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

[Hans]

It's a hat, a brosch, a pteridactile!

Hey do it properly, 'A Hat, A Broach, A Pterodactyl'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oAQOvOEXY

 

[UncertainH]

Electrons are point particles with a spherical charge.

If anyone is skeptical about the electron being a point charge and all the hand waving that goes with it in order to allow a dimensionless point particle to somehow have intrinsic angular momentum, avoid infinite energy and have mass. Here is an excellent paper that builds upon the extended electron model introduced by David Hestenes. Called "The Electron and Occam's Razor"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274514_The_Electron_and_Occam's_Razor/download

The reference to Mills in the above paper is

According to Randell L. Mills the free electron is “is a spinning two-dimensional disk of charge. The mass and
current density increase towards the center, but the angular velocity is constant. It produces an angular momentum
vector perpendicular to the plane of the disk” [29]. As in our proposed model the intrinsic angular momentum of free
electron is ~ but there is an important difference in charge distribution shape and speed. A constant angular velocity
for a flat charge distribution implies that the charge speed is not always equal to the speed of light as strictly demanded
by our model [30]. Mills’ theory [31,32] “assumes physical laws apply on all scales including the atomic scale” in
agreement with Occam’s razor principle, is based on simple fundamental physical laws and is highly predictive.

And here is an article without as much math that references this paper as well as the work of Holimid and ultra dense hydrogen. Do try to overlook the fact that it is on an e-cat website - it is an interesting read:

http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/electromagnetic-electron-new-fire/

The article mentions the difference between this model and Mills' model is that Mills current loop travels at less than light speed and in their model the current loop travels at light speed

 

[HappySkeptic99]

If anyone is skeptical about the electron being a point charge and all the hand waving that goes with it in order to allow a dimensionless point particle to somehow have intrinsic angular momentum, avoid infinite energy and have mass. Here is an excellent paper that builds upon the extended electron model introduced by David Hestenes. Called "The Electron and Occam's Razor"

The article mentions the difference between this model and Mills' model is that Mills current loop travels at less than light speed and in their model the current loop travels at light speed

This work is not mainstream science, but at least it isn't as bad as Mills. I don't have the time to critique it -- that would take days to get myself up to speed on the references they cite. I am not terribly impressed with their construction, and I don't know how far they can push their mathematical trick.

 

[markie]

Newton's laws work just fine, but each point on the hard spherical shell is no longer in its own orbit if it's part of a solid body. When you link up the points, force is transmitted between them, and they act as one unit. Then the shell theorem applies.

In other words, the shell theorem applies to a shell with no interior motion. The orbitsphere is different; it is in motion and there is no force transmitted between points on the orbitsphere.

1) A point outside a spherical shell will perceive a net gravitational force from the shell, as if all the shell's mass was at it's exact center.

True.

2) A point inside a spherical shell will perceive no net gravitational forces from the shell.

True if the shell is static and empty. But if the shell is in orbital motion, there must be a mass inside the shell. And if there is such a mass, then a 'point somewhere inside the spherical shell' will not experience a net gravitational force of zero ; it will experience a gravitational force from the mass inside the sphere.

Mills has a real problem with his spheres. They can't be "hard spheres", they have to be elastic, or they wouldn't be able to come to an equilibrium radius. But, if they are elastic, an elastic sphere isn't stable either (someone posted something about dynamic simulations), and what is the elasticity? How does the elasticity not affect the energy of the system? Is it like memory foam, and it eventually goes to zero force, but resists fast change?

It is crazy how willfully one has to ignore the problems with this construction, and it gains you nothing. It un-answers known physics experiments, while gaining nothing of value.

The orbitsphere is not elastic. It is rigid, but yet in motion. Each orbiting point is declared to have the same speed and thus each point orbits at the same distance from the nucleus. This is orbital mechanics, plain and simple. The orbitsphere is thus at a fixed distance from nucleus, meaning the nucleus doesn't move from the orbitsphere centre. This result is different from that for a static shell and the shell theorem. So, the shell theorem does not apply. It is a different physical object. No known physics experiments apply to an orbitsphere like object, only to static shell objects. So it doesn't 'un-answer' anything. Rather, it provides answers to a novel object. Those answers in turn lead to to very accurate results for predicting things like ionization and bond energies of atomic and molecular species.

