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

[jsfisher]

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.

That's still 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. (And I am confident you already know the reference.)

That aside, though, and against my better judgement, I did have a peek at the BBoBB. Is it of no concern whatsoever that resorting to not just one but two great circles of charge may be getting a bit arbitrary and that the choice for the axis for rotation for the two, orthogonal great circles is a bit arbitrary. (There may be an actual basis in Physics of all that, but it seems arbitrary to me.) But the thing of most concern, at least to this non-physicist, is that construction does not cover the entire sphere.

So, yeah, there seems to be a discrepancy.

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.

So, the direction of the Z-axis is arbitrary in the absence of 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.

Apparently, since I was thinking you really needed to create a sphere as the surface of revolution, I took an entirely different approach than you (or Mills). However, I "over rotated" as it turns out; I went 360 degrees when I should have stopped at 180. The sum (whatever it might be) need not necessarily be zero.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Accredited investors only have to fill out forms declaring their eligibility to be an accredited investor. All high-wealth individuals can be accredited investors (high income and over 1 million net worth). In addition, in my jurisdiction, "friends and family" of a seller of stock could also buy, regardless of wealth.

As for the rest -- I agree. I got introduced to Mills by a colleague who was trying to set up a hedge fund to buy up BLP stock owned by a bank, that had foreclosed on another hedge fund (the cost? A 30% discount over the last-in investor. The company valuation at the last-in price was about $25 Billion, and the claim was that it will be worth Trillions).

I went to a sales presentation (which included a video call to Brett Holverstott) to make sure none of my friends got scammed. As far as I know, the fund never got off the ground.

Always eager to be exact, thank you. I am most keenly interested in any kind of bona-fide financial report, you would think a balance sheet as a place to start.

I think the most recent filing has them at $18.3 million in shares sold, wow that is a gain of $8 million over roughly the same time in 2016. $2 million a year in fraud revenue.

So he has a building. Who knows what kind of debt is against it. They have machines and equipment, but same thing there. He might have business credit cards up the wazoo.

They claim 22 employees and a bunch of contractors but generally we should expect no reaserch to be happening with this type of fraud other than the fake zapper thing.

Because just the 22 employees at $15 an hour plus Social Security taxes and benefits is going to run close to a million dollars a year in wages if the people actually have jobs they are doing like counting hydrinos, heating hydrinos, building hyrdino storage tanks & etc.

But if it is people with college degrees doing actual experiments rising to the level of "science" and they have to buy materials and fabricate parts, etc. then it is easy to see they would need to be bringing in more than $2 Million a year just to pay salaries of the hoax team, let alone contractors and more still for materials, electricity, property taxes, water, etc.

If anybody on the forum lives near the address I posted above you could just park and see if there is anything going on. My guess is you have an answering machine and a building he lives in with nobody else there most of the time. It has some fake Star Trek machines inside and some people he pays to act when he can arrange a potempkin village tour ahead of time.

I know there is a "bad actor" exception to this particular type of filing. If any of these company principles has a record, I know that is one automatic disqualification.

So for example, Clint Eastwood, he can file. Good Actor. Samual Jackson, yeah he can file too.

 

[jrhowell]

So he has a building. Who knows what kind of debt is against it.

If you look earlier in this thread you can see that it was established that the building is actually owned by Mills and being leased to BrLP. It is likely that the company has very few tangible assets.

Also, it was listed for sale and you could see pictures of the interior, including offices and equipment, in the real estate listing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The quarterly reports are not meant to be financial reports. They are marketing materials to rope in new investors that are updated quarterly to make it look as if they are on the verge of having a real product when they actually do not have anything.

Well of course, and we are right now directly overhead of the matter for financial fraud.

His SEC filing status is designed so that investors are the only people who are shown any kind of financial statements written in words and dollar signs instead of cartoon pictures.

These are going to be people like little old ladies Bernie Madoff was happy to steal from too, their life savings if they can get it, and we don't know what he is showing them.

