Hi Brett. I have read The End of Fire and think it is fabulous. I even wrote a book review and had it published in my local Astronomical society journal (seeing there are huge implications in the field of Astronomy). One question though - regarding GUTCP and particularly the atomic model (which you have described nicely in this article), seeing that there is a lot of scepticism surrounding it, are you aware of any scientists who have looked at this and been able to come up with reasonable arguments against it?
I spoke with Reinhart Engelmann, years ago who had minor criticisms of it. Rathke's article doesn't really demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the model to be considered fair criticism of it. Phillips offers a different interpretation of spin pairing. But generally, nope.
Yeah, we are all waiting for the tech, but it is unfair to describe the last 35 years as "total lack of any device" as there have been many generations of electrolytic cells, plasma cells, solid fuel cells, molten-state fuel cells, and many generations of the SunCell leading up to the latest prototype. Notably, the thermal unit could boil water for hundred+ hour runs. That's a device, and one achingly close to commercial feasibility, although Mills pivoted from it due to a variety of engineering concerns, not for want of trying between BLP and his engineering partners.
William - you are absolutely right. There has been no commercially available products from BLP since its inception as HPC in 1990, which is now 35 years.
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896, and the first nuclear reactor was online in 1942. That is 46 years. The hydrino was discovered in 1990; it is now 2025, which is 35 years. Nuclear applications required essentially all of the physics talent of Western civilization and unlimited funds to bring to fruition. So, in historical context, it is not so surprising that we are where we are.
However the potential applications of the theory are numerous and include more than just energy, such as neutrino communication, propulsion, microprocessing and lasers, each of which will require dedicated teams of engineers to bring to fruition.
Re applications… initially, it seems likely to me that the first applications will need to be “fault tolerant.” Also, we need to recall that the first applications may/will not necessarily be the ones that are commercially viable.
An example… the steam engine was invented to mechanize the removal of water in mine shafts! Then… an engineer named Scott realized that the up and down movement of a pump could be readily transformed into a circular motion to cause a wheel to rotate.
Fun information… Initially, all steamship engineers were Scottish and many were called “SCOTTY”… just like the chief engineer on the Starship Enterprise on TV for many years!😇
Hi Brett. I have read The End of Fire and think it is fabulous. I even wrote a book review and had it published in my local Astronomical society journal (seeing there are huge implications in the field of Astronomy). One question though - regarding GUTCP and particularly the atomic model (which you have described nicely in this article), seeing that there is a lot of scepticism surrounding it, are you aware of any scientists who have looked at this and been able to come up with reasonable arguments against it?
I spoke with Reinhart Engelmann, years ago who had minor criticisms of it. Rathke's article doesn't really demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the model to be considered fair criticism of it. Phillips offers a different interpretation of spin pairing. But generally, nope.
I have been following Dr. Mays’ work for many years. I am convinced that his theory is accurate.
What frustrates me is the total lack of *any* device that utilizes his theories. 😢
Yeah, we are all waiting for the tech, but it is unfair to describe the last 35 years as "total lack of any device" as there have been many generations of electrolytic cells, plasma cells, solid fuel cells, molten-state fuel cells, and many generations of the SunCell leading up to the latest prototype. Notably, the thermal unit could boil water for hundred+ hour runs. That's a device, and one achingly close to commercial feasibility, although Mills pivoted from it due to a variety of engineering concerns, not for want of trying between BLP and his engineering partners.
Still waiting for *any* BLP device that is commercially available. 🙄
William - you are absolutely right. There has been no commercially available products from BLP since its inception as HPC in 1990, which is now 35 years.
I stand by my “total lack of any device.” statement.
If I am wrong, please provide the URL link to *any* BLP device that is commercially available.
Great invention. Fabulous attention to theory.
ZERO PRODUCTS!
What is sooo frustrating is that two things are correct…
1. Quantum mechanics is nonsense!
2. GUTCP makes more sense than any quantum mechanics theory… or any other theories that I have seen!
But… if GUTCP cannot be used for any *practical* purposes, then it might as well have not been created at all. 😡
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896, and the first nuclear reactor was online in 1942. That is 46 years. The hydrino was discovered in 1990; it is now 2025, which is 35 years. Nuclear applications required essentially all of the physics talent of Western civilization and unlimited funds to bring to fruition. So, in historical context, it is not so surprising that we are where we are.
However the potential applications of the theory are numerous and include more than just energy, such as neutrino communication, propulsion, microprocessing and lasers, each of which will require dedicated teams of engineers to bring to fruition.
Re applications… initially, it seems likely to me that the first applications will need to be “fault tolerant.” Also, we need to recall that the first applications may/will not necessarily be the ones that are commercially viable.
An example… the steam engine was invented to mechanize the removal of water in mine shafts! Then… an engineer named Scott realized that the up and down movement of a pump could be readily transformed into a circular motion to cause a wheel to rotate.
Fun information… Initially, all steamship engineers were Scottish and many were called “SCOTTY”… just like the chief engineer on the Starship Enterprise on TV for many years!😇