Sunday, March 15, 2015

RANDY MILLS's SUNDAY, LENR LATER






DAILY NEWS

BLACKLIGHTPOWER of RANDY MILLS reporting great successes:

Dr. Mills Presentation at the Emerald Investment Forum Held in Philadelphia on February 5, 2015 
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
https://vimeo.com/122106669

High-Speed Plasma Videos
http://www.blacklightpower.com/plasma-video/#17kvideo
Mechanism of Soft X-ray Continuum Radiation from Low-Energy Pinch Discharges of Hydrogen and Ultra-low Field Ignition of Solid Fuels R. Mills1 , J. Lotoski, Y. Lu
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Cont_EUV_HOH-031215.pdf

Experiments at the TU Einhoven and other places have created a plasma and UV radiation of as yet unknown origin. A dissident quantum theory predicts ‘hydrinos’, an exotic form of hydrogen atoms which tap into a new source of energy. Nasa and the ESA have already conducted studies on hydrino-based rocket propulsion. According to experimentalist Gerrit Kroesen “We are not on a mission to confirm the theory: we continue to search for alternative explanations.” Enst van Eij
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Natutech.nl_Article.pdf

17 comments:

  1. Geritt Kroesen is really giving body to Blacklight technology.
    His profile is interesting as he is from hot fusion to material science...
    and here he can separate theory from experiment, a key competence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have always thought that R. Mills has succumbed to a simplified imaginative misinterpretation of his experimental data. When it comes to understanding what is going on with electrons, imagination at these small dimensions is oftentimes used to construct a model of reality that is not correct. Because of the limitations of our senses we have no other alternative: our minds eye must suffice.

    At nano dimensions, things that look like atoms are not really atoms, Free electrons confined in a small volume look and behave like electrons in orbit around atoms, but these electrons are really only artificial atoms with no nucleus what so ever.

    The quantum dot is an example. A number of electrons confined in a quantum well look and behave like they were orbiting a nucleus, but inside that well there is only electrons. The compounds that produce quantum dots exert force on the collection of electrons to keep them confined that mimic the fores that the nucleus uses to confine electrons in their orbits.

    Certain chemical compounds can readily form nano particles. The structure of these quantum particle aggregates and there reflective surfaces of their internal structures can both constrain electrons and light as well as form an irregular reflecting plane where light and electrons are bent alternatively by interference and amplification to form a circular path where interference exactly counteracts non linear amplification to force the electrons and light to follow a circular path inside a small volume of space. These electrons form vortexes and their orbits around the vortex are quantized. A energy is pumped into these electrons their orbits around the vortex shrink in size. The electrons that orbit around the vortex tend to take on the same energy and annular momentum and a soliton is thus formed.

    This strange form of EMF is a boson and is not constrained by the Pauli exclusion principle. The annular momentum of this light and electron hybrid or SPP is an exact fraction of the wavelength of the SPP. As energy is pumped into this nano volume, the annular momentum of the SPP goes up in quantum steps. 2, 3, 4... When this vortex of pure EMF finally fails, it gives off its accumulated power as photons of black light in the extreme ultraviolet.

    The intense ultraviolet light of sonoluminescence is formed in this way when nanoparticles of water form a vortex.

    I believe that the experimental evidence of this quantum well type of mechanism is what R. Mills is misinterpreting as a hydrino. But the artificial atom so formed has no nucleus to produce the EMF annular momentum that Mills sees in his experiments.

    The big difference between the hydrino and the SPP is that the SPP is accepted and studied by science. I also believe that this water based nano particle behavior is what Joe Papp used in his first 1966 version of the Papp engine.

    From this misinterpretation of these goings on in subatomic reality, R, Mills has created his own world that exists only in his imagination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Axil,
      Once again your analysis is very interesting reading. You really do layout topics in a way that encourages deeper thinking.
      Thanks again.

      DSM
      ( PS was talking to an Aust physicist who does LENR tests and we got into discussing hydrinos. Hus view come very close to yours. Interesting!. (that is, about both Mills and hydrinos).

      Delete
    2. Axil,
      Once again your analysis is very interesting reading. You really do layout topics in a way that encourages deeper thinking.
      Thanks again.

      DSM
      ( PS was talking to an Aust physicist who does LENR tests and we got into discussing hydrinos. Hus view come very close to yours. Interesting!. (that is, about both Mills and hydrinos).

