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

[jonesdave116]

Interesting.

But completely irrelevant ... our reliable Mills fans have repeatedly informed us that free electrons are flat discs, not orbitspheres.

Orbitspheres reminded me of 'Orbitsville', a novel by British sci-fi writer Bob Shaw. I might see if I can find it somewhere online. Great book, from memory. Might be worth a re-read. Not read it since I was a teen.

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

EDIT:

And far more believable than hydrino woo!

 

[JeanTate]

Hmm, take two photons of sufficient energy in the presence of matter to absorb the excess momentum and you get an electron and a positron. Pair production - no other ingredients except light. Been demonstrated since the 40s as I recall. So we can make matter out of light. The word "state" in the above sentence should not be confused with state space in QM. Mills is suggesting that a lepton is a photon confined to a region of space.

Riiight.

Question for you UncertainH: if you boost the energy, can you get a muon-antimuon pair? A pion-antipion pair? A proton-antiproton pair? A top-antitop pair?

Does Mills suggest that a hadron "is a photon confined to a region of space"?

 

[JeanTate]

Guys, come on .. Mills isn't really offering scientific theory .. he's making a sales pitch.

But what's he selling? A pocketful of hydrinos for every kitchen?

Ah yes, I momentarily forgot, he's selling an energy (heat, light, power, ...) generator, running on hydrinos. With commercial working prototypes available some time in February 2019.

 

[optiongeek]

free electrons are flat discs, not orbitspheres.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. The orbitsphere applies only to the bound electron, not the free electron. Therefore the L_z = 0.5 h_bar vector only applies to the bound electron, not the free electron. The Stern-Gerlach experiment only measures the spin of bound electrons in electrically neutral species. AFAIK, you can't measure the spin of charged species such as a free electron due to electrical interference.

 

[JeanTate]

I think there may be a misunderstanding. The orbitsphere applies only to the bound electron, not the free electron. Therefore the L_z = 0.5 h_bar vector only applies to the bound electron, not the free electron. The Stern-Gerlach experiment only measures the spin of bound electrons in electrically neutral species. AFAIK, you can't measure the spin of charged species such as a free electron due to electrical interference.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, it's not one orbitsphere, but dozens. How does each one know what the z direction is? How does an orbitsphere decide to be "up" or "down"?

 

[optiongeek]

Thanks for the clarification.

So, it's not one orbitsphere, but dozens. How does each one know what the z direction is? How does an orbitsphere decide to be "up" or "down"?

The rules for layering electron orbitspheres in a multi-electron atom are complex, but generally follow the pattern set down for spherical harmonics and minimization of energy. That is, more than one electron may occupy the same orbital radius, but they must occupy distinct spherical harmonics. Unsurprisingly, the pattern follows the familiar s, p, d, f orbitals we all learned from Chemistry. For each of the of ions with a given number of electrons, n, you can determine an ionization energy for a central charge +Z (where Z >= n) from electrical and magnetic interactions between the different electrons. The combination of orbitals that minimizes the ionization energy will depends only on n, and the calculation can then be easily calculated for all Z corresponding to that n.

This leads to a straight forward determination of all ionization energies for all ions of n electrons and Z protons. In fact, this can be done in a spreadsheet, which I have successfully replicated on my own for all ions of 1 through 20 electrons.

To be honest, this is the only reason I ever became interest in Mills' theory, and remain interested to the present. Back in the day, my Nobel winning Chem prof. assured my Freshman class that such a calculation was impossible. He waxed on about three-body problems and the like. Yet, following Mills' theory, I can perform this calculation quite easily in Excel. I'd like to get to the bottom of this mystery.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Sorry you'll have to do better than that. His proposal is that leptons are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size this is not to make the math easy. You will have to read most of the book to understand all of the derivations. Your opinion is not correct.


Again all the derivations are there so yes I suppose he did invent them.

Millsian started out as equations, then spreadsheets based on those equations, then visualization tools added. Quite a few years ago I followed through the derivations of some of those equations, put them in spreadsheets and confirmed them for myself because I was (and still am) skeptical. Others have done the same. Yes Millsian is completely backed up by his theory.

