Who is Randell Mills?

1st Official Post

    Dear all,


    It is important that those who have taken risks - intellectually, scientifically...with their lives be rewarded and recognized. I think having this forum is taking a risk. You have to be willing to look where very few are and be wrong and live with it. So I'm going to contribute a bit here...and your feedback may help me improve my thinking and turn this into a longer form real essay.

    What is Science?

    Many of your are scientists - who don't understand many things (no offense) about the history of science. You may not have ever even asked what science is... Science is if anything is a social pursuit - it is a culture, a group of people and what they think is important. The culture has a weak consensus about what are the questions of the day and what are the rightful next steps to take in inquiry. Scientists think highly about how what they do fits into their culture, their peers, how their inquiry will be evaluated by their peers. Every action is bound in a social context. Mills is out of the social context of academic science, and thus --- in a sense his world is isolated to the few tens of scientists (numbering on a ~100-200) with which he has close collaborations.


    So imagine we have two worlds of science, since the two cultures don't interact much. BLP is nearing a commercial product (their challenge is engineering not "what is the energy and does it exist reproduceably"). Yet, the world is still NOT asking basic questions like what is an electron?


    How can we live in a world like that? Well the answer I say is that we have different cultures. The problem isn't lab data, or reproducability, or any of that. That is a dullards way of making sense of the situation. We need to go big here, and re-ask the question what is science anyway?


    In this paper Knoor-Cetina argues that science is a product, a constantly evolving product that is artificial - not some "pure" pursuit. It is like a craft, a sport, a business,a factory --- whatever you want, but it is not some "pure" philosophical pursuit in search of reality or the truth - even if it may at times correspond to reality or truth. NOBODY can argue with this paper, it is based on anthropological research - in actual labs, with actual scientists. You may NOT LIKE it, it may not correspond to the best spirit of what science could be. But we aren't interested in ideals. We are interested in the boots on the ground reality.


    The Fabrication of Facts: Toward a Microsociology of Scientific Knowledge. Front Cover. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina.

    https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/b…82/1/FabricationFacts.pdf


    Who Is Randell Mills

    You will realize that you can't understand hydrinos or GUTP science and the current state of affairs, if you try to take out the person from the equation. Why? Because we just agreed that science is a cultural and social pursuit. Duh!


    Therefore, it is important to introduce you to Randell Mills - at least from a slightly closer perspective (we aren't BLP, we have no operating connection). I think what you all of you need to know is more about the person.


    Some of you will stomp your feet in the ground and proclaim that if you can't understand his work, that it must not be worth understanding (even most of the work is peer-reviewed, and evidence-based, not abstract math!). Some of you have preconceived or outright damaged perceptions of who the person is. Be realistic - that influences your mind - it hijacks your ability to make serious progress (if in fact you are trying to tackle GUTCP).


    Once you understand more of who Mills is, then you will be able to better understand and with more energy take what he says seriously. There are neuroscientific reasons why "knowing Mills" is important for your brain. We actually use our emotional systems to form our core beliefs, not our logical systems, and when a subject is fear-inducing we revert to a lower form of thinking which looks more for social cues for trust and safety. With Mills, you have some older cranks quantum guys saying "I'm going to beat you on the head with a stick if you look at this guy." Not good for your brain!


    https://endofpetroleum.com/who-is-randell-mills


    If I made you feel a little uncomforable, then we've made progress...

    • Official Post

    Navid , I think you take offence that we are paying more attention currently to the work of Professor Leif Holmlid than to the work of Randell Mills. I have to say that I have personally paid much attention to the work of Mills for years, but he has failed to gather interest from other scientists and has kept a significant part of his research secret in a way that has prevented others to independently validate his claims, so, unlike Holmlid, who has been independently validated, Mills work is still much a one man band.


    Also, I have to say that failure to put a product in the market in spite of allegedly being ready for so much years has not reflected favorably upon Mills. I will be very happy if and when Mills blows the lid of energy markets of the world with his inventions, but so far all we have is his word, and no energy plant to prove it.

    Curbina - not entirely accurate statements - since he has attracted great collaborators. If you read the paper I wrote - you will understand why "failure" to gather interest from the likes of MIT etc is not easy - science is like a culture - a MIT physicist to leave his culture is akin to moving to Zimbabwe for most of you. Alan Smith I'm not sure what you want him to do, but he's trying to change the world. He's given enough of his talents and ideas to push forward physics for 100 years. I'm not sure how LENR people are going to help him?


