Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • 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?

    Where are all the academic work that explains, verify or does not find the spectaral evidences that Mills finds? It would be much easier to dismiss MIlls if real academics did there job. Think about all the 100 Million dollars that could be saved for real scientific use!!

  • I think you all are unfair and completely wrong.


    Fair enough. Each person is entitled to an opinion. Above I have made three main claims, more or less: (1) That the BLP measurements have been predictably underwhelming. (2) That the validation reports are transparently dubious. And (3) that the equation-filled GUT-CP volumes are an apparent misdirection. You and I have had extended discussions on (3), and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Would you be willing to rebut my claims (1) or (2)?

  • Fair enough. Each person is entitled to an opinion. Above I have made three main claims, more or less: (1) That the BLP measurements have been predictably flaky over the years. (2) That the validation reports are transparently dubious. And (3) that the equation-filled GUT-CP volumes are an apparent misdirection. You and I have had extended discussions on (3), and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Would you be willing to rebut my claims (1) or (2)?

    I think that they did validations with minimalistic presentation, probably all the validators left notes to BrLp which finished the report, made sure they did not reveal any secrets and then publish them hence the similar format. The validators probably signed the documents confirming that it was correct information. I don't see any problems with this it has a purpose and especially if I as an investor got time to talk with the validators I would be fine with that. I don't think that we have exact the same information as the more involved persons in this

    and mills and his team seam to be able to do advanced technical development so I don't find it likely that they do bad science, that speaks against they actually have done They might be a bit to optimistic in what they can achieve and a simple heater with a KISS principle should be high on the agenda, just as it is today but was not initially. What you call dubious I call was done by design. Also note that Mills knows about overfitting, he complains that the QM folks fall in that trap, so it should be ironic if he has done the same. Today they should be able to run the system at moderate effect for hours, the control should be good and they can close it. This means that Mills today should have good old calorimetric results in his desk that prove over unity. AS I understand it such third party validations is undergoing that is no sparks but heat for hours in stead. So I tend to agree that one need to be cautious to draw conclusion of what we have, a bit dissapointed that akademia hasn't debunked or confirmed Mills spectroscopic findings and awaits with some hope the meaning of "proving it to the public"

  • I think that they did validations with minimalistic presentation, probably all the validators left notes to BrLp which finished the report, made sure they did not reveal any secrets and then publish them hence the similar format. The validators probably signed the documents confirming that it was correct information. I don't see any problems with this it has a purpose and especially if I as an investor got time to talk with the validators I would be fine with that. I don't think that we have exact the same information as the more involved persons in this


    Ok. Let me fill in some details to this account, which might be accurate but missing some things. When one hears the word "validation," and especially "independent validation," one does not expect a ghostwritten document that was merely signed off by the party. I agree that parts of some of the recent validation reports look like they were ghostwritten, as there are large segments of text that are nearly (but not quite) identical between the different reports. It is actually worse than that: in one validation report, there are entire papers cribbed from Mills that are slipped in as sections, unattributed.


    In an academic context, this would provide a basis for an accusation of plagiary, of an omitted author or of a critical lack of independence. We are clearly far from a situation in which academic norms would apply. That takes us out of the realm of serious academic research, and hence out of the realm of bona fide LENR researchers.


    But we should continue. Not only is it plausible that the validation reports by the nominally independent validators were ghostwritten in part and based on a template, at least one of the validators has had a paid consulting arrangement with BLP for around two decades and collaborated with them during his (master's?) thesis. I think at this point that we can no longer use the word "independent," lest it lose all meaning.


    If we can no longer apply the word "independent" to the validation reports, can we call them "validations"? It seems to me that we cannot. We learn from reading closely that the validators did not take the measurements themselves and simply relied on data given to them by BLP. I think the phrase "transparently dubious" is apt, because I got all of this information from the reports themselves (hopefully I haven't messed up the details too much). I suspect you will disagree.


    It seems to me from your second paragraph that you agree with me, however, that the measurements have been underwhelming; perhaps you even agree that they have been predictably underwhelming.


