# Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

• 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.

Well atomic hydrogen has orbital magnetic moment just as the monatomic hydrino have in Mills model GUTCP you are wrong in that they cancel. Mills model is based on a set of loops that cover a sphere uniformly.

Now each loop can have magnetic field pointing up or down if the loop is in the xy-plane. The density of the sphere does not change if you flip one from down to up. So any uniform covering can be made so that

it has a magnetic moment by assuming that the loops align as much as possible. Mills covering describing the monatomic hydrogen and the hydrino has both a magnetic orbital magnetic moment. You can see this

by keeping track of the normal vectors as you follows Mills deduction - they do all point upwards e.g. \hat n * \hat z >= 0.

• Ok, Stefan. I've learned something new. It seems that monatomic hydrogen has a magnetic dipole moment, due to the spin of the unpaired electron. (Strictly speaking, it is paramagnetic, and presumably you must apply a field.)

Consider the orbitsphere with its great circles of current loops rotated around an axis of rotation. There are two limits to consider. In one limit, current flows in the same direction in each circle. In this case, the vector sum of the moments will be zero, and you'll have no magnetic moment. In the other limit, half of the great circles have current flowing in one direction, and half in the other, and the vector sum will be nonzero (depending on how the great circles are distributed around the axis of rotation). (Here we are talking about a quantity, the number of great circles, that is presumably uncountable, but let's run with the thought experiment anyway.) I'll wager that the second limit, with the maximal dipole moment, results in a moment that is too strong to match the experimental data for monatomic hydrogen.

Do you disagree? If you agree, that implies that the balance of directionality for current flowing in the great circles is unequal. I.e., there are more great circles with current flowing in one direction than the other. Or there are equal numbers, but their distribution around the axis of rotation is not uniform. Why would that happen? Why would the great circles not adjust so as to minimize the dipole moment?

• Do you disagree? If you agree, that implies that the balance of directionality for current flowing in the great circles is unequal. I.e., there are more great circles with current flowing in one direction than the other. Or there are equal numbers, but their distribution around the axis of rotation is not uniform. Why would that happen? Why would the great circles not adjust so as to minimize the dipole moment?

The proton has a strong magnetic moment. This can only occur if the current (flow of charge or charge inducing flux!) is not balanced in all dimensions. Please keep in mind that for a central force problem you always need two rotational dimensions and one radial. The later one is not relevant for the generation of the moment, but it can perturb it!!

Mills model is crude, as it only covers the Proton and the electron. All other nuclei have one or two more rotations and the magnetic moments may have different origins. The other problem with Mills modelling is the fact, that all charge radii in reality run on a torus surface and not on a circle/sphere. Mills does work around this with his basic BECV current that is not homogenous and a kind of simulates the torus boundaries. Mathematically you can transform the torus to a sphere but the opposit is less suitable. Nevertheless in the farfield you will see no difference for the two models!

Interesting: Most nuclei with odd "Z" have a magnetic moment. They question is why not Hydrogen (the atom)? ..

• Ok, Stefan. I've learned something new. It seems that monatomic hydrogen has a magnetic dipole moment, due to the spin of the unpaired electron. (Strictly speaking, it is paramagnetic, and presumably you must apply a field.)

Consider the orbitsphere with its great circles of current loops rotated around an axis of rotation. There are two limits to consider. In one limit, current flows in the same direction in each circle. In this case, the vector sum of the moments will be zero, and you'll have no magnetic moment. In the other limit, half of the great circles have current flowing in one direction, and half in the other, and the vector sum will be nonzero (depending on how the great circles are distributed around the axis of rotation). (Here we are talking about a quantity, the number of great circles, that is presumably uncountable, but let's run with the thought experiment anyway.) I'll wager that the second limit, with the maximal dipole moment, results in a moment that is too strong to match the experimental data for monatomic hydrogen.

