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

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

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

So how many does it have?

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.

So few words, so many resulting ROFLs!

I never thought I’d see you introduce QM to explain something in the BBofBB, markie. Of course the spin of an orbitsphere is a vector ... it is mass distributed as a sphere, and it’s rotating! There’s no quantization.

 

[JeanTate]

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

Hey, I’ve got a much better laughable ... the idea that Mills needs to produce a hydrino-based generator, for commercial sale, to be credible, let alone reputable.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Yet you've been disputing Newton in this very thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

I'm definitely curious. Should we be expecting an announcement soon, do you think?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Should we be expecting an announcement a tweet soon, do you think?

FTFY. The US military has the best hydrinos!

Dave

 

[optiongeek]

So which ones end up courter rotating in an orbitsphere?

I've seen this mentioned a number of times - I don't believe there are any "counter-rotating" current rings in the orbitsphere. If there were, then those rings would tend to cancel each other's net angular momentum in the z-axis. But from Israelsson's proof mentioned earlier, we know that 1/2 h_bar is the maximum allowed - ergo there must not be any counter-rotating rings otherwise you could find a covering that increased the net angular momentum beyond 1/2 h_bar.

Since angular momentum is linear in a vector 3-space, you can describe an ensemble of angular momentum from geodesics as a vector summation of projections onto the orthonormal basis set of vectors - i.e. the unit vectors along the x, y and z-axes. Nothing magical about this - just saying that in order to get a uniform covering described by Israelsson and with the boundary condition set by the S-G, one of these axes (the z-axis by convention) will exhibit 1/2 h_bar, while the other two will have +/- 1/4 h_bar.

NB: I'm still not able to post links, but as a reminder, Israelsson's proof can be found at Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

 

[jadebox]

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

As a first step, I would be happy to see hydrinos. Not, personally, of course, but a report by a reputable researcher or lab not associated with Mills. Only then would I worry about rewriting our entire knowledge of physics.

 

[jadebox]

FTFY. The US military has the best hydrinos!

He said "Department of Defence." Australian military, maybe?

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Rathke's review of Mill's BBoBB appeared in a reputable science journal. I know of no similarly published rebuttal to Rathke (other than Rathke's own erratum to correct a sign typo).

Until such time as there is a competent rebuttal appearing in a respectable source, I will accept Rathke as undisbuted.

 

[LTC8K6]

Concentrator photovoltaic electric conversion systems and submersion of the SunCell® in a water bath are in progress to produce electricity and thermal power, respectively.

Wow, we are going to have submerged SunCells!

 

[jadebox]

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

If Mills were running a legitimate business, one would expect to find financial reports in the company's web site.

 

[jsfisher]

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

Yet another fact-free rebuttal, I see. Why not put some substance (and a little effort) into your argument? Show us how the construction presented in Figure 1.4 produces a sphere.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

NB: I'm still not able to post links, but as a reminder, Israelsson's proof can be found at Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

The prohibition on posting links before you have a high enough post count is purely to prevent spam and bots. And spambots.

If you post the link you want to in some broken form (i.e. "www . example . com") then someone will post the unbroken link for you. This is in no way against the rules. It's common practice, and fully endorsed by the mods and admins.

 

[JeanTate]

I've seen this mentioned a number of times - I don't believe there are any "counter-rotating" current rings in the orbitsphere.

Weird, isn’t it?

My recollection is that the idea was first posted here quite a while ago, long before you joined, and maybe also before markie did.

IIRC, it was proposed as a (very bad) way to get around the No Hair theorem. Now seeing that you have a contrary belief, maybe you’d like to have a go at explaining away the applicability of said theorem?

If there were, then those rings would tend to cancel each other's net angular momentum in the z-axis. But from Israelsson's proof mentioned earlier, we know that 1/2 h_bar is the maximum allowed - ergo there must not be any counter-rotating rings otherwise you could find a covering that increased the net angular momentum beyond 1/2 h_bar.

Since angular momentum is linear in a vector 3-space, you can describe an ensemble of angular momentum from geodesics as a vector summation of projections onto the orthonormal basis set of vectors - i.e. the unit vectors along the x, y and z-axes. Nothing magical about this - just saying that in order to get a uniform covering described by Israelsson and with the boundary condition set by the S-G, one of these axes (the z-axis by convention) will exhibit 1/2 h_bar, while the other two will have +/- 1/4 h_bar.