But they are supposed to be financially savvy. Whereas investing with this company is proof enough to me you are not financially savvy.

The masters, like Madoff, get the rubes to beg them to take their money. I see this company is set up similarly where they are trying to act like you need to be the one proposing to them.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

If you look earlier in this thread you can see that it was established that the building is actually owned by Mills and being leased to BrLP. It is likely that the company has very few tangible assets.

Also, it was listed for sale and you could see pictures of the interior, including offices and equipment, in the real estate listing.

Thank you, it's a wee bit long and I come in and out. and in.

There are 45 investors as of what I think to be the latest SEC filing.

In these SEC filings, if any of the capital raised goes to the company principles in salary and wages, you have to report it. Because a company that just pays itself salaries and wages out of investor capital instead of... investing in anything... is fraud by definition.

Now thank you for the lease information because this is a perfect way for the money laundering operation to work.

At some point Mills obtains ownership of a building in this 30 year saga. A building owner can make money leasing the building for the rest of his life, he doesn't care what goes on in the building. He is set for life whether he inherited it, stole it, or built up enough savings, whatever.

Company investors pay the lease, which is pocketed by Mills. He is probably charging all kinds of personal expenses to the company. The consultants, that is a great way to buy/trade for in-kind services, corrupt friends or better still SEC people assigned to investigate you. Scientology infiltrated the IRS, for example. Buying your way in is faster.

So you can forensicly untangle how Mills is turning investor money into his paycheck. It is absurd to think otherwise. A company principle leasing his own property to the business?

I think that is a world record for arms length transaction, the long bomb, right? Real distant. The exact same hand paying for and receiving the lease money. Out of investor funds. No red flag here at all.

 

[Hans]

Thank you, it's a wee bit long and I come in and out. and in.

There are 45 investors as of what I think to be the latest SEC filing.

In these SEC filings, if any of the capital raised goes to the company principles in salary and wages, you have to report it. Because a company that just pays itself salaries and wages out of investor capital instead of... investing in anything... is fraud by definition.

Now thank you for the lease information because this is a perfect way for the money laundering operation to work.

At some point Mills obtains ownership of a building in this 30 year saga. A building owner can make money leasing the building for the rest of his life, he doesn't care what goes on in the building. He is set for life whether he inherited it, stole it, or built up enough savings, whatever.

Company investors pay the lease, which is pocketed by Mills. He is probably charging all kinds of personal expenses to the company. The consultants, that is a great way to buy/trade for in-kind services, corrupt friends or better still SEC people assigned to investigate you. Scientology infiltrated the IRS, for example. Buying your way in is faster.

So you can forensicly untangle how Mills is turning investor money into his paycheck. It is absurd to think otherwise. A company principle leasing his own property to the business?

I think that is a world record for arms length transaction, the long bomb, right? Real distant. The exact same hand paying for and receiving the lease money. Out of investor funds. No red flag here at all.

Yep that seems to be the methodology of the scam. Thanks for outlining it for us again.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks for your post on the S-G experiment.

Getting back to what you wrote earlier.

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.

Re S-G with H: how does the orbitsphere know what the x, y, and z directions are?

 

[optiongeek]

Re S-G with H: how does the orbitsphere know what the x, y, and z directions are?

My interpretation is to think about what would happen if you simply throw a magnet through a uniform vertical field with sufficient velocity. The magnetic force from the field will cause the magnet to align itself vertically as it enters the field. The result of the S-G experiment reveals that an atom with a spin of +1/2 will exit the field aligned "up", while another with spin -1/2 will exit the field aligned "down". To say that an electron has a distinguishable z-axis simply means it can be leveraged to orient the atom that contains it by applying a magnetic field.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

My interpretation is to think about what would happen if you simply throw a magnet through a uniform vertical field with sufficient velocity. The magnetic force from the field will cause the magnet to align itself vertically as it enters the field. The result of the S-G experiment reveals that an atom with a spin of +1/2 will exit the field aligned "up", while another with spin -1/2 will exit the field aligned "down". To say that an electron has a distinguishable z-axis simply means it can be leveraged to orient the atom that contains it by applying a magnetic field.