    There was at least one earlier report from a researcher who was obviously qualified which was short, diplomatic and not in this mold. It made for interesting reading and pointed out that the measurement technique was a new one.

  • As an academic I can't reference the validation reports. But I can let it guide my research for example set up a validation experiment myself for some of the many spectroscopic findings that Mills report. As a VD or as a Investor the procedure is pragmatically okey with the validations. I have really no problem with setup from a corporate perspective actually I would enforce it to some degree. I view corporate research as academic research on the same footings, the timings are differnt, in akademia you perish if you don't publish and in corporate you can perish if you publish too early and you need to patent patent patent and keep secret for some time until the product is settled and all important patents have been taken. BrLP is weird in that they let loose of so much information and can somehow get away with it because it is all viewed as fringe. Mills really enjoy this feature. But maybe it's all a hoax, we will see, some more entertainment remains.

  • 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.


    This statement is an expression of desparation. If you can't tell what has been refuted, then hang on an watch the Olympics ...

    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.)


    We must clearly distinguish between Mills scientific work and his company. Mills contributions to science are outstanding and by far the most important of the last 50 years. Who blames Einstein for all the rubbish he invented in between the final findings?

    Do not use such a harsh language. Science is always a trial and error and sometimes rubbish, like the cosmological constant, shines up again. Theory most likely has no end.

    But what Mills is doing with BRLP is more or less a kind of standard marketing terror, because he is completely over estimating his knowledge/ability as an engineer. He makes the same error as Lipinski(s) and calculates the total energy produced as integral over the full space angle, what is blatantly wrong.

    All LENR processes and the Mills one is of the same kind, have a spin structured energy production. If he would measure in direction of the self sustain spiral axes, then he would see a completely different picture. This does not imply that a high energy gain is excluded, but it shows, that he does not understand the process.

    Unluckily he stopped GUT-CP at the point where things start to completely change and he was satisfied to believe that Hydrinos have the structure he found...



    PS: For the Mills haters: Nobody refuted his treatment of the chemical bond. Nobody refuted his calculations of the Lepton masses, the anomalous electron g-factors and many other things...

  • As I've pointed out before, Mills's calculation of the neutron-electron mass ratio diverges from the 2012 CODATA experimental value and error bounds. I suppose that is a refutation of sorts.


    You miss the point: This is a small gadget of Mills theory. I told you once before that Mills failed to understand the 4D effects and thus his work about higher dimensional particles - the neutron is a 4D particle - is not complete. There are many other points where Mills theory is not as accurate as it could be. But standard theory has no comparable alternative that calculates physical quantities just from the basic constants.


    I can give you a formula where you can match electron and proton/neutron!! by more than 6 digits, but still less than codata. Does this mean that the formula is wrong? No, its incomplete, but still way better than antything else on the market. Bdw.: The gravity constant limits all to less than 7 digits - so we even can't say it's incomplete...

  • If you believed all the validators like I did, Mills theory and his CIHT, and Suncell worked well together. That was always a good sign to me. Have an idea/theory, design a machine to exploit it, machine works as predicted, theory good. This update though, indicates to me that the Suncell failed it's first truly independent test, and possibly a reassessment of the theory is in order? Or maybe it is a bit premature?


    BLP gave Columbia Technologies a Suncell this past October, and according to the update, they could not get it to work. As of last month (Jan 22), two CT engineers and their "equipment" showed up at BLP to iron out the wrinkles. Mills acts confident they will straighten everything out, so maybe it;s a simple engineering fix. We shall see, but in the meantime it is not very reassuring when he then goes on to say they are going back to square one, and try to prove the technology works. That, I thought, was already done. Investors must be confused, as am I.


    Were I one of the big money backers, I would be asking "why not backtrack a little, and revisit the CIHT"? It was simpler, and supposedly infinitely scalable. Surely there is a market for it, while the Suncell is refitted with a new ceramic coat, and fancy, yet unproven, MHD.

