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

Posts by Epimetheus

    Some of you guys are so behind the times it's either so laughable or sad that I cannot quite decide. I applaud Epimetheus's effort to verify the accuracy of the GUT-CP. Even simpler would be to read one of these validation reports.

    The problem with this is, that it is on BLPs website and so it is, by definition of the sceptics, not independent. So there is only the hard way left :)


    Anyway, the orbitals cannot form nonradiating spheres simply because they're known to radiate and with different speed, as its apparent from variable intensity of lines at spectra. Mills theory cannot account these subtleties at all.

    How do you know? Your arguments are of the same quality as the ones of the guy who said that a ship made of steel can not swim and who threw a steel rod into the river to proof it. If you want to talk about GUTCP than read it! Lamb shift is covered aswell as that states above ground states are not stable. Mills is not stupid and he did his homework (for 25 years). If you want to find flaws you have to dig much deeper.

    There is no temperature in Mills equations so I think he is calculating the "frozen state". And as you say, there will be problems with the experimental validation because the molecules typically will have a temperature above 0K.

    Btw. Mills omits the vibrational energy for calculating the bond angles because the term is small compared to the rest. Therefore the bond angle of water in my calculation scripts is completly based on physical constants and no experimental value was used to calculate it. The vibrational energy gives about 8% of the bond energy so it is not valid to omit it there.


    But if you know binding energy, you could calculate the angle of water molecule from kinetic energy of gases, because mass of protons and electrons you have also available. In another words, the Mills theory works well from the same reason, like the epicycle model of Ptolemy: it's fitted to particular data, in the range of which it works well (the epicycle model has been also used for predictions of eclipses and conjunctions successfully) - yet its physical basis is nonsensical.

    Sorry but I don´t understand what you are talking about. The vibrational energy is only one of I think 5 different energies needed for the binding energy. How is this fitting?
    E_osc_eV = 2*(E_dop_eV+(1/2)*(3756/8065.5));
    E_T_OSC_eV = E_T_H20_eV + E_osc_eV;
    E_bond_diss_eV = -e_h_ion_eV+E_T_OH_eV-E_mag_eV-E_T_OSC_eV;

    E_bond_diss_eV is the binding energy - so it is not given but calculated from physical constants + a small part from experiment.

    I could spend some additional time to get rid of this last value and calculate it with Mills equations, but I think you would just answer in the same unreflected way as in the past. So believe whatever you want. Time will tell.

    OK, I'll analyze it. Which experimental data are actually required for ab inicio calculation of water H-O-H angle?

    Which experimental data are actually required for ab inicio calculation of water H-O-H angle?

    You found the only experimental value I used (it´s the vibrational energy of oxygen with the value 3756 cm^-1 converted to eV with factor 1/8065. But even that value is (probably) not needed. He gave the detailed equation for the vibrational energy of hydroxyl and I gave a reference to the generic formular to calculate it for water.
    All other values in the scripts are just integers, integer fractions like (1/8 or 2/3) or factors to convert from one unit to another.


    BTW are you aware of the fact, that even if the theory provides results compliant with observations (epicycle model of Ptolemy), it can still be based on solely unphysical grounds? Even the pile of formal math is not warranty of any validity, as the string theorists already learned in hard way.

    Yes I am. All my talk about occam´s razor is about that. My point is that GUTCP does not use a single not widely accepted postulate. It just uses Newtons laws, Maxwells equations and special relativity and one can say that these are widely accepted. QM uses much more postulates and assumptions. The next thing is that it is straight forward (for a physicist) to derive the basic equations of GUTCP about the electron. One guy did this within < 2 years. No need for an army of physicists and 25 years to find a slimy work around to get rid of the infinitys in QM equations. And if his claims also hold for the calculation of all organic molecules (and beyond) than it is also way ahead in terms of accuraccy regarding the structure of matter. So we would have a major plus on the side of GUTCP: it is physically meaningful and "local", it uses only well accepted postulates, it is much simpler than QM, it uses just fundamental constants, spin+pauli exclusion principle+Hund's rules are derived in GUTCP and not postulated as in QM, the electron is a real physical particle and no singularity,...just read the whole list from p. 5ff. You don´t have to think twice with which underlying theory you would go and proceed.

