- why do you need more than 3D+T?
- what is know about charge behavior that Mills assume incorrectly?
Thanks.
BLP update
-
-
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?
-
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?
We don't do much of that. Most of the time people want to discuss who is lying about what. Which is not quite the same thing.
-
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.
-
Thank you Mary,
I hold higher hopes for Mills, than Rossi. We shall see soon though, real soon for sure.
-
Quote
I hold higher hopes for Mills, than Rossi.
You mean higher than zero? I doubt even that.
QuoteWe shall see soon though, real soon for sure.
Oh yeah -- SOOOOOON (spelled S∞N!) I think someone trademarked it. Real real soon. Those guys will sell you lots of soon, Shane. You're a terrific customer for "soon".
-
https://brilliantlightpower.com/third-quarter-2018-update/
New update. At first read, it did not impress me in the least. Mills does not appear anywhere close to commercialization, as the previous updates, and interviews lead me to believe. No "hydrino in a bottle" as he alluded to would be revealed this month. Mentions a few small components being outsourced, but no company names. IMO he tries to cover his lack of progress, by providing detailed diagrams, and graphics as a diversion.
Claims to have had a meeting with an investor group last month, and will host some military open house, or something like that, in October. Overall, very disappointing. I won't waste my time following BrLP anymore.
-
First MFMP, then Rossi, now BLP.... we should extract the facts, even if they may hurt:
LENR is not possible. -
-
Then, why are you here?
...
..
.
to read posts of those, who still believe, it is. I follow this ideology like I follow the flat earth ideolology.
-
@ lobseRvable : Sadly that means you have little to contribute beyond denial. And since you seem to have only a basic grasp of science and the scientific method (please show me how I'm wrong about that) your denials are based on faith, rather than coming from a more technical viewpoint like (for example) THH's. And while faith may move mountains, it seldom stands up to close examination.
-
Sadly that means you have little to contribute beyond denial. And since you seem to have only a basic grasp of science and the scientific method (please show me how I'm wrong about that) your denials are based on faith, rather than coming from a more technical viewpoint like (for example) THH's. And while faith may move mountains, it seldom stands up to close examination.
...
..
.
Faith ?
I enumerated 3 major LENR replicants, who are trying to replicate stuff since about 10 years without any important success...
this is statistics and no faith.
-
I enumerated 3 major LENR replicants, who are trying to replicate stuff since about 10 years without any important success...
And you have the technical ability to both understand exactly what they were presenting, and also discriminate between good experimental methods and bad? Somehow I doubt it.
-
... it is Your right to doubt it.... as it is mine to doubt the overall progress in this field... although I hope for it.
Basically this hope is the only belief which drives me not to start trolling in here...
