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

[Reality Check]

The shell theorem is basic physics that Mills does not address

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.

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Spewing fantasies about what Mills delusions might do does not remove the delusions.

This Mils delusion is an infinitely thin sphere with no "interior". Mills imagines infinitely thin current loops on that sphere and textbook electromagnetism says there will be forces between them. Points on the sphere are charged negatively ! The sphere should explode unless it is mechanically rigid.

 

[Reality Check]

Lies about the shell theorem which applies to a body inside a rigid sphere

That applies to an empty, static sphere.

14 December 2018 markie: Lies about the shell theorem which applies to a body inside a rigid sphere.
The sphere is not empty, it has a body inside it as we have been stating for months.
The sphere is not "static". It can move. It is the movement that is a small part of what shows Mills orbitsphere to be delusional.
The sphere is rigid which means that it keeps it shape as a sphere and what does Mills have - an orbitsphere !
Mills hydrogen atom is physically impossible because Mills has a proton inside a rigid charged sphere, as in the shell theorem.

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

 

[markie]

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Spewing fantasies about what Mills delusions might do does not remove the delusions.

This Mils delusion is an infinitely thin sphere with no "interior". Mills imagines infinitely thin current loops on that sphere and textbook electromagnetism says there will be forces between them. Points on the sphere are charged negatively ! The sphere should explode unless it is mechanically rigid.

'Interior' motion should be understood as inherent motion comprising the orbitsphere surface. There are no electrostatic forces between points on a 2D surface continuum of (negative) charge, whether or not it is moving. This is well known. The electric field is perpendicular to the surface and discontinuous at the surface. The field ends at the surface. Also, the surface is superconducting. It is known there is no field inside a superconductor. No electric field, no coulombic repulsive forces along the surface.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Central mass.

Well in that case it is inherently unstable.

The best analogy I can think of is Lagrange points. While there are 5 points of equilibrium, only L4 and L5 are stable.

In your example an actual central mass would will tend to fall out of center, and the farther out of center the more forces fall out of equilibrium, much like L1 L2 and L3 are in equilibrium, but as objects are unstable there, they tend to fall away from those positions without active station keeping in order to maintain their position.

What you are proposing couldn't possibly be related to either hydrinos or any other matter for that matter. (sorry couldn't resist)

With what you suppose is happening the whole Universe would pop out of existence in a fraction of a second.(edit to add as we know it) Almost instantly. Unless you also can point to some sort of active station keeping here too?

 

[Hans]

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.

If you look at how markie tries to make BLP's wild claims "possible". All he does, over and over again is to constantly bring up anything not related to that one key point - nothing is every produced. Instead he prances about trying to make obscure points in areas that have no value in that one area - producing a product.

 

[Reality Check]

'Interior' ....

Usual lies as we should expect from a supporter of the ignorant, deluded and lying Mills. Mills does not have a "2D surface continuum of (negative) charge". Mills delusion is current loops magically shaped into a rigid sphere.
Electromagnetism 101: Magnetic Force Between Wires (currents!). Electromagnets exist (a current loop with a magnetic field).

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

 

[UncertainH]

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.

LOL! A skeptic can also realize that a lot has happened since 1925. Do a simple search on "extended electron models" and a vast array of papers from reputable physicists. Read some of the papers and follow the citations. You will find interesting ideas from Dirac, Hestenes, Schwinger, and a lot of new names as well. But this topic probably deserves a thread of its own. I referenced the previous paper because it made mention of Mills

 

[markie]

Usual lies as we should expect from a supporter of the ignorant, deluded and lying Mills. Mills does not have a "2D surface continuum of (negative) charge". Mills delusion is current loops magically shaped into a rigid sphere.
Electromagnetism 101: Magnetic Force Between Wires (currents!). Electromagnets exist (a current loop with a magnetic field).

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Yes your 'current loops' is fine. Current loops of what? Mass and charge, together. The magnetic field lines are normal to both the current and the electrical field lines. So like the electrical field lines they don't operate along the 2D orbitsphere surface if that's what you were implying with the linked diagram.

 

[markie]

If you look at how markie tries to make BLP's wild claims "possible". All he does, over and over again is to constantly bring up anything not related to that one key point - nothing is every produced. Instead he prances about trying to make obscure points in areas that have no value in that one area - producing a product.

Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.

 

[markie]

Well in that case it is inherently unstable.

The best analogy I can think of is Lagrange points. While there are 5 points of equilibrium, only L4 and L5 are stable.

In your example an actual central mass would will tend to fall out of center, and the farther out of center the more forces fall out of equilibrium, much like L1 L2 and L3 are in equilibrium, but as objects are unstable there, they tend to fall away from those positions without active station keeping in order to maintain their position.

What you are proposing couldn't possibly be related to either hydrinos or any other matter for that matter. (sorry couldn't resist)

With what you suppose is happening the whole Universe would pop out of existence in a fraction of a second.(edit to add as we know it) Almost instantly. Unless you also can point to some sort of active station keeping here too?

Didn't know that about the Lagrange points. But have no fear, the universe is safe. It will take about 13.6 electron volts to budge the proton from its locked location at the centre of the hydrogen orbitsphere.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Didn't know that about the Lagrange points. But have no fear, the universe is safe. It will take about 13.6 electron volts to budge the proton from its locked location at the centre of the hydrogen orbitsphere.

I used Lagrange points as an example, but it also applies to shell theorem too. And beyond that it not only applies to gravity, but also any force with the inverse square law, including for example the electrostatic force.

