@Mary: My mother always told me: "Never feed the troll" - but who
cares: I think you made your point clear - a thousand times and more
says your post counter. If someone is claiming to have developed a
device that produces (limitless) energy and if this someone claiming
that this device will be ready within x days/months/years and if this
someone is collecting money for R&D and does not have the claimed
device after x days/months/years => fraud, scam, lier, sinner... This
logic is not really hard to understand and I am not sure why one has to
repeat it over and over again. This is a forum for people interested in
LENR and not a forum of poor old naive ladys on the search for the
investment of their life.
I have a different view on this topic through my work as a software
engineer: the first guess on how long a task needs to be finished is
most times wrong - and always just in one direction - delay. Sometimes
you are working on a topic and you think all problems are solved and
promise delivery soon and than you run into a problem that is hard to
solve or cannot be solved and you have to start all over again or have
to give up. These things happen to all of us even in areas that are well
known and potentially don´t bear many surprises. How much more is this
true for completely new things that you cannot look up in a book or ask
your collegue etc.
I can easily imagin the young Mills sitting at his desk full of
excitement because his idea of altering the wave equation of the
electron to better fit the physical reality yielded some equations, that
could describe the hydrogen atom. And as he tried to solve the helium
atom and the equations gave the exact results in contrast to a theory
that stood for 70 years with thousands of physicists working on it. That
must have been overwhelming. Than taking his formulars into the
laboratory and working on a device that could produce 20W of thermal
power - and all he has to do is to scale the process up! I would have
gathered money with no bad feeling because I was totally sure they soon
would get their investment back tenfold. And than scaling up and basic
engineering struck...and he had to start with a new concept...and
again...and again. Ask a chemist about scaling a process up or a
biochemist with a new medicine which looked fantastic in the mouse
model, awesome on human cell cultures - and killed 5% of the human test
persons. Curing (more or less) Aids took 20 years - curing cancer is
lightyears away with vast amounts of money and research.
After 25 years it is totally ok to be pretty sceptical. But to
conclude that it is 100% fraud/scam/etc. and totally ruling out the
possibility that Mills ran into many engineering problems and
undererstimated the task by far is not justified in my view. He
definitly has to learn when it is time to announce a breakthrough - not
when 90% of the problems are gone but when the device is ready.
And that is where the topic of my thread comes to play: we have the
possibility to proof if his theory is correct regarding the binding
energies and the structure of all molecules. This cannot be done in
closed form with quantum THEORY and if he is able to do it than the
chances that all his other claims regarding hydrinos and so on are valid
are increasing enormously. I dont have the money the skillset to
conduct LENR experiments but I can do some calculations with Mills
theory - hiding behind "SCAM-FRAUD" is not doing mankind any favor.
Zeus46: I know this software, but there are post on some internet
forums where the skeptics assumed, that this software is just a huge
look up table - to rule this out there is no other way to calculate it
by hand and show the complete approach step by step. They also have some
excel sheets online so i have a reference. I am currently looking for a
starting point - solving the wave equation with the orbitosphere
assumption is too hard for me - I have a wife, kids and a job. The next
time I have time for studying quantum physics in depth on my own is in
35 years. I hope by this time the pharmaceutical companys are able to
calculate chemical reactions for hundreds of new medicine candidates in
parallel and in realtime with Mills formulars. Could be the medicine
that cures my cancer or alzheimer
robert bryant: I appreciate the efforts of andrea but in the comment
you mentioned I don´t agree with him. Of course it is always better to
first try to expand the current theory and improve it iteratly. But at
some point it does not make sense anymore. An analogy from software
engineering: All software developers know software that is grown over
time. To the question "why is this so f*cking complicated here...and
there" you get the answer "this has historical reasons". You start your
software architecture with the knowledge that is available to that time.
And than your boss says you have to include this feature. And then a
customer wants to include that feature. And than you realise that a part
of your system could be much more efficient, but you cannot improve it
without changing the interfaces to other parts of the software so much,
that they would stop working. So after some time it is a pain in the a$$
to implement new features and to find bugs because the software is full
of magic numbers, hacks and special functions for special functions
which are active when condition A,B and C are met but not D.
In my eyes this is the state of quantum theory. Try to google how
many magic numbers you have to use to calculate the binding energies and
angles for molecules. There are special theories for quantum mechanics
and quantum electrodynamic and gravitation and assumptions with no real
explanation (if you dont assume the property in this way it is not
working...). The founders of quantum theorie saw the flaws and they were
always searching for a way to fix it. Neither 11 dimensional spaces nor
strings are able to patch this mess together. If Mills did not fake
1500 pages of formulars it is a huge improvement over the current
theory. He predicted the mass of the top quarks in a publication months
before the discovery in a particle accelerator in a range nobody
thought. This is pretty huge regarding the fact that quantum theory can
not predict any mass of a fundamental particle. Mills theory predicts
the masses for all of them.
Puh...what a wall of text. I wish you a great day