    There is much you don't know, which we know since it is water under the bridge --- but let's just say it is not for lack of trying by Mills (even his early mentor Haus, said what he's doing looks correct, but that he could never support him cause the quantum guys would crush him). I've talked to MIT professor by email and he said "He has no training in theoretical physics. His approach to theory starts by throwing out quantum mechanics and most of the associated physics which people have worked really hard on since the 1920s." That may be true, in a very technical sense, but in fact he is known to have a totally photographic memory for everything in biology, physics, and chemistry that he reads --- and so you can ask, does it matter that he didn't get a Ph.D. from MIT? If these are the criticisms of a physics professor at MIT of Mills - and he goes onto totally botch any understanding of Mills, you can see -- we are dealing with a closed culture.


    Once you understand what science is, then you can stop blaming Mills and closer to the truth. That is why I put that paper. Did you read it? Do you understand what I am saying?


    As for keeping his work secret- um ya, you haven't read Brett's book. Can you imagine it is a little infuriating to put together the answers and have people just continue to echo their preconceived notions? Mills guided national labs to reproduce his work at scale in the 1990s. I'm including a short snippet. We aren't peddling books but you really want to have this one for the facts.


    Drag Scroll to 2nd page

    https://endofpetroleum.com/ear…ational-labs-bretts-book/


    If I am making you uncomfortable, then we've made progress...

    • Official Post

    Navid, You are wellcome here to post about Mills science and we can debate about that with fondness and interest. The sociocultural aspects are of interest only marginally, and always after the merit of a scientific idea has been debated and stablished as valuable.


    Please focus on the science of Mills claims. His personal quest and how misunderstood and mistreated by mainstream he might be is not really a topic to debate on its own. If his ideas stand the scrutiny and are proven experimentally and independently, acknowledgment will follow. Not the other way around.

    Curbina I am trying to serve as a guide. Having me focus on what you want to focus on isn't what you need, you need to open your lens.


    I can see you didn't get it. You stepped right into "Please focus on the science of Mills claims." I said we need to establish what science is. And you ignored it. Science is not about a set of facts which are truths, easily proved. The very start of the article questions that very notion. This is a new idea for many.


    I am not asking you to understand Mills personal quest - I never once said you need to understand that Mills was a farmer, or that he was raised in PA blah blah. It is about how paradigms and cultures work. Which is patently what we are dealing with, a change of a paradigm.

    • Official Post

    I have been following Mills saga for years, no need to lecture me on that. I maintain what I said, let the science stand on its own and stop blaming QMs predominance. I agree that is not easy to tell people QM is "wrong". Others agree with that assesment (Ruggero Santilli comes to mind, as one of many, he developped an alternative to solve QMs shortcomings and he is also ridiculed and dissed by mainstream), but in the end the only thing that will vindicate Mills or anyone else claiming to have made QM obsolete is independent replication without secrets or propietary ties, nor marketing campaigns to keep investors engaged.

    Navid: Your point seems to become clearer and clearer:

    You are a Mills believer, like WCG is a Rossi believer.

    But we are not in a church or temple, so believing won't help You.

    And it also won't help Mills, that we read some of Your links, which state, what You believe, he might be.

    There is no need to present him in another light, as he already presented himself.

    He is an adult person and does not need to be defended by You or Your papers.

    If he is in need of such support, this might simply indicate a fraud, he is going to cover...
    ... and this strategy is well known... also in here.

    BTW: Where is Mary Yugo ?

    @clarifier To simplify down what you said - I am an automaton - unhinged to reality - religious people are all automatons - religion is bad - you are bad - if you are promoting your ideas it may be a fraud just like there is no God.


    I think there are people with more sophistication out there who will see something very different in what I wrote.

    Quote from Navid

    @clarifier To simplify down what you said - I am an automaton - unhinged to reality - religious people are all automatons - religion is bad - you are bad - if you are promoting your ideas it may be a fraud just like there is no God.


    I think there are people with more sophistication out there who will see something very different in what I wrote.


    Maybe there are.
    Who cares ?
    And I did not promote any idea in my last post.

    I just said, what's fact:

    There is no reason for You or anyone to support Mills in the way, You did.

    Quote from Curbina

    I have been following Mills saga for years, no need to lecture me on that. I maintain what I said, let the science stand on its own and stop blaming QMs predominance. I agree that is not easy to tell people QM is "wrong". Others agree with that assesment (Ruggero Santilli comes to mind, as one of many, he developped an alternative to solve QMs shortcomings and he is also ridiculed and dissed by mainstream), but in the end the only thing that will vindicate Mills or anyone else claiming to have made QM obsolete is independent replication without secrets or propietary ties, nor marketing campaigns to keep investors engaged.


