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

Posts by Epimetheus

    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:

    https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/…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".

    axil


    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:

    http://www.brilliantlightpower…st-Power-Paper-060817.pdf


    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.

    Small part verified - the rest extrapolated.

    Somewhere here in this forum is an excel sheet with the calculation of all ionization energies of 1-20 electron atoms/ions. I myself recalculated the ionization energies of (I think) 5 and 8 electron atoms (~ 60 values).

    They were all well within measurement accuracy. I also picked two molecules from his book and recalculated a lot of parameters (inter nuclear distance etc.). Gives the values he has in his book.


    I find it highly unlikely that I coincidently picked the values that are correct and all the rest is faked. For me this was enough to trust Dr. Mills not to fake values in his book. If you assume he is not faking values in his book you have a vast amount of functional groups that are calculated correctly with analytic equations. There is NO WAY to get all these molecules right WITHOUT a working theory, just with ad hoc equations falling from the sky.


    This is pretty simple: if Mills is not faking --> his model is better than QM (in terms of accuracy, simplicity and common sense - at least for atoms and molecules). I for myself looked enough into these equations to trust Dr. Mills to not fake any values. For others this "bar of trust" lies higher - I invite these people to continue where I stopped.


    PS: With common sense I mean: We have positivly charged particles and negativly charged particles that are interacting --> using maxwells equations to describe their interaction is common sense in my eyes

    joshg

    Mills claims that his model explains the proton radius puzzle (although I dont understand his very short statement about this "puzzle").


    There will be more models out there that will give good results on many experiments. To judge them one key aspect is to make predictions with these models and see if they fit reality. In case of Mills this is pretty simple: he already passed the test about molecular structure which he can calculate way way better than QM (this is of course no prediction). Another part of his theory predicts hydrinos. He thinks he is measuring them in the laboratory - independant validation is still missing (the recently launched solar probe may give some hints). Than he is predicting pseudo electrons (electrons that are repelled by gravitation) - he already gave some ideas how to create them.


    I dont know what mathis theory predicts but in the end it is all about: 1. Can a model explain the set of known experiments? 2. Can a model make testable predictions? --> if there is more than one model which passes these tests than we should take the "simpler" one. Of course in reality this is much harder, because e.g. a theory recently hatched out of an egg may be far inferiour to the current accepted "mainstream" model but after putting 20 years of work in it it might be far superior.


    I see a small chance that Mills theory will lay the foundation for the next big widely accepted theory, but I dont see the slightest chance that Mathis model is ever going to be deeply studied unless he invents a new technology with it. Reading Mathis invokes the urge to punch him hard in the face in every physicist looking into it just because of his arrogant writing style :-)

    To emphasize my point lets look at a picture from this article:

    Especially with more orbitals you see a high discrepancy between measurment and theoretical prediction. My guess is that this is because of a "blurring" effect of the "camera". As long as there is no inverse "camera model" to cancel out the effect of the measurement system you cannot tell what probability distribution you are measuring. It is always a combination of the atom and the "camera" distribution.

    18oo5vy38t4zupng.png

    If a model produces an accurate formula it does not mean that it is the best model around. And from the linked wiki article I am not sure if I would say the value for alpha/g is predicted by QED. They say that the best models contain these steps: "...by fitting an experimental measurement to a theoretical expression (including higher-order radiative corrections) that includes α as a parameter." and " ...includes QED diagrams with up to four loops. Combining this with the experimental measurement of g yields..". For me this is exactly what Mills critizises about QED in the first chapter of his book. This definitly sounds like curve fitting terms with a half baked theoretical justification to the measurements (after more than 60 years of QED "half baked" is not the correct expression - overcooked is better.).


    Mills also uses these pictures to underline that his theory is correct. So I am not sure if these pictures contradict Mills model. I challenge you that you proof that these pictures make a case for QM. The theoretical orbitals in c) and d) are just iso-areas that contain the electron with 90% probability. Combining the probabilitydistribution of the electron (in QM terms) with the measurement uncertainty of the "camera" I doubt that you would get these (more or less) sharply seperated atoms. Mills model has a sharply defined orbit and the "round" (not spherical) elements of the molecule stem from the modulation of the current density function of the "orbitosphere". I think you have to study these measurements in much greater detail before you can come to your (or my) conclusion.

    Thanks. With your current theory in mind do you see any show stoppers for Mills to run his suncell for 24 hours? My hope is if he can present his giant light bulb this will trigger a long needed experimental and theoretical scientific discourse about classical/local/causal models of our reality (of which Mills has a promising candidate in my eyes).


    With the current probabilistic QM framework it is way too simple to hide any model errors and sell them as "the underlying probability density function is not measureable and so we have to approximate it. Thats where the error comes from.". This is a weak excuse. We control system engineers also use probabilistic models to describe e.g. the movement of objects (cars, airplanes,...). Why? Because estimating their state with a probabilistic model gives good results. Why? Because errors in the system model AND in the measurement are smoothed out. Can you tell what the systematic error in the system model looks like? Not really and I don´t care - I hand tune the filter parameters so that it works in practice.


    I´d love to see this QM framework disappear...