Dr Mill's early career is in NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). he pioneered many absolutely ground-breaking techniques that hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans, and his work in this field is extremely well-recognised.
As a matter of curiosity, can you provide any citations or references to Dr. Mills' ground-breaking techniques in the field of NMR which are recognized by others? This would add to his credibility in the field of invention and science. Thanks.
As a matter of curiosity, can you provide any citations or references to Dr. Mills' ground-breaking techniques in the field of NMR which are recognized by others? This would add to his credibility in the field of invention and science. Thanks.
i did a google search - on your behalf - for "R Mills" Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and it came up with a 1997 patent:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6477398
could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help? this is general good netiquette as it demonstrates a willingness on your part to spend *your* time satisfying *your* need, rather than imposing on someone else to spend *their* time satisfying *your* need. it also helps if you list the exact places (and methods) utilised to do the enquiries, so that the people who may be willing to assist you do not waste their time duplicating the exact same (fruitless) searches.
Sorry...I did a lot of checking and found nothing other than 2 patents and a few articles in newspapers that were sort of folksy interviews (for example, https://www.villagevoice.com/2000/01/25/dr-molecool/).
The mere existence of a patent or two does not show that he has "hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans", nor that his work is extremely well-recognized. Both patents lapsed due to non-payment of fees, which normally indicates that the patent had no actual value to its owner in generating royalties or preventing competition.
It is not that I am being lazy or unfriendly. doubting your statement...just that I made a couple of hours of effort and could not find anything. There was a professor at Harvard name Samuel Patz that has published extensively in the field that was mentioned in the Village Voice article, but none of his publications that I could find had Mills as a coauthor. One of the patents mentions a technique that he calls "Magnetic Susceptibility Imaging" , but I cannot find any references to this other than Mills' own stuff.
Look, it may be that your statement about Mills and NMR scans is correct, or perhaps not. I am just asking what caused you to think that Mills was so widely recognized for his contributions in the field of NMR imaging. You must have read it or heard it from someone, or perhaps work in the field yourself?
The importance of the matter is that Mills is a rather unusual figure. Some think he is the greatest genius in history, others think he is a crackpot. If he has actually made contributions to the state of the art in a field like NMR, and this is widely recognized by people active in the field, it would do a lot to dispel the crackpot image. So I am looking for evidence that this is the case, and have not been able to find anything.
could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help?
It was reasonable for mgspan to have queried you on the sources for the claim about Mills and NMR scans. This is preferable to his having relied strictly on a search of his own, so that he can refer to the same sources as you and have the same details in mind.
It was reasonable for mgspan to have queried you on the sources for the claim about Mills and NMR scans.
indeed.... and it is reasonable to ask that someone communicate clearly that they are distinguishing themselves from someone who is placing the burden of responsibility for proof sufficient to meet their own chosen belief / acceptability criteria onto someone else as opposed to making it clear that they fully take responsibility for such proof / belief themselves.
which (thank you mgspan, apologies for referring to you in the 3rd person, now switching to 1st person) you did very well in your second message.
mgspan: as a reverse-engineer who has had to quite literally look for six to eight WEEKS for a single bit change in amongst literally thousands of network packets that, once found, makes a black-box reverse-engineered piece of software talk to another unknown piece of software where it previously would not, i have a completely different mindset and approach from the average person.
please allow me to be colloquially clear: i genuinely do not give a flying **** who mills actually is. i don't even care if his hydrino work is accurate or not. there *is* no one thing on which i will "pass judgement". i look at the algorithms, i look at the data, i look HOLISTICALLY at the entire picture, from as many sources as i can possibly get my hands on, and i apply "weighted statistical probability" WITHOUT JUDGEMENT of each piece of data. it's taken literally years for me to do that, i won't bore you with the sheer tedium of the hundreds of papers i had to read.
if you are unfamiliar with the technique(s) that reverse-engineers apply (it's not exactly a course you can apply for at university), you can look up "Demster Shafer Theory" and "Kolmogorov Complexity", as well as "error bars". Demster Shafer Theory is a generalisation of Bayes Theorem, and allows probabilistic statistical inference to be made based on extremely large sparse data-sets. Kolmogorov Complexity is about entropy, and allows one to assess the "value" of an algorithm.
by combining all these three i am able to assess a particular mathematical model based on its accuracy, simple, and whether it has independent supporting similarity and/or evidence... *without* actually needing to *actually* understand the *actual* mathematics or anything else.
using these criteria, Mill's work - just on the algorithm that he developed for the g/2 electron magnetic moment alone, is OFF THE CHARTS.
