the expected gas is somehow different from ordinary hydrogen gas in the appearance of the H2+ peak. i.e. plot electron energy vs. signal level for the two gases and show that the onset energies are different. (This is best done with specialized equipment but most MS can vary this number and if the Ionization potential of the molecules are quite different then you should see this difference. You cannot get and absolute number without comparison to a standard. However, a relative number would suffice in this case and maybe just using the methane or CO2 as a reference would work)