Posts by Epimetheus

I am with you that Mills is communicating way too optimistic about the current state of the engineering of the suncell. He has a habbit of doing so and I think that will never change. I think in his head the suncell is running smoothly since 2013 – but engineering is a bitch.

But I am not really concerned about the emerging engineering problems. The point of no return of his system has been reached and there is no reasonable explanation for him left to completely step back into the shadows for another 10 years. With what they have now they will be able to demonstrate a device that runs for hours or days in a closed loop. Even if they have to spend 50kW of their 100kW in additional cooling they will produce net energy.

The only missing part now is the control system and that will be a pain in the ass but is definitely doable. They just have to regulate the amount of silver in the dome if I understand it correctly. So the bottom line for me: his theory produces good results and seems for many/most parts pretty reasonable, his experiments are independently validated and hydrinos are a fact if you combine all the experimental evidence and he seems to have the right companies at his side to develop this technology  in two years there will be no product but a closed loop self running device that will turn physics up side down. If they are smart they wait for the demonstration of the closed loop system until they have solved all engineering problems. Otherwise the cat is out of the bag and the race is on.

I really love the foundation of his theory, I love the suncell design and the idea of a world powered by a vast amount of mini suns and I wish them luck in all their doings. For me this is the first step of understanding LENR, which is probably a secondary reaction after hydrino formation. Mills thought this too back in the beginning as is shown in this paper. This paper is quite interesting and I think at least the experimental part should be read by everyone interested in LENR.

Quote from optiongeek

Quote from Mary Yugo: “So far, for more than 20 years, BLP has been promising power plants and not delivering anything to anybody. Their experiments are meaningless except to enthusiasts and perhaps themselves. They are very much like Defkalion, Rossi…

Mary is a special case. She belongs to LENR inventory and we have to love her the way she is .

Hi Simon,

I am interested in this:

Quote

The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.

How is this stability achieved? Is it some kind of nonradiation condition or is the basis of your theory completely different than Mills?

I am not quite sure what you are implying. Are you saying that Mills presents his results in the best looking way to secure funding? In my eyes this is a necessity if you cannot finance yourself. I am presenting my work results in the best possible way, aswell as my boss and his boss. You are also doing it on your website - there are probably a lot of things that still dont work in your theory framework.

Or are you saying that Mills is (partially) faking theoretical or experimental results? That is one point this validation is about. Finding out if his equations give values that fit to experiments. I did not find a false statement or faked equation so far. The equations I used worked.

Is your own work promotional or academic? Or have you found a better way of doing it?

Quote from damn_right _man

Even worse, the aether does not exist.

Aha. And what is vacuum energy? The universe is filled with virtual particles etc.? You can call a table "chair" or a horse "dog", but what is written down in the linked wiki article reads more or less like the definition of an aether.

And I could add this (wiki):
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]

I also see parallels to the work of Mills. Especially the water and the argon part. If I recall correctly Mills sees a big increase in reaction rate when using molybdenum. So perhabs the authors could try this

Quote from MrSelfSustain

He's basically trying to be the dictator of an entire branch of science which he has no right to be. But even if he was trying, his dictatorship is a flop.

Ok. That is your opinion. In my eyes you are overinterpreting this waaaaaaay too much. A dictator? Seriously? Abandon the most probable candidate of a grand unifiying theory because he does not want to be replicated? Mills is writing tons of papers that give nearly all the details about the equipment and the exact way how to do this. Including the exact composition of his catalysts (except for his latest catalyst in the suncell). Basic research cannot be forbidden. But using the catalysts he found within 20 years of work can of course be patented.

Rossi tells more or less nothing about his device. Non of his patents can be replicated with success. So I personally go with the completly open guy that censors only the chemical structure of his catalyst in the validation report of his latest (!!!) device and gives all other details and does not want his catalysts to be used by anybody else then with the guy who tells more or less nothing.

Are you american? Then I understand your momentaneous emotional stress.

What do you want to tell us? That paper sees indications for unusual development of bright light as claimed by Mills. This is more supportive for Mills theory than the opposite. But regarding an independent validation I find the papers of world class plasma physicist like Kroesen and Conrads much more compelling:
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.

I´m not your opinion that the cease and desist letter has anything to say. It just tells me that after Rossi we have another guy who is totally scared to lose the race against the competitors. Mills wants to make a lot of money and he owes his private investors a huge return of investment. He also needs money to start some new companies that have other products predicted by GUTCP in their focus. And of course he wants to sue the a$$ of everyone who harmed his credibility like Wikipedia, Rathke, etc.