*everything* else pales into total insignificance - by several orders of magnitude - and that *includes* the Standard Model due to the insane level of complexity and computational resources needed *and* the 27 "Magic Constants".
i *genuinely* do not care who he is. he could be named Mr Magic Fluff MacDuffin, he could be someone who was locked up in a loony bin for trying nearly successfully to hijack the moon and drop it into Low-Earth Orbit for all i care. he could be someone who managed to steal Fort Knox and i *don't care* because it's *not relevant to the fact that even just one of the formulae he came up with is accurate to within 12dp* and has a rational mathematical trail / explanation with ZERO postulation behind it.
have you *any idea* how significant that is? it's... i cannot emphasise enough how amazing a mathematical achievement the electron g/2 factor work truly is. and he did the same thing for the mass of the electron! and the muon! four of science's most accurately-measured experiments and he got them *EXACTLY RIGHT* to within their experimental uncertainty!
now whether people quotes believe quotes his work into hydrinos or not, that too is again as far as i'm concerned utterly irrelevant! i can't tell you anything about it because i don't care, it's not my primary focus.
i mentioned his work into NMR because it allowed *me* to understand Mill's motivation from a historical perspective. it was part of *my* trail into the "black box named Mills Work".
bottom line is: you, yourself, need to choose your own criteria by which you make decisions as to what to spend your time and energy to investigate, and to what purpose. is your life's purpose and reason for being here on this forum to choose whether to *BELIEVE* in Dr Mill's work? is your life's purpose here to CHOOSE whether to spend your time understanding his work? or is your life's purpose here to choose whether to CONTRIBUTE to that work? all of these are very starkly different questions.
my purpose in being here is something i am very clear about: it is my desire to "see completed" a particle physic theory that has zero postulation and has an exact and precise match for every single known particle to within current experimental uncertainty, and accurately predicts the existence of new ones. Dr Mill's work - nothing to do with Hydrinos in ANY WAY - is the closest that i have been able to find which stands a chance of forming the basis of the theory that i desire to "see completed" (note the very deliberate and very very careful 3rd person emphasis and wording, there).
along the way i hope to have some very interesting conversations, both here and on other forums across the world.
The geometry for currents is not a sphere technically the north pole and the south pole is not included but are singular points
can i just confirm / check, are you working in spherical coordinates (phi, theta) and thus saying that at the north and south pole if you have a magnet you can't do latitude calculations?
i am slightly confused because i don't believe that mills is *actually* saying that currents are totally undefined / undefinable at the north and south pole in spherical coordinates, it's just that latitude is undefined / undefinable there. you can check that yourself by doing a rotation of the coordinate system by 90 degrees and redoing the maths: now the "north" pole is theta=0, phi=90 and the south pole is theta=0, phi=-90 and those are *definitely* defined.
or, perhaps an easier way to illustrate the point i am trying to make is: just move to cartesian coordinates, does the point you are trying to make still hold?
and if so, what significance does it have? each ring (great circle) current would i assume be its own "frame of reference" with its own north and south pole, you'd rotate *that* to create the spherical summation... so... um... why would the sum of those great circle currents be any different?
sorry if this is unclear.
indeed.... and it is reasonable to ask that someone communicate clearly that they are distinguishing themselves from someone who is placing the burden of responsibility for proof sufficient to meet their own chosen belief / acceptability criteria onto someone else as opposed to making it clear that they fully take responsibility for such proof / belief themselves.
