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

[markie]

Now try generalising your thought experiment into launching a spherical shell composed entirely of satellites, set up so that in every orbit there are as many satellites moving one way as the other, and watch them crash into each other and fall back to Earth. What have we learned here, children? That Mills's fantasy is impossible to represent in terms of individual isolated objects in circular orbits.

Dave

Current loops of the orbitsphere don't crash into each other, they pass through each other just fine, much as the EM fields of a photon pass through those of another photon without incident.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Just popping in to make an observation. All the QM discussion is fascinating, but it's rather like asking if unicorns can fart rainbows outside of showing that unicorns actually exist.

To date, only Mills has claimed to have produced hydrinos, but no other lab in the world has. There are no conferences exploring the properties of hydrinos, no papers in journals proving the hydrino's mass, no reports on the benefits or toxicity of hydrinos. Just some spectral lines on a machine that wasn't even capable of showing information in range where the hydrino is speculated to exist.

Mills might as well be studying N-rays.

This.

This

 

[markie]

Just popping in to make an observation. All the QM discussion is fascinating, but it's rather like asking if unicorns can fart rainbows outside of showing that unicorns actually exist.

To date, only Mills has claimed to have produced hydrinos, but no other lab in the world has. There are no conferences exploring the properties of hydrinos, no papers in journals proving the hydrino's mass, no reports on the benefits or toxicity of hydrinos. Just some spectral lines on a machine that wasn't even capable of showing information in range where the hydrino is speculated to exist.

Mills might as well be studying N-rays.

As I've said before Rowan University has produced hydrino and detected them in multiple ways. There are lots of journal articles about the many methods used to detect hydrino. They all point to one thing: the existence of hydrino.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Current loops of the orbitsphere don't crash into each other, they pass through each other just fine, much as the EM fields of a photon pass through those of another photon without incident.

In other words, the analogy of satellites in orbit is not a terribly useful one. Glad we sorted that out.

Dave

 

[markie]

You can't refute an analogy, as it has no evidentiary value whatosoever. You can only point out how flawed it is, which several people have done.

Dave

Rather, my analogy shows the general principle is sound; that the central source of a force, with objects in orbit, is not free to wander around within those orbits.

 

[LTC8K6]

As I've said before Rowan University has produced hydrino and detected them in multiple ways. There are lots of journal articles about the many methods used to detect hydrino. They all point to one thing: the existence of hydrino.

I do not believe that is true, and I've seen nothing to indicate that it's true.

Producing and detecting hydrinos at a US university would be worldwide big news.

There's no reason Rowan U would not be very proud of the accomplishment.

Rowan U would want to widely publicize the production and detection of hydrinos.

Other universities would be extremely interested in the detection/production of hydrinos at a US university, and many would immediately want to take a swing at achieving the same.

This is apart from the very loud crowing we'd hear from Mills if a US university actually produced/detected hydrinos.

Yet we seem to always be stuck in the same small circle that is linked to Mills.

We never seem to break out of the circle of Mills associates.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I've said before Rowan University has produced hydrino and detected them in multiple ways.

Where was this paper published? Oh, that's right, only on BlackLight Power's website.

This should be seen as a red flag.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Still, you know what would help get to the bottom of this? If someone contacted Dr. Ramanujachary. I'm not at my computer at the moment, so can't do it myself, but his email address (as posted on the Rowan University website) is [email protected]

 

[Horatius]

But let's get into the details. The proton exerts a certain force on a point on the orbitsphere. By Newton, that point on the orbitsphere exerts an equal and opposite force on the proton. But it is not symmetric as it may seem at first. The difference is this: The net force of the entire proton on that point on the orbitsphere is not zero, while the net force of the entire orbitsphere on the proton (or indeed any place inside the orbitsphere) is zero.

Which, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is irrelevant when we're discussing a rigid sphere. Which you tacitly admit here:

Edit addition: the orbitsphere is 'rigid' only in the sense that its shape is fixed. It is a surface full of motion.

So, the real problem here is that you don't imagine the "orbitsphere" to be a rigid sphere. It is more like a swarm of individual particles (it has to be particles, because even a collection of rigid rings suffers the same problems as a rigid sphere).

Okay, so it's a swarm, fine, then you're technically correct, the shell theorem alone does not exclude this possibility.