    But then there are of course the details as Wyttenbuch and Stefan point out here. I personaly don´t think that it is possible for one single guy to describe all of physics correct and without any flaws. There will be of course topics where Mills is wrong or partially wrong etc. and parts of his derivations must be revised. Perhaps even with concepts of QM. I don´t know what future will bring. My point is about showing the correctnes of the foundation of Mills theory and that is the nonradiation condition and the 2D wave equation. I guess that if Mills suceeds with his suncell there even will be attempts to incorporate hydrinos into QM. I think what definitly would show the correctnes of more than 90% of Mills theory are experiments regarding the prediction of the fifth force. But this lies so far in the future that I stop speculating now.

    Hello everybody,

    I became interested in Dr. Randell Mills and his theory (GUTCP) about a year ago and after a while I got annoyed by the lack of independent verification and the (lack of) quality of the independent theoretical assessments. On Wikipedia there are some critics with good reputation but after taking a closer look on their arguments I was quite shocked. How can these guys with a reputation to lose make very harsh and absolute statements (“Mills is fraud” etc.) just on the basis of a rejection of hydrinos because QM does not predict them?

    So I decided to conduct my own little research effort. But I failed to do the math and I failed to find someone who could do it for me (see here). I than tried to shift my evaluation effort from doing the math to a more accessible problem. And this “accessible problem” is the calculation of the structure of atoms and molecules with GUTCP equations that everyone with a bit of scientific education is able to understand. So all we have to do for getting a strong indication of the correctness of GUTCP is calculate the values for molecule parameters from his equations and prove or disprove that his claims of being able to derive these values with great precision and only with physical constants are valid. If we can do that for many molecules with sufficient complexity there will be no doubt left, that his theory gives a better atomic model than quantum theory. If the other claims of Mills also hold is not covered by this evaluation method, but the chances would rise significantly.

    So I looked for a calculation environment that is as simple as a calculator but can do powerful calculations if needed. It should also be possible to follow the calculations line by line and add comments, so that everyone can see where an equation comes from. With octave I found the best fitting solution for this task that is free of charge. I used octave to calculate different values of the hydroxyl and the water molecule and the ionization energies of ~60 atoms and ions. The calculation scripts and a document where I give much more details and the results is attached to this post.

    I invite everyone to take a closer look, get as excited as I am ( :thumbup: ) and feel the urge to contribute your own calculations and evaluations. Just upload your files in a reply to this post and I am going to integrate it here on page 1 (I hope there will be a page 2 - hope dies last ;) ).

    think I recall us having a discussion of Mills a few weeks or months ago. You might have been the one who was interested in going through and double-checking his calculations. Is my memory correct? Have you had a chance to do this? Specifically I was interested in any suspicious, unexplained fitted parameters that might be hiding here or there.

    Yes that was me. I did and I finished (at least for now) two days ago. I am going to upload it when I am back home. I am not going to spoiler any results, but from my answers in this thread you can guess the bottom line :P .

    I cannot answer your question because I would need hours to understand it properly Eric, but Mills has a small paragraph and an equation for K-Capture (p. 1620) and a chapter about Nuclear Forces and Radioactivity (p.1609 ff.).

    @ Zephir: The analog in Mills theory of the "fancy orbital shapes" that you posted is the interaction of the orbiting electrons which produces orbitospheres with nonuniform current densities. You find pictures of that on p. 60 and p. 300.

    BTW. how is it possible to embedd pictures to a post?

    Zephir, you are missing the whole point. Spherical models were abandoned because they did not lead to stable orbits and could not explain many observations. But back then they just used postulated spherical orbits. That were equations solely designed to match experimental data. Of course this failed.

    Mills is totally different. He starts with Maxwells equations and derives stable orbits that obey Maxwells laws. If you don´t see the difference I cannot help you. That Maxwells equations are valid is known. If Mills claims that he uses just Maxwells equations,Newtons laws and special relativity the only valid answer is to show where his derivations are wrong. All the laws Mills builds upon are valid so you have to show the error and not just state "I don´t believe this.". We are not in church.

    The orbitospheres are spheres for atoms and ions. If you combine them the electrons of course interact and so they show a more complex behavior. I calculated the water molecule with Mills equations and your statement "The plain spheres cannot explain complex shape of molecules, like the angled character of water molecule." is simply wrong. I am going to post my calculations by tomorrow I think here in this forum.

