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

[markie]

More high quality nonsense (YMMV) ... like a photon except for the electric charge, spin, and mass. Oh, and that electron-electron collisions are easily observed, but photon-photon ones, well not so much.

And "state"? I thought Mills did not do QM, silly me.

A photon is an EM field confined to a spherical 2D surface. An electron is mass charge in motion confined to a spherical 2D surface, with associated EM fields perpendicular and in 3D. Mills shows how they transition - through a transition state orbitsphere - but it's in the book and you won't look. Fear factor?

 

[markie]

Continuing ...

When a fully ionized atom - a "bare" nucleus - acquires an electron (think proton becoming an H atom, but this applies more generally), a photon is emitted, if the electron goes directly to the ground state. The spectrum is well defined. As I understand it, in Mills' idea, a disk becomes a sphere. But how does this transformation result in just one photon?

Commonly, the electron is acquired initially in a non-ground state, and undergoes one or more subsequent transitions to reach the ground state, with each transition giving a photon of well-defined energy, so the Balmer series, the Lyman series, etc (and equivalents for nuclei other than H). In Mills' idea, a sphere becomes a smaller sphere, instantly; how?

It doesn't become a smaller sphere instantly. The orbitsphere is a physical object that doesn't defy the speed of light limit.
An excited electron state constitutes a radial dipole that will radiate ; Read up on how Mills calculates excited state lifetimes and line intensities if you want more information.

 

[markie]

That we have been over before, that counter-rotating loops of charge "mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere." gives no "current on the 2-sphere".

There is a electron magnetic moment, produced by a non net zero current distribution. Why you keep insisting otherwise, out of ignorance, is interesting.

 

[markie]

No actually what happens (ignoring radial motion of the ball bearings) is some of the ball bearings strike the volleyball slowing them down. Which are then stuck by the still faster ball bearings. You have simply substituted the rigidity of the individual ball bearings for the overall rigidity of the shell.

Not ignoring radial motion of the ball bearings, some of the ball bearings become displaced radially towards the center of rotation. The transfer of momentum to the ball bearings will slow the volleyball radially. Those displaced ball bearings will continue inward radially until contacting the inner disc. The rdigity or elasticity of that inner disc will rebound the ball bearings and volleyball radially outward again.

So you have simply replaced the rigidity of the shell with that of the the individual ball bearings and of the inner disc.

As for lateral rigidity and transfer of lateral forces your rapidly spinning disk has that, keeping the anchor points for your threads from bunching up.

Why you think the ballbearings will "continue inward radially" is odd. There is an immense centrifugal 'force' on the bearings outward.

 

[markie]

I don't intend to get sucked in the maelstrom - folks here seem to be on a hair trigger with the personal insults. However, at the risk of exposing myself to ridicule, I think there is an interesting mathematical result that was motivated from how Mills' orbitsphere can satisfy the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach results. I am new so I can't post the link. However, Israelsson found that a uniform covering of an ensemble of geodesics (i.e. great circles) with a combined angular momentum of h_bar may not exceed 1/2 h_bar of angular momentum in the z-axis. You can find his proof on Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

In other words, the Stern-Gerlach result indicates that the electron has 1/2 h_bar of net angular momentum in the z-axis, but a magnetic moment of a full h_bar. From Isrealsson, this turns about to be the maximum net angular momentum along the z-axis from a uniform covering of geodesics like we see in the orbitsphere. I don't believe Mills was even aware of this result when the constructed the orbitsphere.

Very neat, I wasn't aware of that valuable piece of info, thanks!

 

[markie]

...
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.

You're lucky getting such a prof. who would at least address those fundamental concerns. My prof in organic chemistry had us believing the various electron orbitals were as depicted, finite little shapes of probability clouds! No mention of infinite extent at all.

 

[markie]

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.'

It shouldn't be difficult to understand the concept of a 2D surface membrane of mass charge in motion, those motions well described and mathematically defined as a collective of coordinated motions of precessing rings.

 

[markie]

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"?

Read the book. Particle production occurs for the 3 lepton and quark families. It is in particle production from photons that Mills arrives at the 'unification' part of the GUTCP. Unification of the equations of Newton, Maxwell, Planck, deBroglie and Einstein, with modification to the latter.

