Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • 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)

  • I have tried to solve the maxwells equations for source terms on a spherical shell, you can find it at solution. I find the math interesting and spurred a math stack exchange questioin

    see here question. The task is to see if there is some insight in those solutions. One thing to note is that they can be force free e.g.


    $$

    \nabla \times B = k B

    $$

  • Mills commenting today:


    "The tests to date indicate that the filamentous product comprises hydrino. I am working on a paper that reports the results of many types of analyses. It will likely take a month or two to complete. Very exciting! Hydrino in a bottle!"


    on this video from 2 months ago:




  • (beginner, be gentle!)
    I am watching Bob Greenyer attempt to explain some of the anomalies regarding LION reactor. The fact some of the elements in the reactor could not be identified (Ytterbium? Halfnium?... ???) and which seem to 'absorb' or bend light (dark areas). Could these be 'hydrino' related compounds being produced on a small scale?

    @04.50 Vector fun/LION bending the rules...



    In another video, Mr Greenyer draws comparisons from LION reactor to Solar prominences... (again I'm fully behind Mills' in terms of cosmology and hydrino reactions in the sun)

  • New update from BrLP: update


    Mills has the idea to replace the molten silver with Gallium. This indicates that he possibly has no clue how the details of the SUNC-Cell reaction in reality work... With Gallium he will see no self sustain mode, unless he makes one more crucial design change!

  • They seam committed to prove the product this year, keeps on dong validation work. Comercial working products are a level up. He claims stable silver levels

    which means that the system can be run for a long time an enabler to actually prove there is a reaction and benchmark it. Also hydrino in a bottle together is a

    great alley to prove their point. Just let independant labs check the stuff. Hence if BrLP really want to prove what they have then ans are speaking the truth

    they surely will prove it with high certainty. Failing that would be a blocker, the stakes are high now.

  • "Also hydrino in a bottle together is a great alley to prove their point."


    I don't think hydrinos (if they were a thing) would remain in a bottle. They are much smaller than hydrogen and will presumably migrate out of whatever you put them in. This is attested by the claim attributed to Mills that hydrinos form dark matter (something I find amusing). Have I misunderstood your comment?

  • Sounds fairly rosy, but clearly there are some real development issues they are dealing with. For one, it sounds like CT was given a SunCell and could not get it to work:


    "Since October, Columbia Tech (CT) was tasked with the goal of

    mastering continuous injection and ignition with the carbon-domed

    SunCell® design for thermal photovoltaic (PV) conversion.

    • CT made some incremental changes to improve the electromagnetic

    (EM) pump, but have not been able to achieve SunCell® operation

    goals.

    • One impediment is that CT has not succeeded to melt the silver.

    • On the week of January 22nd, two CT engineers and their SunCell®

    and support equipment were on-site at Brilliant Light.

    • We have built a new antenna that should solve the melting problem,

    but due to a priority shift to an advanced design, we plan to quickly

    finish this phase of development using gallium, a low-meting-point

    metal to eliminate the heating challenges that are anticipated to be

    optimally solved in the advanced cell design."


    Doing what he has done in the past, he now plans to switch gears to another, more advanced version of the SunCell, this time using ceramics:


    "We should be able to move more quickly to a commercial SunCell®

    electrical power generator once the advanced ceramic SunCell® and

    MHD engineering come together, albeit we are also pursuing the

    carbon SunCell® radiator and photovoltaic conversion."


    And to make the MHD concept work he had to "invent" something for an already unproven technology that tailored it to his SunCell:


    I Invented a novel MHD thermodynamic cycle that seems suitable

    for the SunCell®.

    • We have three outside consultants working on modeling the MHD

    converter with results expected in a week that should provide

    further answers to its capability.

    • Currently, the prospects look favorable.


    I believe these engineering problems are significant enough, that it is causing him to go back to square one to attract more funding:


    "One goal is to prove our power source to the world in the

    near term through power measurements, identification of

    the hydrino products of the reaction, and engineered

    power systems.

    • The power source is our core business and basis of the

    majority of our value."

  • "Also hydrino in a bottle together is a great alley to prove their point."


    I don't think hydrinos (if they were a thing) would remain in a bottle. They are much smaller than hydrogen and will presumably migrate out of whatever you put them in. This is attested by the claim attributed to Mills that hydrinos form dark matter (something I find amusing). Have I misunderstood your comment?

    The idea is that the hydrino form a chemical compound that keeps it in place. Acording to Mills that can happen under the right circumstances. So it's not the hydrino molecule per se. But the compound would still be weird enough when analyzing it could serve as a proof

    of something extraordinary.

  • I see. It's your claim rather than that of Mills. Perhaps there is a magnetic dipole moment that is implied by his setup. I do not see how an infinitely thin shell of circulating charge would have a magnetic dipole moment, but I also understand that Mills overlays the spherical harmonics onto the shell in the form of charge density.

  • Wyttenbach , a great circle of circulating current will have a magnetic dipole moment. But if you rotate an infinite number of them them around the surface of a sphere as Mills does in order to obtain a spherical shell, they will cancel one another out. Unless there is something in addition (such as differential charge density), there will be no magnetic dipole moment. That is in fact the case with s-shell electrons.

  • Wyttenbach , a great circle of circulating current will have a magnetic dipole moment. But if you rotate an infinite number of them them around the surface of a sphere as Mills does in order to obtain a spherical shell, they will cancel one another out. Unless there is something in addition (such as differential charge density), there will be no magnetic dipole moment. That is in fact the case with s-shell electrons.

    Last time I checked Mills derivation of spanning loops has a magnetic moment. An it is not hard to see that a uniform covering can have that. the moment of a loop is either up or down or zero relative the z direction, so for each loop in the covering select an up loop

    and voila you will have a magnetic moment because you will have a positive contribution for each of the loops.

  • Ok, Stefan. In that case, since Mills is modeling not only hydrinos, but monatomic hydrogen as well, which is merely the limiting case, either he (or more likely you and Wyttenbach) must handle hydrinos and monatomic hydrogen as separate cases with no apparent justification. Or he (you) must give a principled justification for why monatomic hydrogen has no magnetic dipole moment while a hydrino has one.

  • Ok, Stefan. In that case, since Mills is modeling not only hydrinos, but monatomic hydrogen as well, which is merely the limiting case, either he (or more likely you and Wyttenbach) must handle hydrinos and monatomic hydrogen as separate cases with no apparent justification.


    Just remind my older posts about toroidal Hydrogen referencing the Aringazin paper : https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0202049v1


    I do not agree that Mills Hydrino model is consistent. The above model is more convincing and covers also the Holmlid case! In all my writings I reference the Arigazin model, which explains the magnetic moment etc...