• I guess time will tell with Mills, probably in the next 12 months.

    As with you, I am not qualified to make an educated statement about Mills theory.


    However, with BLP, the "probably in the next 12 months" has been the case for longer than Rossi! This does not prove anything other than Mills cannot judge how long it takes to make a workable product! But it also does not build a lot of confidence either! :|

  • ZenoOfElea: I know that QM is the most accurate theory ever devised and has passed every test so far.


    QM has limited applications.


    QM applies to closed systems only where there is no transfer of energy or mass. PT -symmetric quantum theory that uses Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians applies to open systems like LENR and hydrino systems(if they exists).

  • The main reason I separate BLP from the overunity pack and hold out some hope for them, is that they have a long list of quality scientists/engineers backing their technology. FTR, yes, some were paid, but others, to their credit, were not. I am curious...does anyone know of someone else with such an extraordinary claim, backed by as many independent validations, where it turned out to be nothing, or a scam?

  • Zeno wrote "I know that QM is the most accurate theory ever devised and has passed every test so far".


    I'm not so sure of that.

    I downloaded Millsian 2.0 and within about 5 minutes I had this picture of the ethanol molecule



    I couldn't do the same for a QM based program like Spartan

    but Mills has supplied some total bond energies obtained by Spartan in his 2010 report.


    These Spartan QM results are 16.1025, 24.1239, and 25.5053.


    The above Millsian result of 33.4056 compares much better with the experimental result of 33.4276 eV

  • robert bryant: " I downloaded Millsian 2.0 and within about 5 minutes I had this picture of the ethanol molecule"

    Did you design dark matter using the BrLP software and verify that it is not reactive to any form of energy or matter?

  • Axil asked " Did you design dark matter"

    No

    If you can...

    Please show me how....... starting with the dihydrino (1/4, 1/4)


    But I did verify that Mills is.on the money for Dipole moment too

    The dipole moment for QM. calculations is 2.06 debyes

    but the Millsian. value of 1.73.debyes is

    much closer to the exptal values.(1.61-1.71)

    https://www.csb.pitt.edu/BBSI/2003/presentation/gera.pdf

  • axil


    Millisan is not capable of doing that. As I understand it Millisan stores the values for the functional groups that Dr. Mills solved in GUTCP. The nice thing (and hard part) comes into play when combining functional groups to more complex molecules. Millisan then adapts all parameters (angles, energies, distances, etc.) of the combined functional according to some equations derived by Mills. You can get an impression how Millisan works when you read in GUTCP Vol. 2 some of the more complex molecule subchapters.


    I think what you want to see is only possible to show with a FEM software like comsol multiphysics. I also really would like to see that!

  • My opinion so far of BLP is that Mills doesn't even know he is running a scam. He is quite intelligent, but is so certain his theory is correct, that he extrapolates to the Nth degree from questionable experiments. Here is a slightly tongue in check example: "This experiment showed .1W excess heat, so if we scale this up 1 trillion fold, we will be terraforming Mars in 10 years." ;)


    Godes might have a little of the same problem. He is so certain of his CECR theory and the fact that he is an Electrical Engineer, that there is no way he could be mis-measuring input power right?

  • Jack Cole


    That is certainly not possible. Mills states that he has all important values for 800 molecules and in GUTCP there are well over 50 (I did not count - could be >100) molecules with a comparison between experimental value and his calculated values. If he did not fake his values then he has an atomic model that is far superior to the quantum mechanics model, so it is definitly no scam. If he faked the numbers he is a clear fraudster. In my opinion there is no possibility in between.


    There is not much extrapolation taking place. The atomic model is checked against known experimental numbers. Even the part with mass and gravity could be correct because he gives equations for the mass ratios of fundamental particles that are known through experiments. The hydrino is a consequence out of his atomic equations. So if the numbers of the molecules are not faked the theoretical existence of hydrinos is for sure and not extrapolated.


