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

[Reality Check]

A "fudge factors like electron shielding" delusion

Sure I do, and I know it uses fudge factors like electron shielding in order to better match experimental values.

29 November 2018 markie: A "fudge factors like electron shielding" delusion.
Adding obvious physics is not a fudge factor. We have a positive nucleus. We have inner negative elections in orbitals close to the nucleus. Obviously the inner electrons with their negative charge will partially shield the outer electrons from the positive nucleus !

Then there is the quantum mechanical (not possible classically) fact that full shells are more stable than partially full shells.

This is textbook chemistry.
Ionization Energy

This effect, where the full positive charge of the nucleus is not felt by outer electrons due to the negative charges of inner electrons partially canceling out the positive charge, is called shielding. The more electrons shielding the outer electron shell from the nucleus, the less energy required to expel an electron from said atom. The higher the shielding effect the lower the ionization energy (see diagram 2). It is because of the shielding effect that the ionization energy decreases from top to bottom within a group. From this trend, Cesium is said to have the lowest ionization energy and Fluorine is said to have the highest ionization energy (with the exception of Helium and Neon).
...
Electron orbitals are separated into various shells which have strong impacts on the ionization energies of the various electrons. For instance, let us look at aluminum. Aluminum is the first element of its period with electrons in the 3p shell. This makes the first ionization energy comparably low to the other elements in the same period, because it only has to get rid of one electron to make a stable 3s shell, the new valence electron shell. However, once you've moved past the first ionization energy into the second ionization energy, there is a large jump in the amount of energy required to expel another electron. This is because you now are trying to take an electron from a fairly stable and full 3s electron shell. Electron shells are also responsible for the shielding that was explained above.

 

[Reality Check]

Denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity

Sure I do, and I know it uses fudge factors like electron shielding in order to better match experimental values. Mills doesn't use fudge factors and his solutions are closed form.

29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!

Look at helium with 2 electrons and consider the first one. In Mills' delusions this is a infinitely dense sphere of charge magically centered on the nucleus and equally magically stable around the nucleus. Mills has just shielded the outer electron from the nucleus. markie has accused Mills of ignoring this. It is a possibility given that Mills ignores basic, classical electromagnetism (a positive charge inside a uniform charged sphere has no force on it so his nuclei are free to move and crash through his orbitsphere delusions). On the other hand Mills get wrong but close ionization energies.

 

[markie]

29 November 2018 markie: A "fudge factors like electron shielding" delusion.
Adding obvious physics is not a fudge factor. We have a positive nucleus. We have inner negative elections in orbitals close to the nucleus. Obviously the inner electrons with their negative charge will partially shield the outer electrons from the positive nucleus !

Then there is the quantum mechanical (not possible classically) fact that full shells are more stable than partially full shells.

This is textbook chemistry.
Ionization Energy

Oh, the general principle of shielding is well established. The problem is in the details. With the Schrodinger equation, the probability cloud for an inner electron extends from the nucleus and out to infinity. The electron next further out has a similar probability cloud that mostly overlaps the inner one. Exactly how much the inner electron should shield the second electron from the proton's charge is not well determinable from theory. So they go to experiment, obtain the ionization energy and infer from that the amount of shielding. So it is semi empirical. It is not derived from first principles.

 

[jsfisher]

Oh, the general principle of shielding is well established. The problem is in the details. With the Schrodinger equation, the probability cloud for an inner electron extends from the nucleus and out to infinity. The electron next further out has a similar probability cloud that mostly overlaps the inner one. Exactly how much the inner electron should shield the second electron from the proton's charge is not well determinable from theory. So they go to experiment, obtain the ionization energy and infer from that the amount of shielding. So it is semi empirical. It is not derived from first principles.

And when it is derived from First Principles, as you would claim Mills has done, and the derivation yields incorrect results, as is the case with what Mills has done, what does that say about the Mills' First Principles?

 

[markie]

29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!

Look at helium with 2 electrons and consider the first one. In Mills' delusions this is a infinitely dense sphere of charge magically centered on the nucleus and equally magically stable around the nucleus. Mills has just shielded the outer electron from the nucleus. markie has accused Mills of ignoring this. It is a possibility given that Mills ignores basic, classical electromagnetism (a positive charge inside a uniform charged sphere has no force on it so his nuclei are free to move and crash through his orbitsphere delusions). On the other hand Mills get wrong but close ionization energies.

I have not accused Mills of ignoring classical laws ; only in your dreams. Mills is the prince of classical physics.

Consider a point positive charge. Now consider a shell of negative charge around it. That shell will perfectly cancel the positive charge of the nucleus outside of the shell. This is classical electromagnetism. Pure shielding if you will. Applied to the helium atom: since the unit negative charge of the first electron cancels a unit of positive charge of the nucleus, the second electron only sees the remaining positive charge - a charge of positive one. This greatly simplifies things and has much to do with how Mills is able to create his closed form forumulae. Similarly Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this.

Mills is well aware that he is not accounting for the structure of the nucleus. He is also aware he is not accounting for the magnetic forces of inner electrons on electrons much further out. So: consider his accomplishment a supreme first or second order approximation. All based on classical physical laws and no fudging!

