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

Posts by Epimetheus


    Millisan is not capable of doing that. As I understand it Millisan stores the values for the functional groups that Dr. Mills solved in GUTCP. The nice thing (and hard part) comes into play when combining functional groups to more complex molecules. Millisan then adapts all parameters (angles, energies, distances, etc.) of the combined functional according to some equations derived by Mills. You can get an impression how Millisan works when you read in GUTCP Vol. 2 some of the more complex molecule subchapters.

    I think what you want to see is only possible to show with a FEM software like comsol multiphysics. I also really would like to see that!

    The nice thing with BLP is, that you can find out on your own what Mills achieved so far while waiting for a working suncell prototype. In his book he gives equations to calculate binding energies, binding angles, internuclear distances, ionization energies of atoms and molecules. You can calculate the molecules by yourself, compare the numbers with literature and judge for yourself what implications that has. The nice thing with Mills GUTCP is that it is a classical theory based on well established physical laws (mainly maxwell - which makes sense when you remind yourself that an atom consists of charged (and partially moving) particles). Having charged particles that have to interact over their electric and magnetic fields and NOT to apply maxwells laws is crazy. Not the opposite.

    But just waiting for the suncell is definitly much less work than checking GUTCP from the theoretical side :)


    On youtube you will find a video of Colbert where he explains the expression "truthiness". It is not about the truth, it is all about the truthiness felt by the reader. Here in this thread it is all about "IH is totally right" or "Rossi is totally right". The truth is somewhere in between. My guess so far is, that Rossi needed money for his further research and gave IH just the absolute necessary information about the ecat and kept the secret "high cop sauce". IH on the other hand wanted to extract all important informations with 10.5e6$ and never wanted to pay 89e6$. We will never know the whole truth. I think Rossi is losing his lawsuit and IH is going to lose the counter suit.

    Mathis and Mills are different right from the start, but they share the classical approach. Mills uses Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as written in the textbooks (except for a fix of the Schwarzschildmetric used by Einstein) and Mathis goes even further back. As I understand it Mathis is purely mechanical and Mills is mechanical + electrodynamical (is that a word?).

    What I want to underline: physics is just about models and models use our current mathematical framework. Some models are good, some models are bad and some models are better than other models. “Better” is always viewed in terms of descriptive- and predictive power and of course complexity. In my eyes it is a great tragedy that mainstream physics has narrowed its mind to a small subset of models. Saying it with respect to optimization theory: In my eyes physics is now stuck in a local minimum and great efforts lead only to a small increase in performance. In this case a procedure called “backtracking” is necessary or one should have tracked multiple possibilities in the WHOLE search space right from the start. I hope when Mills proves his suncell and (parts of) his theory correct it will start a revolution in the way (mainstream) research is organized.

    Edit: Mills also has an explanation for the proton radius puzzle. The proton can absorb photons and that changes the protons radius :)

    Reading this eMail exchange makes me never want to touch anything that is electrically in contact with an e-cat. oO

    Rossi definitly does not know what he is talking about, but that is totally in line with his explanation of the "power in" part of the gullström paper. Am I crazy if I still think that the chances are high his e-cat/quark produces a COP > 3? I guess so... :)

    Oh. Once a again such an intelligent comment. Self funded science is self funded - this is stating the obvious.

    And a brilliant idea written onto a napkin is worthless unless it is presented with 30 shiny power point slides and a PR departmend approved advertisment in national tv. If you don t have anything to say why do you comment?

    Hans contribution has the exact same amount than Carl Pages. There is a detailed donor list on the MFMP site. Thanks Hans...mine was significantly smaller :)

    This is by far the best shot for open LENR+ replication, validation and exploration. There was no better opportunity in the past and there will not be a better opportunity in the near future. So I think everyone hoping that LENR+ becomes reality should donate, even if it is a small amount.

    They estimate 8000$ for the validation and replication of Suhas ECCO reactor and 4000$ for me365s reactor. Tomorrow Suhas wanted to give a detailed cost estimation for the replication of his reactor + fuel preperation machine so the costs may vary. This is two shots at open LENR+ validation for 12000$. They want to test both reactors at the same time to save some travelling costs.

    Sidenote: As Zephir pointed out, the ECCO reactor is similar to the newinflow reactor (http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf) for which significant transmutation is reported. This could become pretty interesting.

    I liked slide 65 of Dr. Mills presentation. It shows their milestone plan. It is extremely optimistic and adding a factor of three regarding the needed time for alpha, beta and pilot is a better guess...I guess :)

    When I first thought about the suncell development I thought that the deployment of the CPV cells would be the hardest part because of heat/cooling, mechanical problems between dome and CPV due to material deformation when heated up etc.

    Now I think that the hardest part is what they are currently doing: finding appropriate sensors and a control strategy, getting the hydrogen into the dome, realizing the silver condensation through a temperature gradient between upper and lower dome and letting all this run continuously and well orchestrated together. I would be very suprised if they could show a one hour run before october.

    But I liked how he presented his 25 years search for hydrino energy - in his past presentations the long development process was vastly ignored.

    LENR claims hundreds of replications like the Catholic Church claims thousands of miracles. Unfortunately, they never happen when an outsider is watching.

