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

[The Man]

An orbitsphere is not composed of smaller subcomponents. It is a whole, indivisible unit. As I understand it, the reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to to help visualize and mathematically quantify the coordinated motions of the unified 2D orbitsphere membrane.

Nope, the mathematical quantification of "a whole, indivisible unit" does not include parts of it moving in opposing directions through the same points at the same time. The "reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to "depict motions simply not possible in "a whole, indivisible unit".

Electron orbitals are not points, they are distributed surface areas of of mass and charge as per Mills' theory. In QM they are 3D probability clouds of finding a point charge, never a single point charge itself.

"finding a point charge" refutes "never a single point charge itself". As it is explicitly "a point charge" whenever found.

Now *free* electrons are found to be point - like. Mills' theory has it approximating a point, but it is a spinning disk of charge with the charge concentrated in the centre and falling off quickly to the edge which is the deBroglie radius. See Chapter 3 (The Electron in Free Space) of Mills' GUTCP for more details if you want.

A "spinning disk of charge" is not an electron "found to be point" nor does it "approximating a point".

 

[JeanTate]

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1362587.html



Oh yes how DID that lawsuit go markie????

(give you a hint, try searching for the patent concerned)

Cool!

I particularly like this part: "By Declaration filed in the district court, Group Director Kepplinger stated that upon reading the patent her “main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry.”"

IOW, Mills: get your Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry first, then apply for patents for drop-in replacement engines for Hilux utes.

When do you think Mills will be awarded a Nobel Prize, markie?

 

[Lurch]

The truly fervent supporters of the obvious cons such as this one perpetrated by Mills remind me of flat earthers, and CTers in general. Nothing can ever be seen as a red flag. No amount of evidence can shake their faith. Not only do they remain impervious to reason, they subvert reason itself; they reason themselves out of ever constraining unreasonableness by adopting unreason. It's a fascinating, frustrating, frightful process to witness.

 

[Reality Check]

For instance, some have said that the mass density of the orbitsphere would be infinite based on the notion that if the orbitsphere has mass and is infinitely thin then density = mass/volume is undefined and is therefore a singularity.

That is the easily understood way of showing that Mills delusions start with a spherical singularity. The point is that it is Mills who whines about singularities in QM invalidating QM but does not do the some about his singularity.

More exactly we would talk about happens to a sphere with mass and charge and a finite thickness as that thickness dr goes to zero. The mass and change densities tend to infinity as dr goes to zero. Replace dr with r and we get the point singularity at the center of black holes or the Big Bang as t goes to 0.

Another way to see that there is something strange happening at the surface is that the external forces go as 1/r^2 down to r = R (the radius of a hydrogen atom) but the internal forces are zero. The discontinuity at r = R suggests a singularity.

 

[Reality Check]

In Mills' theory, mass is electromagnetic in origin ....

More Mills insanity if you are right. Mass is not electromagnetic in origin. For example neutral neutrinos have mass. The existence of the Higgs boson means that mass for gauge bosons is from the Higgs mechanism.

 

[Reality Check]

I completely agree. My comment was simply a response to being accused of randomly mashing words together

You were repeating Mills "mass is electromagnetic in origin" word salad. It was Mills who was randomly mashing words together. What we can derive from the post is that it is ignorant about the origin of mass in working science. There is also the small point that neutrinos have mass.

 

[Reality Check]

Parrots Mills delusions about electrons (speed of light surface)

In Mills' model the surface does not move faster than light speed. For one, the electron's orbitsphere is much larger than Kronig's, who envisioned the electron as a small sphere in orbit. ...

16 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills delusions about electrons being spherical singularities (speed of light surface).

Yes: The original "electrons cannot be an extended body because their surface would be moving greater then the speed of light" argument was calculated using the classical radius of an electron. An argument from ignorance (no calculation) does not make Mills delusions correct.

The measured radius of bound electrons is orders of magnitude less than the classical radius !

This is in fact one of Mills lies. QM usually uses point particles but we can apply QM apply to extended particles. We can then investigate the match with experimental results. and ask the question: How big do the extended objects have to be before theory does not match experiments?
Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters

16 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills "superposition of movements" gibberish.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when he includes some properties

In Mills' theory, spin is explained.

16 July 2018 markie: A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when all he does is include some properties of spin.