 

[markie]

And when it is derived from First Principles, as you would claim Mills has done, and the derivation yields incorrect results, as is the case with what Mills has done, what does that say about the Mills' First Principles?

See my post above. Mills' first principles are classically good.

 

[Reality Check]

Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again

I have not accused Mills of ignoring classical laws

That is what you did !
29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!
You are the one who labeled the physical fact of electron shielding as a fudge factor and stated Mills did not use fudge factors.

Consider a point positive charge.....

29 November 2018 markie: Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again.
We have covered this basic electromagnetism before.

Actually consider a point positive charge inside a charged sphere yet again, markie. The forces on that positive charge cancel. That charge is free to move anywhere inside the sphere. If anything bumps the sphere, that charge will crash into the sphere and perhaps escape. Every hear of hydrogen gas where particles collide, markie? What about helium gas? What about stars with plasma? That is Mills deluded world where hydrogen, helium and stars do not exist!

29 November 2018 markie: 2 "Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this." lies.
The second lie first: Quantum electrodynamics is a complete theory of electromagnetism that calculates electromagnetic forces between electrons. What it shows is that it is impossible for classical physics to calculate those forces because there are effects that only come from QM.
That makes the Mills assertion into a lie. He can make up imaginary calculations. They will not match the real world.

29 November 2018 markie: More Mills delusions does not make the numbers in his book magically match experimental values.
As far as Mills knows, the "structure of the nucleus" and "magnetic forces of inner electrons on electrons much further out" may make his numbers even worse !

 

[Reality Check]

A delusion that "semi-empirical" electron shielding makes QM calculations invalid

...it is semi empirical. It is not derived from first principles.

29 November 2018 markie: A delusion that "semi-empirical" electron shielding makes QM ionization energies calculations invalid.

And we have the idiocy of false dichotomy. QM is a coherent and well tested theory. But if QM is wrong, it does not make an ignorant deluded theory from Mills right. Especially when it is derived from ignorant and deluded "first principles"! You already know that, markie.

Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies.
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.
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
2 July 2018: Page 1557: Mills blatant insanity of pseudoelectrons
3 July 2018: Page 393 onward: Equation 11.5 and 11.6 are the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in the case of a central field when he has spheres around 2 nuclei.

17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.

17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Mills writes a fairy story about two of his electron delusions giving the Pauli exclusion principle.

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Insane Bose-Einstein gibberish, e.g. ignores most bosons, "electron resonator cavities" insanity.

25 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that Mohr et. al. have 1057.845 MHz as the hydrogen Lamb shift.

26 July 2018: Page 155: "1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship.

 

[JeanTate]

I have not accused Mills of ignoring classical laws ; only in your dreams. Mills is the prince of classical physics.

Consider a point positive charge. Now consider a shell of negative charge around it. That shell will perfectly cancel the positive charge of the nucleus outside of the shell. This is classical electromagnetism. Pure shielding if you will. Applied to the helium atom: since the unit negative charge of the first electron cancels a unit of positive charge of the nucleus, the second electron only sees the remaining positive charge - a charge of positive one. This greatly simplifies things and has much to do with how Mills is able to create his closed form forumulae. Similarly Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this.

Mills is well aware that he is not accounting for the structure of the nucleus. He is also aware he is not accounting for the magnetic forces of inner electrons on electrons much further out. So: consider his accomplishment a supreme first or second order approximation. All based on classical physical laws and no fudging!

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (it says "Sisyphus had it easy").

Mills' so-called classically-derived ideas are so riddled with internal inconsistencies that they make Swiss cheese look totally solid.

Just one example: how do charged disks go through charged spheres without any electromagnetic radiation being emitted, all in an entirely classical regime? (for the lurkers who missed it, in Mills Book of BooBoos, this is what happens when electrons scatter off the nuclei of atoms).

 

[halleyscomet]

See my post above. Mills' first principles are classically good.

Define “classically good.”

 

[jsfisher]

See my post above. Mills' first principles are classically good.

Let us know when you place the goal posts at their final location. We are not at all close to where you started (i.e., correct predictions by Mills). I suspect it will continue to change as your sieve continues to leak. We can wait patiently for their ultimate placement.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Quoted for hilarity:

Mills is the prince of classical physics.

Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss has been called the prince of mathematics. I suspect that is derived from the Latin Princeps mathematicorum, meaning he was first among mathematicians. That is how Gauss's fellow mathematicians referred to him, and modern mathematicians still hold Gauss in similarly high regard some two centuries later.

I doubt whether any physicists have ever referred to Mills as "prince of classical physics". As for whether physicists two hundred years from now will share markie's high opinion of Mills, we'll just have to wait and see.

Posterity's opinion of Mills may of course depend on whether Mills can deliver his promised technology within that time frame. At this rate, he's not going to make it.

 

[markie]

That is what you did !
29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!
You are the one who labeled the physical fact of electron shielding as a fudge factor and stated Mills did not use fudge factors.