    Your second aspect with the microscopic shape is definitely a valid objection. But to take only these pictures as a proof that Mills is wrong is not valid: In these pictures you see through the eyes of very complicated measurement equipment. We cannot judge how this is influencing the results on the screen. And assuming that these pictures are 100% valid it is totally possible to get the same results with Mills model.

    Of course you have the right to dislike the theory and ignore it for being naive and so on. But than I would ask you to stop reading threads about Mills and stop posting wrong statements over and over again. Of course his theory can explain complex molecular shapes and tomorrow I am going to invite you to use Mills equations to prove him wrong.

    I cannot say anything to the electron capture process. My focus is on point (2). As far as I know, no current theory is able to calculate these characteristics of molecules to that degree of precision. If Mills is not cheating than he has to be doing something incredible right. My impression was, that dropping parameters into the equations he gives for the molecules is pointless, because everyone would assume he made the equations up. But you could be right that this is a first small step that I can do on my own for a few molecules. But the most important thing is that someone goes through the complete derivation of the equations.

    Someone recalculated the OH molecule – but he was paid by BLP to verify the equations:

    But he gave some python scripts – I think I will do it in Matlab/Octave. I am totally hooked, because the underlying idea of Mills model is straight forward and simple. And the best thing is that “the internet” does not have to speculate endlessly – everyone can look up the binding energies and bond angles from NIST and compare it to Mills model. There is no room for speculation – we have an independent ground truth (NIST) and we have the equations. Talking about hydrinos is pointless, because the arguments of both sides go back and forth endlessly. If Mills made up the equations for "normal" molecules the hydrino discussion is immediately of the table - but if not there is the possibility that Mills other claims are justified. And that would be incredible.


    I used the term membrane - sorry for that :-). That should just say that it is a 2D "spherical area" where the non radiating electrons can exist according to the solution of the 2D wave equation under nonradiating condition. I emphasize the 2D, because Rathke (one of the critics mentioned in the BLP wikipedia article) used the 3D waveequation.

    I can not say anything about the minimum radii. All I can say is, it seems he really is just using wave equation + maxwell + sphere + special relativity + physical constants. No new physics, no crazy assumptions - just as Mills states: classical physics with a new model for the electron and not using the schrödinger equation but the wave equation. That seems to be all. And there is no proof out there that contradicts these claims. And that is why I think someone has to take a deep look at it - not just short glimpse.

    In the early 1900s the quantum theorie guys had a really hard time to model the electron and many of them where not satisfied by the direction their solution with the schrödinger equation was taking them. Why not going back and try to solve the electron problem classically and see how far this approach can take one. And Mills did just that.

    It is definitly worth to take a closer look. Mills builds upon the work of a MIT Professor of electrical engineering, whom he met when Mills was at MIT. Mills is not primarily about Hydrinos - Mills is about the nonradiation condition:

    And this is mainly the work of Goedeke and Haus. Mills spoke with Haus while he was at MIT and thats where Mills realised the importance of Haus findings. Mills took the nonradiation condition and build a theory of stable atoms around it. The last 25 years he tried to find out what physical experiments his model is able to explain and how predictive his model is - his results are breathtaking.

    To your question Jarek: As far as I understand it (as a simple control systems engineer) he assumed the electron as a classical object with physical extend (no singularity) moving on a spherical 2D (!!!) membrane around the nucleus. He is basically solving the 2D wave equation under the electrodynamical constraint of nonradiation and assuming a spherical membrane where the electrons move upon. I am reading in Mills GUT for about 3 weeks now how he was able to calculate the binding energies and the binding angles of molecules to measurement accuracy. I did not find any trick, no assumptions of unicorns riding on a rainbow nothing that would make me say, he is just making these numbers up. Now I am looking for someone who is trained in physics to look into the basic derivation (solving 2D laplace + nonradiation condition) to the point where he was able to calculate the molecules. I estimated I would need 6-10 weeks fulltime to understand it all and I dont have that time.