Do you disagree? If you agree, that implies that the balance of directionality for current flowing in the great circles is unequal. I.e., there are more great circles with current flowing in one direction than the other. Or there are equal numbers, but their distribution around the axis of rotation is not uniform. Why would that happen? Why would the great circles not adjust so as to minimize the dipole moment?

Stacking loops in the same direction is like solenoid, just slightly deformed ,so if a solonoid has magnetic moment Mills model should have as well. solenoid. ALso use your right hand rule on all those loops, you will find that

the direction in z direction always point upward so you must have a contribution in the z direction. A good question is also if it has a magnetic moment, then how strong is it?

• Here is why the experimental evidence for some exotic new energy mechanism from SunCell is low. Take that, and the typical pathological science (industry version) on exotic power conversion technologies instead of validating power generation and you have a highly successful business with vapourware.

http://brilliantlightpower.com…t-Power-Paper-120517d.pdf

From this you can see, technically, what they are trying to do to establish excess energy generation. They have two problems:

(a) measuring input power from a transient coincident with a very large EMP

(b) measuring output power, again transient, from optical measurement.

The best bet is bomb calorimetry, where all output power is caught and thermalised. They do appear to want to do this but seem not yet to have any results (unless as below, which are profoundly unconvincing). Even doing this there is still the problem measuring the input pulse power when they have a large EMP.

The details of the power measurement are not given. We'd need the exact physical circuit, with measurements or calculations of all parasitic inductances in system and probes. We'd need A/B traces where A and B are connection to voltage measured or ground involving very little change to wire positions (and hence EMP pickup). Then we could see whether the claimed control (from which EMP effects are subtracted) is accurate. We do not have this. And this input power calculation is highly tendentious. To be fair, they have said in this document what they try to do but not given any detail.

There are no input vs output power measurements that I can see except Table 1 in the above ref where we have "fitted VI gain". This varies from below 1 up to about 1.8. Given the uncertainties in measurement (inherently large and not quantified) that is as good as unity.

More important, were Hydrinos real, given such very high transient powers, it seems weird in the extreme that the excess energy should match the input energy so closely. there is no mechanism for that. Rather like an explosive which repeatedly gives you a total energy out just double the ignition energy used to set it off.

Perhaps Mills will come up with some real data. The existence of this incredibly detailed (in some ways) but unconvincing (in real ways) data is strong negative evidence for this SunCell system actually generating energy from an exotic source.

• Mills words from society of classical physics:

"

This is the first time that we have the capability to make hydrinos in a bottle at will on demand. Prior tests were performed with the gas absorbed on a surface or in a crystalline matrix and defects. We did not aggressively pursue independent analysis of the prior samples. The significance of the current advancement is a game changer, worth the wait and effort.

"

People seam to miss that they have on their agenda to prove what they have to the world this year. I speculate the above quote and more traditional calorimetry tests from longer runs would be the route to this goal.

• Mills words from society of classical physics:

"

This is the first time that we have the capability to make hydrinos in a bottle at will on demand. Prior tests were performed with the gas absorbed on a surface or in a crystalline matrix and defects. We did not aggressively pursue independent analysis of the prior samples. The significance of the current advancement is a game changer, worth the wait and effort.

"

People seam to miss that they have on their agenda to prove what they have to the world this year. I speculate the above quote and more traditional calorimetry tests from longer runs would be the route to this goal.

Stefan, let us suppose hydrinos are real - or at least some over-unity effect with high power and energy density is real. Perhaps you could speculate why BLP's experiment shows output energy so close to input? It is just not what you would expect... They clearly have decent research resources, and an understanding that calorimetry is important.

• From this you can see, technically, what they are trying to do to establish excess energy generation. They have two problems:

The peak power of 20 MW was measured using absolute spectroscopy over the 22.8-647 nm region wherein the optical emission energy was 250 times the applied energy.

• Stefan, let us suppose hydrinos are real - or at least some over-unity effect with high power and energy density is real. Perhaps you could speculate why BLP's experiment shows output energy so close to input? It is just not what you would expect... They clearly have decent research resources, and an understanding that calorimetry is important.

