Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • Shane D.

    Quote

    Soon...August to be more precise, he will have a bottle of Hydrino's, and game over!

    If he is consistent and behaves true to his usual form, he will show something. But nobody outside his believers will agree it is hydrinos and his evidence for it will be couched entirely in terms of his proprietary and mostly disagreed with version of science. That's my prediction anyway. Or do you really think he demonstrated the most important new power source in the world? He demonstrated that a heavy current through a mostly uncooled short circuit makes a bright flash. I think we already knew that. So what should a bottle of hydrinos look and act like anyway?

  • SOT,


    I can not figure Mills out. He did some legitimate basic CF work in light water systems, alongside some of the early pioneers. Never hid what he was doing and put it all out there for others to see...including NASA. Then he switched gears and started developing his CIHT. IMO he had it extensively validated by independent scientists. Then onto to this Sun Cell.


    He is an open book in regards to what he is doing, and where he is going. Gives regular updates, works with respected companies. Has a science team, employees, BODs, Advisory Board, and investors to keep him honest.


    Sounds promising, but when I weigh that against his many unfulfilled promises of a commercial product, that seems to always coincide with his need for another round of funding, it sounds a little less so. The latest of course, the SunCell, where as long ago as 20 months ago he was predicting the thermal version being only months away. Then on to the PVC version, then back to the thermal, and now a ceramic. There is no doubt he knew each was not ready for market when he said they were, so there is no getting around the fact that he does not always tell the truth.


    So I stay semi-neutral, and play it like a politician. If he comes through one day, I can say I supported him. If instead, his investors accuse him of deceit, then I can say I never believed much in him.

  • Right Shane. He did not hide it. In 2003 Prof. Conrads found a university where he could carry out some research to find out, if there is anything interesting in Mills experiments. He had the experiment running for about a year completly without Mills being around. They found completely unexplainable behavior of a simple hydrogen plasma:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ts_of_potassium_carbonate


    That story also sheds some light on the problem Mills has. He has to pay independent labs for an analysis because nobody wants to touch this "pseudoscience". Conrads, despite being a well respected plasma physicist for 40 years, was not allow to conduct these experiments at the university where he was employed. That is a serious problem for true independant validation.

  • There is nothing stopping Mills, who claims his latest machine makes incredible amounts of thermal and light energy and power, from getting a paid for believable test. There are many private labs in the US, some like Earthtech (Scott Little and company) who are quite friendly to unusual claims yet quite competent and credible. There are many others. Mills could also market a reduced scale model or testing kit. I bet thousands of his enthusiasts would buy one and publicize any positive results that they get.


    SOT,


    If your premise is that LENR is not real...which it is, then it naturally follows that you would think anyone, or any group, who validate are "not believable". Skeptic motto: "if it looks good, it can't be, because LENR is not real. We may as well shut LF down now. Anything original you would like to add?


    And don't you think it insulting to the many that have done the validating of Mills work, when you indirectly accuse them of not being "competent and credible"? Simply because they had a positive result, instead of the negative result you felt more appropriate, because of you do not believe in LENR?


    As to the kit, Mills mentioned in an update about 6 months ago his goal is to put one out. I expect that soon.


  • Right Shane. He did not hide it. In 2003 Prof. Conrads found a university where he could carry out some research to find out, if there is anything interesting in Mills experiments. He had the experiment running for about a year completly without Mills being around. They found completely unexplainable behavior of a simple hydrogen plasma:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ts_of_potassium_carbonate

    Not that unexplainable if one follows Holmlid's work. The experimental conditions described in this paper are very close to those required to produce ultra-dense hydrogen.

  • @SOT It looks like BrLP just wanted to share enough for the funding to not drain, historicaly, and was quite satisfied with not having the world acknowledge the hydrino theory.

    If they are now determined to prove the hydrinos, and with a compound of it, It's just a matter of time for better labs is acknowledging the findings. Probably labs he has been

    cooperated before with is the first line to test the compound. If he want's to prove it it's enough to keep sending samples to labs, asking for validators etc and in the end there would

    be a great mystery to solve for the akademics. Never before has the need to prove the technology been written in their roadmap. So I expect things to be different now.

  • Alan Smith : This thread is about validation of a theory: Could you move all the posts about Mills company etc. to the clearance thread?


    Here some news for the gurus: A physicist working on base QM theory (L. Chiatti) found an alternative explanation for the Mills space/time contraction logic, basically proving Mills approach.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…jective-Quantum-Mechanics


    He also mentions De Vries finding of a pure mathematical formula for the fine structure constant.

    http://www.physics-quest.org/fine_structure_constant.pdf


    Things are moving and point into the direction that all the experimenters should use the Mills Lorenz derived gamma constant and not the original one.

  • Mills just added some new "hydrino" spectrum measurements:


    https://brilliantlightpower.co…st-Power-Paper-050818.pdf


    Basically its his old work plus some added external ones with more details (to many to read them all) . He still sees only H(1/4) resonance, what is no prove for a stable hydrino.


    He also believes that: "The applied field could not be the source of the emission that extended to 122.4 eV"


    He ignores the fact that silver has a low laying nuclear gamma state with a high momentum and the any LENR at the W cathode could produce dangerous radiation. I hope he is still healthy...


    He also measured an interesting element (XPS) at 498.5 eV that can be explained with an other model...