    Curbina Mills doesn't need "vindicating" - when you write you expose your bias. Vindication is needed for someone who has wronged another.


    I started this thread by saying that in neuroscience - our brains use emotional cues to cement a position, and then logic (even broken logic) to rationalize oru position. You - I think - exposed yourself a bit.


    I said understanding Mills the person - how he thinks, and what he's been doing for many years is important. Otherwise people fill in with a whole set of their own beliefs.


    Your very words "vindication". "independent replication", "secrets", "proprietary ties" - totally expose you. Mills isn't under trial. Many people have independently replicated his work (a list of national labs is in the link above, did you read it?), I'm not sure what secrets you mean, you want him to publish plans to a reactor?, "proprietary ties" - what are you asking a private company to do?


    If I am making you uncomfortable, we are making progress.... (I assure you this ends with you flaming out and attacking me, or sitting down and going "hmm...maybe this is not so easy a subject and I must look harder.")

    • Official Post
    Quote from Navid

    Curbina I am trying to serve as a guide. Having me focus on what you want to focus on isn't what you need, you need to open your lens.


    I can see you didn't get it. You stepped right into "Please focus on the science of Mills claims." I said we need to establish what science is. And you ignored it. Science is not about a set of facts which are truths, easily proved. The very start of the article questions that very notion. This is a new idea for many.


    I am not asking you to understand Mills personal quest - I never once said you need to understand that Mills was a farmer, or that he was raised in PA blah blah. It is about how paradigms and cultures work. Which is patently what we are dealing with, a change of a paradigm.


    And as I said, sociocultural aspects are of marginal interest in this forum. You can believe in a "conspiracy to keep the world bound to the failure of QM" all you want and I could even agree with you, but this topic is bound to the thread "The Playground" . I have been researching exotic energy and scientific claims as a personal interest of mine since 1989 so I have seen and read of everything in this terrain for years.

    Sociologists often get science wrong, because while the process of science does have some sociological aspects, the scientific end product can more or less be tested in an objective fashion.


    For example, from the paper:


    Consider a scientist sitting at an electronic table calculator and running a regression

    program on texture measurement data. The machine automatically selects a function along which it plots the data. But to choose
    among the eight functions at its disposal, it needs a criterion. Such criteria
    are nothing more than second order selections: they represent a choice
    among other potential criteria into which a frrst order selection can be
    translated. In our case, the program actually offered a choice between two 228
    criteria, maximum R2 and mInimUm maximum absolute residuum. The
    scientist had opted for a combination of the two.
    He obtains an exponential function for his data, which he says he does
    not like. He reruns the program, asking for a linear function, which he
    finds to be "not. much worse" (than the exponential one). The idea, he
    says, is to get one type of equation, and eventually one size Beta coefficient for all runs of the problem, because it would be totally confusing to
    have different functions in every single case.
    From observing the scientist, we might also conclude that the goal
    must have been to get a linear function. To reach a decision, the original
    task of the program. was to select a function translated into the selection
    between one of two forms of the statistical fit of the curves, in a stepwisc
    procedure, the scientist added translations into other criteria, such as uniformity over comparable data and linearity. He eventually chose the latter
    because it offered greater ease of interpretation and presentation.
    In the present case, this kind of translation is seen as an inherent feature of decision making, or - to borrow an expression from Luhrnann
    of selectivity in general." It allows us to see scientific products as internally constructed, not only with respect to the composite laboratory selections which give rise to the product, but also with respect to the
    translations incorporated within those selections."
    The scientific product can be seen as structured in terms of several
    orders or levels of selectivity. This complexity of scientific constructions
    with regard to the selections they incorporate is interesting because it
    suggests that scientific products are unlikely to be reproduced in the same
    way under different circumstances. If a scientific product is characterized
    by several levels of selection (or constellations of selections), it seems
    highly improbable that the process could be repeated, unless most of the
    selections are cither fixed or made in a similar fashion.

    The choice here of curve to use in regression analysis is objectively informed by Bayesian probability theory (and the many

    hypothesis selection methods based on it) so that curves with more free parameters must fit better than curves with fewer in order to be

    considered as good. This can be precisely and mathematically described. The selection of parameters can also be considered mathematically, with some

    parameters selected from a uniform probability distribution and others from an exponential distribution (where the symmetry is multiplicative not additive).


    Sociologists will tend not to understand that there are in principle (and often in actuality) objective, methods for preferring one type of hypothesis over another, because they do not have good enough maths. Then, as above, they will see such choices as socially-determined decision-making.

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.