Table 1, from bomb calormetry seam to be from a control, with gain less then one and with the silver shot and then a gain with about 2x. Seam to indicate excess energy, it's not huge due to the need to blow the capsule and the real systems should have higher gain. The control tests seam to show up to 20% errors.

• Stacking loops in the same direction is like solenoid, just slightly deformed ,so if a solonoid has magnetic moment Mills model should have as well. solenoid. ALso use your right hand rule on all those loops, you will find that

the direction in z direction always point upward so you must have a contribution in the z direction. A good question is also if it has a magnetic moment, then how strong is it?

I don't think this is right. Current loops rotated around an axis of rotation to form a spherical shell are different from current loops that are stacked to form a solenoid, because of the axis of rotation in the case of the spherical shell. If the current loops all have the same handedness (and, presumably, then same amount of current), the magnetic vectors will sum to zero. You'll need to have some loops flowing in the opposite direction to have a nonzero magnetic vector over the shell. If we ignore all of the other problematic and counterintuitive requirements needed to set up this situation, we are left with this counterintuitive and problematic situation: why do some of the current loops flow in one direction and the remainder in the other direction? (E.g., why don't adjacent, opposite-handed loops cancel one another out?)

Some computer renderings are coming to mind, and I think the assumption about there only being a single axis of rotation is probably incorrect, which I think was a point Wyttenbach was making. The existence of an additional angular degree of freedom or two are probably what is envisioned.

Note that monatomic hydrogen is paramagnetic. So the magnetic moment is not fixed. I assume there is no moment when a field is not applied.

• The resulting velocity field of all loops is such that for each plane z=z_0 the flow is a circle in this plane, all with the same direction. This is what Mills is using and I can verify that a model with loops

covering it uniformly will lead to such resultant flows e.g. currents. Now use your right hand and look what B = r x v give you. the small infinitesemal circle at the south pole points in the direction along xy plane

the same for the north pole. In the midle (z=0) you just have a loop in the xy-plane and that obviously is all the resultant in the \hat z direction, all other loops have, just as a solenoid a component in the \hat z

direction so in all you get a positive component in the \hat z direction exactly as in a solenoid. You can do the same exersice when following MIlls deduction, if you like, and conclude that for all his loops there is

never a negative contibution in the \hat z direction.

• (b) measuring output power, again transient, from optical measurement.

Your description is generous. In some of the recent reports, e.g., the copy-pasta seen in the validation reports, the output measurement is a novel one that is something like this: to answer the question of how much energy is put out by the system, derive the power from the slope of a very brief impulse in an optical detector and then extrapolate. The very short rise time and high slope are the basis for the conclusion that the output power is greater than <fill in some mind-boggling phenomenon>.

• The resulting velocity field of all loops is such that for each plane z=z_0 the flow is a circle in this plane, all with the same direction.

Stefan, a simple symmetry argument will hopefully show you that you are wrong, or perhaps that we're talking past one another. For each magnetic moment normal to a current loop, as you replicate the loop around the axis of rotation and eventually come to 2pi, there will be another current loop with a normal pointing the other way, and the two normals (magnetic moments) will sum to zero. You need something that breaks that rotational symmetry to get a nonzero moment. My earlier question amounted to: what is the justification for breaking that symmetry?

• A further question is this: current is normally understood as dQ/dt, i.e., a small amount of charge passing through space within a given amount of time. In macroscopic electronics it is easy to see what this is: electrons (and holes) passing through wires. In other contexts when we talk about current, e.g., the current of water in a stream, we have water molecules as the thing flowing. What is the thing flowing in MIlls's infinitely thin current loops that are used to build his orbitsphere? Is it Coulomb fluid? This feels like an abstraction that has become reified.

