Posts by Epimetheus

    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:…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.


    I dont want to repeat myself a thousand times, but what you say is not true. It is 28 years and he has lots to show - so nothing is wrong.

    There is also lots of experimental proof. Also done at independant labs that had his reactor for over a year without Mills supervising the experiments. And of course the Rowan University replications etc.

    He may not have finished an energy producing device, but he has a theory that gives the structure of molecules with analytic equations with great precision. This is something no one else on this planet has achieved so far - not even 70 years research of thousands of physicists.

    Of course you can say this is all nothing. Like it is nothing that mankind landed on the moon. No one replicated it for 40 years - no moon bases - nothing. Must be a scam and brought us nothing. And the cost!! Billions of dollars for nothing.


    Nice reference to these radii problems. I think this research could point mainstream physics in the right direction. If you combine this with the "where is the photon after absorption" question...

    But I think there is a QM way to solve these problems. Just add some probability densities here and there and everything is fine again :-)

    I dont find this research conclusive. The oil in the oil calorimetry might have been secretly burning like a candle delivering the reported excess energy. Or the bucket of oil evaporated overnight because of the weather conditions in japan. It is well known that japan has oil evaporating weather conditions all the time.

    Additionally it has not been replicated by MIT or Caltech, so it is not possible to draw any conclusions. So my impression is that this is a very weak attempt to fool real scientists about LENR. It is well known from theory that LENR can not work.

    I also like how you term this big bang for these small amounts of energy.

    He is refering to a new video from the BLP homepage where they show the creation of hydrino hydrides. Big is always relative...

    You understand the difference between a table top device for single shot analysis (research) and a product meant for continuous energy production?

    Sometimes it is better not to comment at all.

    This is not a new paper as is obvious from the date enconded in the name of the pdf. I think he added some information regarding their recent experiments, but I have not checked for the differences yet.


    I did not want to spam the BLP update thread that is supposed to pop up when BLP releases something new.


    I am sorry but everything you say about Mills theory is wrong and makes it obvious that you have not looked into GUTCP.


    For Mills' claims we have no idea how many arbitrary parameters there are since he does not disclose his methods.

    His method is fully disclosed with detailed calculation steps and intermediate results. Volume 2 is full of it. I did a Validation of two of his molecules and can confirm that there is not a single tuning parameter used. It is all calculated from physical constants except for one energy contribution that is taken from the literature. Everything is open for everyone to check - and it is pretty simple: fill values in equation -> result -> result into next equation -> result...


    ...from equations whose derivation does not make sense to anyone except Mills

    This is not true. There are many PhDs and profs. understanding big parts of GUTCP - just look on the BLP webpage and you will find some. stefan did some basic proofs and linked it in this forum.

    So once again: do some basic research before you post something or make it clear that you just think it is true and are not sure because you have not investigated it yourself. I asked for opinions in this thread but you did not formulate you response as an opinion.


    There is therefore no evidence that Mills' theory has any skill.

    The word "therefore" implies that what follows relies on what was said earlier. Everything you said earlier is factually wrong, so this statement has no justification.


    It is Mills who decides which molecules he solves.

    Look at the list of the molecules he solved. It contains all major basic molecules and he chooses them because they are understood well and have huge amounts of literature to look experimental values up (what molecules are chosen is explained in the linked paper).


    He can have some approximation to the real formula - maybe some type of linear approximation - that will perform fairly well in many cases.

    As I said, there are no fitting parameters in his equations so a linear approximation could only be valid in a single "working point" (? - dont know correct word). And as I said: all calculated values in Mills framework rely on each other. Staying within 0,1% accuracy would be pretty good for a linear approximation working for 300+ molecules. If there would be a linear approximation working for bond energies, atomic distances, bond angles to stay within 0,1% error it would be a sensation in itself - because you dont get this accuracy with highly complex hartree fock methods that are optimized for 50 years by hordes of physicists.

    Taking everything you said into consideration: please forumulate clearer so that it is obvious what is your opinion and what is fact.

    I want to understand why nobody is digging deeper into this. I extract from your post that one reason is a lack of knowledge and some heavy bias.



