-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
- Status
Mills' "orbitsphere" idea is nonsense, from so many perspectives it's hard to know where to start critiquing it. As we have discussed, in many posts, earlier in this thread (or one of its predecessors). In terms of physics, it's no different from invisible pink unicorns, or magic.
Take some kinds of radioactive decay:
- decay which produces an electron (or positron): per Mills, the electron is an orbitsphere, which somehow exists in a nucleus, then magically appears outside it - and the atom! - leaving all the many orbitspheres of the atom's electrons entirely unaffected
- M-shell capture: an orbitsphere in the innermost shell (M) disappears, turning into a neutron in the nucleus
- L-shell capture: same thing, but in this case an orbitsphere crosses the one or more of the interior M shell orbitspheres ... leaving them entirely unaffected
- spontaneous fission: a nucleus splits in two, and two new atoms emerge, each with its own set of orbitspheres intact; the rearrangement - per Mills - takes place with no deformation to any orbitsphere
How else to describe any of this, other than "by magic"?
And, in classical, continuous spacetime, what is the force between two orbitspheres which are within one thickness of each other? Due to electromagnetism (don't forget the magnetic component!) and gravity? How about between an orbitsphere and something which isn't, a neutron say, or charged hadron (e.g. a proton)?
I went back to the article to read it more carefully. Not only had I skimmed it the first time, for some reason I thought it was only two pages long when in fact it was a dozen!
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/RosenblumIE17.pdf
With this larger context I've learned some things from the article itself. One is the type of hydrino production technique. This was largely a gas / vapour cell (although there is some plasma), contained in a thick stainless steel cylindrical vessel, with the gas kept at near vacuum, something like 10e-3 atmospheres. The reaction volume must be kept hot in order for potassium (vapour phase) to be doubly ionized, in order to have the correct energy to serve as a hydrino catalyst.
Temperature of the outer skin of the vessel would reach around 750 C. In other words, the context of power and temperature regards the outer surface of the stainless steel. So I've concluded that Mill's use of the term 'power density' was surface power density, rather than volumetric power density. Just like the Sun has the volumetric power density of a composite heap but vast surface power density, so with this reaction vessel. With the inside of the vessel being near vacuum, there is no way Mills could be referring to volumetric power density imo.
Also, even the word 'continuous' means something different here. With the Suncell, continuous means that the ignitions are close enough together to appear as a continuous reaction. For example, a short BLP video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGgHD8e9sM
shows a pretty continuous operation.
But with this gaseous cell from 1997, continuous was contrasted with 'batch'.
To explain: For testing the cell would be near vacuum, with potassium metal inside heated sufficiently to ionize to K+2. A small amount of H2 was added and the vessel sealed. The H2 was dissociated by contact with a hot tungsten plate, forming atomic H. This atomic H would over time drop to lower and lower hydrino states, releasing huge amounts of energy per atom. So in a single batch run, the vessel would get hotter and hotter until the hydrogen was all used and the atomic hydrino had eventually all converted to dihydrino gas and hence would become nonreactive.
During a batch run the hydrino reactions themselves were continuous.
But in the context of a larger time frame it was still a single batch ; hydrogen was not being added. So in this larger time context it was not continuous.
But they were working on making it continuous. Here's an extract from page 28, my bold:
AR: Eventually, can the process run continuously?
RM: It can run continuously, yes. We've done that. Where you feed in new hydrogen.
AR: At a controlled rate, just as fast as it's needed?
RM: [Changed the subject!]
Yes, Mills didn't answer the question. Clearly they had not achieved this imo.
So this it seems to me is why this method of hydrino generation ultimately didn't work out. They couldn't successfully transition between from batch to continuous operation while simultaneously maintaining high enough temperatures.
Lowdown: It's settled in my mind, Mills gets a pass here. No doubt the skeptics here will protest. Oh well. The batch run experiments were validated as releasing heat energy far exceeding electrical energy input. That's good enough for me.
BTW that article makes for very good reading for both the beginner and the relatively experienced in matters of Dr. Mills and his GUTCP.
On the contrary Mills theory is the opposite of magical.
I'm thinking that you haven't read much of Mills theory because if you did you would know that, for instance, a free electron ejected from a nucleus at high speed will be a very small diameter, flat 2D disc of charge, not an orbitsphere.
I suggest you download Mill's tome as a pdf and do a search on cross section and you'll see he has much of these types of things worked out.
I wanna make sure I understand this.
Mills made a device the outer part of which was a thick stainless steel cylinder, whose (outer) surface temperature reached ~750C.
And he never thought to wrap that in pipes, through which water would flow, converting to steam, which he could use to run a pretty conventional electricity-producing gadget? Or simply plug it in to whatever hot water system he uses to keep the place warm in winter (baseboard heating is common in NJ)?
Have I got that right?
Thanks for the suggestion.
I'll decline. I've much better written sci-fi stuff I'd rather spend my time reading.
However, if you'd like to entertain us with your version of what's in that tome, re cross-section (etc), starting with explaining the four kinds of radioactive decay I mentioned, be my guest!
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
That's basically correct. He was unable to manufacture, or contract out, a simple heat exchanger for his device.
IIRC, he even stated that as the reason he could not move forward with commercial development.
So say you. Got it.
Hmm ... and when does it turn into an orbitsphere? What sorts of shapes does it go through in between?
And what is the thickness of this disc?
And is the charge (and mass) distributed evenly throughout the disc?
And what is the diameter of the disc? If it depends on the speed of the electron, how?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I'm shocked.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is correct. Mills has hydrogen delusions that in the far field act like neutral atoms.
But then you go very wrong.
