• There is no implication that there was a pre-existing "lead engineer" that left, that is rank speculation. Any company will have different 'leads' for different teams and efforts, 'lead' is a term for hands-on mid-level management at the team level.


    If the opening was for a CTO, now that would be different story, but this job posting only says they are hiring..

  • They did replicate F&P with a gas loading experiment. That is with a hydrogen filter, similar to the BARC experiment. I do not think they replicated Mills. See p. 17 here:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGClenratgrcpa.pdf


    Jed,


    Thx. I got the earlier quote from the BLP wikipedia. The NASA report you link appears to contradict that:


    BLP Results:

    • Apparent current-dependent excess heat exhibited when tested in all
    modes
    • Excess heat consistent as heat from hydrogen-oxygen recombination
    catalyzed by the Pt and Ni electrodes within the cell
    • Did not reproduce the large excess heat reported in literature
    Gain Factors of <1.7 @ GRC vs. >10 in literature


  • The implication is that the present Lead Mechanical Engineer either quit or was fired.


    That statement is ridiculous. I could bring up 10 reasons for this job offer that have not this maliscious subtext in a minute.


    About the Nasa paper:

    Mills postet the NASA paper on his forum some time ago. I think I downloaded it - I am looking for it when I am back home. If memory serves me the overall tone was: test not conclusive, one major other source of the observed excess heat was not ruled out. No more funds to do further tests.

  • >> The implication is that the present Lead Mechanical Engineer either quit or was fired.


    With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.

  • With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.


    I have already given you concrete reasons why one might distrust BrLP which are entirely apart from anything Axil has said. Even if your conclusion is true in a limited sense, you will only have shown it to apply to one person (Axil). You must show why the reasons I give put me in the category of believers in hoaxes. You will not be able to do this.

  • With these statements I realize that my equalization of hoax believers was spot on although I thought it was a bit of stretch at first.


    We all should thank Stefan that he still is willing to discuss about serious math with people arguing on kitchen-woman level.


    During the last halve year I worked through GUT-CP, in special through the particle physics part.


    There was never ever any doubt that using Mills math, delivers far more superior results that any known QM/QED approach. Just look at the helium model the cornerstone where QM badly fails. (The explanation of the QM failure is more easy than understanding Mills math...)


    A more serious discussion is needed to understand Mills particle modelling. I extend Mills math to general 4 (6)-(time-less) dimensions, what is needed to understand the basic properties even of a simple particle like the proton.


    As a summary I can tell you: Mills delivers the best that is possible with the classic 3D+T approach. To get better result we need an other math, that has not been used in physics so far. This new math delivers the correct nuclear orbit numbers and also allows to calculate/explain the nuclear spectra.

    Under this new viewpoint Mills misses some crucial points:

    - Charge behaves different that known- certainly not the way he assumes in hydrino theory.

    - 4D energies explain the neutron mass and halve live and also define a 4D radius, which currently is discussed as magnetic radius for proton experiments.

    - The SUN-CELL produces the first real hydrogen only fusion. The only question is what are the products - certainly not long time stable hydrinos.

    - If Mills ignores this fact, then his company will fail.


    Conclusion:

    Just forget that standard physics ever will explain anything below Bohr level. Start to study Mills GUT-CP and wait for a consent about new and better models.

  • Quote

    - The SUN-CELL produces the first real hydrogen only fusion. The only question is what are the products - certainly not long time stable hydrinos.


    Complete nonsense. The ONLY valid question about the various weird kludges BrLP produced is 1) what is the input power and energy? and 2) what is the output power and energy? And then you have to ask if it was properly measured (highly doubtful from the videos I regret taking the time to watch) and whether it is sustained. Far as I know there are not and have never been any clear answers to these issues for ANY devices or tests conducted for and by BrLP.

  • When it comes to GUTCP the link I posted to my blog post blogpost shows this neat trick.


    First setup a model that is fully defined via physical parameters mass, charge, spinn angular momenta. that we use only classical modelling and can find all unknowns like the radii

    and the velocity of the loops. Every choice in this model is well motivated and could not be much different without destroying important physical properties of the system.