Which means you have it all exactly backwards. It would naturally fall out unless a force was actively applied to prevent it.

I have no idea which force you are supposing would normally be holding the mass precisely at center, but without a force actively countering, it would destabilize pretty much from anything at all. Mass has inertia, so any change at all in any direction and poof.

Oh and I have no fear at all because I am quite certain all what you and Mills are talking about is unicorn manure. We can argue how stinky Unicorn manure may or may not be till the end of days, but it will never mean hydrinos are real. Thus the argument means nothing. The real world doesn't work that way.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Even then it's not a hard and fast rule which tells you which theory is correct. It's just a method to determine which theory should be given preference.

 

[Darat]

Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.

You missed a "not" before validated.

If it had been validated in any meaningful way you'd have researchers falling over themselves to duplicate and expand on the work.

You may not be aware but not that many years ago, around the time Mill started making his promises of a commercial product in the next 6 months there was an amazing claim made about what was known as "cold fusion". What then happened was literally dozens of researchers over the world jumped into this apparent incredible breakthrough that was at odds with the current consensus regarding how fusion could be made to happen. Now sadly it proved to not be the breakthrough the original researchers believed it was but that's not the point of me telling the tale. The point is if a fantastic not known about energy production was validated you'd have the science community in uproar again as they jump on the bandwagon.

But because his claims have never been validated in any meaningful way he has failed to garner the interest of the wider science research community.

 

[Darat]

Even then it's not a hard and fast rule which tells you which theory is correct. It's just a method to determine which theory should be given preference.

Not even that really, it just tells you which in principle should be the easiest theory to verify or falsify.

 

[Myriad]

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.

That's not what rigidity is. Without lateral forces along the surface and interaction between the parts of the sphere, there is no rigidity. It doesn't matter how strong or well-balanced the forces on the individual parts (points or rings) are.

If you have a pile of sand, the gravitational force on every grain is perfectly balanced by upward contact forces. That doesn't make the sand pile rigid.

Stars in galaxies have the same balance between "inward pull of the central centripetal force" and "equal and opposite outward pull of the centrifugal 'force'". That does not make galaxies rigid. When perturbed by external forces, galaxies do this.

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?

 

[JeanTate]

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.


True.

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.



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.

Creative, I’ll give you that.

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center. The rings’ orientations are evenly distributed. And for every ring rotating one direction, there’s one - and only one - ring rotating in the opposite direction.

I intend to explore this, in relation to known behavior of electrons, over the next few posts.

For now, just this: how do these rings get created? Recall that an isolated electron is a disk, presumably without rotating rings. And when? Only when the sphere is fully formed? Or is there some intermediate stage?

 

[markie]

That's not what rigidity is. Without lateral forces along the surface and interaction between the parts of the sphere, there is no rigidity. It doesn't matter how strong or well-balanced the forces on the individual parts (points or rings) are.

If you have a pile of sand, the gravitational force on every grain is perfectly balanced by upward contact forces. That doesn't make the sand pile rigid.

I think it does make a difference about how strong the counteracting forces are.
For instance I don't think a certain force applied to a pile of sand on the earth would produce the same effect as the same force applied to the same pile of sand on a neutron star.

Stars in galaxies have the same balance between "inward pull of the central centripetal force" and "equal and opposite outward pull of the centrifugal 'force'". That does not make galaxies rigid. When perturbed by external forces, galaxies do this.

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?

Gravity is a weak force especially compared to the huge coulombic force between the proton and electron. Also, the electron doesn't have the luxury of having some of its properties perturbed, as do parts of a galaxy.

 

[markie]

You missed a "not" before validated.

If it had been validated in any meaningful way you'd have researchers falling over themselves to duplicate and expand on the work.

You may not be aware but not that many years ago, around the time Mill started making his promises of a commercial product in the next 6 months there was an amazing claim made about what was known as "cold fusion". What then happened was literally dozens of researchers over the world jumped into this apparent incredible breakthrough that was at odds with the current consensus regarding how fusion could be made to happen. Now sadly it proved to not be the breakthrough the original researchers believed it was but that's not the point of me telling the tale. The point is if a fantastic not known about energy production was validated you'd have the science community in uproar again as they jump on the bandwagon.

But because his claims have never been validated in any meaningful way he has failed to garner the interest of the wider science research community.

Mills wasn't promising an energy breakthrough before March of 1989. He wasn't in academia and he wasn't an established world famous chemist. The letdown from academia largely failing to reproduce the Pons and Fleischmann effect poisoned the well for future academic openess toward 'unlikely' energy sources, whether cold fusion or hydrino. So the scientific community no longer goes into a frenzy when there are whispers of a too good to be true energy source. It's more like, "yeah, sure". Thankfully industry and to a lesser degree the media aren't as jaded.

 

[markie]

Creative, I’ll give you that.

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center. The rings’ orientations are evenly distributed. And for every ring rotating one direction, there’s one - and only one - ring rotating in the opposite direction.

I intend to explore this, in relation to known behavior of electrons, over the next few posts.

For now, just this: how do these rings get created? Recall that an isolated electron is a disk, presumably without rotating rings. And when? Only when the sphere is fully formed? Or is there some intermediate stage?

The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere. (For the spinning free electron disk it is an inward magnetic force that is in balance the outward centrifugal inertial mass 'force'.)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere.

How are the rings there in a spherical, 1-dimensional disk?