 

[markie]

No, that's not what they said. They said that the net effect within the sphere is zero.

OK let's roll with that.

He is right, of course. Inside the sphere, the net effect of gravity between any point inside the shell and the shell is zero. It's known as the "Shell Theorom" and Wikipedia has an article explaining it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Edit: I need to remember to read the next page of replies before I reply.

That applies to an empty, static sphere. It does not apply to an orbitsphere orbiting a central mass.

 

[markie]

The actual assertion is that it's a series of independent, overlapping rings, which pass through each other as if they were the only ones there. So imagine that rather than one moon there's an infinite number of moons, all in stable orbits, all of which are insubstantial to each other, and all of which the laws of physics act on as if they were the only moon.

Correct you are. Refreshing to see someone can understand the concept behind the object (the orbitsphere) even if he may not agree that such an object exists.

 

[markie]

And that assertion is self-contradictory.

It isn't, since superposition is a known phenomenon.

 

[Hellbound]

That applies to an empty, static sphere. It does not apply to an orbitsphere orbiting a central mass.

It also doesn't apply to spherical cubes. And for the same reasons.

 

[The Moog]

In other words, the shell theorem applies to a shell with no interior motion.

No. How did you manage to get this from what he said?

 

[markie]

If anyone is skeptical about the electron being a point charge and all the hand waving that goes with it in order to allow a dimensionless point particle to somehow have intrinsic angular momentum, avoid infinite energy and have mass. Here is an excellent paper that builds upon the extended electron model introduced by David Hestenes. Called "The Electron and Occam's Razor"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274514_The_Electron_and_Occam's_Razor/download

The reference to Mills in the above paper is

And here is an article without as much math that references this paper as well as the work of Holimid and ultra dense hydrogen. Do try to overlook the fact that it is on an e-cat website - it is an interesting read:

http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/electromagnetic-electron-new-fire/

The article mentions the difference between this model and Mills' model is that Mills current loop travels at less than light speed and in their model the current loop travels at light speed

Good to know, thanks. I like that Mills is inspiring others to find a classical description of nature.

 

[markie]

No. How did you manage to get this from what he said?

Because, if the shell is composed of moving mass, there must be a central mass inside the shell, by orbital mechanics. And if there is a central mass inside, then the shell theorem does not apply since there is a now a non uniform gravitational field inside the shell.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Because, if the shell is composed of moving mass, there must be a central mass inside the shell, by orbital mechanics. And if there is a central mass inside, then the shell theorem does not apply since there is a now a non uniform gravitational field inside the shell.

central mass? or center of mass?

 

[markie]

central mass? or center of mass?

Central mass.

 

[Spektator]

Hey do it properly, 'A Hat, A Broach, A Pterodactyl'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oAQOvOEXY

Even more properly 'A hat, a brooch, a pterodactyl.'

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Its the one thing BLP and Mill CAN do very well - not make a produce to sell and they have been achieving that for 30 years.

Thank you, Hans.

For putting into elegant form the idea that Mills is serving a P.T. Barnum dictum.

If you view BLP from a power production standard, it is zero, literally. If you view them from a woo-market service provider standard, they're top of the charts.

Just look at those slick futuristic gizmos that do nothing but draw in millions per year in suckers, as Barnum called them.

The right thing to marvel at is how well this con man has played his targets. It isn't a study area of mine so I can't really say what he is doing that others fail at.

 

[jsfisher]

In other words, the shell theorem applies to a shell with no interior motion.

A shell with interior motion? Well, isn't that special.

The orbitsphere is different; it is in motion and there is no force transmitted between points on the orbitsphere.

The motion of the sphere is irrelevant, and what you are describing of the orbitshpere isn't a sphere, at all, but distinct, unconnected parts.