    Now the amazing thing that indicates that one should study Mills is that with this model you can calculate another physical parameter e.g ionization energy and it predicts

    so well as if it predicted 1000, the error would be within +/-2 of the measured value. This is not a hoax this is not fabrication, this is good science and I tried to make this

    clear with my blog post. Something important must be buried in this observation. It simply fit too well to be a coincident, and too well to draw the conclusion that Mills

    GUTCP is the basis of a hoax. It's simply an honest approach to find an alternative to QM. And the right approach for science is to study the ideas in GUTCP is like Wyttenbach,

    not treat it as a holy read only story, but actually shake it, rewrite it, find the good parts, skip the bad ones and be smart at what you do. I did my blog post because one need to

    get attention, a quite simple and not too elaborate fact that prove to the reader that he should spend time and effort with it. I had no such a thing to point at before that post.


    And this is how I would like to work, I want to find facts and a firm ground for a few of the ideas in GUTCP It's kind of fun and challenging, like a good crossword and a bit like

    deciphering a code.


    I'm actually glad for this blog post because previously pointing GUTCP to my mathwiz friends would just make them role their eyes. Not so anymore. So if you have a friend with

    phd in physics or such, please challange them to explain why the fact in the blog post fit so well.


    Else Maryyogo is right, the validation is not good enough and the risk is that the whole thing is a mistake. I think that the hydrino theory is a quite extreme idea and the physical

    methods used to show it's existence is over my head. However if we shall experience a freeze down there in our time my best bet is that Mills will be behind that.


    P.S.

    I suspect that actually that whole blogpost uses facts known to us way before Mills. I would be glad if someone recognize the argument and could point to correct references.

    D.S.

  • I have already given you concrete reasons why one might distrust BrLP


    So who exactly do you trust amongst the LENR researchers?
    It might come as a shock, this forum is named lenr-forum, it's supposed to discuss lenr, i.e. it somehow believes it's real. Amazing isn't it? to think that after all those years, there are still gullible scientists working on it and should-know-better investors who just enjoy to waste money.

  • So who exactly do you trust amongst the LENR researchers?
    It might come as a shock, this forum is named lenr-forum, it's supposed to discuss lenr, i.e. it somehow believes it's real. Amazing isn't it? to think that after all those years, there are still gullible scientists working on it and should-know-better investors who just enjoy to waste money.


    Hi Roger,


    Apparently you continue to confuse my position with that of more skeptical folks. You've done this several times, so it comes as no surprise. I'll spell out my position pretty clearly for you so that the next time you make the mistake at least it will have been easy to prevent.


    I think that researchers such as Mizuno, McKubre, Pam Mosier-Boss, and many others one might find publishing in the proceedings of the ICCF and the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science have done some very interesting research; research which merits further investigation and in some cases funding. I give a high probability to LENR being real. I give a low probability to BrLP and in particular to Rossi having anything.


    Does that help to clarify my position for you?

  • It might come as a shock, this forum is named lenr-forum, it's supposed to discuss lenr, i.e. it somehow believes it's real.


    It certainly comes as a shock to me. Shouldn't we be talking about LENR in the sense of trying to decide, on the evidence, whether it is real or not?

  • Randy Mills has been a bit subdued of late, after getting his funding/salary secured for another few years. But he kicked in to gear (mildly) today on Yahoo. Trying to upstage Rossi...who knows? Two big egos for sure, who I wish would stop playing to an audience, and start producing something.

  • In JCMNS25 both Accomazzi and Celani et al give Mills and GUTCP credence but postulate alternative novel models to explain his evidence.


    Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 25.



    Condensed Matter is not as restrictive as LENR ?

  • Quote

    Randy Mills has been a bit subdued of late, after getting his funding/salary secured for another few years. But he kicked in to gear (mildly) today on Yahoo. Trying to upstage Rossi...who knows? Two big egos for sure, who I wish would stop playing to an audience, and start producing something.

    There is nothing to suggest that this will ever happen for either one. Both have had tons of time to give iron clad proof of both theory and practice according to their extravagant claims and neither has done squat, essentially.

  • Quote

    I hold higher hopes for Mills, than Rossi.

    You mean higher than zero? I doubt even that.


    Quote

    We shall see soon though, real soon for sure.

    Oh yeah -- SOOOOOON (spelled SN!) I think someone trademarked it. Real real soon. Those guys will sell you lots of soon, Shane. You're a terrific customer for "soon".