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

Posts by Epimetheus

    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...


    If you think hydrinos are not real what do you think is he measuring with the Raman spectroscope? He thinks he is bringing H to the hydrino state with his experiment and so he is expecting dihydrino gas. Than he measures a peak which matches his expectation to four significant figures and also another (photoluminescence?) experiments indicate an internuclear distance of 1/4 that of H2 (page 27,28,106). Combining this with the null runs where the hydrino getter was not exposed to the reaction output it is hard to argue that these are measurement errors.

    What´s your opinion?

    PS: Thanks for your work with the helium atom. Hope you can solve the problem :)

    I think in this paper he is giving all details to reproduce the experiments for the first time. This might be because he now knows how far the way is from this "single drop explosion" setup to a continuous working device. The fear of a competitor being faster than BLP only based on the details of the catalyst and the basic reaction setup now revealed seems to be gone. The paper reads like an invitation to replicate it. When I am home I am going to ask Mills if BLP is actively pursuing some labs to replicate their results (without paying them).

    Regarding the "believer" or "non believer" thing: there are parts of his theory that do not need any believe to see that they work. Mills is the first to give simple equations for the ionization energies of atoms/ions with fundamental constants only and no fitting factors used. And it is pretty easy to understand: the ionization energy is just the energy needed to remove the electron out of the potential well of the proton. The hard part is to calculate the "orbiting radius" of the electrons and how this radius changes when the electron configuration of the atom changes (the radius changes because of the changing electric and magnetic interactions between "electron neighbors"). There are some parts of his theory that do not need belief anymore and the impact of this fact is already huge. The hydrino part does not belong to the "obvious correct" part of his theory but the shown experiments already give some supporting evidence that it also might be correct.

    I know I sound like a broken record, but in my eyes the key to understand LENR lies in the understanding and further development of Randell Mills theory. For me taking Mills serious is a no brainer:

    We have a theory that treats electrons and protons as "real" particles with moving charge that behave according to maxwells laws which gives rise to electric and magnetic fields aswell as spin. The structure of atoms and molecules is therefor totally dependend on electric and magnetic interactions. Makes sense? Is simple? Does not need a plethora of new postulates? Check!

    We have equations derived from this theory that reproduce many atomic and molecular properties to great accuracy that can be checked against vast amounts of independant measurements? The equations are open and every undergraduate of a natural science can "understand" and use them without a complicated (closed source) numeric computation framework? Check!

    We have experiments supporting this theory and the experiments are (at least in this new paper) described in detail? (The (very) basic results of these experiments have been replicated in 2003 by Conrads and Kroesen not in this detail but with the results: unexplained EUV and UV radiation and unexplained long afterglow of the plasma after switching of power). Check!

    In my eyes it is time for us as the LENR community to take Mills more serious and for universities and labs to replicate is findings and try to prove him wrong (or not)!


    Lets wait what Bob writes about this. In the days and weeks before their trip there were some comments by Bob which made me wonder how good the communication between me356 and MFMP is. I am not going to look these statements up because I think Bob is going to clarify things. After sharing pastries the communication between them might be better in the future :)

    Many thanks to everyone beeing involved in this test! Despite everyone in the me356 testing room wanted to see positive results the results were negative. That makes a strong case for the honesty/integrity of the MFMP testing team, me356 and for the used equipment.

    I think everyone here has gained confidence that a high COP (>2) is observable with great certainty with this measurment setup. And in addition we have some lessons learned on the plus side regarding testorganization, measurment presentation and minor details with the test setup. THHs proposal with the readiness protocoll is a good idea in my eyes. It should involve readiness of a sufficient amount of backup reactors and/or simpler but more robust "fallback" reactors.

    "But it ain't over 'till its over."

    True. But it's also true that when it comes to "Confirmation Bias" MFMP goes all the way to 11. They are desperate for ANY replication. And since Toyota, Mitsubishi et al have decided that they don't want to win the Nobel Prize and billions of dollars demonstrating and commercializing LENR, they will have to find "the truth" in a dank Moscow apartment (with a Relative Humidity of 20%) or in a WW2 bunker in... somewhere in Eastern Europe... like they said in old movies. It'll be funny, if good people were not spending time and money following a red herring.