Someone can say, what was source for such-and-such claim you have made about Mills and NMR scans?, and unless it's already been a slog with them and they have demonstrated a refusal to consult sources you have already referred them to, the appropriate response is not to say "could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help?," but instead to provide the sources upon request. Polite production of sources is par for the course in any academic or technical discussion.
i mentioned his work into NMR because it allowed *me* to understand Mill's motivation from a historical perspective. it was part of *my* trail into the "black box named Mills Work".
Am I correct in understanding that you do not have a source other than your own research for the claim that "Dr Mill's early career is in NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). he pioneered many absolutely ground-breaking techniques that hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans, and his work in this field is extremely well-recognised"? I do not think the conclusion that Mills's work in the field of NMR is extremely well-recognized would follow unless you have a source other than your own independent research. Or have I misunderstood?
using these criteria, Mill's work - just on the algorithm that he developed for the g/2 electron magnetic moment alone, is OFF THE CHARTS.
Have you taken a look at Mills's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio? It falls outside of the 2012 CO-DATA experimental value and error.
Someone can say, what was source for such-and-such claim you have made about Mills and NMR scans?, and unless it's already been a slog with them and they have demonstrated a refusal to consult sources you have already referred them to, the appropriate response is not to say "could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help?," but instead to provide the sources upon request. Polite production of sources is par for the course in any academic or technical discussion.
Have you taken a look at Mills's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio? It falls outside of the 2012 CO-DATA experimental value and error.
i come from a free software background: it is based around collaboration, where each individual's contribution is respected, and every individual's time is treated as valuable (and not to be imposed on to the detriment of the collaboration), whereas the academic ethos is based around the extremely adversarial "guilty until proof is provided" approach. i am *not* going to go there. i have absolutely no desire or need to enter into any "burdensome adversarial style proof", particularly one where there is no "return on investment" for my time.
if that is not precisely clear: please can you tell me, what do i *GAIN* by entering into and agreeing to the contract offered to me whereby i must "provide proof and evidence of dr mill's contribution to NMR"? please outline to me EXACTLY what i will gain by collaborating in such research?
i'm absolutely serious. you tell me what i will get in return for doing the work, and i will then be able to make an informed decision as to whether i wish to spend my time pursuing such research.
if there is anything unreasonable about my expectation to gain from what i choose to spend my time on, please do let me know.
anyway. second question:
if mill's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio is wrong, yet the electron mass is accurate to 10 to 12 dp, and the mass of the neutron is likewise known to a similar degree, then what conclusion may be drawn about the calculation? it means that mill's hypothesis about what's inside the neutron is wrong, doesn't it? there's nothing wrong with that, that i can see. now, at that point we can begin to speculate *why* the hypothesis has been proven inaccurate, and i have some alternative hypotheses there... but they are so highly speculative (i.e. based on such a long chain of logical reasoning, each step of which is hard to justify as i do not have the mathematical justification... yet) that i am quite reluctant to begin outlining them here.
if that is not precisely clear: please can you tell me, what do i *GAIN* by entering into and agreeing to the contract offered to me whereby i must "provide proof and evidence of dr mill's contribution to NMR"? please outline to me EXACTLY what i will gain by collaborating in such research?
If you are not going to support claims you make, you will be ignored, plain and simple. If you do not mind that you are ignored, there is no further issue.
if mill's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio is wrong, yet the electron mass is accurate to 10 to 12 dp, and the mass of the neutron is likewise known to a similar degree, then what conclusion may be drawn about the calculation?
I encourage you to double-check the neutron-electron mass ratio calculation and determine for yourself whether it falls outside of the CO-DATA value and error bounds; and, if so, to conclude what you will from this detail about the accuracy of Mills's theoretical apparatus.