Being the lone wolf can make you a bit weird. In my eyes Mills is way ahead of Rossi regarding basic decent human behavior.

@stefan
You asked about the relationship between GUTCP and QM. I think Mills had the same question and has a first answer and gives its derivation from p11 ff. His conclusion:
“Thus the mathematical relationship of GUTCP and QM is based on the Fourier transform of the redial function. GUTCP requires that the electron is real and physically confined to a two dimensional surface comprising source currents that match the wave equation solutions for spherical waves in two dimensions (angular) and time. The corresponding Fourier transform is a wave over all space that is a solution of the three dimensional wave equation (ev.g. the Schrödinger equation). In essence, QM may be considered as a theory dealing with the Fourier transform of an electron, rather than the physical electron. By Parsevals theorem, the energies may be equivalent, but the quantum mechanical case is nonphysical – only mathematical. It may mathematically produce numbers that agree with experimental energies as eigenvalues, but the mechanisms lack internal consistency and conformity with physical laws. ”

This is a quite a remarcable result.

@ Eric
Sorry for my strong wording. I think I adopted the verbally strong position of some of the people posting in this thread .
To your question:
I am no expert so I am talking about my current understanding of the process of pair production and the fine structure constant: Of course the electron is not moving with lightspeed. 1/alpha is the fraction where the electron would have the velocity c and because this is not possible (because GUTCP relies on special relativity as one of its foundations) the last permitted orbit is a fraction of 1/137. Orbit 1/138 would result in an electron velocity greater than c. And in between the pair production process happens. This transition state orbitosphere is not a traditional orbit of the electron but rather a short living state where (in the case Driscoll describes) the photon wave (photon orbitosphere) changes to become an electron and a positron. To get an impression of how this might work I think one has to see the animations of the fields of the photon and the free electron. I think they are somethere on BLPs page.

To your other question regarding my two links: they are linked to Mills equations because they use the nonradiation condition to construct models for electrons. The paper from 1990 is interesting because they use a simple ad hoc nonradiation condition for the simplest case. Then they solve maxwells equations for their simple nonradiation condition and can show that the electron can have a stable orbit and directly show that the spin is a direct physical consequence of their solution and not “inherent” as in QM. They are completely unrelated to Mills but basically had the same idea and could produce a small part of Mills result. Instead of the ad hoc simples nonradiation condition Mills took the general case and as a model of the electron he used the 2D wave equation. Btw. this also shows that Mills is not randomly putting numbers together – because these guys got the same result as Mills at least for the spin.
And the other paper shows that it is possible to construct not only the electron but other particles with this nonradiation condition so that they are stable – it is more or less a proof/indication that Mills model does not violate any accepted law of nature (Maxwell, Newton) and gives stable models for atoms.

@ THHuxley

You missed the whole point with the finestructure constant. The value is known since 1916 but as Feynman points out nobody knows why there is this number. It is somehow linked to photon production but QM does not know why. But the explanation for it is a direct consequence from Maxwells equations - the fundamental result which underlies everything Mills is doing. And it pops out with no (additional) struggle - here you see how alpha comes into play:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocooki…/latest?cb=20160427021229

This is huge (Feynman said every physicist has this number on the wall and is worring about it)! And disrespecting this result with not taking a deeper look at it clearly shows you are clinging to a religious believe rather then having a healthy critical view.

And your other accusation that the equations are just meaningless applications of mathematical operators: I took a deeper look and can say that this is not the case. If it holds for the deepest depth of GUTCP remains to be seen but Mills is doing real science there and everyone willing to spend a few days of work can see that. It is all written down. In the later chapters there are some formulars which seem to come from nowhere - read the corresponding text and you most times will find a chain of references which leads you back and forth through GUTCP.

A simple "crackpot" statement perhaps was enough in the 90s but not anymore. Proving Mills wrong on his core idea is freaking hard work and NOBODY did this in the last 25 years. Show me a SINGLE proof and I will shut up.

I gave the reference to two papers that clearly show, that with this approach it is possible to derive stable fundamental particles. How can this be possible when all Mills is doing is just randomly mixing symbols and operators? Link1 and Link2

@stefan

I only found the proof in appendix (p.1685 ff.). I have some expierence with fourier/laplace transforms, but what Mills is doing is a bit above my level of expertise . At first I also had a problem with the convolution part because he was doing it in frequency space. But going back to the beginning shows, that the functions he convoluted are multiplications in the time domain, so that is fine. I have problems with understanding the infinite series of one of the functions - infinite series seams weird to me but I often read "infinit cycles" in GUTCP so it might be linked to that term.