• A further question is this: current is normally understood as dQ/dt, i.e., a small amount of charge passing through space within a given amount of time. In macroscopic electronics it is easy to see what this is: electrons (and holes) passing through wires. In other contexts when we talk about current, e.g., the current of water in a stream, we have water molecules as the thing flowing. What is the thing flowing in MIlls's infinitely thin current loops that are used to build his orbitsphere? Is it Coulomb fluid? This feels like an abstraction that has become reified.

This is an interesting question, my take is that we can assume space can experience a degenerate shift in the inteface that creates some new physics inside that interface, if you assume that and try to model it you wouldnt be amazed to find source terms in the maxwellian

equations in order to model it. Now the notion of charge density and current density will follow automatically . What does that last sentence mean? It means that the current density and charge density follows the continuity equation which it always follows from satisfying maxwell's equations. (not all source terms is allowed).

• Stefan, a simple symmetry argument will hopefully show you that you are wrong, or perhaps that we're talking past one another. For each magnetic moment normal to a current loop, as you replicate the loop around the axis of rotation and eventually come to 2pi, there will be another current loop with a normal pointing the other way, and the two normals (magnetic moments) will sum to zero. You need something that breaks that rotational symmetry to get a nonzero moment. My earlier question amounted to: what is the justification for breaking that symmetry?

OKey I follow your argument, if you could do that in mills derivation ypu would flip the direction and not keep it the same direction all the time. When the loops normal start to point downward you flip the direction and so the normal keep it towards the north pole that way you still have the same uniform covering but get's a magnetic moment. The same direction is the resultant directions e.g. when you sum all the loops, that resulting is just as taking a solenoid and deform it into a shape of a sphere.

• Ok, now that we understand one another and that we're dealing with something like a deformed solenoid, and that there has been a breaking of rotational symmetry (why?, we wonder), how do we understand the paramagnetic nature of monatomic hydrogen? Since monatomic hydrogen is paramagnetic, I assume: (1) there is no magnetic moment in the absence of an applied field; and (2) the magnetic moment is variable, varying with the strength of the applied field. Is this wrong? If not, how do we understand this in Mills?

• Quote

People seam to miss that they have on their agenda to prove what they have to the world this year.

They have been saying that (and many more optimistic predictions for power stations and other practical applications) for more than TWENTY YEARS NOW. "This year" (or next) is always the year they will prove it to the world. And they have never explained why their prior predictions of amazing success expected "soon" did not happen!

Apparently their investors buy this and continue to give BLP and Mills money. The human mind works in strange ways!

• to answer the question of how much energy is put out by the system, derive the power from the slope of a very brief impulse in an optical detector and then extrapolate. The very short rise time and high slope are the basis for the conclusion that the output power is greater than <fill in some mind-boggling phenomenon>.

Seems an odd way of doing it: Isn't wavelength (i.e. energy?) x [edit: divided by] duration of flash = power

• Zeus46 , it's been a while since I looked at those validation reports, and hopefully I haven't mangled the description too much. But I remember wondering what they could have been thinking using such a flaky/dubious approach. Clearly, if your intention is to convince anyone with the qualifications to judge anything, you use a tried and true method and not a novel one. But I doubt they sought to convince someone qualified.

• Flaky is the right word. I assess Mills purely on the basis of 20+? years without anything to show for it = something wrong.

I was going to add the 30?m dollars he's earnt received, but compared to other possibly-optimistic startups*, I guess that isn't all that much.

edit: Also, publishing your 600+ page thesis on why the last 50+ years of physics is wrong - without a fancy experimental proof - is a pretty ballsy move, to say the least.

We are yet to see Musk's textbook on Rocket Science, for example.

• I dont want to repeat myself a thousand times, but what you say is not true. It is 28 years and he has lots to show - so nothing is wrong.

There is also lots of experimental proof. Also done at independant labs that had his reactor for over a year without Mills supervising the experiments. And of course the Rowan University replications etc.

He may not have finished an energy producing device, but he has a theory that gives the structure of molecules with analytic equations with great precision. This is something no one else on this planet has achieved so far - not even 70 years research of thousands of physicists.

