Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[The Man]

If an alpha particle can fly clean through the QM fluff ball probability clouds of electrons in, say, gold atoms, it can fly through the infinitely thin Mills orbitsphere. Why you think otherwise is a mystery. Or do you think a portion of a vanishingly thin electron orbitsphere is able to stop a speeding alpha particle with over 7000 times the mass of the entire orbitsphere?

Now, the outer orbitsphere of an atom when contacting the outer orbitsphere of another atom in a low energy collision will result in an elastic rebound.

Now picture two fuzzball electron probability clouds similarly contacting each other. It's amazing there are such things are elastic collisions, isn't it?

To help you about the radius of the hydrogen atom, according to QM there is about a 50 percent probability that the electron will be found between .5 and 1.5 times the Bohr radius.

Nope, elastic collisions aren't amazing at all or generally significantly different . That electromagnetic fields can store and release energy is a fundamental part of even just classical electrodynamics. That's where elasticity comes from for elastic materials, the energy stored in and released from the deformation of the inter-molecular electromagnetic fields. Same holds for such 'collisions' (no actual contact between particles is needed). As the similarly charged particles approach energy is stored in the compressed electromagnetic fields slowing the particles. As the particles stop the stored energy reverses (to some degree or other) the particle momentum as the fields release that stored energy and relax again. It holds the same in classical electrodynamics as it does in Quantum electrodynamics. In the latter however those field interactions can be quantified as an exchange of virtual photons.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

 

[The Man]

27 June 2018 markie: Does not know that Mills infinitely thin delusions are also charged !

Charged bodies repel or attract.

You also need to understand what Mills "infinitely thin" claim (according to you) means for his delusions. A charge and mass singularity ! An infinite mass density, An infinite charge density.

For the information of others:
Alpha particles can pass through a cloud of QM or even classical electrons basically because those electrons can move away. That freedom is why this is interaction between the electrons and the alpha particle can be neglected (alpha particles are 1000's of times heavier than electrons). The electrons "bounce" away in the scattering with a negligible effect on the alpha particle.
That is not the case for Mills delusion of multiple atomic sized charged spheres that have to be around the nucleus. Those spheres have to stay in place*. That makes it into an interaction between the alpha particle and the entire atom. It is now the alpha particle "bouncing" away in the scattering.

*What if we allow Mills delusions to move?
Accelerated charges emit radiation which has been not detected over the last 109 years. Move too much and the nucleus pops out of the atom!

Electromagnetism affects the scattering of charged particle passing through atoms containing electrons and protons. That is why electron scattering experiments are one of the many death knells for Mills delusions.

The alpha particle experiments in 1909 showed that alpha particles passed through Mills delusions without any measurable effects on the alpha particles or the gold foil.

Also Reality Check how do two "infinitely thin" spherical shells make 'contact'? They could only intersect a single point also having the same infinite mass and charge density as any other point on either of the spheres. Having overcome the infinite energy of the mutual repulsion just to intersect. There would be noting elastic at all about it, as since nothing stops those spherical shells from intersecting at a single point nothing can stop them from intersecting at all points.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Whether it is a pellet on a pan that is ignited, and spectroscopic measurements made of optical power output, or whether it is a pellet in a bomb calorimeter and measurements made of heat output after ignition, the protocol is similar: One looks up enthalpies of formation and determines the maximum possible exothermic reactions that could take place given the chemical constituents of the pellet. [plus the exothermic reactions of his equipment burning up] So one would expect that the energy actually produced in the explosion to be less than theoretical. But what if it is more, much more? [then a whole lot of metal is burning up] You say that it is the result of apparently unforeseen oxidation of the parts of the apparatus. If so, you should be contacting bomb calorimetry specialists and letting them know. [they do know]
I am not contending that mass is converted to energy. (In chemistry, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of electrons. In our nuclear power, energy comes from the mere rearrangement of nucleons. ) All I'm contending is that the possible conventional exothermic reactions from the pellet far surpass any such reactions from the container apparatus. You seem to be postulating the reverse.[yes metals burn very hot. Astonishingly hot in fact and that's not even counting other possibilities for accounting the anomalous energy]

Hilite insertions by me.

Mills has only shown his methods and calculations for critique one time that I know of. Very quickly it was found out he wasn't even using the equipment correctly! He learned his lesson and now hides this info. Now you pretend that people who actually do know how to use the equipment need to be told that burning metals release a crapload of heat? And very rapidly too if there is some water or other catalysts present to speed the reaction!

If you want to say it is not enough, then you must include the calculation and how you got the numbers to make that claim. Hand Waving away sources of significant error like this are not part of the scientific method. They are part of an illusionists bag of tricks and deception.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The energy release was continuous alright. And the energy release was measured to be about a thousand times that of burning hydrogen. However, that was per hydrogen atom. With burning hydrogen, almost all the hydrogen is consumed. With Mills reactor at that time, only a tiny percentage of the hydrogen was converted to hydrino. So the power was low. Mills thought he could sufficiently up the portion of hydrogen converted - the reaction rate - but it didn't work.