    You can actually formalise quantitatively how arbitrary parameters reduce the skill of a prediction using Bayesian probability theory: one of the things it works easily for.

    That is correct. But in this case it is pretty easy to judge:

    We have a theory that has a bunch of parameters where you can estimate how they lower the predictive capability of you model - QM.

    And we have a theory without any parameters, just with physical constants - GUTCP.

    We have one theory that typically gives predictions with an error in the lower % range when hand tuning the parameters.

    And we have a therory that typically gives predictions below 0,1% error without any parameters.


    The last series of posts in the "BLP update" thread raised some questions again, that I carry around for quiet some time. I would like to hear your opinion about the results Mills optained

    for the structure of 300-800 molecules - some of them highly complex. The results I talk about are in a paper I added to this post and in more detailed form in volume 2 of GUTCP.

    I find Mills results really exciting and breathtaking and I would like to hear from you, what you think about it in general or if you don´t have an opinion. I know this is not the area of expertise for most

    of you but that never stopped anyone from posting something on this forum :-)

    After this general question I would like to know your opinion about eric walkers objections against BLP. He says that it is known that the math in GUTCP is wrong - and so say many physicists on the internet.

    My question is: If the math is wrong how could Mills get the correct bond energies for more than 300 molecules within 0,1% relative error to the experimental values? And not only bond energies. Also bond angles,

    internuclear distances and so on. Everything that is necessary to fully describe the structure of a molecule. To put these results into relation to quantum mechanics: the way quantum mechanics calculates these

    values is with the hartree fock algorithm. This algorithm is known for more than fifty years and thousands of physicists worked on improving the calculation of these values for decades. After putting huge amounts

    of work into these calculations they now have tools that need a set of tuning parameters for each class of molecules. If you take just one single parameter set for all molecules without hand tuning it for the problem at hand you get

    the accuracy reported in the Mills paper. Hartree Fock is just an approximation and if you achieve 0,1% relative error with these highly complex calculation tools you would be completely satisfied because normally

    the accuracy is way of.

    So Mills analytic equations run in seconds on a pc and achieve better results in terms of accuracy than the QM methods that take hours/days on supercomputers. How is this possible if Mills has major errors in

    his equations that challenge his GUTCP as claimed by eric walker? During my studies I sometimes had the situation that I made two errors in a calculation and the result was correct because the errors cancled

    each other out. But with these huge amounts of parameters that are calculated for the molecules and many of them build upon each other I think it is impossible for this to be true for Mills work.

    What do you think about it? This is not a rethorical question - I really want to understand what I have not considered to date because I do not understand why nobody is getting crazy all about it. The reaction of

    the people hearing it is more like "phhh Mills...I am hungry. Where is food?"

    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.

    Have you read Alans posts in the past? He himself is capable to judge the equipment or to ask the right questions about the equipment used in the demonstration. Experts skilled in thermal and electrical measurement wont add any information to the infos we get from Alan. They could add information if they were allowed to test the E-cat with their own equipment. But that is never going to happen - not in a Rossi demo. I think with Alan as a "watchman on the wall" we have all we could ask for.

    Yeah, that is a great one. Unfortunatly it is so enormuous that most readers will see this as a typical "must be a measurment error - can not happen - replication is not possible - hearsay -> junk".

    The fifth force predicted by GUTCP. For a good equiped lab it should be possible to test these claims. In his latest GUTCP version he gives two examples where pseudoelectrons and the fifth force might be the explanation for these natural phenomena (black hole jets and red sprites).

    There is no reason for Mills to lie about that. Other than Rossi he does not need the approval of strangers in a forum. Here is the reply of the former co-worker to what Mills wrote:

    Thanks for this information, Dr. Mills, which is obviously credible. Do you have an approximate date for this very unscientific behavior of Mallove?

    Mallove used the term, "hot fusion mafia" verbally, and possibly also in his editorials, with cause. Steve Krivit had similar feelings about the way the D + D 》 4He fusion explanation was demanded by McKubre especially. When Melich, a CIA physicist, took over the NRL work, Krivit was horrified. It would seem there was a "cold fusion mafia", also.

    The drive to get funding by getting the act under the QM tent was consuming. Money seems to control most "thinking".

