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

[Reality Check]

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 explained to you many times before, markie, not in the real world .

The net gravitational force between a ring and a central body is zero. The orbit is instable. Any perturbation will deorbit the ring. For example, solar ration pressure will do that.

Ditto for the electrostatic forces between a charged ring and an internal charge. Ditto for a sphere. Ditto for the electrostatic forces between a charged sphere and an internal charge.

 

[jsfisher]

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

Yes, we know what you are saying. What you are saying is 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.

If the parts were all distinct and a lateral force were applied at just one point, then only the corresponding part would be affected. If the parts were all connected and a lateral force were applied at just one point, then the entire ring of rebar would be affected.

Being all connected does matter.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Mills' deluded book has tables where he gets every ionization energy he calculates wrong !

30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions

3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin.

 

[Reality Check]

Repeats abysmal ignorance and blunt faith about Mills' GUTCP

If you look at page 85 of Mills' GUTCP....

Repeats abysmal ignorance and blind faith about Mills' GUTCP:
Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies.

 

[markie]

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:




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.

Thank you but I know about spring constants from my high school physics.
At least here you are providing references with some meat on them.
However, none of the papers referenced within Wiki, or the other paper, consider circumstances where the ring can indeed be stable to perturbation. For instance they don't consider precession.

Here's a full paper where it is shown that a thin, solid ring under precession can be stable: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1881.pdf

An excerpt from the introduction:

This paper addresses the orbital stability of a thin, rigid, circular ring with a point mass within the perimeter of the ring. It is assumed that the central point mass is much greater than the mass of the ring, MR << MS. A combination of examination of the gravitational potential and numerical simulations is used to determine possible stable orbits of this system as a function of rigid body rotation parameters of the ring. It is shown that passively stable orbits do exist for a range of rigid body rotation parameters and that these orbits are stable in three dimensions.

Needless to say, as I said with the ring motions of the orbitsphere, they also sweep out an area; that is, they precess.

 

[markie]

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.

True. The orbits of planets and rings when perturbed achieve another different orbital stability. The orbitsphere of Mills is different in that it comes back to its original shape and size, if it suffered deformation at all. (Frankly I'm not sure about that particular aspect.) This has to do with certain boundary conditions imposed by Mills theory on the electron itself, such as constant angular momentum and such. Such conditions are not met in my gravitational analogies, so those analogies can only go so far.

 

[markie]

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...

The 2D orbitsphere membrane experiences no 'self interaction' of charge repulsion. So it does not repel itself and blow up. Mills goes to great lengths to show why this is so as I recall. Off the top of my head it may be that this non self interaction result can be gleaned from the Shell Theorem itself.

Now, for a point charge electron in QM this is a HUGE problem, to which there is no answer afaik.

 

[markie]

Yes, we know what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong.



If the parts were all distinct and a lateral force were applied at just one point, then only the corresponding part would be affected. If the parts were all connected and a lateral force were applied at just one point, then the entire ring of rebar would be affected.

Being all connected does matter.

In the context of an external perturbation like that, yes I agree.

 

[Reality Check]

Repeated blind faith, this time in Mills' nonradiation condition delusion

Mills goes to great lengths to show why this is so as I recall.

Repeated blind faith from markie, maybe this time in a Mills' delusion that has explained to him before.
markie has gibberish about self energy which is not charge repulsion. There will be charge repulsion. That is almost irrelevant (repelling rings make Mills orbitshpere delusion explode). But that is not what Mills is deluded about this time.

markie has been told the basic physics that the accelerating charges emit radiation. We can take a cloud of accelerating charged particles and calculate the conditions under which their radiation cancels out. Mills' delusion is applying that condition to his orbitsphere delusion.
Nonradiation condition

Repeated idiocy that imagined issues in QM have something to do with Mills' delusions. The self energy of an electron is infinite in classical physics. That is fixed in QM.
Electron Self Energy

Even in classical electromagnetism, if one can calculates the energy needed to assemble an electron, the result is infinite, yet electrons exist. The quantum self energy correction is also infinite although it can be rendered finite if we accept the fact that out theories are not valid up to infinite energies.

The quantum self energy correction has important, measurable effects. It causes observable energy shifts in Hydrogen and it helps us solve the problem of infinities due to energy denominators from intermediate states.

 

[markie]

Repeated blind faith from markie, maybe this time in a Mills' delusion that has explained to him before.
markie has gibberish about self energy which is not charge repulsion. There will be charge repulsion. That is almost irrelevant (repelling rings make Mills orbitshpere delusion explode). But that is not what Mills is deluded about this time.

markie has been told the basic physics that the accelerating charges emit radiation. We can take a cloud of accelerating charged particles and calculate the conditions under which their radiation cancels out. Mills' delusion is applying that condition to his orbitsphere delusion.
Nonradiation condition

Repeated idiocy that imagined issues in QM have something to do with Mills' delusions. The self energy of an electron is infinite in classical physics. That is fixed in QM.
Electron Self Energy

The assumption for the classical electron having infinite self energy is that it is point like as in QM. Mill's electron is not. Mills electron has zero self energy. (Mills' pseudo electron however has a non zero self energy.) Look at appendix 2 in Mills's GUTCP where he quotes Purcell saying that a 2D patch of charge does not have self force, and Purcell himself implicates Newton in that result when he says "the patch as a whole cannot push on itself."