 

[Reality Check]

A "In QM, spin in 'intrinsic'" partial lie

In QM, spin in 'intrinsic', in other words, just a given with no physical mechanism.

16 July 2018 markie: A "In QM, spin in 'intrinsic'" partial lie
It is experiments that show that spin is an intrinsic property of fundamental properties such as electrons. He knows about the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Calculations show that an electron with an extended surface (even magnitudes bigger than its upper limit) and measured spin has a surface moving faster than the speed of light.

Including relativity in QM to get the Dirac equation gives us an equation that actually describes spin.

What describes a property in physics is the equations that match the experiments. These have kind of "physical mechanisms". GR has mass and energy bending spacetime. QM has fundamental particles have a non-classical spin that is intrinsic.

 

[halleyscomet]

I still don't understand why you think Mills doesn't doesn't "put up ANY legal defense to protect his intellectual property" when guys like Phil Johnson are on his advisory board and information like this are in his business report:


Patents and Proprietary Technology Advantage
• Main priority is to file and obtain patents relating to the BlackLight Process, systems, and applications of the process.
• 68 issued patents provide coverage in many major energy markets (4 in the U.S.), and greater than 100 pending applications have been filed with important applications in U.S.
• World-wide applications related to the solid fuels process and thermal power plants were filed on April 24, 2008 and July 30, 2009.
• Worldwide applications on the breakthrough energetic plasma producing SunCells® entitled “Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, filed Jan 2014
• “Photovoltaic Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding the Same”; application April 2014
• “Electrical Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, application May 2015
• “Ultraviolet Electrical Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, application Dec
2015
• “Thermophotovoltaic Electrical Power Generator”, application Jan 2016
• Corresponding applications have been filed or granted in over 50 foreign countries.
• The Company anticipates that the string of patent applications will provide broad patent protection, if these applications ultimately issue as patents.



ETA : for your amusement: https://www.ranker.com/list/the-craziest-chinese-counterfeit-goods/robert-wabash

Yes. Very nice. Most of those have already been discussed earlier. There's a lot of crap that's been filled but not granted, or only filled in one country. A good deal of them don't even pertain to the tech BLP claims to be working on now. In some cases the process of getting international parent protection had been started but never completed. Them there's the fact that patents expire. Take a look at some of the granted patents and their expiration dates. It's fun reading for anyone who believes in Hydrinos and wants to steal BLP's work.

I'm not rehashing old conversations if you can't even be bothered to look up the conversations we've already had about BLP's comically ineffective patent portfolio.

By the way, as Theranos proved, you can have a lot of supposedly smart people on your board and keep them in the dark. Phil Johnson's alleged presence on the board doesn't mean anything.

 

[Reality Check]

16 July 2018 markie: A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when all he does is include some properties of spin.

Just to make this clearer for others, what Mills does is add a classical spin to his electron delusions with a magnitude of +/- h bar and states that this classical spin has a quantized direction. No math in his theory makes that spin that size or quantized. He then has to do the same for the different spins of other fundamental particles.

He misses out sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments where we feed one of the beams of electrons with a specific spin into a second apparatus at a different angle. As far as I recall, the probability of resulting electron spin varies with orientation according to QM, not classical spin.

He misses out deriving the statistics of systems of spin. This is vitally important since this leads to the Pauli exclusion principle and the structure of the periodic table.

There is also the interesting but only slightly relevant Dirac Three Polarizers Experiment written about in a 1930 textbook about the quantum aspects that mean that we get do not get classical results for a single photon but tend toward classic result for multiple photons.

 

[The Man]

Right Reality Check which means Mills' electron 'orbitsphere' is spinning (by his own postulate) just one direction (+ or -). Making all the sub ring counter rotating every which way to visualize and mathematically quantify stuff just malarkey, even if you weren't treating the 'orbitsphere' as a whole.

 

[JeanTate]

Wot!?!

Mills is not going to get a Nobel Prize in physics for the work he has done, as recorded in ToMM?!?

But, but, ... GUTCHOP GUTCOP GUTCUP (as markie calls ToMM) is a masterpiece of the application of simple mathematics magic to understand the nature of hydrinos, which anyone with a good Raman spectroscope can easily detect, right?

So UNFAIR that Mills will not get a Nobel Prize for ToMM (the Tome on Mills' Magic)!
.
.
.