NB: I'm still not able to post links, but as a reminder, Israelsson's proof can be found at Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

Would you be prepared to answer my question to UncertainH?

For an S-G experiment with hydrogen - so only one orbitsphere - what is the observed behavior that corresponds to the x-axis component interacting with the magnetic field?

Oh, and it’s nice to see that you and markie disagree wrt the orbitsphere’s angular momentum!

 

[TwoThumbs]

I've seen this mentioned a number of times - I don't believe there are any "counter-rotating" current rings in the orbitsphere. If there were, then those rings would tend to cancel each other's net angular momentum in the z-axis. But from Israelsson's proof mentioned earlier, we know that 1/2 h_bar is the maximum allowed - ergo there must not be any counter-rotating rings otherwise you could find a covering that increased the net angular momentum beyond 1/2 h_bar.

Since angular momentum is linear in a vector 3-space, you can describe an ensemble of angular momentum from geodesics as a vector summation of projections onto the orthonormal basis set of vectors - i.e. the unit vectors along the x, y and z-axes. Nothing magical about this - just saying that in order to get a uniform covering described by Israelsson and with the boundary condition set by the S-G, one of these axes (the z-axis by convention) will exhibit 1/2 h_bar, while the other two will have +/- 1/4 h_bar.

NB: I'm still not able to post links, but as a reminder, Israelsson's proof can be found at Stack Exchange by searching for "maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics".

Happy to be of service:

maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics
https://math.stackexchange.com/ques...m-covering-of-a-sphere-with-uniform-geodesics

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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?

Life is short. Nonsense is plentiful. Sensible people ration the time wasted on nonsense.

To ration that time sensibly, sensible people use sensible filters, such as "Pay no attention to people who frequently contradict themselves or say nonsensical things."

Somewhat earlier in this thread, after I had used the physical construction of a Raman spectroscope to explain how we knew Mills had reported measurements obtained from a Raman spectroscope operating outside of its useful range, you suggested the spectroscope might have been constructed using an angle whose imaginary part was non-zero. I am willing to believe that you were joking, because the results reported by Mills were indeed a joke, but your inability to come up with any serious defense of Mills in that exchange and in a great many others tells sensible people that there is no need to consider your nonsense further.

Another thing sensible people do is to rely on other trustworthy people to filter nonsense for them. Having read quite a few of jsfisher's posts, I know he is one of the more competent and reliable people posting in this forum, so I trust him when he writes things like this:

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.

Rathke's review of Mill's BBoBB appeared in a reputable science journal. I know of no similarly published rebuttal to Rathke (other than Rathke's own erratum to correct a sign typo).

Until such time as there is a competent rebuttal appearing in a respectable source, I will accept Rathke as undis[p]uted.

jsfisher's attitude is sensible.

After all, the time we would waste reading nonsense you recommend would be better spent as you suggest here:

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.

 

[optiongeek]

Post deleted

 

[JeanTate]

Happy to be of service:

maximal principle uniform covering of a sphere with uniform geodesics
https://math.stackexchange.com/ques...m-covering-of-a-sphere-with-uniform-geodesics

Cool!

Would very much like to read W.D. Clinger’s take on this.

Oh, and markie and optiongeek: you guys really need to work on your stories ... according to what’s in the link there are, pace markie, an uncountably infinite number of symmetry axes

 

[markie]

Yet another fact-free rebuttal, I see. Why not put some substance (and a little effort) into your argument? Show us how the construction presented in Figure 1.4 produces a sphere.

Unlike JT at least you're looking at the book. I suggest you move from figure 1.4, which shows just two loops from only the BECVF and read the description of the motions of both the BECVF and OCVF then peruse figures 1.5 to 1.11. If that doesn't help there are brief animations at https://brilliantlightpower.com/atomic-theory/ about half way down the page.

 

[BillC]

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.

Would pre-ordering a SunCell lift my spirits, do you think? I'm told they are to be commercially available soon.