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

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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?

As has been told to you numerous times. No it would not.
The very first perbutation (say a single hydrogen atom hitting the ring) would force it out of orbit.

But again, you and Mills are perfectly happy to ignore actual physical and measured effects if they contradict the hydrino fantasy, in the same way you are both willing to ignore the fact that Mills' theories logically predict massively energetic reactions in nature that noone ever observes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

Missed that one. No, it couldn't. The gravitational force of the rebar on the earth cums to zero, and by symmetry the gravitational force of the earth on the rebar sums to zero. The whole system is at best in neutral equilibrium, and any perturbation would result in the rebar shifting its centre of rotation, ultimately intersecting the surface of the earth. This is basic classical physics, something your guru claims to be an expert in; if this is a key aspect of his theories, maybe he understands it less than you would like to believe.

Dave

 

[markie]

As has been told to you numerous times. No it would not.
The very first perbutation (say a single hydrogen atom hitting the ring) would force it out of orbit.

Incorrect answer. In fact you could cut that ring of rebar up into a million pieces so it was a discontinuous ring, and it would also orbit quite fine. Somewhat like the rings of Saturn.

 

[jsfisher]

Incorrect answer. In fact you could cut that ring of rebar up into a million pieces so it was a discontinuous ring, and it would also orbit quite fine. Somewhat like the rings of Saturn.

You continue to oscillate between solid rings and discrete objects not joined but in a circle. Your solid ring of rebar would not be in a stable orbit.

 

[JeanTate]

Earlier you (markie) said Mills was (or should be) the prince of physics (or something like that).

A jester, or joker, would be more appropriate (there is a lot of competition).

The Shell Theorem is something you learn in Physics 101, possibly earlier. That you, markie, and Mills, seem to not understand it immediately drops your credibility several notches, at least among those who took Physics 101. That you are recycling this, with apparently no change in your multiple misunderstandings, lessens your credibility even more.

Do you genuinely not see how you are damaging “the case for Mills”?

Of course, a working hydrino-based power plant, one that independent labs can get their hands on and test, would make this discussion of your physics misunderstanding moot ... if those tests’ results are consistent with Mills claims.

 

[markie]

You continue to oscillate between solid rings and discrete objects not joined but in a circle. Your solid ring of rebar would not be in a stable orbit.

I'm saying that the orbital mechanics don't change simply because the rebar is continuous or cut up into little pieces. You seem to be implying something magical happens when the rebar is connected. The rebar is not pulling on the adjacent rebar if that is what you are thinking.

 

[markie]

Earlier you (markie) said Mills was (or should be) the prince of physics (or something like that).

A jester, or joker, would be more appropriate (there is a lot of competition).

The Shell Theorem is something you learn in Physics 101, possibly earlier. That you, markie, and Mills, seem to not understand it immediately drops your credibility several notches, at least among those who took Physics 101. That you are recycling this, with apparently no change in your multiple misunderstandings, lessens your credibility even more.

Do you genuinely not see how you are damaging “the case for Mills”?

Of course, a working hydrino-based power plant, one that independent labs can get their hands on and test, would make this discussion of your physics misunderstanding moot ... if those tests’ results are consistent with Mills claims.

Again, the shell theorem has everything to say about the electrostatic force of the orbitsphere on any point in the interior; namely, it is zero. It has nothing to say about the force of the central proton on a point of the orbitsphere.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm saying that the orbital mechanics don't change simply because the rebar is continuous or cut up into little pieces.

We all know what you’re saying, markie.

We all also know that you are wrong.

You seem to be implying something magical happens when the rebar is connected. The rebar is not pulling on the adjacent rebar if that is what you are thinking.

There’s nothing magical about it; a solid, rigid, connected rebar cannot be in a stable orbit, period (under the assumptions we are working with).

 

[JeanTate]

Again, the shell theorem has everything to say about the electrostatic force of the orbitsphere on any point in the interior; namely, it is zero. It has nothing to say about the force of the central proton on a point of the orbitsphere.

You might want to take another look.

This really is stale; we’ve been over this before, more than once, and it’s doing you no more favors now than it did then.

 

[Horatius]

Well, it's officially pointless to continue this discussion with Markie. He's simply incapable of understanding issues like the shell theorem, or at least wants to pretend like he is. He's once again played that flip-flop card. As with being scammed by Mills, it appears he will never admit to error on this issue. The fact that virtually every physics grad in the world has done the math on this, and reached conclusions that are the exact opposite of what he is claiming has less impact on him than his fantasies about how we're all going to have to grovel at Mills' feet, any day now. Any day now.

