@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