Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator

[markie]

Whoa!! Is this an intentional misrepresentation of Schrödinger's statement, or are you ignorant of its context?

Hint: He wasn't referring to the equation that bears his name.

I don’t like it and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

He didn't like the interpretation of QM. Hence his Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment to show its absurdity. His charge density was turned into probabilty, with the attendant unphysical aspects, and he regretted that. Not his equation, per se. Just to be clear.

 

[hecd2]

"Extended" in the sense that it has space extension, ie is not a point particle. And yes, it was for a rigid extended charged spinning object. Mill's orbitsphere is not rigid.

Could you define rigid and not rigid in this context. Thank you.

 

[markie]

What is YOUR relationship to Mills and his "work?"

Like I said, I'm not affiliated, I'm a casual observer from the peanut gallery for about 18 years now.

 

[markie]

So much lying about strawmen, so much implication of ignorance leading to blind faith in the ignorance and delusions of Mills, markie.

markie: Is a free electron, a bound alpha particle?
markie: Is a free electron, a photon?
markie: How big is an atom measured from the nucleus to the surrounding electrons (even Mills "orbitsphere" delusion) when there are no electrons attached to the atom?

Of course not to the first two. For the third, the atom is as big as it's outermost electron orbitsphere.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Jesus Christ on a *********** bike, is he shorting a pair of 3400 farad supercapacitors through a tungsten filament? No wonder it's melting; no need for hydrinos to do something like that.

Dave

We all have said repeatedly all he has is an expensive lightbulb that flashes as it burns out. The only one who doesn't understand this being the mark.

 

[markie]

Jesus Christ on a *********** bike, is he shorting a pair of 3400 farad supercapacitors through a tungsten filament? No wonder it's melting; no need for hydrinos to do something like that.

Dave

A filament you say. The tungsten plates were pretty substantial.

 

[markie]

What makes Mills orbitsphere delusional is not adding a fantasy of it not being rigid.
It is his delusion that an electron is the size of an atom when the radius of an electron is measured to be less than a proton.
It is his statement about angular momentum that you remain ignorant about.

A free electron Mills depicts as a flat disk, not an orbitsphere. Its centre of charge is a point, so it would appear vanishing small.

 

[markie]

You are displaying deep ignorance about Mills book. Just pointing out the obvious.

markie: Is this a Mills quote from Page 1509 : "The electron neutrino causes neutron production from a photon"
Is it repeated at the bottom of page 1509?

I will ask the same question for the other Mills quotes if you dispute that that are what Mills actually writes in his book.

I didn't look it up but trust you quoted correctly. It sounds right, yes.

 

[markie]

I can see that bound electrons are treated as spherical surfaces (with non-uniform charge and mass density, characterised by spherical multipoles defined on the associated Legendre polynomials) in the Introduction (I.63 to I.65). (By the way, these expressions are the ones that Rathke shows are not solutions to the wave equation - don't forget to give us a link or reference to Mills's rebuttal).

However in Chapter 10, the chapter where Mills ostensibly works out the orbital radius and ionisation potential of atoms with electrons numbering from three to 20, he treats the electron as a point particle:

• Take for example 10.12, his expression for the radius of the outer electron of the lithium atom, in which he sets the central centrifugal force on the electron equal to the electrical and magnetic forces on it - mv^2/r is the centrifugal force on a point rotating with velocity v at radius r.
• He repeats the use of expressions which relate to points throughout this long, tedious and numerological chapter, in many cases explicitly stating that the forces are central forces, which are not consistent with an extended spherical body centred on the nucleus. For a very small sample see 10.2, 10.29, 10.36, 10.56, 10.98 etc etc ad nauseam. And in fact the assumption of the electron as a point charge and mass is implicit in almost every expression in Chapter 10.

Given that one foundation of his hypothesis is that the electron exists as an infinite series of multipoles on a sphere, and that in this chapter, in which he performs the trumpeted task of predicting the ionisation potentials of a vast number of multi-electron atoms up to 20 electrons, he treats the electron as a point mass and charge (in other words, as a point particle), then there seems to be a rather disturbing inconsistency in his hypothesis. Since his predictions are plainly based on conditions which are grossly inconsistent with his foundational idea, then aren't we justified in raising our eyebrows?