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I disagree. It is Quantum Physicists who have fallen into the trap of inventing a fictional reality by misinterpreting experiments. Randy Mills theory is a return to what physics should be- no fictional spookiness, no zero dimensional but infinitely dense particles. Pure, classical physics applies at all levels from the microworld of atoms to the scale of the entire Universe. Why should anyone accept this common sense approach? Because the theory uses simple integer based equations containing only fundamental constants to derive the ionisation energies of hundreds of atoms and ions that are an exact match to experimental data. The Society for Classical Physics therefore throws out the following challenge:


      "GUTCP appreciates that there is natural resistance to new ideas against an incumbent and widely adopted Theory like QM. However it is not controversial that QM fails to derive the correct ionization energies for the electrons of all atoms other than for the one electron of hydrogen.

      Do you agree that a theory that can perform such calculations using simple closed equations on atoms and ions with up to 20 electron atoms that match experimental observations is likely to be a better theory than QM that fails completely for anything other than 1 electron?

      Do you agree that the physical GUTCP model of the electron being an extended 2D particle that resulted in such accurate equations that match experimental measurements is likely to be a better physical model of the electron than the QM zero dimensional dot that can't get anywhere near the right answers?

      Spreadsheets containing the actual calculations used can be found here to demonstrate that there is no fudge factor hidden in the calculations themselves:

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/Spreadsheets/1-20%20Electron%20Atoms%20Spreadsheets%20Protected.xls

      The basis for the GUTCP calculations for 2 electron atoms and up can be found here beginning at Chapter 7, page 241 running through to Chapter 10

      http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/vol1/274?e=2444798/2669360

      The match is simple extraordinary. To date not one single physicist critic has had to courage to even open the spreadsheets, let alone point out how such amazing results could be achieved if GUTCP is wrong. "

      And this is just one example of what Randy Mills and his GUTCP have achieved. The theory explains all physical phenomena based on simple classical physics. If you are an advocate of LENR because you passionately want a better future for all people than I suggest even if you have doubts read GUTCP from cover to cover. It is the most important book in science in human history- the point at which we how the Universe works is understood for the first time.

      Delete
    5. As a physicist, I've made many attempts to read through and understand Randy's book (I first read it in 1989) but unfortunately every time I do I find that he jumps from one equation to another in a way that does not make sense and is inconsistent. This has been pointed out in a paper published in 2005 by A. Rathke, New Journal of Physics Vol. 7, p. 127 entitled "A critical analysis of the hydrino model". At the same time he borrows a lot of the mathematics of standard quantum mechanics. So, it's not surprising that physicists don't understand his theory and instead find that most likely as Pauli said, "It's not even wrong". It's also worth noting that quantum mechanics has been extensively tested for almost 100 years, and that forgetting for the moment the mathematical details both the hydrino state and his "classical physics" contradict the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. All this being said, I wish him the best of luck with his experiments and am willing to believe that something which may be _related_ to his hydrino idea may be going on.

      Delete
  3. To anonymous #1,

    It seems to me your opening argument is a defense of the Einstein view "spooky science at a distance" isn't viable. But surely you are not trying to say that all of the subsequent entanglement experiments and the working quantum computers are a modern figment of our imaginations!.

    You write as if you already have a grand unified theory (perhaps you believe Randy Mills has it - he offers one).

    The comments from Anonymous #2 seem more realistic.

    Generalisations about "quantum physicists" are dangerous unless very well argued.

    DSM

    ReplyDelete
  4. To anonymous #1,

    It seems to me your opening argument is a defense of the Einstein view "spooky science at a distance" isn't viable. But surely you are not trying to say that all of the subsequent entanglement experiments and the working quantum computers are a modern figment of our imaginations!.

    You write as if you already have a grand unified theory (perhaps you believe Randy Mills has it - he offers one).

    The comments from Anonymous #2 seem more realistic.

    Generalisations about "quantum physicists" are dangerous unless very well argued.

    DSM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Mills has a true GUT. It predicted (in book form) in 1995 that the Universe was not only expanding but that the expansion was accelerating, something no one else predicted or anticipated but which arose naturally from Mills theory on the relationships between the interconversion of energy and the expansion and contraction of spacetime. That fact was proved 3 years later in 1998 by others and was described as one of the most significant findings in human history. The persons who experimentally proved this all received the Nobel prize. As usual, Mills was completely overlooked.