I have not read all or even most of the derivations, but the ones I have seen are not sound, or even there at all. They are mostly fait accomplis. Stating that a term is caused by a certain magnetic interaction doesn't make it so. Some terms are indeed known, and can be found by a simple classical analog, and that is valuable to know. Others cannot.

That ionization energies have empirical patterns is well known. It is also true that exact solutions with QM are difficult to set up, and take a lot of computer time. It is far easier to come up with an empirical formula, which I believe is what Mills has done.

The issue is not whether a Mills spreadsheet gives close answers, its whether the formulas are rooted in a valid physical theory. Beyond the first known terms, I don't think they are based on anything but the experimental results (curve fitting).

 

[The Man]

Thanks - much appreciated. I can certainly see why the text can admit that interpretation. My own sense is that Mills would likely object to the notion that he's providing a mathematical description instead of a physical one but I won't deny the language is vague.

As you noted before it doesn't seem in keeping with Mills presumed intent of providing physical descriptions. However, self-inconsistency is a general critique of Mills' assertions. So it would be consistent with such self-inconsistency. As I recall it came up before in discussion here as the physical aspects of the rings of charge were running into problems. That they were just mathematical tools was touted out and then once the physical properties of the rings of charge were being presented again as an explanation for holding the nucleus in position. That physicality ran into problems and they were just mathematical tools again.

Give it some time, someone with assert the physicality of the rings as some explanation, run into problems again and go 'nope, they're just mathematical abstractions and can't be held to physical consequences.'

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

The rules for layering electron orbitspheres in a multi-electron atom are complex, but generally follow the pattern set down for spherical harmonics and minimization of energy. That is, more than one electron may occupy the same orbital radius, but they must occupy distinct spherical harmonics. Unsurprisingly, the pattern follows the familiar s, p, d, f orbitals we all learned from Chemistry. For each of the of ions with a given number of electrons, n, you can determine an ionization energy for a central charge +Z (where Z >= n) from electrical and magnetic interactions between the different electrons. The combination of orbitals that minimizes the ionization energy will depends only on n, and the calculation can then be easily calculated for all Z corresponding to that n.

This leads to a straight forward determination of all ionization energies for all ions of n electrons and Z protons. In fact, this can be done in a spreadsheet, which I have successfully replicated on my own for all ions of 1 through 20 electrons.

To be honest, this is the only reason I ever became interest in Mills' theory, and remain interested to the present. Back in the day, my Nobel winning Chem prof. assured my Freshman class that such a calculation was impossible. He waxed on about three-body problems and the like. Yet, following Mills' theory, I can perform this calculation quite easily in Excel. I'd like to get to the bottom of this mystery.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me.

How does any of this answer either of my questions?

Oh, and what does “may occupy the same orbital radius, but they must occupy distinct spherical harmonics” mean?

 

[jsfisher]

Yes - the orbitsphere model has a total of h_bar of angular momentum broken down into vector components:

L_z = 0.5 h_bar,

L_xy = +/- 0.25 h_bar.​

As I mentioned, this alignment of angular momentum vectors exactly matches the result of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Sorta blows that whole thing about the orbit sphere being constant and uniform to pieces, no?

Moreover, since I can construct your geodesic structure relative to any local coordinate system of my choosing, the direction of the Z-axis is arbitrary.

Moreover, moreover, for each of the "great circles", wouldn't the Z-axis be normal to the plane of circle? That would put all of them in the plane of the equator. Wouldn't those vectors all sum to zero?

 

[jsfisher]

...
Yet, following Mills' theory, I can perform this calculation quite easily in Excel. I'd like to get to the bottom of this mystery.

No, actually you cannot. The only thing you can do is reproduce Mills' calculations from Mills' formula.

Mills' theory alone is too riddled with blunders to lead you anywhere useful. The very existence of the hydrino isn't predicted by his theory without is gross mistakes.

 

[UncertainH]

Sure pair production, not just electron production. When Mills can actually produce just an electron by just confining a photon "to a region of space", be sure to let us know.