Of course you can say this is all nothing. Like it is nothing that mankind landed on the moon. No one replicated it for 40 years - no moon bases - nothing. Must be a scam and brought us nothing. And the cost!! Billions of dollars for nothing.

• They have been saying that (and many more optimistic predictions for power stations and other practical applications) for more than TWENTY YEARS NOW. "This year" (or next) is always the year they will prove it to the world. And they have never explained why their prior predictions of amazing success expected "soon" did not happen!

Apparently their investors buy this and continue to give BLP and Mills money. The human mind works in strange ways!

Mills have expressed a satisfaction from being fringe and under the radar cuz it kept competition away. And now there is on the agenda to prove it to the public, I find that an interesting game changer. Do you realize that if he fails to do that this year

his funding will most probably stop.

• Table 1, from bomb calormetry seam to be from a control, with gain less then one and with the silver shot and then a gain with about 2x. Seam to indicate excess energy, it's not huge due to the need to blow the capsule and the real systems should have higher gain. The control tests seam to show up to 20% errors.

Thank you Stefan.

So you suggest that the low energy gain here is deliberate: they could adjust it for higher but don't do this for fear of breaking the capsule.

That does not really answer the question. They know that secure measurement of significant excess energy is the litmus test which would make the whole world look more closely at their claims. In this case they also know that with such transient power production there are uncertainties over their attempts to measure this optically (which does not properly integrate over time, and EMP issues on the input side. (I'm very happy they recognise this, I have been saying it would be an issue since their earliest arc welder induced explosion claims).

Both of these could with better methodology be cured, although the input side measurement is difficult. They have, for whatever reason - I would claim because it makes mistaken positive results highly probable - found an experiment here with input energy that is very difficult properly to measure, and output energy that is currently not properly measured. Instead of a bomb calorimeter and half a page of analysis they have 100 pages of tendentious data and analysis.

One additional problem, which I did not notice before, comes from page 115 on their report. That shows that they obtain 20J input energy by integrating over what they consider to be the 300us of the "blast event". The total input energy before this, within 2ms of the event, is another 70J at least (get this from their stated total input of 110J - an extra 90J - and eyeballing the shape of the power vs time curve).

Before the blast that energy will be absorbed by the system and it is another tendentious set of assumptions to ensure that this absorped energy is not significant.

There is a pattern here:

over 20 years:

Calorimetry methods have got progressively worse (their first offering has secure calorimetry, but unclear possibilities for purely chemical excess heat).

Claims of energy out / energy in have got less convincing*

The last offering, an electrolytic cell, had claimed high energy out / in. But that was with much higher total energy input than the output. They were continually charging and discharging a cell and looking at the charge/discharge energy difference. Small measurement errors can make a big difference to the headline fogure.

I'm not saying here that the people doing this work are in any way dishonest. I am saying that the demos they have offered have striking flaws which make the claimed headline figures completely unreliable. And it gets worse over time. Instead of drilling down a previous method, optimising it and getting clearer data, they witch to a completely new method with completely new - even more difficult to quantify - errors.

Are the errors here large enough to deliver the claimed results? We will obviously never know. What we can know is that without much more work the results are within what is plausibly obtained from a mundane system and the measurement uncertainties I've outlined. Because there are a number of quite different uncertainties, all difficult to quantify, it is inherently difficult to resolve.

Given this fact, and the BLP history of never being able to provide results which pass objective and careful technical analysis, I give them an extremely low probability of having anything real. After all, their imperative from these demos is to produce the best possible external validation - that will affect how much investment they can get.

The fact that they still get investment is not surprising and due to many people intrigued by Mills' theoretical ideas, in spite of the fact that they have been thoroughly refuted by experts. We live in a world where experts are treated with skepticism and that is of course correct: experts can have biasses, and can be systematically wrong.

Without experts the BLP set of demos does not pass the smell test: they are so obviously full of experimental uncertainty.