That's because what he claimed was the problem wasn't actually the problem. Once again the continuous long lasting reactions never succeeded because they didn't burn up enough metal. Sure the machine lasts longer and he gets a continuous reaction, but since he isn't burning up his equipment, the perceived power is too low.

Back to the exact same thing I posted before.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12338561&postcount=628
This is why Mills will never actually produce a workable machine. Any machine durable enough to run for any significant length of time will also not produce any usable energy. Any machine that produces usable energy will burn up too quickly to be useful. This is the classic overunity paradox restructured in a way to obfuscate.

 

[Reality Check]

Also Reality Check how do two "infinitely thin" spherical shells make 'contact'? ....

Also if we really wanted to waste our time we could look up whatever fantasies Mills has to explain how his charged, massive, infinitely thin spheres for a hydrogen atom create a hydrogen molecule. He has 2 negatively charged spheres with a positive charge in the middle. When the hydrogen atoms are far apart that is 2 neutral atoms. When the hydrogen atoms are close, that looks like negative charges repelling!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mills always touts the "power" output (or better still, the "power density", peak power output divided by total mass or volume of the machine, relative to types of power plants that actually do run continuously) of his zap-zap-burnout models, and the "continuous" or "stable" operation of his "too low power output to be commercially viable" models. Unwary readers might be deceived into thinking a prototype exists or has existed that's managed both.

Perhaps that's true now, but the interview from 1999 I posted above claims both.

 

[UncertainH]

Also if we really wanted to waste our time we could look up whatever fantasies Mills has to explain how his charged, massive, infinitely thin spheres for a hydrogen atom create a hydrogen molecule. He has 2 negatively charged spheres with a positive charge in the middle. When the hydrogen atoms are far apart that is 2 neutral atoms. When the hydrogen atoms are close, that looks like negative charges repelling!

Why waste time looking things up when you can just make up meaningless arguments from your own imagination that have little to do with what Mills is actually saying. He calculates the orbitsphere thickness to be 1.3525 E-53m, so no, there is no infinite mass and infinite charge (unlike the magical QM electron as an infinitely small point particle - when you look at it ). And, the field everywhere outside a negatively charged sphere with an equal positive charge at the center of the sphere will be exactly zero. That's just basic EM - you know - Gausses law.

 

[JeanTate]

Why waste time looking things up when you can just make up meaningless arguments from your own imagination that have little to do with what Mills is actually saying. He calculates the orbitsphere thickness to be 1.3525 E-53m,

Do you have a reference for the "1.3525 E-53m"?

By the way, if the orbitsphere has a finite thickness, then it cannot possibly be real, per Maxwell's equations, and classical physics (you know perfectly well why, don't you?)

so no, there is no infinite mass and infinite charge (unlike the magical QM electron as an infinitely small point particle - when you look at it ).

You might want to review your understanding of QM ... this statement is, at best, ignorant.

And, the field everywhere outside a negatively charged sphere with an equal positive charge at the center of the sphere will be exactly zero. That's just basic EM - you know - Gausses law.

Maybe.

What about the magnetic moment of such?

Also, what are the shape(s) of the orbitsphere(s) for a hydrogen atom? An H^- ion?

 

[UncertainH]

Do you have a reference for the "1.3525 E-53m"?

My mistake, it's 8.4980E-57m footnote on page 57 of the 2016 edition of GUTCP

By the way, if the orbitsphere has a finite thickness, then it cannot possibly be real, per Maxwell's equations, and classical physics (you know perfectly well why, don't you?)

He describes it as a spacetime dilation

You might want to review your understanding of QM ... this statement is, at best, ignorant.

I agree, it is ignorant, I threw that as a sarcastic poke at the previous "arguments" about infinite mass

Maybe.

Quite definitely

What about the magnetic moment of such?

Also, what are the shape(s) of the orbitsphere(s) for a hydrogen atom? An H^- ion?

Magnetic moment, along with electron scattering are also described in the book. And I believe the shape of the orbitsphere for H- is still considered spherical

 

[Blue Mountain]

My mistake, it's 8.4980E-57m footnote on page 57 of the 2016 edition of GUTCP

That's 22 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length! Is that even possible?

 

[Reality Check]

Why waste time looking things up when you can just make up meaningless arguments from your own imagination that have little to do with what Mills is actually saying. He calculates the orbitsphere thickness to be 1.3525 E-53m...

Try reading the actual posts here, UncertainH.
markie is the one who wrote "infinite thinness" .
markie is the one who cannot be bothered to look things up or even understand simple physics, e.g. the impossibility of having charged spheres of any thickness that do not have effects on scattering experiments or radioactivity from atomic nuclei.