    For the purpose of explanation, and not to condemn, Mallove was under tremendous strain, which was worrisome to his employees. We felt intense loyalty to him, for putting his career and reputation on the line, but he was making decisions that we believed were indicating a failure of rational judgement. This we did not advertise, but I felt ethically responsible to write to ODonnell, his main patron, giving him some facts I believed he should know.

    O'Donnell told Mallove of my letter, but he did not fire me. However, continued employment was untenable.

    He never said anything like, "nuclear or nothing" to me, but he didn't need to do so. I was in the role of lab engineer, designing and building apparatus, not questioning the fusion explanation. I just kept making calorimeters, trying and failing to find excess heat, which I reported on Vortex as insignificant, due to our amateurish facilities, insufficient education, lack of experience, and trying to do too many experiments at the same time. These criticisms did not apply to our senior physicist, who was really trying to salvage the situation, but he was fired for alleged disloyalty.

    My reason for skepticism (other than the scientific judgement that their demos are not sound and Mills' theory is equally not sound) is simply history. What you say now has been true for 26 years, according to BLP, without any working product. You need to understand, in order to assess these situations, that some players find it easy to attract significant money from investors on hope of extraordinary returns as well as saving the world. It is relatively easy to do this with an unsound proposition. After all, there are so very very many investors out there, you only need a few to be willing to take your proposed gamble.

    The reaction here with support for BLP shows how easy it is to find takers for such a gamble. There is confirmation bias where later takers look at earlier respectable backers and reckon because they exist, BLP must have something. After 26 years BLP has a lot of confirmation bias.

    I know that they announced a product multiple times and failed to deliver. I also accept that as a reason to reject everything Mills says. But the fact that they could not design a working product in 26 years does not say anything about the validity of their claims. Nothing. Nada. This example was mentioned a lot but it fits perfectly: hot fusion was very often only 10-20 years away. And despite billions of $ and millions of working days spend on this topic they have not achieved a working product. And that on the basis of a theory everyone accepts! Does hot fusion exist? Or is this a fraud? With your and marys argument you would also dismiss hot fusion!

    Mills is working hard to make the suncell a reality and the hot fusion community is also working hard on a breakthrough. Both groups are working for a long time on their subject and both have not shown anything that is somehow near a working product. Is every dollar invested in hot fusion wasted? Is every dollar invested in the suncell wasted? What if hot fusion is possible and you had not invested? What if the hydrino reaction is possible and you had not invested? Who can tell in advance? In retrospective everything is easy to decide. So I say: don´t decide - do both!

    The bottom line: the "he promised to give us a product but did not hold his word" is not only true for Mills but for many other things. Of course you need to be careful if you invest in something but despite the odds it might be worth it! So once again: is hot fusion fraud and should we humans stop putting money into it because they broke their promises many times?

    And to give you an idea what might be the reason for the latest 20 million $ BLP gathered I advise everyone interested in BLP or cold fusion to read and understand his latest paper:…i._Technol._19_095001.pdf

    Look what instruments they used. Check their calibration protocol for their instruments. See the difference between the active and inactive runs. It is easy to do these inactive runs in case of the hydrino reaction: if you don´t add a catalyst than nothing unusual happens. I asure you that no cat drank out of the reaction chamber - but I fear the bucket full of hydrinos evaporated over night...

    Sounds off to me. Low efficiencies mean very large cooling requirements, which cost. In any case a simple heater has very large market, so why complicate with other stuff till that exists?The answer, for BLP, is that PR is always needed to get funds, whereas working product has been postponed 26 years and I'll bet a large amount will be postponed another 5 (to give the bet a viable termination date). Of course it will be postponed forever.

    You got that wrong. It is not "Oh there is this cool MHD technology and we are focusing on that now and throw everything of the past overboard.". They are going for the heat market (simple heat exchanger) and with a parallel program they go for electricity. For the electricity program there is the now the decision in the room: PV and MHD? Only PV or only MHD? Considering a post Mills made yesterday it could depend on wether they find an industrial/scientific partner for MHD development, because they dont have the ressources and knowlegde to do it on their own.