      Yes, all sorts of spookiness like live/dead cats, teleportation, time travel, multiple dimensions, and entanglement that purports to involve faster than light transmission of information to vastly separated particles are unlikely to be real. These will all turn out to anomalous theoretical or experimental interpretations of underlying classical physics based phenomena. As will the hype surrounding quantum computers that has not led to any usable advance in computing to date.

      Even electron tunneling does not involve the electron disappearing on one side of a barrier and appearing on the other which is akin to magic not science. Objectively the electron can be detected on the other side because the extended nature of the GUTCP electron means it can gain potential energy as it traverse the barrier. The closest macroscopic analogy is that of a high jumper. If replacing the bar with a wall and viewing the jumper as a point occupying the center of mass, a record breaking high jumper will always be observed to travel through the wall and appear on the other side. In reality a high jumper is not a point and neither is the electron. There is no teleportation/tunneling. A physical particle like the electron cannot perform miracles.

      Mills has had a hard time from quantum physicists who have interfered with the patent office, put pressure on journals and made false and spurious allegations against him and his company. Unlike these persons, I would hope that supporters of LENR would adhere to the principals of objective scientific analysis.

      We all just want to know how it all works, right? None of you would really mind if QM turned out to be an early 20th century error that has been perpetuated by a system that promoted those who went along with it and sidelined and punished those like Mills who seek to get it back on track.

      Delete
  5. I would respectfully ask you to try again if you haven't read it for a while. It has been updated over the years, lastly in Spring 2014 and I hope that the more recent editions might present the material in a way that is easier to absorb. I don't deny that anyone who has come from a QM background will struggle, not in terms of intellect of course, but the conflict of concepts that arise from reinstating cause and effect into atomic systems.

    Mills wrote a reply to Rathke which the journal regrettably refused to publish. Mills pointed out basic errors and conclusively demonstrated that the Rathke paper mis-stated or misunderstood what GUTCP was actually about.

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf

    To be quite clear GUTCP intends to replace QM not amend it. It and all other theories will be replaced with single Grand Unified Theory that describes the proper relationships between energy, matter and spacetime.

    Regarding the HUP there have been a few recent experiments that disprove its QM role as a fact of nature. Mills discusses these arguments at length in his book in Chapter 42 from pages 1603-1654 that deals at length with QM interpretations of many experiments and Mills' predictions as to the correct classical interpretation and experimental evidence.

    The Pauli exclusion principle is the same. It is a postulate to explain the observed formation of electron shells without explaining what is actually happening. In GUTCP atoms, the coloumbic field of the nucleus and the diamagnetic (repelling) and paramagnetic (attracting) forces that arise between spin paired or unpaired electrons as they are added to a nucleus, form shells that determine their radii and energies, providing a real, physical basis for the postulated Pauli Exclusion Principle. Unlike QM, which fails to solve anything accurately other than the hydrogen atom (1 proton and 1 electron) GUTCP's model results in simple formulas using only closed equations and fundamental constants and correctly predicts the ionization energies that match experimental observations of hundreds of atoms and ions. GUTCP could not do this if it was wrong. More importantly, if QM cannot do this then it is certainly not right.

    I understand that you simply seek the truth as all of us do. I don't apologise for seeking to convince persons such as yourself that this is the real thing. I would trust that if you were convinced that the correct GUT had finally emerged you would do your best to support its emergence in the interests of science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just downloaded his latest 2014 GUT. All 65mb of it and will re-read it as time permits.

      3 years ago it looked impressive but that impression faded the wider I read. Am willing to give it a 2nd go. Will say in advance that Randall comes across as highly ego driven and that is disruptive when reading such comprehensive information and claims.

      DSM

      Delete
    2. Not sure I'd agree. Challenging any mainstream position certainly requires an honest and forthright belief in the correctness of one's position. Undeniably Mills is highly intelligent but that of itself does not make one always right. I suspect he also feels that the rules of scientific inquiry have been perverted to shut him out from arguing his position in important journals. But even if he was ego driven that shouldn't detract from objective analysis of his claims.