    In the later chapters he is extrapolating (fifth force, future of the universe etc.) but his basic concept is a model for all matter. If he is not faking numbers this is huge. Btw. I recalculated some of the molecular values - not a single number was faked (in this very small sample I took). Interested readers are invited to participate to find the answer to the question if Mills is faking numbers:

    Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

  • Epimetheus


    You seemed to miss the part where I said it seemed unintentional. You seemed also to miss the point I was making on extrapolation. I don't really care about his theory. He surely does. He takes small (maybe false) experimental result and extrapolates it to the Nth degree: "All of the engineering challenges are solved. We can do all this with off the shelf parts. We are planning a 1MW prototype by June of next year. It should be about the size of a basketball and generate 1MW of electricity."

  • Jack Cole said "He(Mills) takes small (maybe false) experimental result and extrapolates it to the Nth degree.


    The most relevant evidence dated January 2015 is a report on a solid fuel cell.

    "H2O-based solid fuel power source based on the catalysis of H by HOH catalyst"

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0360319914028468


    I do not think that this is false, having taken the time to read it.

    Perhaps Jack you can find something that is patently false in it?


    On the question of "extrapolating to the nth degree."

    You mentioned 1 MW from a basketball ???

    which I interpret as a question about power density.


    Mills Jan/15 calorimeter report calculates power to be 1.24 MW per 0.7 ns

    Mills says this is typical. The short time interval is necessitated by the calorimetry set up.


    Mills' technology needs 'extrapolation'from nanoseconds intervals to 24/7 continuity,


    The extrapolation is not in terms of power, but in terms of the time frame.


    judging from the BLP site videos Mills has moved on from nanosecond to hourly durations

    in the intervening 2-3 yrs since that expt was done.

    Video March13/2015 Duration= 21.9 milliseconds

    Video Sept 2/2016 Duration > 60 seconds

    Video Sept 9/2016 Duration reported as ~ 2hours

    Recent April video addresses silver electrode control, appears solved?



    The power density is not really an issue - a 1MW basketball?


    Just to get a ball park comparison, I'll compare that to my car.

    The thermal rating for my Mazda3 engine is probably something like 350Kw =0.35Megawatts

    The Mazda engine size is stated as 2.5 litres.

    The Mills basket ball is ~7 litres

    The power density of Mills basketball compared to my Mazda 3 is


    1 megawatt/7litres compared to 0.35megawatt/2.5 litres

    which calculates to be 0.142 for Mills baske ball

    versus 0.14 for my Mazda 3 engine.


    In terms of power density Mills 1MW basketball is not so much different from my Mazda 3 engine.

    I guess Mills will report 24/7 operation some time.

    Setting up the laboratory to measure / exhaust 1 MW seems feasible in Mazda terms

    and might have been achieved already


    Check my calculations if you like

    We can all make unintentional errors.

    Bear in mind these are 'ball:)park' figures.

  • I know that QM is the most accurate theory ever devised and has passed every test so far.

    That claim is all bombast and propaganda. By the calculations of mainstream physics, about 95% percent of the universe is composed of mysterious dark matter/energy. In other words they have NO IDEA was 95% of the universe is made of. What amazing accuracy! If that counts as 'passing every test so far,' then I dear say they have set the bar too low.


    The only reason that QM is "accurate" about some things is because contemporary physicists push equations to match data. If you are tailoring your equations to match your data, well then of course your equations are going to be accurate. Mainstream physics is far from accurate. In fact, they really have no idea how far off they are and how many mistakes have been built into their equations over the decades, which are then 'corrected' by post-hoc equations that are, again, tailored to fit the data. And if they can't figure out a way to bend the equations to fit the data, they simply invent new particles and/or new forces. Hell, with an empty vacuum full of virtual particles, physicists are now like


    I only know of one theorist who has gone back to the fundamental postulates and equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Lagrange, Planck, Boltzmann and many others to identify and fix their mistakes, while at the same time delivering a truly mechanical theory that is wholly compatible with the empirical results of QM. He has also solved the 'mystery' of dark matter/energy.

  • On the question of "extrapolating to the nth degree."

