Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Even if you overlay the spherical harmonics on top of an actual sphere and get some of the same results mathematically, the geometry of the shell can't account for things like electron capture, which requires that electrons spend some time in the nuclear volume (unless we discard our understanding of the weak interaction). A spherical shell (i.e., the orbitsphere) does not intersect with the nucleus.


    This -electron capture - is a different aspect, that certainly is not covered by Mills model. I would even state, that Mills has no model for the nucleus - just for the proton, that is, by no way a nucleus, it is a basic particle.

    One of the crucial points of Mills model is the correct treatment of relativistic flux. His model also holds for the nuclear level(s), but needs one additional step to be successful.


    I would discard all (-most all) standard model nuclear theories anyway...

    You miss my point, Wyttenbach. Mills proposes that his model is a replacement for QM. In proposing this, he assumes an electron orbital that cannot account for electron capture, among several other things. That means that the model that Mills is proposing as a replacement for QM has an electron orbital that is unphysical. This is in contrast to QM, which proposes an electron orbital that helps to make sense of electron capture.


    Mills would not be allowed to say both of these things at the same time: (1) his model is a replacement for QM and a better, simpler understanding of the underlying experimental data; and (2) the scope of his model does not touch on nuclear phenomena such as electron capture.

    Nobody can say his model is a replacement of an old, partly successful model. This is bare marketing. The buildup of theories is most of the time evolutionary. There will be extensions to Mills model too, as there will be further extensions to QM.

    But QM cannot quantitatively explain electron capture. To explain an effect you must be able to make predictions of the kind .. such is the capture rate of Isotope XY; Under this aspect QM too is just a proposal and not a theory.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Nobody can say his model is a replacement of an old, partly successful model. This is bare marketing. The buildup of theories is most of the time evolutionary. There will be extensions to Mills model too, as there will be further extensions to QM.

    But QM cannot quantitatively explain electron capture. To explain an effect you must be able to make predictions of the kind .. such is the capture rate of Isotope XY; Under this aspect QM too is just a proposal and not a theory.


    Wyttenbach:


    (1) What is your basis for saying that QM cannot quantitatively predict electron capture rates?


    (2) Also, why do you think that a theory that cannot quantitatively predict a given (complex) phenomenon for purely computational reasons is only a proposal?


    A good example here would be the theory of evolution, and the work in genetics showing how sexual reproduction leads to much faster evolutionary optimisation. A very powerful theory, yet computationally getting specific quantitative answers is almost impossible.


    In this case I believe you are doubly wrong.

    • Official Post

    Mills is sticking to his guns over there on Yahoo. Of course, his best defense would be to produce something....which he is long overdue on. The bold is his response:



    2) You are wrong about the problems in QM. You are probably referring to Mills bizarre attack on QM being non-lorentz invariant. Only the Schrodinger equation, which is a simplification only, is non-lorentz invariant. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows why it's non-lorentz invariant. Everyone understands that it's just because it's a simplification of the full theory.

    Ah, then there's the assertion that QM can't calculate ionization energies. Since when? It simply can.

    Interpretations of QM are, by definition, not "problems" --- they're defined as things that lead to the same experimental outcomes. For them to be "problems", they need to contradict some experiment. And if they seem to contradict each other philosophically ... so what. You could, simplistically, assume that one is right and the others are wrong. Then the fact that the "correct" interpretation contradicts the "incorrect" interpretation isn't a surprise.


    Quote
    >>There is not a single experimental observable that QM has solved physically/correctly.


    3) Thirdly, none of the experimental verifications are taken seriously. This is because:

    (a) The verifiers don't generally guard against outright fraud --- they often check that a certain part of the experiment does a certain thing, but aren't paid to check that the whole thing is a gross lie --- I'm not saying it is a fraud, but that's part of why the establishment doesn't believe it when Mills himself checks mills himself, or someone mills has paid to check mills checks mills.



    Quote
    >>There is massive validation. To say otherwise is fraud.





    (b) The amount of heat released has been pitiful, in the external tests I'm aware of, and easily explainable in one or two "verifications" - easily explainable through recombination or such things.


    Quote
    >>Millions of watts per liter have been verified by five independently experts.




    (c) Some obvious problems with some of the experimental work, for instance reporting spectral lines that were outside the range that the spectrometers can actually measure. Not sure why, but an obvious red flag.


    Quote
    >>We are using state of the art instruments and protocols. The hydrino analytical spectra are all from top testing labs and universities.


    (d) Almost 30 years of broken promises --- each year saying next will be better.


    Quote
    >>The theory has advanced to solve quarks to cosmos, the hydrino analytical has advanced to hydrinos in a bottle with unequivocal results, the power has advanced to megawatts, and the engineering has advanced to a commercial design superior to that of

    any known power source.




    (e) Some verifiers backtracking, for instance NASA.


    Quote
    >>Not true


    (f) Here's the real killer: If it was true, it would be piss-simple to check. His view of reality is radically totally different to QM and disagrees in almost every way. He claims anti gravity. He claims amazing amounts of energy. He claims stunning new spectra. All of these are piss-simple to check. And yet neither he nor others has managed a single convincing demonstration, other than a few stage managed flashes of light that we can't verify.


    Quote
    >>Sticking to hydrinos: You forgot a shock wave 10X greater than that of an equivalent weight of TNT. All true and verified.


    (g) Mills has well over 100-million dollars of investment, and yet he's managed to make pretty much nothing yet.


    Quote
    >>We are getting very close, only a matter of time. Incidentally, we had to achieve the greatest theory, chemistry, astrophysical, and power innovation in history solo.