You are still ignorant that Mills is ignorant, deluded and a liar as in my analysis of his book since 25 January 2017. It is the many delusions and lies in his book that means that I do not waste my time verifying the ignorance of his followers about his work.

ETA: That is a lie about Mills having a calculation for the thickness of his delusions as footnote 1 on page 57. That footnote starts "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but ..." followed by an inane calculation of a Schwarzschild radius! Inane because the equation is for a gravitational field outside of a massive body. He has a sphere the size of an atom, i.e. outside of the Schwarzschild radius he calculates. Not totally insane because that gives the Schwarzschild radius for the equivalent point particle with the mass of an electron. A little bit insane because a reason for a sphere in his delusions is because he does not like point particles.

ETA2: Also consider what happens if we ignorantly that 1.3525 E-53m number as the thickness of Mills delusions. That gives a massive mass density and we would suspect that his delusion collapses to a black hole.

Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper
Part VII (June 2018): Mills' delusions of a "fifth force", "trapped photons", proton radius lie, etc.
28 June 2018: Page 57: Footnote 1 explicitly states "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but...", i.e. a spherical mass and change singularity.
28 June 2018: Page 57: The "but..." in footnote 1 is the inane application of the Schwarzschild radius equation for the gravitational field outside of a massive body.

 

[halleyscomet]

Try reading the actual posts here

Perhaps they’re reading this forum through Tapatalk. It can be hard to keep track of who said what on a small screen with suboptimal color coding of quotes.

 

[gabeygoat]

Do tech companies like Samsung have NDA's for people visiting their labs? Sure. Nothing nefarious about that.

Samsung makes products

 

[Darat]

Samsung makes products

Surprised Mills hasn't tried to sue Samsung for a breach of patent, it seems quite obvious to me that they tried to incorporate BLP's method of power generation into one of their phones.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Surprised Mills hasn't tried to sue Samsung for a breach of patent, it seems quite obvious to me that they tried to incorporate BLP's method of power generation into one of their phones.

Erm. Well, it's not obvious to me. How about you provide a little analysis as to how lithium-ion batteries fall under Mills's patents.

 

[JeanTate]

That's 22 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length! Is that even possible?

Clearly you haven't read GUTCP.

Of course it's possible, just as GUTCP explains L-shell capture (a kind of radioactive decay) as the instantaneous conversion of a spherical orbitsphere into a neutron in the nucleus.

In ordinary, every-day English, magic.

 

[Myriad]

Perhaps that's true now, but the interview from 1999 I posted above claims both.

It appears to, by concealing the fact that he's (a) talking about more than one different device, and (b) talking about peak total megawatt output (for very brief periods of time, though it doesn't bother to mention that) in one case, and sustained operation with "high" power output relative to the (very minuscule) amount of hydrogen supposedly consumed, which amounts to very low wattage output overall, in the other.

I didn't phrase that distinction very well myself, in my previous attempt.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Erm. Well, it's not obvious to me. How about you provide a little analysis as to how lithium-ion batteries fall under Mills's patents.

Engage humor circuits.

 

[markie]

Nope, elastic collisions aren't amazing at all or generally significantly different . That electromagnetic fields can store and release energy is a fundamental part of even just classical electrodynamics. That's where elasticity comes from for elastic materials, the energy stored in and released from the deformation of the inter-molecular electromagnetic fields. Same holds for such 'collisions' (no actual contact between particles is needed). As the similarly charged particles approach energy is stored in the compressed electromagnetic fields slowing the particles. As the particles stop the stored energy reverses (to some degree or other) the particle momentum as the fields release that stored energy and relax again. It holds the same in classical electrodynamics as it does in Quantum electrodynamics. In the latter however those field interactions can be quantified as an exchange of virtual photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

I see what you're saying, but classically there is no field between two *neutral* atoms approaching each other. That is, in the far field there would be no repulsion. They have to contact in some way. The question is, what is the nature of that contact. In QM I suppose that since the electron probability distance from the nucleus extends to infinity, that the 'contact' between probability electron fuzzballs can begin at any distance. With Mill's theory the contact would begin with actual contact of one orbitsphere with the other.

 

[markie]

Also Reality Check how do two "infinitely thin" spherical shells make 'contact'? They could only intersect a single point also having the same infinite mass and charge density as any other point on either of the spheres. Having overcome the infinite energy of the mutual repulsion just to intersect. There would be noting elastic at all about it, as since nothing stops those spherical shells from intersecting at a single point nothing can stop them from intersecting at all points.

I profess ignorance about the what two colliding orbitspheres would 'look' like, and what kind of deformity it would entail, if any. If there is deformity it would be perfectly elastic. The orbitsphere acts as a whole, something I remember reading in Mills GUTCP, but I'm not entirely sure what that entails.