But to your question: I do not remember a statement of zeros regarding convolution. I always did it the other way around: switching from time to frequency domain to avoid the convolution. If I had a better understanding of vector fields and maxwells equations perhaps I would look deeper into it, but with my current state of knowledge I would need weeks to feel comfortable with all this mathematical tricks. I don´t have that time so I switched to the easy mode with my validation efforts. But I won´t stop looking for someone who can look over this.

The thing with the finestructure constant is quite interesting so I give a reference where somenone took a deeper look into GUTCP and tried to understand how alpha comes into play - it is quite well illustrated:
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-conten…013/04/BLP-e-energy-3.pdf

Quote

QM, and QED, are vastly powerful and accurate to very high accuracy over a wide set of phenomena, as I'm sure you know.it does indeed not solve all physics. But it does provide predictive skill with greater accuracy over a much greater range of phenomena that anything of Randy Mills. Nor is it contradicted by experiment in any way over the very phenomena that Randy Mills claims to explain better (though I dispute this).Randy Mills GUT is incoherent in many ways, it also has as far as I know no predictive ability, except where it is making semi-classical equivalent computations that you'd expect to be reasonably good.I can do better predicting planetary orbits with Newton.

No offense but your statement is completely wrong except for your first too sentences.

Quote

Randy Mills GUT is incoherent in many ways

I read this statement one million times on the internet and there was NEVER a proof. Show me where it is incoherent.

Quote

it also has as far as I know no predictive ability

- Mills predicted the mass of the top quark in 1995 - 5 months before it was found in an accelerator in a mass range nobody expected (QM does not know what mass is so it totally lacks EVERYTHING we know about mass)
- Mills predicted the accelerated expansion of the universe before it was observed
- GUTCP explains high temperature superconductivity - something QM can not even after tens of years of experimental verification
- GUTCP predicts hydrinos - independant experimental evidence was found by Conrads and by Kroesen (well respected plasma physicists) -> the light emission of the plasma behaved as predicted by Mills and these guys had no other explanation for the effect
-...

Quote

over a much greater range of phenomena that anything of Randy Mills

Not true:
- all major physical experiments are covered by GUTCP (yes even tunneling and double slit experiment)
- GUTCP knows the origin of the finestructure constant: it is a direct consequence from solving the nonradiation condition for the 2D wave equation (the foundation of Mills theory) - QM does not as stated by Feynman:

Quote

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

— Richard Feynman, Richard P. Feynman (1985)
- The predictive and describtive power of GUTCP is by far better than QM because it incorparates the origin of mass and includes special relativity - one of the biggest flaws of QM
- The structure of molecules can be calculated by analytic expressions with GUTCP - QM uses iterative Hartree-Fock and yields an inferior precision
- ...

Quote

Nor is it contradicted by experiment in any way over the very phenomena that Randy Mills claims to explain better (though I dispute this).

Where is GUTCP contradicted by experiment and on what basis do you dispute Mills claims?

You seem to know a lot about GUTCP and QM to make such bold statements. So it would be no problem for you to give a SINGLE evidence that you are right.

Ah you edited your post. So I edit mine:

Quote

It is meaningless, because it does not imply excess energy and transients are notoriously difficult to instrument

It implies a lot. If you see the power output increase significantly when the reactor is glowing green and you observed the glow for about 40 minutes you could get a good impression. And one to three minute runs are no transients. That is easy to measure. It looks like transients because of the long timescale of many plots. But I am with you that this is not an undeniable proof, but this was there old prototype. Now they are claiming that they can run this thing for longer than six hours. So I think the next demonstration day will also be interesting for your.

Amazing work stefan! Finding out that Mills proof has flaws but giving a different proof that yields the same results is better than I hoped . Building up on these results there is this paper, which tries to find out if the solution of the nonradiation condition as found by Mills (and stefan :-)) makes it possible to contruct stable models for fundamental particles based only on Maxwells laws. The results are positive and use a completely different approach than Mills (at least for my untrained eyes). And even better it gives a reference to a paper of some guys who found parts of this in 1990: Bergman, D. L., and Wesley, J. P., “Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment,” Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 63-67 (Sept./Oct.,1990)

I have taken the liberty of adding a live link to the paper above. Alan.

http://www.commonsensescience.…f_electron_yields_new.pdf

I would like to see your version of the proof. Must have overlooked it.

Quote from padam73

So does QM.

Epimetheus wrote:
QM uses much more postulates and assumptions.

You have to be more precise here because the Schrödinger equation, and even its relativistic relative Klein-Gordon, can be derived from Maxwell and Einstein equations.