    You mentioned 1 MW from a basketball ???

    which I interpret as a question about power density.


    Mills Jan/15 calorimeter report calculates power to be 1.24 MW per 0.7 ns

    Mills says this is typical. The short time interval is necessitated by the calorimetry set up.

    Yes, that is extrapolation to the Nth degree. They come up with all kinds of amazing imaginative ideas for how to use all the energy they will some day be able to create based on extrapolated energy generation. I don't know about their more recent tests, but earlier tests in the bomb calorimeter showed an energy gain of ~2 (for a single brief event). I'm not convinced that they are doing anything beyond burning metal at this point. A lot of times, it is difficult to know what has been measured and what has been extrapolated. They don't always make that clear, and it doesn't really seem to matter to Mills.

  • joshg


    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76)


    This measurement is to a precision of better than one part in a trillion.


    I presume you know this already.


    Now you are free to argue this is not a fact. That the equations were fudged to match the experimental findings. A bold claim. There are many physicists looking for a replacement theory for QM and I would expect some of them would have challenged this finding if it is a fudge (or is this another conspiracy like climate change)?

    Or you can try a semantic argument based on different definitions of what "the most accurate theory" might mean and talk of dark matter and dark energy etc.

    But while I can cut and past the information above from Wikipedia I am not a physicist and have no clue what g/2 actually means so you need to find a qualified person to argue this with.

  • joshg


    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).


    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27165


    LENR is not Hermitic. Quantum Mechanics cannot describe LENR because QM is Hermitic . LENR is an optical mechanism. It is PT Symmetric. In fact, breaking PT symmetry is what causes LENR.


    PT Symmetry


    When Dirac formulated the postulates of quantum theory, he required Hermiticity to be the fundamental symmetry for his equations. For Dirac, the requirement of Hermiticity was the mathematical device that he needed to ensure that all predictions for the outcomes of real-world measurements of quantum systems resulted in a real number. This is important since we only observe real outcomes in actual experimental observations. Dirac’s choice of Hermiticity as the fundamental symmetry of quantum theory was not seriously challenged for around seventy years.


    Hermiticity is a subtle and abstract symmetry that is mathematical in its origin. Broadly speaking, the requirement of Hermiticity imposes a boundary on a system. This is an idealization in which a system is isolated from any surrounding environment (and hence cannot be measured). While this gives a tractable mathematical framework for quantum theory, it is an unphysical requirement since all systems interact with their environment and if we wish to measure a system then such an interaction is required.


    In 1998, Carl Bender and Stefan Boettcher wrote a paper exploring the replacement of Hermiticity with another symmetry. They showed that they could replace the mathematically motivated symmetry of Dirac by a physically motivated symmetry preserving the reality of experimental outcomes. Their new theory, however, had interesting new features—it was not a like-for-like replacement.


    The underlying symmetry that Bender and Boettcher found was what they called “PT symmetry.” The symmetry here is geometric in nature and is hence closer to physics than is Hermiticity. The “P” stands for “parity” symmetry, sometimes called mirror symmetry. If a system respects “P” symmetry, then the evolution of the system would not change for a spatially reflected version of the system. The “T” stands for “time-reversal.” Time-reversal symmetry is just as it sounds—a physical system respecting this symmetry would evolve in the same way regardless whether time runs forward or backward. Some systems do individually exhibit P and T symmetries, but it is the combination of the two that seems to be fundamental to quantum theory.


    Instead of describing a system in isolation, PT symmetry describes a system that is in balance with its environment. Energy may flow in and out of the system, and hence measurements can be made within the theoretical framework of a system described by a PT symmetry. The requirement is that the same amount of energy that flows in must also flow out of the system.


    This subtler definition of a system’s relationship with its environment, provided by PT symmetry, has made it possible to describe a much wider class of systems in mathematical terms. This has led not only to an enhanced understanding of these systems but also to experimental results that support the choice of PT as the underlying symmetry in quantum mechanics. Several physical models for specific systems that had previously been studied and rejected, because they did not respect Hermiticity, have been re-examined and found to be PT symmetric.