This does introduce a new problem though. How does a free election, moving through space, suddenly become a swarm of individual point sub-particles upon meeting a proton? The single particle would have to, virtually instantaneously, spread out in every direction equally, with all allowable tangential vectors, and no non-allowable vectors that would result in some bits escaping, in order to become this swarm of sub-particles.

How is that possible?

And then add to this - we know we can then subsequently ionize this hydrogen atom, by hitting it with a single photon of a sufficient energy, knocking the electron out of the atom. So a single photon must somehow interact with every sub-particle of this non-rigid swarm, collect them all back into a single point, with a single new velocity vector that is consistent with the energy input by the single photon.

Again, how is that possible?

I'll just hope that you won't argue that the well-known phenomenon of ionizing an atom is also somehow ridiculously flawed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

As I've said before Rowan University has produced hydrino and detected them in multiple ways. There are lots of journal articles about the many methods used to detect hydrino. They all point to one thing: the existence of hydrino.

no they don't. Now you are just telling bald faced lies.

Some highly dubious papers may have reported anomalous readings, but in no instance were those readings only attributable to only one thing, and certainly not hydrinos.

other explanations include

1. improper use or calibration of equipment
2. poorly designed controls
3. hydrogen embrittlement
4. ordinary exothermic reactions

There are probably many more, but that is certainly more than enough alternative explanations to nullify the need for a whole new grand unified physical theory!

Massive more work would be needed to one by one rule out other explanations for any anomalous results. This work MUST be done by independent teams with no contact with Mills at all besides his papers. That never did happen and in my opinion never will happen because there are so many holes in Mills' experiments and theories, it isn't even necessary.

Now if Mills ever did actually produce a working generator, then of course there would be many testing his experiments and theories, but even then the final explanation would be so far removed from hydrinos as to be completely unrelated to Mills original hypotheses.

Hydrinos don't exist. Full Stop.

 

[Darat]

As I've said before Rowan University has produced hydrino and detected them in multiple ways. There are lots of journal articles about the many methods used to detect hydrino. They all point to one thing: the existence of hydrino.

And the reset button is hit, again...

 

[The Moog]

And the reset button is hit, again...

That's the way these scams go. Although its still impressive that Mills has kept this going for this long.
ETA:
Its also quite amazing how many of these 'free energy' and cold fusion scams there have been. A lot of which are still grinding on slowly carefully producing nothing.

 

[Hellbound]

Rather, my analogy shows the general principle is sound; that the central source of a force, with objects in orbit, is not free to wander around within those orbits.

I've highlighted what I believe to be your error.

Please explain, in detail, how a shell can be "in orbit". Not a satellite, or multiple satellites, or satellite swarms, but a shell. For it to be in orbit, all points on the shell must be in orbit.

That's the difference that's important, and why this is such a problem.

 

[markie]

So, the real problem here is that you don't imagine the "orbitsphere" to be a rigid sphere. It is more like a swarm of individual particles (it has to be particles, because even a collection of rigid rings suffers the same problems as a rigid sphere).

A collection of rings, each ring containing motion of the same speed, would be fine as well. It's just that a satellite swarm had more of a resemblance with what we are familiar with.

Okay, so it's a swarm, fine, then you're technically correct, the shell theorem alone does not exclude this possibility.

Whether the density of orbital points of the swarm becomes great enough to be considered a 'shell' is not relevant to the force exerted by the central object on each point in the orbit. The same orbital mechanics that dictate a very strict distance relationship also means that the central object is locked in place in relation to what is orbiting around it.

This does introduce a new problem though. How does a free election, moving through space, suddenly become a swarm of individual point sub-particles upon meeting a proton? The single particle would have to, virtually instantaneously, spread out in every direction equally, with all allowable tangential vectors, and no non-allowable vectors that would result in some bits escaping, in order to become this swarm of sub-particles. How is that possible?

The free electron is a circular, planar sheet that can wrap around the nucleus. 2D membrane remains 2D membrane. Mills has an animation of this process on the BLP website. What you are describing is, ironically, what happens in quantum mechanics. A free electron has a trajectory that can be classically described. People working with free electron lasers know this and utilize this fact. But get the electron into the vicinity of a proton and all quantum uncertainty hell breaks loose, where the 'point' electron is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere until measured. And when it is measured, in the case of the hydrogen atom, the point electron only has a 50 percent chance of being found at a distance between one half and three halves of the Bohr radius, according to QM. What does this get from 'skeptics'? A shrug of the shoulders!