Display More

Thank you for pointing that out. Most articles and textbooks I read don´t point that out. But QM still uses way more postulates:
there are six fundamental postulates as seen here. Normally there are only five given, but in my link the sixth postulate refers to pauli exclusion principle and Hundts rule. The last point basicly says, that QM does not know why the electron orbits are filled the observed way and so QM has a postulate for that.
The other major postulates come with spin. Spin is not a part of the schroedinger equation but later added in QED to match the observations. It is also postulated that the spin is "inert". So no real spin but something similar. More or less an undefined mathematical construct. And with QED there comes the next postulates. To derive the electron g factor it was necessary to postulate a power series with the fine structure constant. Then virtual particles are postulated and after that a set of Feynman diagrams were postulated and to solve all this an algorithm was postulated that could normalize all the infinities in the equations.

Mills by the way got the electron g factor correct with simple analytical and classical equations. This part of his theory is pretty impressive. Regarding the needed postulates Mills is way ahead of QM. If he can explain everything QM is able to explain needs to be seen.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I would expect the perfect theory to make a nice straight line, and the experimental values to wobble around the line a bit. Such a perfect fit is almost unbelievable.

It is a matter of scale. If the QM values wouldn´t be so totally off you would see that also Mills results wobble around the green line. It is just orders of magnitude better than QM.

@ Stefan: In my validation attempt I gave a link to a paper where an empirical equation for the ionization energies is given that gives similar good values than Mills (usually 99% compared to the 99,9% of Mills). The difference is that they use fitted values of a quadratic function to achieve this and Mills only fundamental constants. And this is not strange in my eyes, because the ionization energies are (in a classical sense) a quite simple construct: the electron has a potential in the field of the nucleus and must be corrected by the electron-electron interactions. That´s it. To get this right all you have to do is get the electron radii correct to get the potential. I think Mills achieved this and that is my next move in my GUTCP evaluation.

Anyway: Are you aware of other simple equations/algorithms that compute different parameters of molecules such as the binding energies or the angles? Mills presumably has this right and I would like to know if this can be done with simple equations.

@Abd: That is more or less exactly what I want to do here. The difference is that I think that we cannot use Millisan software, because a second after publishing the results (in case they were positive) "the internet" would raise the objection, that there are just look-up tables at the heart of Millisan. So I think we have to do these calculations on our own. From the 415 molecule bond energies in that graph I have calculated...wait for it...2 ( ) with Mills equations and I can confirm they are within 0.0X% rel. error compared to the experimental value. I think that this is a good start for another interested person to take the next two molecules and calculate it.

The more efficient way would be to implement the generic equations for that from GUTCP p.679 ff. But I am struggling with the meaning of parameters c2 and C2 and what equations to use in what cases. Calculating more complex molecules by hand is not feasable - so sometime in the future we have to implement the generic equations for make progress.

Quote from THHuxley

What seems like good evidence is not that unless a lot more work is done. The evidence presented does not look promising for that to work out, but in any case in the absence of that work there is no reason to expect Mills' theory to be physical.

I really liked your post, but you have to explain this last sentence. Mills just uses Newtons laws, Maxwells equations and special relativity for his derivations. It is all build up upon these accepted postulates. QM needs a lot more postulates. Even today many physicists complain that QM is more a mathematical than a physical theory. And then someone comes along just using well accepted physical principels and you call it unphysical? That is a bold statement and definitly needs more justification than you gave.

About your other points. Are you saying that Mills precision is actually worse or that QM is much better than in this picture? I am not aware of a much better technique then Hartree-Fock

You refer to a modern QM calculation method. How many hand tuned parameters does they need? Mills uses just fundamental physical constants to achieve the shown performance.

Quote from Eric Walker

I thought Mills only talks about orbitspheres. When you mention "s-orbital" or "2p-orbital", I think of the spherical harmonics, which are not all spherical and are not two-dimensional surfaces. Can you expand on what you had in mind here?

Of course there is something similar to the QM orbital model in Mills theory. At least in its effect. It´s the distribution of the charge densities on the orbitospheres that are caused by the complex electron movement. This picture is for one orbitosphere. In a molecule the orbitospheres combine and give a more complex surface.

(from presentation of Prof. Huub Bakker)

@ Zephir: No the orbitals are of course not just of s-type as the picture above shows. I don´t know the analogon of a pi-orbital in GUTCP and you will find tons of experiments that are not described in GUTCP yet. But that does not mean that GUTCP cannot explain them, but instead nobody worked on the specific topic. Perhaps it can, perhaps not.