    It is remarkable that the study of PT symmetry has progressed so rapidly. For many areas of theoretical physics, the time-lag between theory and experiment is now on the order of several decades. We may never be able to fully test string theory and experimental verification of the fifty-year-old theory of supersymmetry remains elusive.


    In the eighteen years since Bender and Boettcher’s 1998 paper, experimentalists have created PT lasers, PT superconducting wires, PT NMR and PT diffusion experiments to mention just a few validations of their theory.  As PT symmetry has matured, it has inspired the creation of exotic metamaterials that have properties that allow us to control light in new ways. The academic community, initially skeptical of such a fundamental change in quantum theory, has warmed to the idea of PT symmetry. Over 200 researchers from around the world have published scholarly papers on PT symmetry. The literature now extends to more than 2000 articles, many in top journals such as Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters.


    The future is bright for PT-symmetric quantum mechanics, but there is still work to be done. Many of the experiments mentioned have quantum mechanical aspects but are not full verifications of PT quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, existing experiments are already leading to exciting results. PT is a hot topic in the optics and graphene communities and the idea of creating a computer based on optical rather than electronic principles has recently been suggested. At the beginning of the 21st century, we are finding a new understanding of quantum theory that has the potential to unlock new technologies in the same way that semi-conductor physics was unlocked by the rise of quantum mechanics one hundred years ago.


    Also See


    http://www.europhysicsnews.org…2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf


    PT SYMMETRY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS: FROM A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY TO OPTICAL EXPERIMENTS

    Carl M. Bender

  • Jack Cole affirmed "Yes, that is extrapolation to the Nth degree.

    Rhetoric to the 2nd degree? Randy Mills' 1.24 MW calculation was based on 0.7 nanosecond. Longterm input/output measurements require a 24/7 process.

    No written reports yet, but videos suggest the duration is now an hour at least. From nanosecond to hour is a tera factor increase in the time duration in 3 years .


    Jack Cole said "I don't know about their more recent tests, "

    The 2014 report, I referenced is available on the BLP site for perusal or at Elsevier etc if one has access to an academic institution library

    Title ="H2O-Based Solid Fuel Power Source Based on the Catalysis of H by HOH Catalyst"

    Jack Cole said "Earlier tests .. "

    Perhaps one earlier test Jack is referring is the 2012 report

    R. Mills, X Yu, Y. Lu, G Chu, J. He, J. Lotoski, “Catalyst induced hydrino transition (CIHT) electrochemical cell,” (2012), Int. J. Energy Res., (2013),

    Mills stated that he is getting much higher power densities in the 2014 report.


    Jack Cole said "The bomb calorimeter showed an energy gain of ~2 (for a single brief event). "

    Table 1 in 2014 report shows energy gains of 7x and 4.5 x for Titanium water samples.Comparison with 21 other samples in Table1 indicated that energy gain is much greater than conventional chemical enthalpic gain.


    Jack Cole said "I'm not convinced that they are doing anything beyond burning metal at this point. "

    The 2014 report statesEach sample was ignited under argon”


    Jack Cole said "A lot of times, it is difficult to know what has been measured and what has been extrapolated. They don't always make that clear, and it doesn't really seem to matter to Mills. "

    The 2014 report states

    "The power density was confirmed to be about 3 X 1010 W/liter of fuel volume using the measured time of the event and the energy released as measured by bomb calorimetry. The predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)."

    There is no extrapolation here. The " 1MW from a basketball" idea is not extrapolation in terms of power level , because 1.24 MW has already been obtained in the bomb calorimeter. However it is extrapolation from nanosecond duration to 24/7 .

    24/7 operation plus an input/output test is what Mills and his team are working on now.


    Hopefully Mills will take less time than the development of the incandescent light :) bulb

    (1838-1904) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

  • The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76)


    I hope you understand what you write... May be you can show/tell us the connection between the experiment and QM - not QED!


    What about a modell for the third ionzation energy of Lithium? (Li2+ --> Li3+ Can You show us the calculated results?