  • Ok, Wyttenbach. Let's assume the neutron-electron mass ratio is a small detail (an incorrect conclusion in my view, but let's go with it), and that it doesn't matter that there have probably been semiempirical, analytically derived equations to calculate the quantities you mention for a long time prior to Mills. We can ask a more important question. You mention that Mills's theory accounts for chemical bonds, the lepton masses (apart from the problem with the neutron-electron mass ratio), the g-factors and many other things. Does it account for the all of the main problems that quantum mechanics seeks to model? These include the anomalous results of the two-slit experiment and processes at the nuclear level.


    Epimetheus has mentioned that there is a claim in GUT-CP that Mills's model accounts for the results of the Aspect experiments, which, along with other experiments around the same time, demonstrated a violation of Bell's inequality, and hence ruled out local realism. I asked @Epimetheus to follow up on those claims in GUT-CP and see if they were correct and the method of calculation a necessary consequence of Mills's theoretical apparatus, but I have not heard back from him yet.


    You have suggested that QM's treatment of phenomena at the nuclear level is only valid out to the Bohr radius. But that might as well be light years away from the nucleus on the scale that nuclear phenomena are concerned with, and so not an objection of consequence.


    It seems to me that until Mills's theoretical apparatus tackles these and other domains that are central to quantum mechanics, it is premature to become enamored of it, especially when the orbitsphere would seem to be unphysical.

  • Does it account for the all of the main problems that quantum mechanics seeks to model?

    You have suggested that QM's treatment of phenomena at the nuclear level is only valid out to the Bohr radius.


    Mills formalism does not replace QM for all problems we like to solve. In all cases where we model dynamic fine structure behavior QM seems to be more adequate.


    I said: QM absolutely can't be used below de Broglie radius, what is everything regarding nuclei. QM can also not be use to calculate deep orbits, without including the correct mutual relativistic source terms for the magnet fields.

    The error you will see in QM for calculations with higher chemical 2+, 3+ ionization states is huge, because the proper magnetic terms are missing, but in a grid you can work around this.

    It is as always: You have to select the proper theory for the work you would like to complete. Or even better: Do it like Tesla and just invent!

  • I said: QM absolutely can't be used below de Broglie radius, what is everything regarding nuclei.


    QM is used for calculations at the nuclear and subnuclear levels. Nuclear phonons, s-wave and p-wave nuclear state, Feynman diagrams, quantum chromodynamics, etc. This is quantum mechanics. Have I misunderstood your assertion?


    QM can also not be use to calculate deep orbits, without including the correct mutual relativistic source terms for the magnet fields.


    "Deep orbits" are a hypothesis (one I'm doubtful of).


    It is as always: You have to select the proper theory for the work you would like to complete. Or even better: Do it like Tesla and just invent!


    Ok, then. You seem to agree with me that Mills's attempt at replacing (existing) quantum mechanics with a "classical" version is at best an incomplete project. What, then, is the proper domain for using Mills's theory for which existing approaches are less useful or desirable?

  • QM is used for calculations at the nuclear and subnuclear levels. Nuclear phonons, s-wave and p-wave nuclear state, Feynman diagrams, quantum chromodynamics, etc. This is quantum mechanics. Have I misunderstood your assertion?


    QM calculations for sub-nuclear level is fringe science with no concrete results. Feynman diagrams/calcs make sense to estimate all forces/fields that are involved. But the main drawback of the standard model is it's backing by measurements and not by base constants, what makes it only a second degree theory, what means: It is engineering level not basic science.



    What, then, is the proper domain for using Mills's theory for which existing approaches are less useful or desirable?


    The main advantage of Mills calculus is the (more) exact derivation of the involved energies. What is missing is the perturbation of the statistics (temperature!). You get the exact configuration (bond angles) of molecules much faster than with any other method. But there are cases that can not be solved, because they are not stable. There is still "hand work" involved. I guess the QM guys should take some things from Mills to simplify/improve their algorithms.