Atoms do not teleport from far apart to be "in contact"
. They get closer and closer and form a bond. That is where this Mills delusion becomes clear to high school science students. His negative spheres should begin to repel. As they get closer the repulsion increases. Coulomb's law says that the repulsion between 2 like particles goes to infinity as their separation goes to zero.However we also have the positive charge of the nucleus so a detailed calculation is needed. This is something that should have worried Mills but he apparently ignored it and did not do that calculation.
And even worse:
29 June 2018 markie: Ignores the infinite? forces between 2 of Mills spheres with an infinite charge density and an infinite mass density in contact.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Not right. The Planck length includes Planck's constant and is quantum, not classical, physics. It also includes G and so gravity (general relativity) is involved. The Planck length is the scale below which a quantum gravity theory is needed.
This is irrelevant because Mills has a spherical charge and mass singularity and a stupid calculation.
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.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Parroting of BLP propaganda from 1998 and Mills hydrino delusions
Mills delusion of "hydrogen to go to a lower energy state".
Mills emphasizes his idiocy. He applies math developed for free electron lasers to a bound electron.
The insanity of "it permitted me to solve everything from the masses of fundamental particles to the rate the universe is expanding - quarks to cosmos-...".
The usual promise (now a lie) of commercial units.
A delusion of hydrno lines in solar spectra, interstellar medium spectra, etc.
A lie of hydrnos explaining the heating of the corona.
A total delusion of hydrogen emitting UV being dark matter.
Back to delusions about the Sun, lies about quantum mechanics, etc. etc.
29 June 2018 markie: Parroting of BLP propaganda from 1998 in a Mills interview.
Mills delusion of "hydrogen to go to a lower energy state".
Mills emphasizes his idiocy. He applies math developed for free electron lasers to a bound electron.
The insanity of "it permitted me to solve everything from the masses of fundamental particles to the rate the universe is expanding - quarks to cosmos-...".
The usual promise (now a lie) of commercial units.
A delusion of hydrno lines in solar spectra, interstellar medium spectra, etc.
A lie of hydrnos explaining the heating of the corona.
A total delusion of hydrogen emitting UV being dark matter.
Back to delusions about the Sun, lies about quantum mechanics, etc. etc.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A statement from ignorance: cross section is scattering not an answer to the question
Cross section (a quantity expressing the likelihood of an interaction event between two particles)
The question was "what is the force between two orbitspheres which are within one thickness of each other?". The answer is a calculation of the forces by Mills or markie.
The "cross section" suggestion is also idiotic because the phrase appears in many irrelevant places, e.g. cross sections in his cartoons, gibberish such as "molar decadic energy acceptor cross section".
Of course there is the usual idiocy by Mills about scattering, e.g. his "ELECTRON SCATTERING EQUATION FOR THE HELIUM ATOM BASED ON THE ORBITSPHERE MODEL" is:
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
Electrons as plane waves is insane because all electrons are particles. He does some math nonsense.
29 June 2018 markie: A statement from ignorance: cross section is part of scattering not an answer to a question about forces.
Cross section (a quantity expressing the likelihood of an interaction event between two particles)
The question was "what is the force between two orbitspheres which are within one thickness of each other?". The answer is a calculation of the forces by Mills or markie.
The "cross section" suggestion is also idiotic because the phrase appears in many irrelevant places, e.g. cross sections in his cartoons, gibberish such as "molar decadic energy acceptor cross section".
Of course there is the usual idiocy by Mills about scattering, e.g. his "ELECTRON SCATTERING EQUATION FOR THE HELIUM ATOM BASED ON THE ORBITSPHERE MODEL" is:
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
Electrons as plane waves is insane because all electrons are particles. He does some math nonsense.
Last edited:
No you haven't got that right, and clearly you haven't read the 1998 Infinite Energy article that SB linked to.
Clearly not.
However, I did read your post.
Carefully.
So if I misunderstood, you surely played a part in my misunderstanding.
Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you wrote, in post #744?
I - and no doubt some other readers - am particularly interested in the "thick stainless steel cylinder" and the "the outer skin of the vessel would reach around 750 C" parts.
It turns into an orbitsphere when a free planar electron wraps around the vicinity of a proton. You could picture a flat soap film stretched across a circle of plastic. Blow on it, it escapes the plastic ring and naturally forms a bubble, which is a low energy configuration.
The thickness of the disk is zero. The charge is concentrated at the centre of the 2D disk and diminishes outwardly. The angular momentum has another distribution. Mills also gives the electric and magnetic field shapes. The electron radius gets smaller as velocity increases, according to the well known deBroglie relation. Mills shows that this size change has to do with the conservation of both angular momentum and energy. Chapter 3 is devoted to the free electron. Take a look yourself. I won't tell any of your friends or family or coworkers you downloaded it.
That was another type of device. And you don't recall correctly. All that was said was that Mills was waiting on a heat exchanger at that time. In all likelihood he received it, just as he has received all kinds of other equipment from manufactures through the years.
That is correct. Mills has hydrogen delusions that in the far field act like neutral atoms.
But then you go very wrong.
Atoms do not teleport from far apart to be "in contact"
However we also have the positive charge of the nucleus so a detailed calculation is needed. This is something that should have worried Mills but he apparently ignored it and did not do that calculation.
And even worse:
29 June 2018 markie: Ignores the infinite? forces between 2 of Mills spheres with an infinite charge density and an infinite mass density in contact.
You want calculations? They are in Mill's GUTCP. Two H atoms approach each other and what happens? They can actually bond! Look at, for instance, Mills calculation of the bond energy of H2, including internuclear distances. It's about minimum energy configuration.
- Status