  • Wyttenbach said

    "What about a modell for the third ionzation energy of Lithium?"


    Why not just the ionisation energies for helium?


    Actually physicists tried to use the QM approach to mathematically derive the ground state energy level of helium.

    The exptal value is -79.01 eV.

    Eventually, after three decades, QM approximation methods gave almost perfect agreement with the exptal value,

    BUT the approximation method required 1078!!!!! parameters to be inserted (Pekeris,1959)

    http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QM%20Chap%208.pdf


    In contrast Mills calculates the first ionisation energy as -24.5875 eV

    (pg 301 Table 9.5 , the excited states of helium, GUTCP, 2016).

    Mills' IE value differs by 0.0004% from the exptal value

    BUT requires a few fundamental physical constants rather than hundreds of fudge factor parameters.

    Mills version is rather easier to calculate too.


    The claim

    "QM is the most accurate theory ever devised"

    requires an adjunct claim:

    "QM is the most fudged theory ever devised."

  • The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment

    I think you are confusing measurement precision with predictive accuracy. And you are certainly confusing both with real understanding. If I follow your link, I find this:


    "Tests of a theory are normally carried out by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions. In QED, there is some subtlety in this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value of α, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment. Because of this, the comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent determinations of α. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of α from different physical sources agree with each other."


    A lot of bluster that basically means they are comparing experimental results to improve the precision of their measurements. Think of it this way: I can calculate PI to any significant digit you want. It is simply the ratio of two numbers. But then if I want to derive the value of PI by actually measuring the circumference and diameter of some circle, I would need to have very accurate instruments in order to be able to make a precise enough measurement in order to match the observed value of PI to the 'precise theoretical calculation' of PI. All they are saying is that they have been able to measure g and alpha (the fine structure constant) to a high degree of precision.


    But you know what? They don't even know what the fine structure constant is or why it has the value it does. Feynman said that the fine structure constant is "one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics--a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man... 137 has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it."


    He didn't mean that they worry about calculating it out to a precision of 15 or 20 significant digits. He meant that they (should) worry about where the number comes from, what it means, why it has the value it does. And yet to day, mainstream physicists still don't understand where the number comes from. In fac they've given up caring. But here are three papers that clearly and elegantly explains where it comes from and why it has the value that it does:


    http://milesmathis.com/fine.html


    http://milesmathis.com/fine2.pdf


    http://milesmathis.com/fine3.pdf


    Actually physicists tried to use the QM approach to mathematically derive the ground state energy level of helium.

    The exptal value is -79.01 eV.

    Eventually, after three decades, QM approximation methods gave almost perfect agreement with the exptal value,

    BUT the approximation method required 1078!!!!! parameters to be inserted


    Zeno, this is the perfect example of the kind of equation pushing I'm talking about. They had to add 1,078 (unassigned) terms to their equation in order to match the experimental value. Well of course we would expect it to give the right value, even to a high degree of precision: the equation was developed precisely to match the experimental value!


    Mills' IE value differs by 0.0004% from the exptal value

    BUT requires a few fundamental physical constants rather than hundreds of fudge factor parameters.

    Clearly a huge improvement. But we must remember that 'fundamental physical constants' are also fudge factors, because almost without exception their meaning is unknown. As currently used by Mills and mainstream physics, a constant is simply a number that is used in order to make equations match experimental outcomes. That doesn't mean constants aren't useful, but if you don't know what they mean or why they need to be in the equation, then it's a theoretical dodge. Unfortunately we are so used to using constants as a crutch to understanding, that we have become blind to the fact that our theoretical understanding is severely handicapped.


    In contrast, Miles Mathis has explained and derived many of the constants used in our most fundamental equations, including: G (the gravitational constant), planck's constant, the fine structure constant (see links above), c (the speed of light), Coulomb's constant (see here, here, and here), the Cosmological constant, epsilon (the permittivity of the vacuum) and others. He doesn't use a constant unless he knows what it means and why it's in the equation.