    You are standing on the easy side. Sharing the opinion of 99% of the science community is easy and that enables you to open your mouth as wide as you can without any risk. We need brave people in this world who dont follow the mainstream to find new and unexpected solutions for this world. This is true for science, politics and economy. So I am very grateful for all the work that is done by MFMP, LENR researchers and other people who want to make the world a better place.

    Look at the innovation of todays big companies - a great part comes from high risk start ups that are bought and integrated into the companies. Most start ups fail, some are sucessful and huge amounts of money are invested into bad ideas.

    So your money argument is bulls**t. No granny is investing a dime in LENR anymore - todays investors know the field and know what they are doing (high risk investment). You are here in this forum to make fun of people that you dont understand.

    I don´t really get the conversation here right now. Me365 and MFMP said that the reactor did not work and so we do not have to look for excess heat. MFMP estimates that they are within 10% accuracy but personally I am going to get excited when we have a stable COP above 2 for at least half an hour. We can use the data of the last run to check the instrumentation for inconsistencies and errors. But from what I have seen the equipment is pretty convincing. A COP above 2 should be measured reliable – especially after we saw the equipment measuring a COP of 1 in two runs.

    Regarding the problems during the test and me365s statements: I am expecting MFMP to write something about what caused the confusion. They know the information exchanges between me365 and MFMP better than we do and they were working with him closely during the last couple of days so I think they are able to judge wether it´s useful to further work with me365 or not.

    Eric, look at the data sheets for the used power measuring equipment:



    The PA1000 has 1Mhz bandwidth and samples 1 million times a second + harmonic analyzer + data export. That is a oscilloscope specially designed for power measurements. And the PCE830 uses a different measurment principle with an amp clamp that surrounds the whole cable. In my eyes this is bullet proof.

    Found a discussion of someone with practical experience at the end of this document:


    Louis Reed


    "Fission of large nuclei was discovered in the late 1930's"

    That was when there was consensus on mainstream physics that it is possible. But when was the time the first scientist THOUGHT it could be possible?

    And from there it was just 25 billion $ (so says wiki) and a national effort to have a working device...

    There is a 1994 (?) paper of NASA replicating Mills. They had not enough funds to get rid of all alternative explanations for the observed energy gain. Is this Mills fault or the fault of society?

    There are a thousand threads here on this forum explaining why the term "widely accepted" is not necessary a measure of reality.

    I hope there will be adequate checking for hidden power wires.

    I think I read somewhere that the reactor can be lifted up easily to measure its weight and to apply a faraday cage around it. So if you can build a cage you definitly know what wires are going in.

    But it probably would be wise to check the wires for hidden powerlines. I am not sure how they are going to connect their power measurement to the input cables but I think they need to interrupt the line for their equipment and they should see the inside of the cable. If not they should cut the cables after the tests are finished.

    @Sherlock Holmes

    This is like telling Heinrich Hertz: "Enough of theories and academic experiments, give me teh wireless communication systems!". Mills theorie is groundbreaking and covers a wide area and it needs time to build useful machines with it. Especially with this few people working on it.

    But unlike string theorie GUTCP already produces great practical results in form of analytical equations for atomic and molecular properties that could be of huge benefit in the pharmaceutical industrie.

    It is always hard to compare inventions but when the americans decided to invent the atomic bomb most fundamental experiments and theoretical work was done. You can google how long it took from there to the first nuclear explosion. Calculate an estimate for the needed man hours, the needed money (scaled to the value of todays dollar) and the availability of smart engineers.

    Mills et. al have done extensive spectral studies for more than 17 years (probably more). Known plasma physicists being involved are Jonathan Philipps, Johannes Conrads and Gerrit Kroesen. The good thing about these spectral analysis is that you have a good indication of the type of atoms in your plasma. Many of these experiments were conducted in an argon or helium atmosphere so it would probably be quite hard to tell if additional helium has formed (assuming commercial argon gas is contaminated with helium).