And then add to this - we know we can then subsequently ionize this hydrogen atom, by hitting it with a single photon of a sufficient energy, knocking the electron out of the atom. So a single photon must somehow interact with every sub-particle of this non-rigid swarm, collect them all back into a single point, with a single new velocity vector that is consistent with the energy input by the single photon.

First of all, for the visual, a photon of sufficient energy to ionize hydrogen can be almost 3 orders of magnitude larger the hydrogen atom, that is, almost 1000 times bigger than the electron orbitsphere.

Exactly how a light photon knocks an electron out is a question for another day. Suffice it to say for now that in Mills' GUTCP the EM force of the proton on the orbitsphere is in force balance with centrifugal 'force' of the flowing orbitsphere, and an ionizing photon messes with this force balance sufficiently for the electron to - in a manner of speaking - attain escape velocity from the attractive force of the nucleus. Does QM give a play by play version of its version of the process? Don't recall one.

 

[markie]

Still, you know what would help get to the bottom of this? If someone contacted Dr. Ramanujachary. I'm not at my computer at the moment, so can't do it myself, but his email address (as posted on the Rowan University website) is [email protected]

His answer won't be any different from what he has already publicly spoken of, like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WXruYqDWi4

 

[Horatius]

A collection of rings, each ring containing motion of the same speed, would be fine as well.

No actually, it wouldn't because as I stated, rings have exactly the same problem that spheres do. In fact, to calculate the gravitational effects of a sphere, you break it down into a series of rings, such that the summation of the forces over each ring adds up to the net force over the entire sphere. As has been stated, this is literally first-year physics stuff.

It's become quite obvious that you're flipping back and forth, desperately trying to avoid this point. It's a sphere, no it's a swarm, no it's a bunch of rings, no, it's a point on the sphere, no it's a sphere. It's whatever you need it to be to refute this single argument, right now, without regard to how the most recent claim contradicts the previous claims. That is, it's utterly meaningless.

 

[markie]

I've highlighted what I believe to be your error.

Please explain, in detail, how a shell can be "in orbit". Not a satellite, or multiple satellites, or satellite swarms, but a shell. For it to be in orbit, all points on the shell must be in orbit.

That's the difference that's important, and why this is such a problem.

Yes exactly, all points of the shell must be in orbit, all points moving at the same angular velocity. To do this they must be able to move through other points like they don't exist, as we see in the superposition of fields.

For computation purposes Mills uses circular rings instead of points, where each ring could be considered to be composed of a continuum of moving points going around in a circle. Each ring also moves laterally, sweeping out regions of the orbitsphere. (The motions of the rings are coordinated in a very specific manner to produce the required electron properties like spin.)

To achieve a 'shell', there would be an infinite number of rings. I prefer to see it first as a 2D membrane of moving charge (also having mass) with interior motions that can be broken down as ringlike.

 

[markie]

No actually, it wouldn't because as I stated, rings have exactly the same problem that spheres do. In fact, to calculate the gravitational effects of a sphere, you break it down into a series of rings, such that the summation of the forces over each ring adds up to the net force over the entire sphere. As has been stated, this is literally first-year physics stuff.

It's become quite obvious that you're flipping back and forth, desperately trying to avoid this point. It's a sphere, no it's a swarm, no it's a bunch of rings, no, it's a point on the sphere, no it's a sphere. It's whatever you need it to be to refute this single argument, right now, without regard to how the most recent claim contradicts the previous claims. That is, it's utterly meaningless.

Let me ask you: If you got a hellishly long piece of rebar, wrapped it around the earth in a low orbit such that if formed a perfect ring, and set it spinning, could it stay in orbit?

 

[Dave Rogers]

To achieve a 'shell', there would be an infinite number of rings. I prefer to see it first as a 2D membrane of moving charge (also having mass) with interior motions that can be broken down as ringlike.

Although, of course, the hairy ball theorem makes it clear that such an arrangement is logically impossible. Didn't we go over that so long ago that Mills has produced two whole new sets of excuses for not bringing a product to market?

Dave

 

[markie]

Although, of course, the hairy ball theorem makes it clear that such an arrangement is logically impossible. Didn't we go over that so long ago that Mills has produced two whole new sets of excuses for not bringing a product to market?

Dave

If you look at page 85 of Mills' GUTCP you will see a computer rendering of the result of iterated computation for current density on the orbitsphere. It appears that the hairy orbitsphere has one (probably two) tiny bald spots at its poles.