Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

    Wyttenbach said about Mills

    "But at that level it's a small step to 4He. But he will never tell you this, because this would "void" his IP...


    The Sun cell energy change level reported by Mills at at 340 EV per /H Atom or (240 times the enthalpy change for combustion)

    would give you a lot more kilometres/litre of Hydrogen than the Toyota Mirai



    Its also over ~300x the enthalpy change for TNT combustion .. ( on a per 1 amu=1H atom) basis

    But it is still a large step(~3000x) away from 1MEV.


    Perhaps it much more easy to get the hydrino energy levels through the patent process than getting

    fusion/transmutation levels thru.

    LOLs Zephir, you are just too smart for me. Seriously. I have been accused of appeal to authority many a time...which I confessed to, and now you have nailed me on something I never heard of: "appeal to ridicule fallacy". And yes, I confess...again. You got me.


    There was a little seriousness to what I said, but not much.

    Randell Mills

    Suncell Q+AFresno Uni. 27 Feb 2016



    Kinetics roadblock overcome in October,2013. January jelly beans mass manufacture stage starts January 2018?


    Interesting question. about 1 hr 25 min timemark

    How it calculate masses?


    The answer!!! some of it I can follow but I get lost not the end of it


    "Sun is a dimple in space-time converting 5 billion kg/of matter into energy per sec

    Fundamental equation is E=mc2=c3/4pi G

    So the Matter converts into energy and spacetime expands as matter converts into energy

    If you add up the 400 billion galaxies /stars on average it gives you the Hubble Constant"


    after that I get lost

    Schwartzchild metric..


    By the way for Axil

    surface plasmotrons are fitted into GUTCP here, somehow .. in Randells double slit expt explanation . Pg 157 by Jeff Driscoll


    zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf

    From time to time I spend some time (days..) with GUT-CP and sometimes recalculate Mills formulas.


    The good news: Some figures (e.g. electron and neutron mass from Gravity) using newest CODATA values are even better than given in the book.

    I can only recommend to study the entire work (except hydrinos which need an other/better explanation.)


    Any physicist not knowing GUT-CP is missing a huge part of the real world knowledge.


    There is no bad news, except, may be, that also GUT-CP must be further refined. But this will pay off much more than refining any other basic theory!


    Just to remind the casual readers. With GUT-CP you can calculate some basic atomic (e.g the electron/muon mass ratio) constants with up to seven figures precision, just from basic constants. You can calculate the nth atomic ionization energies from basic constants with an average of 4 figures precision and much, much more.



    Warning from surgeon general when digging deep into GUT-CP: People that spent more than 20 years using common physics theory might suddenly feel some dizziness. This steams out of some nervous disorder caused by the loss (lost time) syndrom - because of wasted years for desperately calculating molecular parameters using slow computers & algorithms.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0607233


    A "Muon Mass Tree" with alpha-quantized Lepton, Quark and Hadron Masses


    How about this? Can GUT-CP do better?

    axil wrote:

    How about this? Can GUT-CP do better?


    This paper (I justed flew over) is interesting as they now seem to recognize that all particles are just resonances of the muon (the base is the electron) as Mills says since 25 years.

    Mills is, regarding the Leptons only, at lest 4 digits more precise, than the paper masses!


    robert bryant wrote:

    Recent measurements suggest GUTCP calculation may need review

    2014 =173.34±0.76 GeV.


    I guess this was just a Mills speculation looking at a possible higher order resonance. The cornerstone of his metric & theory are the mass ratio's of the Leptons, with a more than 6 digits precision, which is unattained by any other theory.

    I personally believe that there is a more general theoretical model for the nucleus, than Mills simplified calculus. Mills math only works for "single uniform" particles, not for any higher nucleus with a charge > 1! But his math should be enough to calculate base values for all particles seen at CERN.

    Nevertheless, such calculations become very tricky, unless you can exactly give the higher quantization rules for mixed ( double orthogonally locked in photons) orbits.

    Mills does not look at external excitation of virtual particles. That is one path somebody else most go. He also neglects the neutrinos and the related fields.


    Measuring Quark-masses could be as risky as the measuring the charge radius. To my understanding of the nucleus charge is not a basic property and depends on other dimensions. Thus also the charges we see (believe to see and use for measuring purposes) and partially belong to quarks are just given by the way we look (accelerate and meassure) the quarks. Quarks are higher order particle resonances not elementary particles. Thus phycisists should more think about a concrete model for charge, than guessing how to measure quarks.

    I am not sure if anyone else attempted to calculate the top quark mass anyway,

    Randell Mills repeats the point that GUTCP enabled early (1995) calculation

    Quark mass is Definitely not relevant to lepton mass ratios , also molecular paraeters which GUTCP provides great accuracy for

    Rossi now says that the core temperature of his QuarkX plasma is about 2700C which is about the boiling point of nickel. Maybe both mills and Rossi have come upon the same reaction. The difference between the two is that Rossi has a sealed reactor with no water requirement and his hydrogen supply id fixed and lastes a year so far. Mills SAYS that he needs water and a continuing supply of hydrogen.


    There may be no nickel, but there is much silver.


    Rossi must be measuring the 2700C temperature that he is claiming through spectroscopic measurement techniques.

    Tantalum is my guess for the material that Rossi uses for his reactor.


    Tantalum is a dark (blue-gray), very heavy, ductile and hard metal that can be drawn into thin tubes with high corrosion resistance and high melting point of 3000C. Tantalum capillary tubes are COTS and are used in various industrial products.


    Tantalum%20Capillary-SAM%203.png


    • Used in laboratory equipment.


    • Used as a substitute for platinum.


    • Used as the filament lead tube of the cathode insulator in an x-ray tube.


    • Used in liquid tantalum electrolytic capacitors.


    Tantalum Capillary Specifications:

    Outer Diameter (OD): 0.2~8mm


    Wall Thickness (WT): 0.015 ~ 1mm


    Length (L): 1mm~1000mm


    Tolerance: OD, +/-0.003mm. WT, +/-0.005mm. L, +/-0.05mm

    Alan Smith wrote:

    Axil- ponder stuff a little more before you write it with such certainty. Or alternatively, explain how you create a high-voltage plasma inside a conductive metal capillary tube?



    The endcaps could be zirconia with melting temperature at 2,715°C. The endcaps are required to carry as electrostatic field in the range between 50 to 100 kilovolts. The material of the reactor wall structure could be conductive because it carries a plasma which is conductive.

    What the end-caps are made from is entirely irrelevant. The electrical conductivity of the metal tube would be so low that a plasma would never form. Why not? because the voltage needed to create a plasma (even in the low hundreds) would preferentially flow through the metal and short-circuit the power supply. If in any doubt about any of this reas this:-


    http://physics.muni.cz/~dorian/Soucek_Difuze.pdf

    Alan Smith wrote:

    What the end-caps are made from is entirely irrelevant. The electrical conductivity of the metal tube would be so low that a plasma would never form. Why not? because the voltage needed to create a plasma (even in the low hundreds) would preferentially flow through the metal and short-circuit the power supply. If in any doubt about any of this reas this:-


    http://physics.muni.cz/~dorian/Soucek_Difuze.pdf


    The Rossi EMF stimulus is not based on current flow. It is based on the setup fo an electrostatic potential only. The KERR effect is the LENR activation stimulus.


    See


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect


    Read Rossi's patent update page 7 and 8


    https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…epdf_pct/id00000032278621