    I don't trust Randell Mills, and I've never, ever been impressed by him. Especially, due to the fact he has locked himself into a closet with the hydrino theory and completely dismisses LENR. My guess is that even if hydrino-like substances exist, most of his excess energy is in the form of LENR reactions.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Director

    I don't trust Randell Mills, and I've never, ever been impressed by him. Especially, due to the fact he has locked himself into a closet with the hydrino theory and completely dismisses LENR. My guess is that even if hydrino-like substances exist, most of his excess energy is in the form of LENR reactions.


    Interesting Director. You trust a man whom you admit has done many deceitful, and dishonest things, over another man who's only sin has been to make promises for 26 years he has yet to keep. It may come to past when Mills proves to be untrustworthy, but so far he has checked most of the blocks needed to be deemed honest.


    He has validations coming out of his yin yang, a team of scientists he works with, a solid BOD, an actual brick and mortar building you can drive up to and touch if you want, a high caliber science background, other non-LENR related accomplishments.


    And here is Rossi with his one man operation, "Rossi Effect" theory, no validations (will give partial credit for Ferrara HT), no BODs, carried out a classic sting operation against his partner IH at Doral, his Leonardo is headquartered out of his Miami Beach condo, weak science background...and you trust him over Mills.


    Hmmm...like I said, interesting.

    Rossi at least is open to various theories and ideas about these anomalous reactions, for the most part. He has allowed all sorts of conceptscto be published on his blog. On the other hand, Mills has dismissed virtually all of LENR and more or less declared only his hydrino to be real. Hevhas built up a grand unified theory that he projects as absolutecreality. Yet, his best evidence, colorful and mysterious hydrino hydrides that he very early on showed off and made countless claims about, are rarely mentioned. This is totally strange to me, because they could be worth a fortune. There are rare isotopes that cost thousands of dollars per gram. If his hydrino hydrides were real - don't know either way - it sure seems like they could be a pathway towards profit and getting his theories accepted.


    Moreover, BLP is the only party EVER to try and have one of the MFMP's videos removed. There is also the account of a student who was doing basic research who after posting a paper was sent legal threats. I think this sort of behavior is thuggish.

    Well seems like all the "players" are ferociously protecting their IP.

    Some by obscurity and deceit, some by deterrence others by staying under the radar and keeping quiet.

    Shane D.

    Quote

    Millions of watts per liter have been verified by five independently experts.

    Not only has this claim been questioned but Watts are a measurement of power. And what matters is energy, actually, [energy out] compared to [energy in]. It's a telling error that energy scammers often make.


    Quote

    We are getting very close, only a matter of time. Incidentally, we had to achieve the greatest theory, chemistry, astrophysical, and power innovation in history solo.

    Problem with that statement: he has been saying it for going on thirty years. That's a long time with very flimsy and arguable evidence. Show us the beef! How many years does it make sense to believe and trust someone who claims that success is happening next year? Or "very close?" Or, as is common with energy scams, "soon?"


    @Thetruemonty 

    Quote

    Well seems like all the "players" are ferociously protecting their IP.

    Some by obscurity and deceit, some by deterrence others by staying under the radar and keeping quiet.

    Yes, well, inventors protect their IP with patents and NDA's. Crooks and con men prefer obscurity and deceit.

    Please this is a thread about the verification of GUT-CP. If you want to discuss BLP and Mills behavior open an other thread ---> Mods please create a new thread!


    Quote from Shane D.

    Ah, then there's the assertion that QM can't calculate ionization energies. Since when? It simply can.


    QM, by definition cannot calculate Ionization energies of all electron levels that have a magnetic bond part, because there simply is no a single equation with an r^3 dependent internal Magnet (H) field.


    Don't be fooled by hydrogen that works because of an error that corrects a conceptual error...


    Quote from Director

    Hevhas built up a grand unified theory that he projects as absolutecreality. Yet, his best evidence, colorful and mysterious hydrino hydrides that he very early on showed off and made countless claims about, are rarely mentioned.


    Mills did a tremendous amount of work. Large parts of GUT-CP are outstanding. Some parts are speculative and some are damn wrong! Further he has not explored dense space and thus his theory just stoped before the finishing line.

    The problem Mills faced is: Nobody did seriously review his work. Thus he got no critics hence no chance to improve his work.

    I want to know when he plans to commercialize his miraculous hydrino hydrides he has been holding onto for ten or twenty years now. During this time, he could have produced barrels of the material. I'm not saying it isn't real -- it could be. But this is an enigma to me.


    When it comes to what I've studied about his GUT, the most fundamental issue I have is that he doesn't start from the aether up. Any true grand unified theory that claims to explain EVERYTHING must state, specifically and clearly, what empty space is composed of. Actually, I haven't heard him address the aether at all. I think that if he examined the work of researchers and theorists like Don Hotson (three great papers on Infinite Energy) and Frank Meno (who proposes a theory based on gyrons producing the torodial structure of electrons) his theory could be improved.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Santilli did comercialice Magnefuel (Hydrio-like-fuel... in fact compressed HnCm by H* ) about 10 years ago see also: http://www.rexresearch.com/santilli2/santillipatents.htm


    Wyttenbach: this is a common misuse of words. A patent is not commercialisation. Now, if Santilli (or anyone else under license) has a thriving business selling this stuff at a profit now then - yes - he has commercialised it.


    Has that happened?


    If not, after 10 years, we can probably conclude that it was never a commercial proposition. That could be for many reasons, including that it never actually worked as claimed.


    In the case of Magnefuel, new formulation of hydrocarbon fuel, possibly commercial, is not the same as evidence of Hydrinos - even if Mills claims it is. You would need energy density beyond that expected chemically from such a fuel.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.