I see what you mean, the he is using formulae that are conventionally for point charges. I don't think that necessarily means the same formula wouldn't apply. For example, if that infinitesimal point was ever so slightly extended to a tiny two dimensional patch, it may work out the same, then, by extension to an entire orbitsphere. I'm just guessing at Mills' logic here, which doesn't seem explicit.

 

[markie]

Could you define rigid and not rigid in this context. Thank you.

The orbitsphere is not spinning as would say, a pingpong ball. More like a soap bubble where there are many motions within the film of the bubble.

 

[jsfisher]

He didn't like the interpretation of QM. Hence his Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment to show its absurdity. His charge density was turned into probabilty, with the attendant unphysical aspects, and he regretted that. Not his equation, per se. Just to be clear.

I know what Schrodinger meant by his statement. The question was why were you misrepresenting it.

Why were you misrepresenting it?

Based on the content and presentation of most of your posts, including the one quoted in this post, a reasonable conclusion could be that it was a deliberate lie. You might consider a different approach in formulating your responses, one less evasive and diverting. Candor is good. I favor candor. It would do wonders for you credibility.

 

[JeanTate]

As I well know, Mills did write a rebuttal to Rathke's paper, so I don't know why you are saying he didn't.

Interesting.

A few minutes with a search engine does indeed turn up something which might be characterized as "a rebuttal". By Mills.

What does not turn up, however, is any such published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal (of course, there may well be just such a paper; if so, please feel free to cite it, markie).

That's rather strange, wouldn't you say?

 

[JeanTate]

I don't know what happened to the contract with that power company. I'm not an insider in the loop.

<snip>




Personally I'm not concerned. Business is business, and it happens to not be my business.

Thank you for your frank reply.

BTW, you messed up the QUOTE part, in your post/reply, hence the strange form of mine ...

 

[JeanTate]

If you think Phelps&Clementson and Rathke's responses show 'conclusively' that CQM has 'no legs', I can conclude your skepticism is rather selective.

Um ... I strongly recommended that you re-read my post, markie (the one you are replying to).

P&C reported that they could not independently replicate Mills' results (they say nothing about CQM).

If you think Rathke's paper does not show CQM has fatal, internal inconsistencies, then please, tell us all why you think that.

 

[JeanTate]

Hey, you tell me! A probability cloud? A point?

Huh?

I thought your said you are very familiar with Mills' ideas?

Maybe not so much ...

 

[JeanTate]

I wish there weren't paywalls.

Moi aussie.

I find the whole idea quite backwards.

What idea would that be, markie?

That papers should be published in peer-reviewed journals only after peer-review?

Mills has certainly focused on the physics. He has written a huge tome that he has been regularly updating and improving over the course of over two decades.

So you say.

And yet, despite the apparent revolution in physics (and chemistry, and medicine - cure for cancer! - and ...) which this book contains (so you apparently think), he can't be bothered to write up his ground-breaking ideas in the form of a paper which he submits to, say, Nature?

Yes, something is indeed rather backwards, wouldn't you say?

 

[JeanTate]

And here I thought that Mills predicted even the lifetimes of excited states...

Whatever led you to think that, may I ask?

 

[JeanTate]

And here I thought that Mills had indeed published experiments that showed such spectra...

Leave aside a certain, um, imprecision in your description, I think RC is correct.

I know you have said you have not read certain of Mills' papers, but have you read any? Ones published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, such as in the list Brett provides in the webpage you cited?

I have. Read some of those papers (not just the abstracts). And I have yet to read one in which Mills et al. presents results which they declare to be the spectra of hydrinos (maybe I just haven't found the right paper(s) yet?).

 

[JeanTate]

Conrads was not a believer in hydrinos - he was a QM guy - but he respected Mill's experimental work and rightly showed there were anomalous effects going on. It doesn't surprise me that hydrinos are not mentioned.

So Brett - your source - was, how do they say, economical with the truth?

markie, do you have any idea just how many "anomalous effects" get reported in scientific papers?

 

[Reality Check]

As one who is reading (and wildly misrepresenting btw) Mills GUTCP, you'll eventually come across Mill's fine work on the Fine Structure and the Lamb Shift.

As one displaying deep ignorance of science and unthinking faith in Mills, no one will trust your word of "fine work".

I am reading Mills and understanding that he is ignorant, has delusions and in some cases lies about science. And that is just in volume 1 !