  • QM calculations for sub-nuclear level is fringe science with no concrete results.


    Do you agree, then, that QM at the nuclear level is not fringe science? Or shall we conclude that these books are fringe science?


    https://www.amazon.com/Introdu…nneth-Krane/dp/047180553X

    https://goo.gl/qTZjzC


    I doubt most physicists would agree with you that quantum chromodynamics is fringe. I guess it depends upon how one defines "fringe."


    The main advantage of Mills calculus is the (more) exact derivation of the involved energies. What is missing is the perturbation of the statistics (temperature!). You get the exact configuration (bond angles) of molecules much faster than with any other method.


    Newtonian physics has the huge advantage of making it much easier to calculate a ballistic trajectory over a small patch of earth than can be done with general relativity. But that does not make Newtonian physics more correct or accurate than general relativity. General relativity provides insights into physics that the Newtonian system does not. Perhaps at most we could say that Newtonian physics is applicable to a different or smaller domain than general relativity. But that obscures the relationship. So ease of use of an approach (e.g., that of Mills over QM) tells us little.


    As I have said, there have no doubt been analytically derived semi-empirical equations for a long time that cover everything Mills touches upon that are as fast and easy to use. The only putative improvement upon this situation that I have heard claimed is that Mills does the same thing with basic constants. I have not seen this borne out in the case of the neutron-electron mass ratio, however, and I wonder whether the equations that are accurate have been fiddled with to make work. And, of course, the orbitsphere has the disadvantage of seeming to be unphysical.

  • General relativity provides insights into physics that the Newtonian system does not.



    Sorry Eric: Please read Mills! "General relativity" (Einstein, Minkovski)cannot be used at nuclear levels since the correlation between time dilatation and mass increase breaks down. There is no single simple Lorenz factor for the radial and the azimutal treatment of waves! This is not a consequentc of Newton mechanics. It a direct consequnce of Maxwell equations.


    General relativity is only valid for empty space! Further it is based on a residual force only. That's why I call most parts of the standard modell fringe science.


    If you want to prove that there are valid subparts, then please show us a formula just based on first principles (constants, particle masses, math) that calculate a usefull quanty with more than 4 digits precision.

  • Sorry Eric: Please read Mills! "General relativity" (Einstein, Minkovski)cannot be used at nuclear levels since the correlation between time dilatation and mass increase breaks down.


    You missed my point, Wyttenbach. General relativity was used in analogy to Newtonian physics to make a point about a more complex system not necessarily being inferior to a simpler, easier to calculate system. There was no suggestion that general relativity be applied to nuclear levels. I think this is actually pretty obvious, and you were just replying too quickly.


    Newtonian physics : general relativity => something simpler (Newtonian physics) is not necessarily better than something more complex and harder to calculate (general relativity).


    With our handy analogy, the following nice and obvious conclusion is suggested as a consequence:


    Mills's theoretical apparatus : quantum mechanics => something simpler (Mills's theoretical apparatus) is not necessarily better than something more complex and harder to calculate (quantum mechanics).


    The analogy falls apart if you push it too hard: Newtonian physics presents genuine insights into physics, whereas I am doubtful that Mills's theoretical apparatus does from what I've learned of it.

  • Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.


    That is the argument but it is untrue, based on a time long ago when we did not have the computational power, and numerical analysis sophistication, to do the (real) calculations properly. They are deliciously accurate, no tweaks. And Mills' results are not so accurate.

  • Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.


    Yes, that's a main arguing point. I am skeptical that this is true (e.g., in comparison to other relatively straightforward non-QM approaches to calculating these quantities). But if true it would be an interesting detail. With Mills supporters, an important thing I've learned is that it is necessary to ask them to go beyond claims made by Mills to actually verify that that those claims are accurate. What I've seen so far is that the claims are usually taken at face value without further verification or comparison to other existing approaches.


    And then there's the orbitsphere, which gives the impression of being unphysical. :)

  • That is the argument but it is untrue, based on a time long ago when we did not have the computational power, and numerical analysis sophistication, to do the (real) calculations properly. They are deliciously accurate, no tweaks. And Mills' results are not so accurate.