That applies to an empty, static sphere. It does not apply to an orbitsphere orbiting a central mass.

You really cannot help yourself, can you? You always have to make up something no matter how big the lie. By the way, spheres cannot orbit a central mass; they can, however, rotate about a central mass.

 

[markie]

A shell with interior motion? Well, isn't that special.

The motion of the sphere is irrelevant, and what you are describing of the orbitshpere isn't a sphere, at all, but distinct, unconnected parts.

You really cannot help yourself, can you? You always have to make up something no matter how big the lie. By the way, spheres cannot orbit a central mass; they can, however, rotate about a central mass.

Unlike SqueegeeB it appears you can't conceive of a sphere surface comprised of moving, orbiting points (or rings) which pass through each other unaffected.

 

[Myriad]

Unlike SqueegeeB it appears you can't conceive of a sphere surface comprised of moving, orbiting points (or rings) which pass through each other unaffected.

Not if said sphere is also described as "rigid." If the orbiting rings/points pass through each other then they do not maintain fixed relative positions with respect to one another; and if they don't affect each other then they do not transmit forces between one another. Thus there is no conceivable rigidity.

Like Hellhound said, it's like describing the shell as a spherical cube. So completely self-contradictory that there is no need to farther refute it.

 

[markie]

Not if said sphere is also described as "rigid." If the orbiting rings/points pass through each other then they do not maintain fixed relative positions with respect to one another; and if they don't affect each other then they do not transmit forces between one another. Thus there is no conceivable rigidity.

Like Hellhound said, it's like describing the shell as a spherical cube. So completely self-contradictory that there is no need to farther refute it.

The rigidity doesn't have to do with lateral forces along the surface, which is what you would be familiar with. It has to do with forces perpendicular (normal) to the sphere's surface, giving rise to pressure or tension on the orbitsphere surface. The inward pull of the central centripetal force meets the equal and opposite outward pull of the centrifugal 'force'.
Mills calculates this as an incredible 2.33 * 10^12 N / m^2 which is about 20 million atmospheres (see appendix 2). So yeah it's rigid.

 

[Reality Check]

If anyone is skeptical about the electron being a point charge and all the hand waving that goes with it in order to allow a dimensionless point particle to somehow have intrinsic angular momentum, avoid infinite energy and have mass. ...

If anyone is skeptical than they can do what Pauli did and apply textbook physics to an extended electron with its angular momentum from its measured magnetic moment. They will get the same result. It is physically impossible because that extended electron will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light.
As soon as UncertainH wrote "in their model the current loop travels at light speed" UncertainH debunked the paper!

If anyone is skeptical then they can read about or even do the experiment that shows that electrons actually have intrinsic angular momentum.

Skeptics can read Wikipedia and not rely on a probably pseudoscience paper citing an obviously deluded crank (Mills) and being linked to by a crank blog supporting the fraudster Andrea Rossi!

Spin

The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.

Stern–Gerlach experiment

The Stern–Gerlach experiment demonstrated that the spatial orientation of angular momentum is quantized, and thus an atomic-scale system having intrinsically quantum properties. In the original experiment, silver atoms were sent through a spatially varying magnetic field, which deflected them before they struck a detector screen, such as a glass slide. Particles with non-zero magnetic moment are deflected, due to the magnetic field gradient, from a straight path. The screen reveals discrete points of accumulation, rather than a continuous distribution,[1] owing to their quantized spin. Historically, this experiment was decisive in convincing physicists of the reality of angular-momentum quantization in all atomic-scale systems.[2][3]

The experiment was first conducted by the German physicists Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach in 1922.[1][4][5]

The Electron and Occam's Razor

Abstract This paper introduces a Zitterbewegung (ZBW) model of the electron by applying the principle of Occam's razor to Maxwell's equations and by introducing a scalar component in the electromagnetic field.

The title and abstract are dubious in themselves. Occam's Razor is not a principle or a method used to derive new theories. Occam's Razor is a heuristic used to select which completing theory is more trustworthy. Basically, if two theories have identical predictions then trust the one with the fewer entities.