 

[Horatius]

A simple unsupported hoop about a planet is unstable: it would crash into the Earth if left unattended.[8][9] The orbital ring concept requires cables to the surface to stabilize it, with the outward centrifugal force providing tension on the cables, and the tethers stabilizing the ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring#Birch's_model


Other things to read:

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/3.56071

That one is particularly nice. Abstract:

Abstract
The stability of a ring in circular orbit is analyzed mathematically for a ring that is a perfectly flexible but inextensible chain, and for a chain that is perfectly flexible but has longitudinal elasticity (LE). It is shown that if LE is neglected, the orbiting chain in a circular orbit has an instability that shows up in the lowest mode and corresponds to a rigid translation of the whole ring away from its centered position, while if LE is included, the stability of the lowest point can only be saved by a very weak spring constant, leading in turn to instability of some higher mode. Any elastic damping is destabilizing for all the mode shapes.

Just for markie: a "very weak spring constant" is physics-talk for something that is not very rigid, that is, the closest you can get to your fantasy ring-that's-not-a-ring, and even then, it's still unstable.

 

[Myriad]

Isn't any classical orbit atomic model unstable anyhow, whether the orbiting negative charges are spheres, rings, or points? Orbiting planetary systems are relatively stable only because they're relatively unexposed to external differential forces. If you moved Saturn's rings (say, by giving them a positive charge and placing a large negatively charged mass nearby) they wouldn't drag Saturn along with them. Likewise if you moved Saturn the particles of its rings might move with the planet but the rings wouldn't keep their shape. They're in no way "locked together" in orbit.

 

[Hellbound]

Not to mention if you assume infinite rings, each making up some part of the negative charge held in that electron orbit, what prevents the rings from repelling each other?

Talk about unstable...

 

[Horatius]

Not to mention if you assume infinite rings, each making up some part of the negative charge held in that electron orbit, what prevents the rings from repelling each other?

Talk about unstable...

Hey, maybe that's how atomic bombs work!

 

[wollery]

I'm saying that the orbital mechanics don't change simply because the rebar is continuous or cut up into little pieces. You seem to be implying something magical happens when the rebar is connected.

Not magic, basic physics.

The rebar is not pulling on the adjacent rebar if that is what you are thinking.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what's happening. Any force applied to a single element of the rebar would be transmitted to every other element by virtue of the fact that they are physically connected.

How do you think levers work?

That's right, the force is transmitted along the lever because it's one single length of material.

The only way you could have the force not be transmitted to every other point on the ring is by severing the connections, but then it wouldn't be a ring anymore.

You really, REALLY, need to go read a basic physics textbook on mechanics.


Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

 

[Reality Check]

I did show it, and my reasoning doesn't require the proton to be anything other than a point.

Usual abysmal ignorance about physics so there seems no hope for you, markie.

You have no physical reasoning in your posts. You have abysmally ignorant statements about physics. So you need to learn some high school level physics.

One last time before this becomes part of your track record of ignorance of physics, markie.
This is Newton's third law

The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24]

Newton's third law states that the force exerted by the proton on any given point on the shell is the same as the force exerted by the given point on the proton.
Newton's third law states that the net force exerted by the proton by all points on the shell is the same as the net force exerted by all points on the shell on the proton.

This is the shell theorem yet again !
The shell theorem states that the net force on the proton from the shell is zero. Newton's third law gives that the net force of the proton on the shell is zero.

 

[Reality Check]

You say that, but you can't refute my satellite swarm analogy and the laws or orbital mechanics.

Anyone who can understand English and physics can refute you, markie.
The shell theorem applies to a shell, and a swarm is not a shell. A swarm analogy is wrong and irrelevant to an application of the shell theorem.
The laws of orbital mechanics include the shell theorem and state that a shell of matter around a central body is unstable.

An aside: A solution to the instability of a Dyson sphere or ring is a Dyson swarm.

 

[Reality Check]

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

As we have said before, that is a lie, markie.
Rowan University did some work for Mils. They produced reports that only Mills has. Those reports have Mills hydrino delusions included. So who included those delusions? Working, educated scientists or a deluded Mills?

Use your commonsense, markie. A convincing discovery of hydrinos would be an enormous scientific breakthrough. It would be a Nobel Prize winning discovery. Any people having convincing evidence would publish it. Rowan University did not publish. Any people having evidence would continue to research. Rowan University has not continued to research.

28 November 2017 markie: A lie about providing a citation to current hydrino research at Rowen University.
25 May 2018 markie: A lie about "hydrino signatures" over years of experiments by Prof Ramanujachary at Rowan University.
25 May 2018 markie: A lie that Prof Ramanujachary did independent experiments.

 

[Reality Check]

A collection of rings, .....

Yet more unthinking parroting of Mills delusions.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Try reading the description of that propaganda video, markie.
It looks like Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary "drunk the Koo-laid" in 2014 . He has fallen for Mills obvious delusions to the point of lying.

Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary describes the lack of opposition to his published report about the new electron orbit

Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary has never published a report on Mills' delusions. He has written report(s) for Mills' company that the vast majority of the scientific community does not know about. It is a lack of publishing, not a lack of opposition.