Curiously, your post seems to say nothing about orbitspheres, or hydrogen. Why is that?

 

[optiongeek]

Thanks.

Curiously, your post seems to say nothing about orbitspheres, or hydrogen. Why is that?

Editing choices made in the interest of brevity and clarity. Perhaps I've worn out my welcome on this thread. Appreciate your time.

 

[UncertainH]

Thanks for your post on the S-G experiment.

Getting back to what you wrote earlier.

Re S-G with H: how does the orbitsphere know what the x, y, and z directions are?

I feel compelled to chime in here and am starting to think that some of the questions are purposefully meant to obfuscate and deflect. This is high school math 101. Of course the orbitshere does not need to "know" what it's axes are.


In math, the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary and generally chosen to simplify the problem at hand. For instance usually when dealing with spheres one would choose the center of the sphere as the origin since choosing anything other than that would make the math unnecessarily difficult. Likewise the choice of axis on a sphere is generally arbitrary. Once the axes are chosen the math is then applied. In the frame of reference of the orbitsphere the equations show that there is a symmetry about an axis. Let this axis be called z. So the math is built to illustrate that there is a spin component about this arbitrary axis called z and another spin component about an orthogonal axis called x. This is all within the frame of reference of the center of the orbitsphere. The laboratory would also have an arbitrary frame of reference chosen most likely to be lining up in some fashion with the direction of the applied magnetic field.

Then the experiment is performed and the components of spin interacting with the magnetic field cause the observed behavior.

 

[JeanTate]

I feel compelled to chime in here and am starting to think that some of the questions are purposefully meant to obfuscate and deflect.

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.

This is high school math 101.

From my POV, orbitspheres are weird, exotic ... unphysical things. Very different from the spheres one learns about in Math 101.

Of course the orbitshere does not need to "know" what it's axes are.


In math, the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary and generally chosen to simplify the problem at hand. For instance usually when dealing with spheres one would choose the center of the sphere as the origin since choosing anything other than that would make the math unnecessarily difficult. Likewise the choice of axis on a sphere is generally arbitrary. Once the axes are chosen the math is then applied. In the frame of reference of the orbitsphere the equations show that there is a symmetry about an axis.

And here is one of those weird, exotic things: spheres have an uncountably infinite number of axes about which there is symmetry. An orbitsphere has an uncountably infinite number of counter rotating ring pairs which collectively produce a sphere, every surface element of which has identically equal mass density and change density. These too have an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes.

So which of these infinitely many axes are you referring to?

Let this axis be called z. So the math is built to illustrate that there is a spin component about this arbitrary axis called z and another spin component about an orthogonal axis called x.

And “the math” can also be used to show that the three components are identical to a single spin, you know, using vector addition.

But from what I’ve read, from posts in this thread, some magically how, this is not possible for orbitspheres. Maybe you can clarify?

This is all within the frame of reference of the center of the orbitsphere. The laboratory would also have an arbitrary frame of reference chosen most likely to be lining up in some fashion with the direction of the applied magnetic field.

Then the experiment is performed and the components of spin interacting with the magnetic field cause the observed behavior.

What “observed behavior” corresponds to the x-axis component “interacting with the magnetic field”?

 

[HappySkeptic99]

I think the most recent filing has them at $18.3 million in shares sold, wow that is a gain of $8 million over roughly the same time in 2016. $2 million a year in fraud revenue.

I haven't read the filing, but according to the documents I read, there was around $125 million in total shares sold during the lifetime of the company. They do funding in rounds, and last time was a single billionaire investor. I believe they will have to do more funding in around 2 years.

I may have the company valuation based on the last investor wrong. It may have been $6 Billion. I can't easily access the documents I read, so my memory may be wrong. I just knew it was a ridiculously high number''.

