Posts by mgspan

    One other point regarding the experimental side of Mill's theories. One of his validations regards solar and cosmic background UV radiation which he claims comes from hydrino transitions. This is detailed in Peter Janssen's masters thesis at Rowan University (citation is

    Jansson, Peter Mark, "Hydrocatalysis: a new energy paradigm for the 21st century" (1997). Theses and Dissertations. 2077.
    http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2077).


    Janssen presents a table showing a very close match between Mill's predicted hydrino lines and those measured by Labov and Boyer (

    'Spectral Observations of the Extreme Ulfraviolet Backgronnd, The Astrophysical Journal, 371:810-819 © 20 April 1991, The American Astronomical Society)

    Now here is the table from Janssen's thesis:



    Here is the raw cosmic EUV data from Labov and Boyer:




    and here is the table from Labov and Boyer after processing their data, where they show the peaks that they felt sure were statistically significant:


    The connection seems to me less than convincing. The strong line is a normal Helium line from scattered solar radiation, according to the Labov and Boyer paper. For the others they give tentative explanations which have nothing to do with hydrinos.


    The thing is, whether in space or in a laboratory plasma, with a lot of highly ionized things with higher Z than Carbon, there is going to be all sorts of UV in that kind of range. It seems to me that you would need something pretty exact and with no other reasonable possible source before you start claiming it is from a completely unknown form of hydrogen, which for some mysterious reason cannot be formed without adding all those other high-Z materials.


    I am getting the picture that Mills has been supporting this theory for over 20 years and still has very gotten very little interest among the wider physics community. My feeling is that if he really believes in what he is saying, he needs to interact more, rather than amassing a bunch of "validations" that are less than convincing when one actually reads them. He should discuss his GUT-CP with people that are really familiar with quantum mechanics, who can work together with him to see what is right and what is wrong in what he has done.


    Science is really not a subject for one person who has all the answers and has "proved" that everyone else is wrong. Let me take Mr. Wyttenbach's analogy, where he speaks of the "church" of quantum mechanics. To be honest, I have nothing against churches. Often they are places for very fruitful discussion and learning. But there can be a problem with a church that has one great leader who has the answers to all the different subjects and knows that all the others are wrong. Churches like that are normally called by names like "sect" or "cult" and not a lot of good comes out of them. (Not speaking directly of Dr. Mills, of course, just suggesting a more interactive way of doing stuff).

    thank you for giving attention to this topic. I look forward to hearing more of your conclusions. Please take a look at the large GUT-CP volumes if you have not already. My tentative conclusion is that they are filler material, works of intentional obfuscation, possibly for the purpose of impressing potential investors and scaring away people with relevant expertise. But I do not have more than a basic familiarity with quantum mechanics and so am limited to reasoning from circumstantial evidence.


    The volumes can be found at URLs such as these:

    Well, I am still doing more reading, but my impression is basically the same as yours. I will try to look into it a little further, but the more I look, the more it seems nonsensical, at least so far.


    One more example is that Mills objects that the solutions of the Schrodinger equation for a free electron in the Coulomb field cannot be normalized. Now, it is true enough that these solutions cannot be normalized, but there is no real problem with this. The Schrodinger equation is linear, and by using a superposition of these infinite solutions, one can build a wave packet which is a very nice picture of the nearly classical electron motion, and which has no problem with infinities. It is really quite analogous to the use of Fourier transforms in signal analysis. This is something that I believe 1000's of students work through every year in their first quantum mechanics courses.


    Mills objects that there is something arbitrary in the choice of the eigenvalues used to solve the Schrodinger equation for the bound states. But this is not true. Admittedly, it is a bit complicated to work this though, but it is in every way analogous to the way a guitar string can vibrate at only certain values which involve integral multiples of a fundamental frequency. This happens in any wave equation where energy is confined to a limited distance, whether in plasma or a guitar string, or an electron wave in a coulomb potential. It is a little confusing because with the coulomb potential, one boundary is at infinity...more like a trumpet resonance than a guitar string...but that is not a major difference...again, anyone that learned quantum mechanics probably had to work through these details in at least one homework assignment.