Let me help you out. With Mills' approach, and with classical physics, a spherical negative charge will perfectly cancel out an interior positive charge. Neither the negative charge nor the positive charge will be seen outside the negative charge.
Consider this 100 percent shielding. No fudge factors. Classical electromagnetism. With Quantum Mechanics, the shielding is not 100 percent. It is also not zero. It is somewhere in-between. Where, exactly? QM cannot figure that out. It must resort to trying to deduce that from experiment. It is a semi empirical fudge factor.

29 November 2018 markie: Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again.
We have covered this basic electromagnetism before.

Actually consider a point positive charge inside a charged sphere yet again, markie. The forces on that positive charge cancel. That charge is free to move anywhere inside the sphere. If anything bumps the sphere, that charge will crash into the sphere and perhaps escape. Every hear of hydrogen gas where particles collide, markie? What about helium gas? What about stars with plasma? That is Mills deluded world where hydrogen, helium and stars do not exist!

We've been down this road before. It's not about the inward force of the electron on the proton, it's the proton's outer attractive force on the electron. The combined electric and magnetic forces from the proton are what keep the electron in place.
Bump the moon and what happens? The earth's gravity will still retain it, unless the bump is big enough for the moon to attain escape velocity. Also, the earth is not free to be anywhere within the moon's orbit. The moon gets bumped and both it and the earth will adjust their placements. Similarly for the proton and electron arrangement. Isn't nature wonderful.

29 November 2018 markie: 2 "Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this." lies.
The second lie first: Quantum electrodynamics is a complete theory of electromagnetism that calculates electromagnetic forces between electrons. What it shows is that it is impossible for classical physics to calculate those forces because there are effects that only come from QM.
That makes the Mills assertion into a lie. He can make up imaginary calculations. They will not match the real world.

Go look it up ; the Schrodinger equation fails for multi electron atoms.
For instance from https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics/Many_electron_systems

The repulsion between electrons makes the Hamiltonian non-separable. But the separation is too good to be lost so we write an approximate Hamiltonian where the repulsion between electrons is substituted by an average repulsion due to the other electrons...

29 November 2018 markie: More Mills delusions does not make the numbers in his book magically match experimental values.
As far as Mills knows, the "structure of the nucleus" and "magnetic forces of inner electrons on electrons much further out" may make his numbers even worse !

Mills could get closer and closer approximations, but he has many other important matters to attend to, like running a business and giving the world a new energy source.

 

[markie]

29 November 2018 markie: A delusion that "semi-empirical" electron shielding makes QM ionization energies calculations invalid.

And we have the idiocy of false dichotomy. QM is a coherent and well tested theory. But if QM is wrong, it does not make an ignorant deluded theory from Mills right. Especially when it is derived from ignorant and deluded "first principles"! You already know that, markie.

Epicycles were coherent in their way and quite accurate. But the premise they were build on was physical nonsense. Similarly for QM.

 

[markie]

Let us know when you place the goal posts at their final location. We are not at all close to where you started (i.e., correct predictions by Mills). I suspect it will continue to change as your sieve continues to leak. We can wait patiently for their ultimate placement.

Did I ever say Mills' calculations for ionization energies were supposed to match experiment exactly? No. That is because his calculations don't include many more minor correction factors.
Perhaps it is you who are moving. You know, relativity and all that.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

OH, are we back here? Sweet.
So, markie, how do Mill's theories explain the observed effect of quantum tunneling and the difference between a hydrogen and deuterium atom in enzymatic reactions?

You forget to answer that the last time I asked.

I know you don't like it, but lets face it QM has workable predictions which are observed everywhere in nature and can (and have been) used to produce working products (some of which you use as well).
Mill's fantasies are just that. Fantasies that have never and are extremely like to never actually produce something tangible, causing his believers to shift the date of the appearance of his magical devices ever upwards, like the coming of Christ.

 

[halleyscomet]

Did I ever say Mills' calculations for ionization energies were supposed to match experiment exactly? No. That is because his calculations don't include many more minor correction factors.

Perhaps it is you who are moving. You know, relativity and all that.

Fascinating. You admit his calculations aren’t accurate or useful yet still call them “classically good.”

I’d say it’s like arguing with a Creationist or Flat Earther but both those groups have more internal consistency and overall argumentative integrity than a Mills True Believer(tm). At least those groups ADMIT they ultimately rest on faith.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why the need to greatly exaggerate when you say "replace every advancement"?

I'm not exaggerating. That's exactly what Mills' theory purports to do.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did I ever say Mills' calculations for ionization energies were supposed to match experiment exactly? No. That is because his calculations don't include many more minor correction factors.

So they give the wrong results because they don't include any fudge factors?

 

[jsfisher]

Did I ever say Mills' calculations for ionization energies were supposed to match experiment exactly?

Ignoring the words you are trying to stuff into my mouth, I will remind you of this:

No, the formulae are correct because they produce correct results, and very economically. You are free to check out table 7.1 and the equations, and show me any contradiction between the formulae and the results in the table, as per my message to Jean Tate.

There are several other, similarly emphatic posts by you about correctness. You have been requalifying since then, so, yeah, the goal post relocation efforts are of your own doing.