    He has proven that the EUV and gamma radiation is due to hydrino formation (not only in the laboratory but also celestial observations show hydrino formation (e.g. corona temperature puzzle)). But he is totally ignoring transmutations. I can imagine two scenarios:

    1. He has evidence for transmutation but does not tell to not slip deeper into the "crazy guy" drawer.

    2. He has no evidence for transmutation so far because it either is not taking place or not in a stron noticable manner.

    It took him more than 13 years to not be associated with the "LENR pseudoscience" any more. Now he has his own "pseudoscience" :)

    People like THHuxley are the best people to have around for LENR. If only there were ten more of him. They help to increase the rigor of the science of LENR, to suggest improvements that can be made to experiments and to reassess findings that might require additional follow-up before getting excited. Many LENR watchers find this kind of challenge to be distressing and a profound threat, but this is due to a misunderstanding of what science entails. Skeptical challenges are no threat in the slightest, for the truth will always out. It will emerge even from an overly pessimistic analysis, and it is the truth that we should seek, whatever it is.

    I am (more or less) completely with you. My question was about his motivation to spend so much time and effort into a field he thinks is bogus. He does not get money (or?) and no recognition and there are only a few people interested in LENR so more or less nobody is watching. But he explained it above and it is reasonable.

    Critizism and questioning methology etc. is important in achieving robust scientific progress until a certain point. After this point it just becomes annoying. Like the work at CERN and the discussion of the micro black holes eating our planet. I am pretty sure CERN receives new warnings about this every week that tackle/challenge their responses of the past. Spending time to defend against every objection is also not the correct way. The weekly letters of the guy who is afraid of CENR experiments are likely directly send to the trash can. And there is much of this in the field of LENR and perhabs kirkshanahan is one of the guys I think can be ignored because he has a clear agenda and belief. Perhabs this is not justified in kirkshanahan case but as a scientist working in the field you have to decide when to stop to listen to such people. Sometimes your decision is correct and sometimes not. But ignoring someone is not necessary an indicator for bad science.

    Back to my CENR example. They decided to ignore the work of R. Mills and his objection that some of the "particles" they are seeing are no real particles but resonances linear combinations of known particles. I bet sometime in the future they regret to put R. Mills work into the trash can. Am I criticizing them for not listening to Mills? A little bit :) but their decision is understandable.

    ...What is so annoying about LENR is that the level of scientific engagement in this process is much higher than for other free energy ideas...

    Sorry for being off topic but can you please explain why you spend so much time on a LENR forum? Seriously I dont get it. Do you want to save us lost souls? 99.99999% of the people on this planet do not care about LENR or think it is bullshit. The overall money spend on LENR over the last 20 years is well below the additional costs for corruption and bad management of the german Elbphilharmonie construction. And this is just a f**g building.

    So what is your intention? Do you think it is good for humanity to choke every crazy idea and "off the track" science?

    If I understood Bobs comment on ECW correctly 19th of May is when MFMP could start the test because they then finished their preparation. I think the date of the start of the test depends on wether me365 confirms it or wants to postpone the beginning of the test.

    Jack Cole

    That is certainly not possible. Mills states that he has all important values for 800 molecules and in GUTCP there are well over 50 (I did not count - could be >100) molecules with a comparison between experimental value and his calculated values. If he did not fake his values then he has an atomic model that is far superior to the quantum mechanics model, so it is definitly no scam. If he faked the numbers he is a clear fraudster. In my opinion there is no possibility in between.

    There is not much extrapolation taking place. The atomic model is checked against known experimental numbers. Even the part with mass and gravity could be correct because he gives equations for the mass ratios of fundamental particles that are known through experiments. The hydrino is a consequence out of his atomic equations. So if the numbers of the molecules are not faked the theoretical existence of hydrinos is for sure and not extrapolated.

    In the later chapters he is extrapolating (fifth force, future of the universe etc.) but his basic concept is a model for all matter. If he is not faking numbers this is huge. Btw. I recalculated some of the molecular values - not a single number was faked (in this very small sample I took). Interested readers are invited to participate to find the answer to the question if Mills is faking numbers:

    Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action