A link to a summary of the last investor open meeting was posted on this forum. The summary was obviously from a "believer", but it sounded like the investors were getting very antsy about getting their money out of the company. They wanted BLP to set up the ability to sell shares on secondary exchanges. It was mentioned by members here that this would expose BLP to more SEC scrutiny, and would likely never happen. I agree.

The only way a BLP shareholder can get money out of the company now is to pawn off the shares onto friends or some accredited investor with more money than brains.

I think Mills is likely caught up in his own delusions, and while BLP didn't start out as a scam, it almost certainly has to be now. I make this judgement based on the flawed theory, the extremely low quality of science, the ridiculous device constructions, and the inability to demonstrate anything beyond some flashes that consume the materials.

I think the person that gets caught up in the BLP cult is someone who believes they are smart enough to not be scammed. I think someone with "some technical knowledge" is more likely to be scammed than someone with none, or someone with a high level of knowledge. The person with "some knowledge" will be impressed by the math and the testimony of believers, and won't be able to assess their own level of incompetence.

Someone with no knowledge will just assume its a scam, and give it little thought. Someone with high skills will see the glaring problems.

I know there is a "bad actor" exception to this particular type of filing. If any of these company principles has a record, I know that is one automatic disqualification.

So for example, Clint Eastwood, he can file. Good Actor. Samual Jackson, yeah he can file too.

Yup, both "good actors:

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Editing choices made in the interest of brevity and clarity. Perhaps I've worn out my welcome on this thread. Appreciate your time.

Please don't run away. We always appreciate people who are willing to share their interpretation of Mills' theory.

This is a board that has a rather robust approach to debate. You should expect to challenge and be challenged. If nothing else, that's how actual science is done - by people trying to tear down each others' hypotheses. If the hypothesis is actually right, and you actually understand it, there should be nothing to fear from being challenged.

Please. You are very welcome. Don't mistake people being confrontational for you not being welcome.

 

[jsfisher]

And here is one of those weird, exotic things: spheres have an uncountably infinite number of axes about which there is symmetry. An orbitsphere has an uncountably infinite number of counter rotating ring pairs which collectively produce a sphere, every surface element of which has identically equal mass density and change density. These too have an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes.

That's one of the curiosities. The surface of revolution from the ring pairs is not a sphere with Mills' construction.

 

[JeanTate]

That's one of the curiosities. The surface of revolution from the ring pairs is not a sphere with Mills' construction.

Weird, isn’t it?

My reading of the posts, here in this thread - I’ll readily admit I likely have not fully understood them - is confusion ... the orbitsphere is not a sphere, yet it is shaped like a sphere, every surface is identical in every measure, etc. Furthermore, Mills’ math showing there is a difference is, to me, smoke and mirrors ... there’s no substance. But maybe the Mills fans here can’t explain it well; maybe RC and HS99, to pick just two, misunderstand what they read in the BBofBB; maybe ...

 

[markie]

I agree that one can choose any mathematical tool you want, regardless of how ridiculous it is, if it makes precise predictions. But, if the predictions are better without an arbitrary construction, then one should throw away the construction.

Why you say 'arbitrary' is a strange one. Mills has constructed a physical electron model specifically to conform to what is seen from experiment. Thus for instance he arrives at a magnetic moment for the electron derived from moving charge.

This is the argument some of Mills' supporters use -- that a hypothesis can make any arbitrary construction one wants, provided it works. Particle-wave duality is pretty out-there, after all, but it works.

The reality is that no, you can't just create an arbitrary construction, without determining the implications of your construction. In Mills case of the rotating charge rings, he doesn't even get a stable construction -- remember he is trying to use classical physics. Then, his calculations don't even get correct results.

You don't know that it is a stable construction or not. And yes, his calculations get accurate results.

I totally understand why Mills created his charged rings. They take the radial dimension out of the equation (once he defines a stable radius), making the math a lot easier (2-D, not 3-D). He needs rings to prevent the radiation condition.