 

[markie]

The rule with con men is that nobody knows better than the con man himself what a lying fraud he is.

Legally, the important matters concern the money transactions between the fleeced and the con man: what is the contract: what is being conferred upon the person forking over the dough?

They do not produce financial reports, so the answer is nothing. This is the website:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/

The only thing that matters, regarding money, is nonexistent. They have a comic book section titled "Fourth Quarter 2018 Update" with a link to the "Business Update".

If you handed this to a first semester accounting student he would say it came from the Theater or Art department or perhaps the English department as a piece of fiction.

It is not recognizable as any kind of English-speaking world financial report. We do not know if there is any existing stock at all or whether there are bonds, notes of debt, whether they own any land or buildings, laboratories or so much as a box of twinkies in inventory.

It couldn't be clearer that Mills is a con man with just one glance. He has made up names for "reports" that have no paralell in the real world. This report, the "Business Update" is a hydrino in the accounting trade. No accountant has ever heard of whatever this "report" is supposed to be.

Do these fake "reports" Mills fabricates signal delusion or con man? Is he an idiot or a crook?

Thirty years and he cannot come up with a single bona-fide financial report? This is like saying he cannot give reports in English, only in unknown languages.

What is laughable is that you think Mills, to be reputable, needs to put up financial reports on his website. Good one.

 

[markie]

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.

You're just copying from Rathke, who misunderstood the wave equation as 3D rather than 2D. Even the happyskeptic knows better than Rathke in that regard.

 

[markie]

This is about the most depressingly telling post I have seen in this whole soul-destroying thread.

Lordy. Your poor soul. I suggest getting a dog and taking a walk through the woods, perhaps camping with friends, taking a plunge in a pristine lake, communing with nature and your higher self, volunteering at a shelter, etc.

 

[markie]

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.

Perhaps while you're at it you could get to the bottom of the missing trillions of dollars in Pentagon accounting.

 

[markie]

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.


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


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.

The orbitsphere does not "have an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes". Lordy.

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

I hate to quote Wiki, but, my bold:

In some ways, spin is like a vector quantity; it has a definite magnitude, and it has a "direction" (but quantization makes this "direction" different from the direction of an ordinary vector).

So, better to think of it in terms of magnitude so you don't confuse yourself.

 

[markie]

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

How you come to that conclusion is much more of a curiosity.

 

[markie]

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?

Ever wonder what the Department of Defence team thought of the prototype they saw last week at BLP? Whatever their assessment, you can be sure it was based on much more accurate information than you have.

 

[JeanTate]

Read the book.
<snip>

I promise to read Mills’ Nature paper, the one his Nobel Prize in Physics is based on. Unfortunately, even my grandchildren won’t be able to do that, based on Mills’ history of hydrino-based generator production.

In the meantime, I’ll read what you, UncertainH, opiniongeek, etc have to say about what’s in the BBofBB. Much more entertaining!

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Classic markie! I ask about structure, and shape; markie responds with “size”.

You’re a never-ending font of evasion, diversion, distraction ... ever thought of becoming a magician, or a K Street lobbyist?

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Huh? The current loops of a free electron disk don't rotate in opposite directions.

Wow!

So which ones end up courter rotating in an orbitsphere?

Also ; the field lines of the current loops are perpendicular to the current for a given electron.

Which “field lines” would they be, markie?

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.

Yet none between the membranes of a free electron and those of an orbitsphere.

Curious.

 

[JeanTate]

A photon is an EM field confined to a spherical 2D surface. An electron is mass charge in motion confined to a spherical 2D surface, with associated EM fields perpendicular and in 3D. Mills shows how they transition - through a transition state orbitsphere - but it's in the book and you won't look. Fear factor?

Yet more high quality nonsense!

You never cease to amuse, markie!

 

[JeanTate]

It doesn't become a smaller sphere instantly. The orbitsphere is a physical object that doesn't defy the speed of light limit.
An excited electron state constitutes a radial dipole that will radiate ; Read up on how Mills calculates excited state lifetimes and line intensities if you want more information.

So, ...

We have free electron disks, stable electron orbitspheres, and now “a radial dipole” excited electron state!

Any chance we could order up an orbitsphere embedded in the center os a disk?