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

[The Moog]

To be fair, it was a sort of purple glow, which is super-sciency. Also a slightly disquieting emission of smoke. Swings and roundabouts....

They should add a smoke machine next time, along with tubes of strangely coloured water. That would improve the science no end.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And another:

 

[Dabop]

They should add a smoke machine next time, along with tubes of strangely coloured water. That would improve the science no end.

Oh and a Jacobs ladder!!!!!

All mad scientists need a Jacobs ladder!!!

 

[Rincewind]

They should add a smoke machine next time, along with tubes of strangely coloured water. That would improve the science no end.

And a machine that goes "ping"...

 

[JeanTate]

Of course it is not 'equivalent'. I'm talking about the more general idea of symmetry.

Finally someone with some physical intuition!

The 'net' meaning here is the idea of adding force vectors. It would indeed add to zero. Yet, there is still a gravitational force of the earth on each of the moons.
Exactly. Now extrapolate. What if there were another two moons on opposite sides of the earth? Then another two? Then another two? Ect. The earth will still exert a gravitational force on each of those moons. They will all be kept in orbit at a certain distance according to orbital mechanics, which means the earth will be at the centre. Extrapolate even more to obtain a continuous shell of mass ; the earth will still exert a force on any patch of that shell and will be kept in the centre. Similarly for the positive proton at the centre of a negative shell.

OMG!

I'll comment on just one part of this, um, mess: stability.

Your system(s) of pairs of moons will not be stable, the smallest perturbation will cause all kinds of deviations from your desired symmetry. If you have pairs of moons in orbits which cross, at some point of adding these pairs collisions will be inevitable, irrespective of any stability considerations.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wait... is this thing an Interacotor?

"Increase the beep-beep noise and put more science stuff around."

 

[JeanTate]

I like that the claims have morphed from Mills just replacing quantum mechanics to Mills replacing both quantum mechanics and classical physics. Not only are quantum mechanics and relativity wrong, but Newton is, too.

Indeed.

From one of Mills' staunchest supporters (and the only one who's still posting here), it is really quite eye-opening.

 

[Horatius]

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero, and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons, and the earth could go anywhere between them. This is not correct.
Instead, each moon feels the gravitational force of the earth and orbits at the appropriate distance for its speed. This precisely means that the earth keeps in the centre between the moons. Similarly the proton keeps at the centre of the orbitsphere.

Have you ever drawn a free body diagram? I suspect the answer is "No", because everyone who ever has can see quite easily that you're ignoring certain key differences in the forces as applied to a ring, when compared to the forces as applied to unconnected bodies. Here's an example:

The red dot is the earth. The black arrows are the gravitational forces due to the earth, applied to both orbiting objects, as well as to two selected points on the ring.

The key difference here is the existence of the four white arrows, that represent forces applied to the ring segments by their rigid attachment to the adjacent ring segments. I've drawn it as the ring being in tension, but they could just as easily be compression forces.

And those forces have no equivalent in the separated bodies. The tension or compression in the ring allows for forces to be applied along the length of the ring, not just in the direction of the earth. This also allows forces applied to one segment of the ring to be transferred to other segments of the ring. There is simply no equivalent forces for these in the disconnected bodies model.

Your comparison is useless, and this underlies your inability to understand why you are wrong.

 

[jadebox]

Now extrapolate. What if there were another two moons on opposite sides of the earth? Then another two? Then another two? Ect. The earth will still exert a gravitational force on each of those moons. They will all be kept in orbit at a certain distance according to orbital mechanics, which means the earth will be at the centre. Extrapolate even more to obtain a continuous shell of mass ; the earth will still exert a force on any patch of that shell and will be kept in the centre. Similarly for the positive proton at the centre of a negative shell.

No. Such a system would not be stable.

BTW, I don't think the two moon system (where the moons are of equal mass) would be stable either. The slightest perturbation would knock it out of sync.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero, and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons, and the earth could go anywhere between them. This is not correct.
Instead, each moon feels the gravitational force of the earth and orbits at the appropriate distance for its speed. This precisely means that the earth keeps in the centre between the moons. Similarly the proton keeps at the centre of the orbitsphere.

Ask yourself, Markie, who is more likely to be wrong -- you with your "intuition", or scientists and engineers who have actually done the math?

As for your "two moons" scenario, yes they will individually orbit. For a while. Any perturbation will move them out of their perfect "opposite sides" orbit, changing the period of one or both. The slight shift in period would make them eventually be on the same side. If they were sufficiently large, or sufficiently close in orbits, they would interact. 3-body orbits are generally not stable, and one could be kicked out of the system, though multi-body orbits can be stable if they find themselves in certain resonances.

Stable orbits mean that a perturbation will put them into a different stable orbit. 2-body orbits are elliptical (a circle is an ellipse with an eccentricity of zero). If you give a kick to a satelite in orbit, it doesn't fall out of the sky. Instead, it goes into a different elliptical orbit. As long as that orbit doesn't intersect the atmosphere, or give it escape velocity, it still orbits.