What he has done is created a 2-D projection of the 3-D wavefunction, for Hydrogen, onto a hard sphere. Yes, this makes math really easy. Too bad physicists never thought of it (sarcasm).

You at least got the 2D from 3D part right. Not the radiation condition part though. Excited electron states have effective rings of current and they radiate.

Except, it doesn't work for anything except Hydrogen, and it doesn't even work for Hydrogen, when you try to get high accuracy. QM does give the precise result. I went through Mills' fine structure constant derivation, and anything beyond the first term is not even derived. The first term is well known, and does have a classical analog. Mills invents the farther terms with no backup (almost like he invented them), and still gets an answer that is not close enough.

Now you're making things up. Of course it 'works' for more than just hydrogen. He successfully calculates ionization energies for all kinds of atoms and ions.

Mills' answer for the fine structure constant is accurate to within the accuracy of the constants he is using. (No doubt you haven't checked Mills' claim in that regard.) And you say 'no backup', when Mills spends 3 pages going through the reasoning of how each of the 3 summing terms for the Lamb shift is derived.

As for Mills' "Millsian" program, yes he has invented formulas that match empirical results reasonably well -- but they have no backup in his theory. No-one knows where the terms come from -- almost like he invented them to match experiment. It is well known that there are patterns in ionization energies that can be fit to curves, and it is difficult to calculate them using QM from first principles. It is much easier to look in the back of the textbook, and say "look, I can come up with a formula".

Now, Mills claims that his formulas only use fundamental constants. This is "partly true", by which I mean it is misleading. I can fit anything to anything using only fundamental constants. I can put them in exponents, denominators, multiplicative factors, and raise them to different powers. I bet with a bit of work, I could invent more accurate formulas than Mills, just by adding a few higher order terms. Of course, I'd have to update it, when new experimental results invalidated them.

Mills uses only the fundamental constants. You got that right at least. And now I know you can't follow his derivations. But hey you're not the prince of classical physics. And no, you could not make up more accurate formulas that Mills that have such few terms and depend only on Z and a minimum energy permutation to calculate ionization energies.

 

[markie]

Thanks.

Apart from those which rotate in opposite directions, none of these (uncountably infinite in number) disk rings intersect with any other, right?

Yet electrons can collide with other electrons. And electron scattering experimental results give no hint whatsoever of any structure, much less planar disks.

Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?

Huh? The current loops of a free electron disk don't rotate in opposite directions.
Also ; the field lines of the current loops are perpendicular to the current for a given electron. Thus no self interaction on a 2D surface and the loops can pass through each other. When two electron membranes meet, it is no longer a 2D surface phenomena and there is interaction between the two membranes via the electrical and magnetic fields.

 

[markie]

Riiight ... except that, AFAIK, no experiment has ever found that any lepton has a structure different than that of a point.

But perhaps you know of experiments which show that leptons do have structure ("are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size")? How about you post them, or links to peer-reviewed papers reporting such things?

Look up deBroglie wavelength, giving a definite physical size to the free electron that produces real physical consequences, as seen in the double slit experiment.

 

[8enotto]

Ok. As a guy with little to no physics study but a desire for cheap power the idea has appeal.

But I care not about the theory. I just want one installed and powering my community.

(knowing only a book and shares can be currently purchased of course)

How big is it?
Are there any dangers or dangerous waste involved that would never permit one in my garage ? ,(assuming one would fit)
Would it require costly maintenance or set there for a decade quietly churning out gobs of 120VAC?

Why has no one demanded to see the supposed prototype or was it always clear it was only theory for 30 years that has promise to do miracles?

It is pretty clear the dude is scamming to keep himself paid and has little to offer beyond a well polished scam. It has worked out for him despite being picked apart detail by detail but asking my questions would have made the scam part more visible if not disrobed it in one session.

Did no one even think about the practicality of a physical installation before getting in on this?