Sure, but you might be waiting a long time since Mills makes no such claim. Pair production in this case would create a positron and an electron since charge, spin etc must be conserved.

 

[optiongeek]

Sorta blows that whole thing about the orbit sphere being constant and uniform to pieces, no?

If you have access to the GUTCP book, the derivation leading up to Fig 1.21 shows how the convolution of the two current vector fields (CVF) Mills uses to create the orbitsphere leads to a constant uniform charge density.

Moreover, since I can construct your geodesic structure relative to any local coordinate system of my choosing, the direction of the Z-axis is arbitrary.

We know the electron has a z-axis from the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which shows that the electron will only align up or down in a magnetic field.

Moreover, moreover, for each of the "great circles", wouldn't the Z-axis be normal to the plane of circle? That would put all of them in the plane of the equator. Wouldn't those vectors all sum to zero?

Again, the derivation prior to Fig 1.21 shows how the two CVFs result in angular momentum vector components of L_z = 0.5 h_bar and L_xv = +/- 0.25 h_bar.

 

[UncertainH]

I have not read all or even most of the derivations,

Then I suppose your conclusion is based on feelings. Don't get me wrong I would welcome it if you could be very specific about an error that you have found. I am by no means a blind Mills supporter but would prefer to examine the formulas rather than just just bandy about opinions and misinformed conjecture

 

[UncertainH]

Riiight.

Question for you UncertainH: if you boost the energy, can you get a muon-antimuon pair? A pion-antipion pair? A proton-antiproton pair? A top-antitop pair?

Does Mills suggest that a hadron "is a photon confined to a region of space"?

I believe he used the expression "a special state photon" as a means of illustrating the concept. The concept being that all fundamental particles (quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc ) are electromagnetic waves trapped in stable configurations.

 

[JeanTate]

I have not read all or even most of the derivations, but the ones I have seen are not sound, or even there at all. They are mostly fait accomplis. Stating that a term is caused by a certain magnetic interaction doesn't make it so. Some terms are indeed known, and can be found by a simple classical analog, and that is valuable to know. Others cannot.

That ionization energies have empirical patterns is well known. It is also true that exact solutions with QM are difficult to set up, and take a lot of computer time. It is far easier to come up with an empirical formula, which I believe is what Mills has done.

The issue is not whether a Mills spreadsheet gives close answers, its whether the formulas are rooted in a valid physical theory. Beyond the first known terms, I don't think they are based on anything but the experimental results (curve fitting).

Maybe if Mills were not so busy with hydrino-based generators production line challenges - ramping up to turn out 10,000 a week some time after working prototypes are delivered to independent test sites in February 2019 - he might revolutionize astronomy by re-inventing epicycles.

 

[JeanTate]

Sure, but you might be waiting a long time since Mills makes no such claim. Pair production in this case would create a positron and an electron since charge, spin etc must be conserved.

Wait ... didn’t you just write “all fundamental particles [...] are electromagnetic waves trapped in stable configurations”?

That reads as exactly the opposite of what you first wrote ...

 

[jsfisher]

If you have access to the GUTCP book, the derivation leading up to Fig 1.21 shows how the convolution of the two current vector fields (CVF) Mills uses to create the orbitsphere leads to a constant uniform charge density.

That's a loser right out of the gate. Mills' Big Book of Boo-Boos blunders quite early by failing to meet the Lorentz-invariant requirement for his charge-density function.

 

[JeanTate]

If you have access to the GUTCP book, the derivation leading up to Fig 1.21 shows how the convolution of the two current vector fields (CVF) Mills uses to create the orbitsphere leads to a constant uniform charge density.



We know the electron has a z-axis from the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which shows that the electron will only align up or down in a magnetic field.



Again, the derivation prior to Fig 1.21 shows how the two CVFs result in angular momentum vector components of L_z = 0.5 h_bar and L_xv = +/- 0.25 h_bar.

As with your apparent non-answer to my questions, you seem to have not addressed jsfisher’s points either. And misunderstood the Stern-Gerlach experiment too.

 

[optiongeek]

failing to meet the Lorentz-invariant requirement for his charge-density function.

Do you have a source for this?