    They are not complicating stuff. The core of heat and electricity generation is the "automated cell"/ "light source" / "giant light bulb". And for that to work they estimate H2 2018. The heat exchanger for the heater suncell and the PV for the electricity suncell is already in the hands of engineering partners. They are not dealing with this stuff. BLP develops the core technology.

    Of course it will be postponed forever.

    Might be. But I wonder on what information your statement is based? There are many people that are way more qualified in scientific and business questions than you that once again bet 20 million that you are wrong. We will see :-)

    Eric Walker

    And why should they intimidate someone nontechnical? Someone nontechnical has nothing to do with BLP. BLP needs Investors (which are not "nontechnical" because it is about millions of $) and is always looking for credible labs/universities to replicate their results. Neither of these parties is intimidated by a long report.

    I have a much simpler explanation for the long documents: he has much to say. You wont find much repetition in the 1900 pages of GUTCP. And for the copy paste sections: have you ever read a bunch of papers about the same topic? The introduction sections are alway repetitive because you have to locate your current work presented in the paper in the wider context. If you read many papers from the same author you will find copy pastes everywhere. These validators observed the same set of experiments and where provided the same materials to show in their reports. Of course the basics were repeated over and over. Nothing wrong with that. I see something wrong in taking such a triviality and use it to cast a negative shadow on the work of the validators and Mills.

    If you dont like Mills and dont believe in what he is doing than I think you should go with a bullet proof argument:

    Mills promised an energy producing device in the late 90s and again in the late 00s and still has not delivered. And he is still taking investors money. And at leat 2 nobel laureats say his theory is BS.

    @ Topic

    I find page 60 and following quite interesting. It is obvious that they are really building a device and tackle one problem after the other. But I did not understand why they have to build shots and what is done with these shots.

    This hydrino formation process means that there is 6 times more matter in the universe than can be detected via EMF related processes.

    That is the point. Hydrinos can NOT be detected via interaction with light. I dont understand the level of "hydrino" mysterie here. There is nothing mysterious about hydrinos:

    It is an hydrogen atom with the electron on a lower orbit. In this state the hydrogen does not interact with light anymore. Changes in the orbit of the electron can only be made by "billard ball" like collisions with the correct energy or by interaction with a catalyst.

    When another atom hits a hydrino with the right energy it can become a "normal" hydrogen atom. If a hydrino interacts with a catalyst its electron can go to an even lower orbit releasing more energy.

    Dark matter does not have to be a fundamental particle. They have a hypotheses that it might be a fundamental particle. But there is a saying that fits in this case:

    "If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail".

    Translated in CERN language:

    "If you have a particle collider everything looks like a fundamental particle".


    There are many believes. But Mills explanation fits very good to observations:

    - hydrino reaction produces X-rays: solves the currently unexplainable observed amount of x-rays in space

    - hydrinos are created in the corona of stars: explains the "temperature of the corona" mystery

    - amount of dark matter increased over time (13% of matter 13 billion year ago - 90% (?) today) - fits to continuous creation in stars

    And most important: experiments in the lab show the existence of hydrinos with the predicted internuclear distance:


    The experimental proof is pretty convincing. He did not use some fancy self created measurment methods and devices but rather well established lab equipment designed to measure the parameters he measured. No repurposing of equipment.

    More or less the only other convincing explanation for his results: he faked them.

    Come on mary. Last year on october Mills had a presentation and two guys from well known companies talked openly about their work and business relationship. You can see this on youtube.

    No timeline? They have a timeline - but they are months behind :-)

    No working model ever tested properly and independently? That is correct - but they don´t have a working model either.

    Grandiose claims that never come true? That is not correct. He said that he developed a theory based on maxwells equations that lets you calculate the structure and parameters of more or less all molecules with analytic equations with much greater accuracy than quantum mechanics. He did that and shared it with everyone.

    But I get your point - a working cheap and green power device is way more catchy than boring equations. I have time to wait.

    I think that Rossi ist a liar and that the people engaged with IH are liars so I consider myself somehow neutral :-)

    Sifferkol is always escalating with the things he says and a healthy discussion does not work this way. Dewey is also annoying with most of his posts but in my eyes not so agressiv. If I were a moderator: for every time I suspended Sifferkols account I would have suspended Deweys 0.8 times.