 

[markie]

Just to make this clearer for others, what Mills does is add a classical spin to his electron delusions with a magnitude of +/- h bar and states that this classical spin has a quantized direction. No math in his theory makes that spin that size or quantized. He then has to do the same for the different spins of other fundamental particles.

He misses out sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments where we feed one of the beams of electrons with a specific spin into a second apparatus at a different angle. As far as I recall, the probability of resulting electron spin varies with orientation according to QM, not classical spin.

He misses out deriving the statistics of systems of spin. This is vitally important since this leads to the Pauli exclusion principle and the structure of the periodic table.

There is also the interesting but only slightly relevant Dirac Three Polarizers Experiment written about in a 1930 textbook about the quantum aspects that mean that we get do not get classical results for a single photon but tend toward classic result for multiple photons.

At least, RC makes a relatively substantive post, so I will reply.

As I have mentioned before, yes indeed Mills assumes and uses h bar for both spin angular momentum and for orbital angular momentum, and assumes that spin is non dissipative, that is, conserved. Mills assumes some other things as well, which I have mentioned previously. The thing to note is what Mills can predict with these assumptions. Breathtaking really. G factor? Check. Lamb shift? Check. Ionization energies of all atoms or ions with fewer than 21 electrons? Check. Excited state lifetimes? Check. Masses of fundamental particles? Check. And so on.

About further iterations of the Stern and Gerlach experiments, yes afaik Mill has not addressed those specifically. But one knows exactly how he would. Just look at the Aspect experiment in Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP). Using his equations of the photon and given the angle between polarizers Mills correctly reproduces Aspects coincidence results. No non locality nonsense required, and only classical, causal physics used with deterministic statistics. No hidden variables either, so Bell's theorem has no application.

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.

 

[Reality Check]

Mills lies about his model and the hydrogen Lamb shift

At least, RC makes a relatively substantive post, so I will reply.

By repeating what we already know.
Mills has the delusion that he can just add a few parts of QM to a classical theory. Then he has delusions about predicting Lamb shift, etc. that you mindlessly parrot.

This is Lamb shift

In physics, the Lamb shift, named after Willis Lamb, is a difference in energy between two energy levels 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 (in term symbol notation) of the hydrogen atom which was not predicted by the Dirac equation, according to which these states should have the same energy.

Interaction between vacuum energy fluctuations and the hydrogen electron in these different orbitals is the cause of the Lamb shift, as was shown subsequent to its discovery. The Lamb shift has since played a significant role through vacuum energy fluctuations in theoretical prediction of Hawking radiation from black holes.

Mills has Hydrogen Lamb Shift stupidity starting on page 152 ("calculated from the radiation reaction force and the atom recoil energy due to photon emission"). As we have pointed out many times before, basic electromagnetism means his hydrogen proton is disconnected from his sphere delusion. There is no "atom recoil".

He ends with a lie of good agreement between his predicted and the experimental value.

17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.
The force between a charge inside a uniform shall of charges and the shell is zero. Mills proton is free to move inside his electron shell.

17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift
Experimental value = 1057.845 MHz. His value = 1057.09 MHz These are different values.

 

[Reality Check]

About further iterations of the Stern and Gerlach experiments, yes afaik Mill has not addressed those specifically.

And cannot because (from memory) these produce results that are impossible under classical physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982)

But one knows exactly how he would. Just look at the Aspect experiment in Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP).

More Mills insanity that you mindlessly parrot. The "Aspect experiment" is one of the experiments on Bells theorem testing an inequality about QM, not classical physics.

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
Lie 1: Aspect Experimental Results Are Predicted Classically.
Lie 2: Aspect Experimental Results Are Not Predicted by Quantum Mechanics.
Aspect et al. (1982) ruled out local hidden variable theories (so implying ruling out classical physics) and the results were consistent with non-local, non-hidden QM.

Bell's theorem is a way to test whether a certain class of theories can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Those 15 experiments show that

Such results would support the position that there is no way to explain the phenomena of quantum mechanics in terms of a more fundamental description of nature that is more in line with the rules of classical physics

 

[The Man]

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.

Ah, so they are "deduced from" the bunch of other self-contradictory crap he "merely postulated".

 

[abaddon]

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.

 

[halleyscomet]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.

You’re replying to a guy who thinks it’s a good idea to invest in a company with a 30 year track record of failure and who admits the founder makes up timeframes (lies) when talking about eventual products.

Pesky things like timeline and cause / effect have little meaning in such a context.