    Because of the large volume of Mills' treatise, I am still hoping to find something that might be interesting there. But in any case, I cannot pretend to be a real authority in these matters. One question would be whether there is any theoretical physicist working in actively working in quantum mechanics who has found this stuff useful and written about it. As I mentioned previously, I only had a few courses in quantum mechanics, since most of my work was with hot plasma physics.

    Another point about validation of the GUT-CP theory...I have actually had some time to start reading it, and, well, I am beginning to see why it has not had much impact on the wider community of physicists.


    One possible conclusion is that I (along with many others who have learned quantum mechanics) am not very intelligent, and just do not understand Mills.


    Or perhaps Mills never really understood quantum mechanics? Now, no disrespect intended. It is not an easy subject to grasp without a few years of background courses in mathematics and classical physics. I have always been pretty gifted in mathematics, but for me at least, it took many, many hours of study and doing problem sets, pulling all-nighters (ie studying all night) to be able to acquire the background. I think all my classmates went through the same experience. Med students do the same with their subjects of course, but not with math and physics. So, Mills would really have to be a genius to be self-taught in these things. But if he is really the greatest genius since Isaac Newton, why is it that he does not work together with the scientific community? Isaac Newton, for all his genius, was able to communicate his ideas so that people understood their value. So was James Clerk Maxwell. So was Einstein. Etc.


    To be specific regarding GUT-CP, let me mention just two points.


    One concerns the Schrodinger equation and the hydrogen atom solutions. Mills claims that the solutions "had to be parameterized to match the Rydberg lines". But if I am not totally confused, that is not true at all. On the contrary, that is the strong point of the Schrodinger equation, the reason it gained such immediate and wide recognition, The value of Rydberg constant, (which relates to the frequencies of the various series of spectral lines that were known), falls out as a natural consequence of solving the Schrodinger equation. From the Schrodinger equation solutions, one sees how the Rydberg constant is derived from the electron charge, the reduced mass of the electron/proton combination, Planks's constant, and the speed of light...constants which had already been measured. It was really a very striking accomplishment. Not perfect, not the whole story, but it started an extremely fruitful direction of development.


    A second point concerns the claim that the uncertainty principle (HUP in Mill's lingo, for Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?) has been disproved by recent experiments with femto-second lasers, Mills cites work by Isinger on "Photoionization in the Time and Frequency Domain". I would agree that the development of this sort of technology is one of the striking developments of the new millenium, but the idea that it disproves the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not seem to be in the minds of those who are active in the field. Again, the opposite seems to be the case. The mere fact that Mills cites a published paper does not really prove his point unless there is something in the paper cited that would support his point, which I could not find in this case.


    Anyhow, I will keep on reading...maybe this GUT-CP really is a work of genius and I just have not yet gotten to the good part. So far it reads like a populist harangue against quantum mechanics.

    The latest report by Joseph Renick comparing the blast from Ag-H2O with the blast from dynamite is dated March 20, 2018, so it seems to be a new report. There was one from 2 years ago with a spot welder blasting Ag+???? also.


    In any case, it is hard to figure out what exactly is being verified. In the later report, there is no mention of the y-axis scale for the welder voltage and current, so it is hard to tell how much energy is input. The older report does not give the time scale but says the input energy after some corrections was about 273 Joules, and the output was some 2000 Joules per gram. OK....but with a blast of 22000 amperes, then a sudden open circuit as the whole thing explodes, it is not going to be easy to measure the input energy very accurately. And even if is is accurate, 2000 joules per gram is not very much....about 4% of what one would get from gasoline (48000 Joules/gram). Why does this require hydrinos as an explanation? One is blasting a tiny pellet with 75 mg of "fuel" with a spot welder capable of blasting 22000 A at up to 15 volts (that is up to 330000 Joules/sec) and the whole thing is taking 100's of msec to explode, it seems like any energy output from the "fuel" could be quite small by comparison. I can't figure out how the conclusions stem from the data at all.