Display Morecan i just confirm / check, are you working in spherical coordinates (phi, theta) and thus saying that at the north and south pole if you have a magnet you can't do latitude calculations?
i am slightly confused because i don't believe that mills is *actually* saying that currents are totally undefined / undefinable at the north and south pole in spherical coordinates, it's just that latitude is undefined / undefinable there. you can check that yourself by doing a rotation of the coordinate system by 90 degrees and redoing the maths: now the "north" pole is theta=0, phi=90 and the south pole is theta=0, phi=-90 and those are *definitely* defined.
or, perhaps an easier way to illustrate the point i am trying to make is: just move to cartesian coordinates, does the point you are trying to make still hold?
and if so, what significance does it have? each ring (great circle) current would i assume be its own "frame of reference" with its own north and south pole, you'd rotate *that* to create the spherical summation... so... um... why would the sum of those great circle currents be any different?
sorry if this is unclear.
Yes, spherical coordinates. Well what's defined at the north and south pole is not that important if it's not something that goes to infinity. They are singular points and could be defined as zero
if we assume that the whole meridian is included in the uniform density of normals. For one thing this means that the current field is not continuous and is why the cannot comb the sphere
theorem do not apply which is a fact that is overlooked and missunderstood many times where the discussion goes something like:
Critic: GUTCP is bogus, you can't have a uniform current density...
Pro: It's right there on p. ...
Critic: Mills can't have a uniform current magnitude - you can't comb a sphere
i wrote a reply... it appears not to have been posted. i REALLY hope that this was a mistake on my part rather than censorship by LENR.
Your previous reply was moved to the "Clearance Items," as was the one above.
Your previous reply was moved to the "Clearance Items," as was the one above.
lkcl, Just keep the discusion from discussion about person and concentrate on your good point that the mass of the neutron failure does not invalidate the whole theory but indicate in stead that one need to understand
the model of the nucleus more. The nuclear theory is not well explored in Mills GUTCP and needs more work.
I looked at the article that Wyttenbach recomended a few posts above and indeed in there Mills charge distribution show up, but in stead represents remarkable charge distributions used to model ball lightening and I guess these
spheromacs. That these also form the bases of nuclear and atom theory somehow is not at all a long shot.
The mere existence of a patent or two does not show that he has "hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans", nor that his work is extremely well-recognized. Both patents lapsed due to non-payment of fees, which normally indicates that the patent had no actual value to its owner in generating royalties or preventing competition.
mgspan : Mills theory is ground breaking and two magnitudes more
exact than QM regarding the calculation of frequencies, mainly
because he could derive the correct relativistic mass of the
electron!
As we don't know you physics skills, just one more answer: Blackmailing/downplaying Mills on an independent forum is a dead mans walk.
Wikipedia is a paid place where you can, with a certain amount of cash, place anything you like to see. Or the reverse logic, you can make people disappear.
Have you taken a look at Mills's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio? It falls outside of the 2012 CO-DATA experimental value and error.
Yes, spherical coordinates. Well what's defined at the north and south pole is not that important if it's not something that goes to infinity. They are singular points and could be defined as zero
Eric Walker : Mills theory is incomplete and only covers up to 3D particles. Mills misses all energies that stay in the 4th dimension. If you correct this, then e.g. the neutron magnetic moment is 5 digits exact. The main reason for this problem is that the neutron is a very special 4D particle. The neutron carries excess energy and thus you need the reverse rules to calculate the mass the relations etc.. On the other side the electron is only a 2D particle.
But there are some more effects that have been missed by physics, that influence the 6,7,8th digit. Just wait and ban! Time will bring a solution.
stefan : The torus avoids poles and the folding is always at 90 degrees (for base currents!) or at least at a constant angle. Much much simpler!
Mills theory is ground breaking and two magnitudes moreexact than QM regarding the calculation of frequencies, mainlybecause he could derive the correct relativistic mass of theelectron!
As we don't know you physics skills, just one more answer:Blackmailing/downplaying Mills on an independent forum is a dead manswalk.
Wikipedia is a paid place where you can, with a certain amount of cash, place anything you like to see. Or the reverse logic, you can make people disappear.
Sorry, no intention on my part to downplay Mills. I simply was wondering where I might find some references about his contributions in MRI imaging, to help me form an accurate picture of his work. To my way of thinking, it is fairer to Mills to ask people who think well of him, rather than just reading Wikipedia.
