Epimetheus Member
  • Member since Mar 31st 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Epimetheus

    continuous operation of the sun cell is achieved, a short movie. What we all want is proof of operation for hours to enable a proper energy in

    and out comparison together with hydrogen consumption. Not there yet.

    Yeah, but it is a great step forward and they are going to learn a lot about the process in the coming months (and years). They are expecting a borosilicate glass dome to withstand the mechanical, thermal and chemical stress better than the glass in the video and they already have the heat exchanger fabricated to remove heat frome the dome.

    But seeing the new video reveals that the stable +energy operation is still a long way to go. I am expecting the next big step forward in 1.5 years. But the last videos are awesome to watch: melting a hole into the dome in 10 seconds with an input power of 6kW or the long plasma afterglow way after they switched of input power... That is new physics in its whole beauty :-)

    Yeah, only that you see the flash of light caused by the electricity in the video and you can see a completely different behavior of the violet glowing hydrogen "cloud". The brilliant afterglow is pretty far away from the conducting gallium stream.

    Pretty hard to achieve with a voltage of about 20V, don´t you think? And before you ask: a similar setup with much lesser power density has been independently studied by Prof. Conrads and Dr. Wrubel in 2003 for about a year without Mills watching over their shoulders. If a famous plasma physicist with 40+ years of experience in the field says the voltage is two orders of magnitude two low for glow discharge and he has no explenation for the effect than I think it is worth taking a closer look before making fun of someone. Especially if the same experiment is conducted with trace amounts of NA2CO3 instead of K2CO3 and everything behaves as expected.

    And who would invest in new gas-turbine gensets that stand idle most of the time? It would be like financing a fish restaurant in the middle of the Gobi desert.

    Someone who wants a rate of renewables of >90%, to reduce CO2 emission by 80% and try to do everything possible to stop the melting of the poles.

    To answer your question: nobody :-)

    My objection to Max Nozins comment was just of technical nature. If our societies would decide to achieve this high renewable energy rate it would be technically possible. That nobody wants to spend the roughly estimated 200 billion € alone in germany for gas power stations that are idleing most of the time stands on another page. We could do it, but we dont want to. That is different from saying "we cannot do it with todays technology".

    I dont think this is true. You dont need storage, you just need controllable energy - conventionel power stations with fast response times: A great bunch of gas power stations running at 10% of their max power output for most of their time. If the renewables deliver too much power they go down to 0% and if this is not enough all additional energy is dumped to heat water or power to gas etc. During the 15 days of the year the renewables deliver more or less nothing you ramp the gas power up to 100%.

    This is totally doable and we do not need some miraculous storage solution. Of course it is quite expensive to have so many power stations doing more or less nothing 93% of the year, but there is no technical reason against renewable energy delivering >90% of the overall needed energy.

    I like the part of the anonymous briefing summary that makes it clear that the author is completely unbiased:

    "Furthermore, Dr. Mills is arguably the greatest scientist and innovator in history."

    You obviously dont think that this is true otherwise you wouldnt make fun of him. But perhaps Mills ist the greatest scientist in history. So would you say you are unbiased?

    I would be very cautious with accusations of being biased. We humans are all biased on a thousand topics so a bit of humility is appropriate for everyone of us.

    My opinion: if he can proof hydrino, show that his atomic model gives good predictions for the involved energies and his correction to einsteins relativity proofs correct I think Mills is arguably the greatest scientist in history.

    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:


    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.