    There was an earlier verification report mentioned here, by a Professor Gilbert Crouse. Similar pattern. There, there was a heat release of 260 Joules/gram, using Copper Bromide and Copper Hydroxide, and then a statement that it must be hydrinos. Crouse did include a statement that the heat output was 2 orders of magnitude less than that predicted by the hydrino theory. Well, it seems like the conclusory statements about hydrinos are...well...hard for me to figure out where they come from.


    Anyhow...someone else mentioned here...probably more than one person....that when you actually read them, the validations are underwhelming. After reading a few, I add my concurrence. I have not read them all, but merely having lots of validation reports does not strengthen the case that there are hydrinos. There would have to be at least one of those reports that really proved something!


    Anyhow, I do not mean any disrespect for Dr. Mills...just wondering if among the large number of validation reports, there is even one that really validates the existence of significant energy output or the existence of hydrinos.

    Mills theory is ground breaking and two magnitudes moreexact than QM regarding the calculation of frequencies, mainlybecause he could derive the correct relativistic mass of theelectron!

    As we don't know you physics skills, just one more answer:Blackmailing/downplaying Mills on an independent forum is a dead manswalk.

    Wikipedia is a paid place where you can, with a certain amount of cash, place anything you like to see. Or the reverse logic, you can make people disappear.

    Sorry, no intention on my part to downplay Mills. I simply was wondering where I might find some references about his contributions in MRI imaging, to help me form an accurate picture of his work. To my way of thinking, it is fairer to Mills to ask people who think well of him, rather than just reading Wikipedia.


    I do admit to downplaying the importance of patents, but that is a reflection of my experience with the patent system, not a reflection of how I view Mills, since I do not yet know much about him. I really do appreciate the references to the patents, and they are very interesting, but it is hard for me to figure out if anything useful ever came out of them.


    As I mentioned in my first post in the forum, I did my graduate studies at Cornell in plasma physics in the early 70's so I have some background in physics, and am very much interested in exploring Mills' work in that field also. The interest in medical imaging comes from an undergrad research opportunities program that I was involved in, and so the field has always continued to interest me. But anyhow, I did not mean to offend or anything. By the way, thanks also to Eric Walker and Jed Rothwell for references to some very educational reference material. It will take a bit of time to digest it all!

    A thought, hopefully judicious if not useful, from a former hot-plasma physicist as to why LENR is so interesting. There are 3 prongs to attaining useful energy...confinement time, plasma density, and temperature (of 10's of keV, to overcome the Coulomb barrier). Now the funny thing is, even back in 1972, we knew very well that metal hydrides already provided the first two prongs for free. Far higher density than in hot plasma, and infinite confinement time. The "Orbitron" vacuum pump that we used to clean out the hydrogen from the vacuum chamber after each "shot" of plasma was based on the ability of titanium to absorb hydrogen very quickly and at very high density, so that made us wonder.


    It was even a joke in the lab that if somehow the temperature thing were not a problem, the metal hydride could be the perfect solution. A joke, because obviously one could not heat solid titanium hydride to 10 keV = 110,000,000 degrees and expect it to remain. But one always had that wonder if just maybe there was a way around the Coulomb barrier that nobody knew about.


    So the results of Pons and Fleischmann, to my mind, were really exciting . It seems to have been replicated too many times by too many people to be imaginary. Yet exactly as Eric says, patchy...hard to find a definite experimental protocol that one can follow and get an unequivocal result...if I have understood what I have read so far. Also the difficulty of finding some sort of theoretical framework that could guide the experimentation. Anyhow, I am looking forward to learning more.

    Sorry...I did a lot of checking and found nothing other than 2 patents and a few articles in newspapers that were sort of folksy interviews (for example, https://www.villagevoice.com/2000/01/25/dr-molecool/).


    The mere existence of a patent or two does not show that he has "hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans", nor that his work is extremely well-recognized. Both patents lapsed due to non-payment of fees, which normally indicates that the patent had no actual value to its owner in generating royalties or preventing competition.