Take objects in orbits, and connect them via an infinitely-stiff material, and you have a different ball game. They act as one object. If not a ball, they do not act as a net point mass. If they are strung out around the planet, well, we have a solid ring (or shell), and the net gravitational force has to be calculated "on the single object" as whole, by vector summing the forces on each part.

I hope others see the inherent contradictory nature of the above two sentences. The first sentence says that Mills overlays QM on the sphere (whatever that is supposed to mean), and by implication obtains the results of QM. Yet the second sentence has Mills failing to make any accurate predictions, and so by implication does not obtain the results of QM. Hello?

If anyone wants to see a real PhD's review of the first 12 chapters of Dr. Mills' GUTCP, by someone who has actually done the work and gone through all the calculations and assessed them, you can download the pdf files here:

(snip)

Mills orbitsphere is literally constructed like this:

1) Take the QM results for a Hydrogen atom, and grab the average radius (this is also the classical radius in this simple situation)
2) Pretend the electron is a sphere, with charges orbiting in strings over this sphere. Now, this doesn't work, but lets just go with that.
3) Now, take the regular QM periodicity requirements, acknowledging that the electron is in fact a wave, and shove the phase on the sphere.
4) Declare that this is the new model of everything.

I won't get into the B.S. of his "formulas", I'll just talk about why this is obviously wrong. Once he "declared" the sphere, there is no more "orbit". There is just a BB inside a ping-pong ball. Once the nucleus hits the orbitsphere, I assume all heck will break loose.

One can attempt to save this by saying
1) The orbitsphere will change shape if the nucleus goes off-center
2) The charge isn't fixed density -- it can build up on one side of the orbitsphere the nucleus goes off-center.

We no longer have electrons that can orbit, so 1) isn't going to work to solve your problem. Orbits are stable because radial distance is free to change for each body individually (and orbits are free to change eccentricity). As for 2), this would make it worse.

Mills hand-waves what is inconvenient. His theories do not pass even a smell test. When a theory is internally inconsistent, it gets thrown out. When it competes against a theory that has survived every test in 100 years, you need a lot of evidence. Mills has none.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

By your reasoning, as I put before, if there were two moons orbiting the earth on opposite sides, the 'net force' of the earth on the two would be zero, and thus there would be no force of attraction between the earth and the moons, and the earth could go anywhere between them. This is not correct.

Wow Don Markotie that is the most lame creation and destruction of a Straw Windmill

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Ask yourself, Markie, who is more likely to be wrong -- you with your "intuition", or scientists and engineers who have actually done the math?

Hello there HappySkeptic99. Welcome to the forum. That great leveling field where the surgeon is lectured by an 8 year old with a rusty boy scout knife.

It's of interest to the science-minded that the practicioners of woo, like peddlers of this perpetual motion machine, are to be understood from the science of psychology rather than physics or whatever field they profess to be practicing.

You don't need training in physics to understand 3 decades of "production unit right around the corner" is a lie, they know it is a lie, and it is the lack of scruples, not the lack of sound science at work.

It is surprising, if you are trained in the pertinent science, how stupid the so-called "science" is. You need to have a high enough IQ to cobble together an argument of some kind, involving up is down and East is West.

But it should be readily apparent they don't believe their own arguments any more than a con man robbing little old ladies knows he is not a Rothschild heir.

I appreciate your input here, this is way out of my area.

My training is basically applied statistics and financial analysis. I did financial reviews of over 50 energy project proposals for the State of Alaska over a four year period. Hydro, geothermal, heat pumps on land and water, solar, wind - it was really interesting work.

These were all in various stages from reconnaissance to feasibility study, proposed design stage and various stages of completion. They did regular reporting that adhered to GAAP (Generally accepted Accounting Principles) which varied a little depending on their status as nonprofit, corporate, a local government, or Co-op utility.

And what these people hand you, this Brilliant Light no-power, would not pass even a cursory review by a corporate venture capital committee or granting agency or even a high school business club. In terms of financial reporting.

We have names for these reports in the real world like "balance sheet" or "income statement" or "statement of retained earnings" and what have you.

The so-called quarterly report cited above for example. Businesses are things that spend money on inputs and sell outputs. They have headings like "labor" and "capital expenditure" and "debt payments" or "net interest", etc.

Their reports are more like comic books. In fact, that's exactly what they are to me. It's ******* hilarious. It's just too incredible, if you are trained in the area, that they could with a straight face produce anything so stupid.

So I don't know if, from your perspective, the physics rises to the level of stupidity I see in their so-called business reports. I think so. And therefore the question really becomes how can they get away with this for three decades. It is in the tens of millions of dollars.

I think this is pretty high up in the annals of fake machine frauds. L. Ron Hubbard is the record holder for fake machines but quickly changed his "science" to religion when he got into trouble with tax and state fraud agencies.

These guys are running strictly on the strength of the perpetual motion machine itself.

Thanks and welcome again.