    I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue about QM, beyond the very basics, but my limited understanding is that many empirically determined constants have been added, which if true, could be considered as 'post-hoc tweaks'? (ie. propping up an increasingly abstract construction)

  • Yes, that's my impression as well about QM. I am not a defender of QM beyond saying something like, "real physicists use QM to solve real problems, and you (Mills supporters) need a compelling argument to make a convincing case that they're living in error and sin in believing what they believe, and the argument you've provided is easy to pick apart."


    I would not be surprised to learn that QM is refactored at some point into something more intuitive. It's possible that Mills's theoretical apparatus contains some insights here, but the orbitsphere and the apparent misdirection of GUT-CP make me pessimistic that it does.

  • And at risk of derailing the thread, it seems to me that if QMers ^^ are having to posit things like multiverses and their ilk, my intuition says it's time for them to find a better rabbit-hole to go down ....Although I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.


    And I get that the universe doesn't necessarily have to work in an easily understandable way - But a separate universe spawned by each quantum event? Really?! How big do the underlying issues have to be, to end up with that as your potential solution?

  • QM is a big topic that spans a number of areas of physics. I think of it mostly in terms of the spherical harmonics (e.g., s-shell, p-shell and d-shell electron orbitals), superposition of states, the transferring of energy in quanta and the weird phenomena underlying entanglement and the two-slit experiment. My impression is that the multiverses thing is a side show spurred on by philosophical preoccupations, although perhaps we will eventually learn that QM is in fact a cult.

  • I think multiverses are a solution to well-known(?) problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation, a fundamental part of QM?


    But you beg the question as to why there are even philosophical preoccupations in the first place? ...No philosopher seems to stuggle over General Relativity, for example.

  • Copenhagen is one of several understandings of QM (one I'm not particularly sympathetic to), and I never got the impression that multiverses is a necessary consequence of QM. There is, for example, the transactional interpretation of QM (different from Copenhagen) as well as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. I think there are others as well. (I'm not clear on the relationship between multiverses and Copenhagen.)

  • Re the philosophical preoccupations, I'm not sure. I gather that it is a combination of the counterintuitive nature of the results combined with the dogmatic assertions of early pioneers that it is fundamentally incomprehensible and/or that the act of measurement assumes supreme significance. But it definitely points to QM being only a partial description.

  • ...Much like every model of the universe in history, and probably hence!

    Copenhagen is one of several understandings of QM (one I'm not particularly sympathetic to), and I never got the impression that multiverses is a necessary consequence of QM. There is, for example, the transactional interpretation of QM (different from Copenhagen) as well as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. I think there are others as well. (I'm not clear on the relationship between multiverses and Copenhagen.)


    Maybe? Pretty much my only source of information is this (highly recommended) documentary...




    And I watched it a long time ago...


    The quick version: https://www.scientificamerican…e/hugh-everett-biography/

  • I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue about QM, beyond the very basics, but my limited understanding is that many empirically determined constants have been added, which if true, could be considered as 'post-hoc tweaks'? (ie. propping up an increasingly abstract construction)


    When I looked, this was not the case. In fact we discussed this on another thread. The numerical work that established these constants - and gets more accurate all the time, is very impressive and (for what I was challenged about then) did not invoke any ad hoc parameters: all terms were provable from first principles. If someone could find the old discussion we could go over it.

  • Well I can't find a good external source of any arguments about there being too many fudge factors. In fact most articles seem to refer to the so-called 'measurement problem', which is pretty much what that video above is all about.


    And then there's the orbitsphere, which gives the impression of being unphysical. :)


    I guess the smiley face is due to the other side containing even bigger apparent oddities?... Like Shroedingers Cat for starters.


    Edit: ...Which 'your' Transactional Interpretation seems to take care of, amongst other things: http://faculty.washington.edu/…int/Westport_20110420.ppt