• PS

I realise my contributions here don't get many ticks. The thing is, I'm fascinated by the outside chance that some non-standard effects might exist: metal lattices are different from other systems and significant fusion or other nuclear event within a metal lattice is not in principle theoretically impossible. Nor is skewing the branching ratio from such a process, because the low energy tails of nuclear reactions are not so well investigated. So theoretically I'm all in favour of something novel. It is just that I like to be realistic when judging experimental evidence. When you have something that looks, feels, and sounds like a spade, claiming that it is a diamond in disguise does not attract me.

It does no-one any favours to have the experimental results from parties with a vested interest (like these fringe companies) taken more seriously than they should be, because it distracts from any other results that might be more significant.

• I'm not saying here that the people doing this work are in any way dishonest.

I think what irks me about BLP is that it is hard for me to agree with this position, even if I squint my eyes. There are several things they have been doing (the predictably underwhelming measurements, the transparently dubious validation reports, and the apparent misdirection of the equation-filled GUT-CP volumes) about which at minimum they should have known better, but the likely scenario is that they knew what they were doing and have sought to put up an impressive show for investors and possibly scare away people with the qualifications to call them out.

• I think what irks me about BLP is that it is hard for me to agree with this position, even if I squint my eyes. There are several things they have been doing (the predictably underwhelming measurements, the transparently dubious validation reports, and the apparent misdirection of the equation-filled GUT-CP volumes) about which at minimum they should have known better, but the likely scenario is that they knew what they were doing and have sought to put up an impressive show for investors and possibly scare away people with the qualifications to call them out.

Eric: others, MY here for example, have been quite clear that they believe they are dishonest. It may be so. I have no evidence they are not dishonest and would not want to defend them. But, in such a situation I'll not be the first to cast stones, and am not interested enough to investigate all the claimed dirty laundry.

From my POV there is not much difference: they ask for money on flaky evidence which looked at historically would convince no-one of any sense. Probably Mills is convincing, and it seems they can still find investors. A bit like Rossi, but less transparently and clearly problematic.

I don't actually disagree with you about what is likely but I'm uncertain and unless my nose is rubbed in it I'll not say that.

• That's surely the prudent approach.

In my case, I observe people here who become enthralled with the whole analytical classical quantum mechanics thing and fail to read through the validation and other supporting documents with any attention to detail, or who note apparent problems but are willing to overlook them. They end up praising BLP so much that a casual reader of this site might think that BLP are in the same category as bona fide researchers who have been looking at LENR for years. That creates a breeding ground for extended consideration of wobbly and funky claims (think Rossi) and obscures what the real researchers have been doing (or failing to do, in some cases). (We can note here that Mills says that hydrinos are not LENR, but that does not change the point.)

• Rowan U. and others never produced clear results and all were paid by Mills. When a company uses confusing methods, avoids expert validation, and their results get more nebulous and harder to verify with time, you really must include dishonesty as a possible cause. It is also strange that the company promises amazing results but these are always promised for the next year or two, never happen, and no explanation or correction is ever given. It's as if they forgot what they said 20, 18, 16 .... and 2 years ago. Their MO seems similar to Rossi's in principle though they do seem to be better at it . Self-delusion is also possible but how far and how long can that sort of thing continue when there is plenty of talent and money with which to conduct meaningful tests?

• That's surely the prudent approach.

In my case, I observe people here who become enthralled with the whole analytical classical quantum mechanics thing and fail to read through the validation and other supporting documents with any attention to detail, or who note apparent problems but are willing to overlook them. They end up praising BLP so much that a casual reader of this site might think that BLP are in the same category as bona fide researchers who have been looking at LENR for years. That creates a breeding ground for extended consideration of wobbly and funky claims (think Rossi) and obscures what the real researchers have been doing (or failing to do, in many instances).

I Certainly think that Mills is a researcher just like every one else. He is actually much more sharp a scientist than most scientist I know, some of them introduced Mills to me. Look at his technical evolution where he actually solve real technical problems, just as any other good researcher. I think you all are unfair and completely wrong.