      Thanks for giving this another go. There have been attempts to simplify the background to all this by members of the Society for Classical Physics as a primer to the GUTCP book.

      You can find the (still a work in progress) wikia site here:

      http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/BlacklightPower_Wiki

      Along with a simplified Fact Sheet of basic concepts.

      http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

      These pages are light on the maths contained in the theory because they are intended as more of a conceptual background. But please rely on the book as a true statement of what Mills is asserting rather than the wikia site as there are still arguments as to how best describe some of Mills' claims.

      Delete
  6. I watched the video and I noticed that he said around 21 minutes that the July demonstration was 22 W, but they can get a lot more than that through levers ? Have they ever produced these huge amounts of energy, even intermittently?

    I've noticed that all of BLP's validations seem to involve very very small amounts of excess heat.

    I would love to be wrong, but it seems like there are these giant gaps between what they have demonstrated or even specifically claimed to have achieved and what they claim they'll be able to do in six months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I briefly watched that section. I couldn't find the the 22W reference but I think you are referring to the proof of principle demo last year that the light produced could be absorbed by a simple solar cell to produce electricity to power a set of low power leds?

      How the final form 100kW generator is meant to work is that a high amp low voltage pulse of around 5 Joules triggers hydrino transitions in the very small amount of hydrated conducting powders compressed between the interlocking teeth of the spinning gear electrodes releasing energy which ionises/explodes the hydrated powders to produce 500 Joules (mostly as light) energy per ignition and work towards doing 1000 detonations a second.

      I'm not sure but was it that energy is produced can be "leveraged"? by adjusting several factors such as the width of the gear system (more powder is exploded), the rotation of the gears (frequency of the explosions) perhaps?

      As stated in the Feb 2015 video the claimed targeted production prototype is to produce 300,000 Watts of light at 30% conversion efficiency by 1000 sun concentrator photovoltaics resulting in a 100kW generator. Possible future targets are using 10,000x CPVs at 40% efficiency.

      Potential problems are the exploded powders obscuring the light from reaching the cpvs, disposing of the excess heat, efficiently recycling the ionised powders, controlling buildup of exploded powders on the gears and ensuring that the gears maintain integrity for a reasonable time under operating conditions.

      Can Mills do it? He says their engineering partner company says they can and is an organisation with 325000 employees with the resources capable of producing 1 million Suncell units a year. That's a very narrow list of companies and if correct means that BLP is dealing with very big, very experienced players in tech and manufacturing.

      Delete
  7. Mills has promised that commercial products were right around the corner repeatedly over the last fifteen years so color me skeptical. I would love to be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's right to be skeptical but I do hope you will shortly be very surprised. As a corollary, Fusion has taken much longer at greater public expense. Cold fusion/LENR about the same length of time at private expense of researchers. But of course analysis of the theory can be separated out - objective assessment of the theory being right doesn't require a commercial product.

      If you analyse Mills approach over the last 20 years you can map out the development process. Electrolytic cells, gas vapor cells, electrochemical cells and finally high amp triggered solid fuel explosion.

      Each prior approach tried at the time had merit in terms of what was known at the time but suffered from an observable but low reaction rate. Atomic hydrogen is neutral, subject to recombination making it unavailable for hydrino transitions and when reactions occur the energies released tend to auto inhibit further reactions by driving apart other H and catalyst or by creating ions that interfere with H and catalyst resonance reactions that initiate the transition.

      Unlike other researchers, Mills hasn't remained static. This is a good thing. The theory remains unchanged but the engineering approach has been altered to achieve high density hydrino transitions which are not natural on Earth. In the sun's corona they require high gravity and extremely dense populations of hydrogen.

      This is why the solid fuel approach is so exciting. In one explosion Mills achieves an extremely high reaction rate of hydrino transitions triggered by the high current flowing through the hydrated conducting powder. The high current both decomposes the water to provide a source of H and a source of electrons to prevent ions from preventing further resonance reactions occurring in the solid fuel. The small amount of powder is ionised, emitting mostly light instead (to Mills' initial surprise) of a damaging pressure wave.

      The ambitious engineering target is to get 100 times the energy output in light that was required to trigger the original explosion. To make that usable as a source for PV conversion Mills needed a continuous series of explosion so designed a powder based engine of rotating cog electrodes that could generate continuous explosions.

      Delete