The infinity of self energy in QM led to renormalization, once an embarrassing necessity by its founders but now warmly embraced like an old worn blanket.

 

[Reality Check]

Mill's electron is not. Mills electron has zero self energy....

Mindless parroting of yet another Mills delusion or the usual ignorance from markie ?

An electric field and being a point particle is what makes the classical self-energy of an electron infinite. The self energy of a charged sphere is finite not zero.

Usual mindless parroting of Mills' GUTCP from markie: Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies.

 

[jsfisher]

An excerpt from the introduction:

This paper addresses the orbital stability of a thin, rigid, circular ring with a point mass within the perimeter of the ring. It is assumed that the central point mass is much greater than the mass of the ring, MR << MS. A combination of examination of the gravitational potential and numerical simulations is used to determine possible stable orbits of this system as a function of rigid body rotation parameters of the ring. It is shown that passively stable orbits do exist for a range of rigid body rotation parameters and that these orbits are stable in three dimensions.

Needless to say, as I said with the ring motions of the orbitsphere, they also sweep out an area; that is, they precess.

What is it that you think this treatise has to say about your ring of rebar orbiting the earth?

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1697: Appendix II: Stability lies, etc.

6 December 2018: Page 1697: Appendix II: Stability lies.

"Quantum mechanics does not provide for the stability of matter".
Mills starts with his usual lies about classical physics and QM. Mills stupidity of science stopping with in the 1920's with Schrödinger and Dirac.
A "orbitsphere is stable to radiation" lie.
Insanity of a function giving rise to the observed quantum spin of an electron.
Mills repeats delusions from elsewhere in his book.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1698: Appendix II: Usual delusions and an obviously deluded lie

6 December 2018: Page 1698: Appendix II: Usual delusions an obviously deluded "There is no electrostatic self-energy as shown infra, and there is also no magnetic self-energy for the bound electron" lie.

To calculate the electrostatic self-energy of an electron as a point particle, we start with the self energy of a sphere and take the limit as r tends to 0 to get to a point particle. We cannot just plug in r = 0 because that leads to division by zero. This is well known classical electromagnetism, e.g. Electrostatic energy is a lecturer doing that for a collection of charges (see the bottom of the page).

The page ends with Mills delusions about a free electron..

 

[Reality Check]

Look at appendix 2 in Mills's GUTCP where he quotes Purcell saying that a 2D patch of charge does not have self force,

markie cannot read. Page 1700: "It is shown by Purcell [22] that a self force does arise in the case of a charge layer that has thickness...". No quote from Purcell about a zero thickness layer.

Mills' delusion is not about a 2D, zero thickness layer. It is a 3D, infinite density sphere. So Purcell is irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

Page 1700 onward: Irrelevancy about the self-energy of 2D charged layers

6 December 2018: Page 1700 onward: Irrelevancy about the self-energy of 2D charged layers.

Mills even cites the energy of a charges 3D sphere!

 

[Reality Check]

A blatant "Quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent" lie

6 December 2018: Page 1701: A blatant "Quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent" lie.

Mills lies that QM is inconsistent because a single electron outside a nucleus has no electron shielding while multiple electrons do. Obviously in order for an electron to be shielded from a nucleus by another electron that other electron has to exist !

Delusions about an imaginary "electron cloud" being unstable.

 

[Reality Check]

Derives the shell theorem and then a lie

6 December 2018: Page 1702 to 1704: Derives the shell theorem and then a lie.

Equation 38 is the force on a test charge inside a shell of radius a (such as a proton) which is zero and outside of the shell which is the usual inverse square law.

Mills lies that this suggests that r = a has a value. This actually suggests that r = a is undefined. The mathematical behavior of his I(r) is discontinuous at r = a.

 

[Reality Check]

An obvious "self energy" lie and usual delusions

6 December 2018: Page 1705: An obvious "self energy" lie and usual delusions.
Mills never calculates an electron self-energy .
A delusional calculation of kinetic energy. Lots of gibberish. Stupidity about the protons when that is irrelevant. Mills fantasies of magic happening when an electron becomes bound in his delusions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

An easy way to demonstrate why something that's joined together is different to something that's not is to forget orbits entirely. Say you have 10 matchsticks arranged end-to-end on a table. You take the leftmost matchstick between your finger and thumb and move it to the left. The other 9 matchsticks remain where they are.

Now you glue them all together in a long line. Again you take the leftmost matchstick between your finger and thumb and move it to the left. This time the rightmost matchstick also moves.

This is not magic, it's the simple consequence of the matches being joined together and therefore the force applied to one is applied to all of them.

It's the same for something in orbit. If you have 2 objects orbiting a planet on opposite sides to each other and apply an inwards force to one of them, then the one on the opposite side of the planet is going to be unaffected. If you have a solid ring orbiting a planet and you apply an inwards force to one point on it, then the point on the opposite side of the planet will experience an outwards force.

This is also not magic. It's the simple consequence of the ring being solid and therefore the force applied to one point on it is applied to every point on it.