    Then let me try it with tendencies of the people you talked to:

    1. LENR ist going back into the dust where it came from within the next years.

    2. The current experiments are positive and reproducable but in the milliwatt range nobody (with money) cares about - we are still at least 20 years from commercial applications.

    3. We see positive results with cheap LENR (Nickel et. al.), have multi Watt output and see the potential to scale it up. With these results we could aquire sufficient funds.

    Are you biting? :-)

    Eric Walker

    Your objection is totally correct. I should have been more precise:

    It is pretty simple if you put some weeks effort into research: if Mills is not faking --> his model is better than QM

    To come to this conclusion I pretty much followed the steps you propose:

    "You can have a very good semi-empirical equation, or one that serves as a template for a whole family of semi-empirical equations, but not obviously based on some deeper theory that gives insight."

    This is correct. And if Mills model was just about the ionization energies of atoms I could say nothing against it, because it is well known that these energies more or less follow a quadratic expression and some semi empirical models use some fitting constants and get pretty good results. There are many of these models out there for all kinds of systems but what they all have in common is that they describe rather simple problems. You can draw it in a 1D or 2D plot and you get the basic idea of whats happening. But his model does not stop there. To calculate bond energies, bond angles, interatomic distances etc. correctly you have all kinds of dependencies between these values. If you change one atom in a molecule many values change and there is NO WAY you can do this with semi empirical equations. It is way too complex. If you calculate these molecules on your own you will get a feeling for what is happening there. Most things are force and energy balances based on the electric- and magnetic forces that act on one another.

    I have no formal proof that it is impossible to do with ad hoc semi empirical equations but as a simple test you could go to your local university and ask the physics- and chemistry professors about their opinion. My guess is that you would get a 100% of the professors agree with me (of course dont tell that it is about proving Mills correct^^) :-). Do it yourself to see what I mean - methan is still free.

    "We'd need to show that QM doesn't provide as accurate of answers as the equations you looked at and the related ones that you passed over."

    It is hard to do that if you are not a skilled analytical chemist. Mills also followed this question in this paper. This gives a good overview of the accuracy he is achieving. Reading the conclusion and the state of the art QM results at the end is quite interesting. Mills used just two basis sets and he also says that they can just give acceptable results in the range of molecules they are designed for. So a skilled analytical chemist could definitly raise the QM accuracy but if you look a few days into hartree fock literature you know what result you would get. The bottom line is: Mills model performs way better than QM in terms of accuracy and computational complexity. Mills results stay in the error range of 1% and most times in 0.1% over 800 molecules. There is not much room for improvements there. I even doubt that you could get the accuracy if you hand tune hartree fock for every single molecule. What also underlines my point: this is what they get after 60 (!!!) years of improving their algorithms even with all the available money of the pharma/material science industry which has HUGE interest in getting better and more predictive results. Mills did this more or less on his own within 15 years. There is NO DOUBT that is model is far superior to QM regarding atomic and molecular structur - if he has not faked his results.

    "We'd need to show that Mills also handles all of the cases that QM was derived to address."

    That is also true but it is also a pretty hard task. Mills tried it for many important experiments but there is much work to be done. My point is this: the results for his molecules are so remarcable that it is time for some serious scientist to take a closer look - check if he is cheating and if not try to figure out why his model is so sucessful and where to go with this new knowledge. Even if Mills cannot proof that his theory tackles all experiments of the last 70 years.

    The great thing with this improvement for mankind is that we do not need MFMP and no correct heating cycles, no magic ingrediences, no me356 to get forward. We just have to sit down, do some calculations and see if Mills is faking his results. If he is not faking results the consequence will change mankind forever. And this is independant of wether MIlls giant light bulb ever works or not. This is a testable and tremendous result he delivered 10 years ago and we just have to look into it. I know I sound desperate :-) - I am just hoping that his bulb lights up within the next two years so that someone will pay attention. I can write whatever I want.

    Edit: Mills mentions this NIST page. There you can get the state of the art calculated result for 1700 molecules.