    If you are interested please take a deeper look - If you understand this basic derivation I think you will also find out what hydrinos are all about. I can not judge. But I could judge the formulars for the molecules to some degree. And that looks really promising. I also looked into the arguments of the critics - they are pretty week - you can see that they had a clear agenda and just wanted to show on the fastest way why Mills has to be a complete idiot. And because they did not want to invest more time, they got most things wrong. Compare it to the early replications of Fleishman and Pons - "Now the experiments run for 40 days and we still dont see excess heat ==> fraud".


    @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 :)


    I am following the LENR saga quiet a while and in this context I
    stumbled over Randell Mills and his theory. I am just a simple
    electrical engineer and by viewing over the vastness of Mills
    publications I could not grasp the important parts of his theory and why
    he thinks that there are hydrinos. Two weeks ago a former Co-Worker of
    Mills Bret Holverstoff released a book
    which covers parts of the history of Mills and Brilliant Light Power
    and also the most important parts of his theory.

    Besides it is a really interesting, well written, book and a must
    read for the LENR community (even if LENR plays only a siderole), I
    found one thing pretty awesome: in LENR we are struggeling with the
    engineering of a device which clearly shows LENR with an undisputable
    power output, just the same way Mills is struggeling to build his
    hydrino power generator. But with Mills there is one striking advantage:
    he has a theory which usefullness is easy to proof for somebody skilled
    in the art :-). I am referring to the fact that Mills derived closed
    form analytical equations to calculate the binding energies and the
    structure of all molecules. And even better is, that there is a ground
    truth of experiments in the literature and totally independent from
    Mills which measured the binding energies and structure.

    The theory itself is quite fascinating and if I had studied chemistry
    or physics I would by now calculate the s**t out of these molecules.
    But I dont feel capable of doing so. It would be great if somebody
    outside the realm of Mills could do the calculations and share the
    calculation process and the results. Perhaps someone on "the internet"
    finds this thread and feels the holy urge of duty :) Not only, because
    his theory (if correct) (*) could give us an energy source based on
    hydrinos, but it could also be the key to understand cold fusion. My
    feeling is that cold fusion and hydrino theory are somehow linked - that
    a hydrino can alter the atomic properties of a metal latice so that
    fusion might take place.

    I am trying to find someone of the people I know to verify or debunk
    the results. Perhaps someone of you knows someone who knows someone...My
    guess is that Bret Holverstoff would love to share the parts of the
    book and the equations necessary to do the math.

    Have a great day!

    (*) the question if a theory is correct or not is of course ill
    stated. A theory is a model of a process or of nature and is never
    capable of capturing all aspects. There will be errors in the
    predictions of Mills theory and no man alone can fix all the problems of
    all kinds of different disciplines like astronomy, atomic science and
    so on. But if Mills theory is capable of explaining the structure of
    molecules with analytic and deterministic (!!!) equations I would bet my
    a$$ that it is "more correct" than quantum physics which struggles to
    solve even simple molecules.

    What I like the most is that Axil predicted a connection between LENR and superconductivity. He is constantly throwing arround with a lot of wild speculations of underlying physical phenomena, but you definitly have to give him that :crazy: :thumbup:

    Also interesting is the end of the document where they speak about the interested people in LENR and the transition of the SPAWAR research to other govermentle agencies. This document summarizes the SPAWAR research which was active till 2013. So there are 3 years more of research on that topic.

    I don´t think the total electrical input energy is hard to measure. None of the claimed 5 involved third party analysis would have measured the energy between the capacitors and the electrodes where all the high transients are taking place. Not if you can measure the charge flowing into the capacitors which greatly increases the time constants of the system. This measurement should be pretty easy and I can´t understand why Thomas C. and others constantly say that this is hard. If you want to pull of a scam that is one great possibility to fake the measurments, but if you intend to make it right it is pretty simple. You just need to know where they measured and what equippment they used. Looking forward to the demonstration and hope Mills presents some technical details of measurments and calorimetrie.

    I am so annoyed of all the Rossi vs. IH threads that and I am avoiding them. Because these threads are spamming the "Last 5 posts" overview I am frequently using I have to go through all the sub forums to find relevant news. Therefor I would like to have a single Rossi spam thread. Btw: I belief that Rossi has what he claims and wish him and his technology a soon commercial breakthrough.

    Greatings to the moderate