    It is not that I am being lazy or unfriendly. doubting your statement...just that I made a couple of hours of effort and could not find anything. There was a professor at Harvard name Samuel Patz that has published extensively in the field that was mentioned in the Village Voice article, but none of his publications that I could find had Mills as a coauthor. One of the patents mentions a technique that he calls "Magnetic Susceptibility Imaging" , but I cannot find any references to this other than Mills' own stuff.


    Look, it may be that your statement about Mills and NMR scans is correct, or perhaps not. I am just asking what caused you to think that Mills was so widely recognized for his contributions in the field of NMR imaging. You must have read it or heard it from someone, or perhaps work in the field yourself?


    The importance of the matter is that Mills is a rather unusual figure. Some think he is the greatest genius in history, others think he is a crackpot. If he has actually made contributions to the state of the art in a field like NMR, and this is widely recognized by people active in the field, it would do a lot to dispel the crackpot image. So I am looking for evidence that this is the case, and have not been able to find anything.

    Dr Mill's early career is in NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). he pioneered many absolutely ground-breaking techniques that hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans, and his work in this field is extremely well-recognised.

    As a matter of curiosity, can you provide any citations or references to Dr. Mills' ground-breaking techniques in the field of NMR which are recognized by others? This would add to his credibility in the field of invention and science. Thanks.

    Another question, hopefully not off topic. How do people in the community view Randell Mills? Again, I would not presume to judge in the matter, not having much acquaintance. But there is a lot in common with the approach of Rossi...since about 1993 he is very near to a commercial device, and uses that kind of wording to attract investors. Is his research and theory considered to be of value?

    I of course could not presume to know who is right or wrong in this dispute, regarding whether the ECat really works or not. However, it does seem quite strange that there should be such extreme polarization of opinion. Rossi is claiming (since at least 2011), that he has built a 1 MW reactor. He claims that it operated some 350 days during the IH test period, producing this level of power, for a customer that was using a large fraction of the power for an industrial process. He claims that measurements were made daily showing the power produced. But that he did not take pictures...never takes pictures. And IH people say that the thing does not work.


    Now I have about 35 years of experience as an engineer, and have been through many qualification tests with customers to demonstrate that the products of the companies I worked for performed according to their specifications. We take pictures of everything. Provide very detailed drawings of test setups. Make, model, serial number, calibration date of any test equipment used. Wiring diagrams, mechanical drawings of test jigs, whatever is needed to make sure our customer knows exactly what test was performed. Often, we do things together with the customer, so that they can see exactly how it is done. Sometimes they bring their own measuring equipment. I suppose that because of this approach, there is almost never any dispute about whether the product works according to spec or not. And this kind of detail is common for products that have a cost sometimes of less than 1 million dollars. How much more one would expect this when $100 million dollars is at stake!


    So again, I do not know who is right and who is wrong. But it is not exactly a positive picture to the "outside world" when a major, respected player in the cold fusion community, such as Rossi, is making the sort of claims he is making for over 7 years, and receiving money from investors, and yet does not seem to be willing or able to put together the sort of carefully documented and witnessed engineering testing that would end the dispute.

    Thank you so much, Eric, Jed, Alan, for the links and the video. I will do some reading. Also, please pardon my ignorance, but what does it mean "locks on their profiles"?

    Very interesting discussions. I did research at Cornell in plasma physics back in the '70s, when hopes were high for some sort of hot fusion method of producing energy. The last 40 years I have been doing other hi-tech stuff and did not really follow the field, but the cold fusion work of Fleischmann and Pons caught my attention back in 1989. Since then, I have not kept up, decided to check it out on a whim...and surprise, I see that it is still alive and kicking! There is so much material out there it is hard to know where to start! But to begin at the beginning, perhaps someone with some experience could refer me to the best material regarding the replication of the original Fleischmann and Pons experiments and results? I understood that it was a difficult issue even for them, but did this ever get fully worked out?