    Hmm Sherlock. Your deduction is not sufficient. Every outsider present would become an insider when witnessing a LENR reaction by your and other sceptics definition. So your statement is just expressing your personal bias and nothing more. But you belief that there is dark energy, dark matter and that our reality is nonlocal right?;)

    Dr. Mills wants to proof his suncell so badly that he is going to show every single progress with his prototype. I would guess this is a video of the very first run with the control system. This was not about the self sustained mode but totally a "OMFG the control system works!!! Get the camera!" :D

    I wish them look and much fun :thumbup: . Now it seems that they reached a very rewarding time in the suncell development. But as in most products there is the rule: to get 80% performance you need 20% of the time. To get the last 20% performance you need 80% of the time.

    Just out of curiosity I contacted Dr. Thomas Wrubel who conducted experiments with Prof. Conrads regarding the hydrino reaction. They did these experiments in the course of a year at the university where I graduated a few years ago:

    Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.

    He says that the results of their experiments are still unexplained and that he is watching the current developments with interest. Of course this is no proof of the hydrino reaction but if a plasma physicist who worked with plasmas for 40 years does not find an explanation for UV radiation in a simple hydrogen plasma + catalyst within a year then I think this should be further studied.

    Mills is not opposed by all LENR followers. Only by some. I think it is because they don´t understand each other very well. Mills thinks LENR is bullshit because he just sees one possible mechanism for LENR and that is hydrino catalyzed fusion (shrunken H atom has much higher probability for “tunneling” or to be tunneled). And he expects hydrino catalyzed fusion to be in a non economic power/energy range. With saying “LENR is bullshit” Mills does not take some major experimental results of LENR research into account (like SPAWAR – Pamela Mosier-Boss et al) which show transmutation and thermal runaway which is not explainable with a simple hydrino reaction.
    The LENR folks on the other hand already work with the “crap science” stigma and studying the theorys of another “crap scientist” is probably too much. For most people (including LENR scientists) Mills seems to be too much away from established physics to put effort into understanding him.

    Bringing these two groups together is pointless right now. Mills (probably) will be able to show a closed loop system within the next two years that can run for a day or two. After this demonstration LENR researches will have to view all their results in the new (brilliant) light of GUTCP. My guess is that high power LENR is not so far away with a proper theory (GUTCP) and a working hydrino generator.

    @ Jed
    There are independent replications. Optiongeek posted one but there are also results of two world class plasma physicists that used their own equipment in their own labs. They looked at the spectrum of the plasma with the hydrino catalyst and with a chemically similar but different material.

    Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.

    Driessen, N. M., E. M. van Veldhuizen, P. Van Noorden, R. J. L. J. De Regt, and G. M. W. Kroesen. (2005) “Balmer-alpha line broadening analysis of incandescently heated hydrogen plasmas with potassium catalyst.” In XXVIIth ICPIG, Eindoven, the Netherlands. 18-22 July.

    There was a german report on BLP and the research of Conrads which gives some additional information to the first paper. Here is my translation of the relevant part:
    …Critics [of Mills] insist, that most external validations of his experiments are not independent because BLP has either consulted or the experiments were conducted in BLPs labs. These was avoided by the professor of physics Johannes Conrads. Conrads was personally interested in this work but his long time working place, the research facility Jülich, feared an image loss if replications of Mills were conducted in Jülich. The Ruhr Universität Bochum was more open in 2001 under the restriction, that his research was not about Mills “crazy theory”. But Mills plasma lamp burned. “I well remember the sun burn one day later” said the involved physicists Thomas Wrubel. The BLP reaction produced intense UV light. “From theory it is not predicted that such extreme UV radiation exists in this setup”, comments Gerrit Kroesen of technical university Eindhoven, who studies the BLP process himself. “You have to bend yourself a lot to find an explanation”.

    Conrads and Wrubel examined the mysterious glow with known methods. They also modified the experiment. They worked on it for one year, but an explanation for their results could not be found because “ the minimum energy [for their spectroscopic results] was not there. Either we have a new chemical reaction we could not identifiy or analyse or it is something very odd.” Wrubel said. Mills was added as a co-auther when they published their results in 2003, because he gave them the reaction vessel.

    to believe in some statements, which are not widely accepted (for wideley accepted, very defined reasons) in contrast to post and comment on them, self convinced, as if they were more than what they really are.

    Unproven myths.

    You fail to understand Zephirs point. You say "unproven myths" in a disrespectful way and fail to realize that advances in physics are all "unproven myths". I dont know how long serious physicists discuss seriously in serious journals about string theory and 11 dimensional spaces etc. Now it becomes more and more evident that string theory stays an unproven myth. Or our beloved quantum theory: they still don´t know what their equations really mean and so the copenhagen interpretation is still an unproven myth.

    I think it is immanent to science to keep up as many hypothesis and theories and ideas simultanously as long as possible and as long it makes sense. This is a problem for us humans because we focus on one solution and we cannot handle things in parallel very well. But focusing on one or two ideas leads to a degeneration of the solution space (like the degeneration of gene variability of a population of people deep in the rain forest). And an analogy from my field of expertise: google "multi hypothesis tracking" and try to understand why this is good for science.


    Thanks for this! I currently think that Mills is mostly correct with his atomic model. I dont dare to think that he also might be correct with his explanation of mass and gravity. That would be absolutly mind blowing. The prediction of the fith force contains every major idea of GUTCP...taking one major piece away and the fifth force would not work.

    Perhabs one should point these guys to GUTCP for the design of a proper experiment to test it. ;)


    Yeah. Except that he knew that fusion occurs as a secondary reaction back in 1991. It is even in GUTCP. But he says that the reaction rate according to GUTCP is low and that high power LENR is not possible. That is where I dont agree with him because transmutation and neutron emission has been observed on a bigger scale (SPAWAR e.g.).