I do admit to downplaying the importance of patents, but that is a reflection of my experience with the patent system, not a reflection of how I view Mills, since I do not yet know much about him. I really do appreciate the references to the patents, and they are very interesting, but it is hard for me to figure out if anything useful ever came out of them.
As I mentioned in my first post in the forum, I did my graduate studies at Cornell in plasma physics in the early 70's so I have some background in physics, and am very much interested in exploring Mills' work in that field also. The interest in medical imaging comes from an undergrad research opportunities program that I was involved in, and so the field has always continued to interest me. But anyhow, I did not mean to offend or anything. By the way, thanks also to Eric Walker and Jed Rothwell for references to some very educational reference material. It will take a bit of time to digest it all!
Sorry but a quick googling found nothing... I believe the Mills patent increased the resolution of early MRI scanners with some kind of mathematical transfer. I assume he made enough money to stop working as a doctor, but how much of the above is rumour/ imagination is unknown...
mgspan,
I read somewhere about the MRI improvements, but can not find the reference. Found these medical related patents:
"In 1988 Dr. Mills began working on what was to become the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, spending about a year on the development of the theory to the point where he began to conduct experiments to support his conclusions.
Around the same time he also filed patents on medical treatments for cancer being "System and method for providing localized Mössbauer absorption in an organic medium" which was filed on 27 May 1988 and published on 3 January 1996 and "Luminide and macroluminide class of pharmaceuticals" which was filed on 31 March 1989 and published on 19 October 1989; "Apparatus providing diagnosis and selective tissue necrosis" Filing date 27 May 1988 and published May 24, 1989; "Method and apparatus for selective irradiation of biological materials" Filing date 19 Mar 1986 and published 31 August 1994; "Prodrugs for selective drug delivery" Filing date 4 Dec 1989 and published 27 June 27, 1995; as well as Magnetic susceptibility imaging Filing date 8 Nov 1989 and published 24 Jan 1996.
From the 1990's he also began filing patents on technology applications that arose from predictions and experimental results of his Grand Unified Theory in additional to publishing or seeking to publish numerous peer reviewed papers."
I recommend a book called Genius Inventor by Thomas E. Stolper in regards to the Randell Mills story.
The minimal information it has on 'Resonant Magnetic Susceptibility Imaging in Four Dimensional MRI', mentions Mills in 1987 developing an imaging system based on differences in bloods magnetic susceptibility (blood being paramagnetic).
John Larson at Hewlett Packard took an interest, hoping to out do standard MSI competitors.
Obviously the benefits of Mills' MSI over standard MRI, was the fact MRI can only image on 2D, where as MSI would potentially be in 3D and in much higher resolution and contrast, with greater speed.
Apparently HP top bosses sought out their top mathematician who thought the mathematics to be too complex.
Mills went back to Franklin & Marshall College (Richard Hoffman), and overcame the computational problems himself (Fourier analysis and Maxwell). He then proceeded to build a prototype himself, pretty much out of junk, and the prototype was feasible ... typical farmer!
Harry Mellins, of Harvard Medical and serving chairman of Brigham & Women's Hospital put him in touch with British MRI pioneer William Moore... Moore reluctantly became a big supporter of the work, and helped Mills build a second prototype at Harvard... he was Mills biggest supporter in the field but unfortunately died of a heart attack not long after (aged 40). Unfortunately from this point on, MRI experts and financial interests where reluctant to take an interest, hence why MRI is still the technology used today.
...
H. Samuel Patz, an assistant professor at Harvard, chief physicist at developing MRI at Brigham Womens Hospital worked on Mills MSI later years.
As MRI technology improved, the same advances could be used to advance MSI. Mills called the advanced version ReMSI, which incorporated nuclear magnetic resonance.
US Patent No. 60/065,318 Nov 13 1997
In 2002, another more advanced version appeared on BLP website, dubbed four dimensional MRI... but General Motors had developed something similar ( I believe another patent was filed 2002)