 

[markie]

Have you ever drawn a free body diagram? I suspect the answer is "No", because everyone who ever has can see quite easily that you're ignoring certain key differences in the forces as applied to a ring, when compared to the forces as applied to unconnected bodies. Here's an example:

[qimg]http://upload.stripgenerator.com/strip/67/09/21/10/00/full.png[/qimg]


The red dot is the earth. The black arrows are the gravitational forces due to the earth, applied to both orbiting objects, as well as to two selected points on the ring.

The key difference here is the existence of the four white arrows, that represent forces applied to the ring segments by their rigid attachment to the adjacent ring segments. I've drawn it as the ring being in tension, but they could just as easily be compression forces.

And those forces have no equivalent in the separated bodies. The tension or compression in the ring allows for forces to be applied along the length of the ring, not just in the direction of the earth. This also allows forces applied to one segment of the ring to be transferred to other segments of the ring. There is simply no equivalent forces for these in the disconnected bodies model.

Your comparison is useless, and this underlies your inability to understand why you are wrong.

At least your diagram acknowledges the force of gravity on any patch of the ring (or sphere for that matter). This is progress. I well understand that any perturbations will be transferred along the ring. And I well understand that the ring in a simple rotational motion will not be stable. But both the conduction of perturbation along the ring and stability of the ring's path are beside the main point that, incredibly, I had to reiterate : Gravity on a surrounding mass is not annulled simply because it is a ring or a sphere!

 

[markie]

[snip]
I won't get into the B.S. of his "formulas", I'll just talk about why this is obviously wrong. Once he "declared" the sphere, there is no more "orbit". There is just a BB inside a ping-pong ball. Once the nucleus hits the orbitsphere, I assume all heck will break loose.

You seemed to admit that the 2 moons would each move according to orbital mechanics - at a fixed distance - but you can't handle the extrapolation to a shell of mass and think that in such a case the earth will no longer be fixed and will be as free as a BB bouncing around inside a ping pong ball. Nah, you are no PhD.

 

[markie]

Hello there HappySkeptic99. [snip, snip, snip]

Their reports are more like comic books. In fact, that's exactly what they are to me. It's ******* hilarious. It's just too incredible, if you are trained in the area, that they could with a straight face produce anything so stupid.

So I don't know if, from your perspective, the physics rises to the level of stupidity I see in their so-called business reports. I think so. And therefore the question really becomes how can they get away with this for three decades. It is in the tens of millions of dollars.

I think this is pretty high up in the annals of fake machine frauds. L. Ron Hubbard is the record holder for fake machines but quickly changed his "science" to religion when he got into trouble with tax and state fraud agencies.

These guys are running strictly on the strength of the perpetual motion machine itself.

Thanks and welcome again.

Speaking of "******* hilarious", you seriously comparing BLP to a business that is selling a product as opposed to doing research is just that.

 

[jadebox]

Gravity on a surrounding mass is not annulled simply because it is a ring or a sphere!

No one suggested that gravity doesn't affect the ring or sphere.

Again, you are failing to understand what "net effect" means.

 

[jsfisher]

No one suggested that gravity doesn't affect the ring or sphere.

Again, you are failing to understand what "net effect" means.

But that's the technique in play, no? Invent some reason without evidence why Mills is correct, but then when that statement proves to be ridiculous, create a diversion. Redirect attention elsewhere via either strawman or irrelevant aside.

 

[jadebox]

But that's the technique in play, no? Invent some reason without evidence why Mills is correct, but then when that statement proves to be ridiculous, create a diversion. Redirect attention elsewhere via either strawman or irrelevant aside.

Yeah. I suspect that he really does understand what "net" means, but it doesn't work in the context of the narrative he is presenting.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Speaking of "******* hilarious", you seriously comparing BLP to a business that is selling a product as opposed to doing research is just that.

I know you better than you know yourself.

That's the advantage knowing which science to apply here.

One of the fascinating things is monitoring the woo peddler's countenance change from cool and collected to frantic and pathetic as the degree of heat from exposure to sunshine burns the hair on the beetle's legs no matter where he scurries.

It's like a turtle on its back. A big snapper in the water is fearsome, but then on dry ground, on it's back, it flails about furiously with those stubby little legs and can't move an inch. You can grab it by the tail, and it poops itself while you pick it up.

Monty Python, the Black Knight always triumphs. That skit captures perfectly the transition a con man goes through as he goes from working a little old lady with the "Trust Fund" scam to the detectives arresting him and placing him in the cruiser. Going from formidable to a parody so silly you can't help but laugh in disbelief.

No, I really am a scientist. Or astronaut. Time traveler. Look at my Dick Tracy wrist watch you idiot! I am the chief of police! Why do you think there are no sirens, huh? Because I am already here, stupid. You're under arrest.

Thanks everyone. This is fabulous entertainment.

 

[markie]

No one suggested that gravity doesn't affect the ring or sphere.

Again, you are failing to understand what "net effect" means.

? People here have indeed suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere! Even our new resident "PhD" says that the earth inside a shell of mass would be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball, jostled every which way without any kind of force restraint except when it hit the shell. In other words he is saying that the laws of orbital mechanics don't apply if the orbiting masses transition to a spherical shell.