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

[LTC8K6]

The fact that he would infer that I am an 'agent' sent out by Mills simply because I'm optimistic about the prospects for Mills' technology shows the poor guy needs, at the very least, some sleep and some healthy diversions.

I recently discovered that even the State of New Jersey is doing some 'advertising' for Mills, even giving BLP some funding. Maybe they're in on it too?
https://njtechweekly.com/2018/12/19...unding-through-the-edas-nol-program-part-one/

I'm not sure that I'd crow about that...

The Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program enables qualified, unprofitable NJ-based technology or biotechnology companies with fewer than 225 US employees (including parent company and all subsidiaries) to sell a percentage of net operating losses (NOL) and research and development (R&D) tax credits to unrelated profitable corporations.

Heralded as a lifeline for companies going through unprofitable times, the NOL Program enables eligible technology and life-sciences companies to sell New Jersey net operating losses and unused research and development tax credits to unrelated profitable corporations for cash. The cash can then be used for working capital or to fund research. The EDA and the New Jersey Department of Treasury’s Division of Taxation administer the program.

 

[LTC8K6]

How can BLP be considered unprofitable?

Seems odd.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They have no sales, how could they possibly be profitable?

 

[Hans]

How can BLP be considered unprofitable?

Seems odd.

Yeah given this description from that NJ hand out link:

Brilliant Light Power (Cranbury) has developed a “new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter, the previously unidentified matter that makes up most of the mass of the universe. The SunCell that was invented to harness the new power source catalytically converts hydrogen directly into dark matter form called Hydrino releasing brilliant high-energy light which is down-converted in energy to facilitate the production of electricity using commercially available concentrator photovoltaic cells.”

 

[UncertainH]

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

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Any model of an extended electron is going to require that there are two simultaneous components of spin in order to satisfy the observations of the SG experiment. This by its very nature is going to seem un-physical. For instance, if we imagine a material spinning sphere we see a ball rotating about a single axis with two poles (and those poles being unavoidable as in the hairy-ball theorem) and there is no physical way that a solid sphere can spin about two orthogonal axes simultaneously. Logically it seems that whatever material that is spinning must therefore be more "fluid like" in it properties so that we at least might have a chance of describing some kind of complex motion that could manifest this observed dual spin while also maintaining the observed isotropy of the electron as a whole. While QM seems to accurately describe atomic and sub atomic physics it has nothing to say about the physical structure of the electron (a point particle) nor the origin of charge, inertia or mass. We are taught to trust that what we observe in the macroscopic world simply does not apply to the microscopic world and we should just "shut up and calculate", yet ironically if any theory of an extended electron forces us to stretch our understanding of what we observe in the physical world it is immediately dismissed as being un-physical and therefore invalid.
Also our experience with charge is at the scale of the electron and above. We say that the charge of an electron "-e" is a fundamental constant and, with the exception of quarks having 1/3 or 2/3 charge, all observed charges must be integer multiples of this elementary charge. We don't know the origin of charge or even how to deal with smaller charge components that might perhaps make up the smaller pieces, if any, of an electron. The electron we call a fundamental particle, yet again, ironically, at the same time we know that uncharged photons can be combined to create a charged electron and positron pair and likewise the "fundamental" electron can be annihilated by meeting a positron back into uncharged photons. This offers another clue that perhaps the “fluid” that might make up an extended electron is electromagnetic radiation and that it can somehow be configured to manifest charge as well as the observed spin properties of the electron.

So if the current pattern of an orbitsphere is generated by this complex construction of great circle elements then at a single point on the sphere, the scalar component must be additive but the vector component must not. IE they must pass through each other and superimpose. We know that electromagnetic energy can do this and we can observe that photons for instance ( a particular form of EM energy) don't bounce off each other (ie their vectors don’t change) but they do superimpose.

On the issue of non interaction of the great circle loops that comprise the current flowing at any point of the surface of the orbitsphere here is what Mills has to say about it:

"There are many crossings amongst great circle elements at single, zero dimensional points on the 2-dimensional surface of the electron embedded in 3-dimensional space. Thus the velocity direction is multivalued at each point. But, there is nothing in Maxwell's equations in two dimensions that precludes this result, since these laws only regard fields external to the 2-dimensional charge density and current density sources. As in the macro case, the continuous 2-dimensional atomic orbital current density distribution constitutes a uniform, constant, 2 dimensional super-current wherein the crossings have no effect on the current pattern. Each 1-dimensional element is independent of the others, and its contribution to the angular momentum and magnetic field independently superimposes with that of the others.
The aspect of no interaction at local 0-dimensional crossings of a 2-dimensional fundamental particle has the same properties as the superposition properties of the electric and magnetic fields of a photon from which the electron forms" P.67

 

[jadebox]

I'm not sure that's fair. Mills did offer a rebuttal. That it wasn't published doesn't mean that it can't be addressed.

He asked for a "competent rebuttal."

 

[UncertainH]

I'm not sure that's fair. Mills did offer a rebuttal. That it wasn't published doesn't mean that it can't be addressed.

Looking up Rathke's paper and looking at the "Cited By" link reveals 26 further papers that cite Rathke's original work. Mills rebuttal is listed there but I can't seem to open it. Picking another one:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3309

Hydrino state is the tightly bound states of Hydrogen atom with binding energy EB > 13.6eV , where normal ground state energy for Hydrogen atom is EG = −13.6eV . Experimental study has also been reported recently in support of this hydrino states (see [7] and its refs.). Theoretical model of hydrino states can be found by solving Klein-Gordon equation in 3 space
2 dimensions. Recently it has been shown that, in (2 + 1)-dimensions, Dirac equation may give rise to hydrino like states [8].

Here's another one:

http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/505/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf#page=106

Rathke’s assertion [New J. Phys. 7 (2005) 127] that states with binding energy and size below those of known literature values are
incompatible with quantum mechanics is corrected by reviewing the analytically known Coulomb solution of the Klein–Gordon
equation with binding energy of order mc2 and size of order of the Compton wavelength

I haven't read them all yet but if anyone wants to check some of them out please share what you find.

 

[jsfisher]

I'm not sure that's fair. Mills did offer a rebuttal. That it wasn't published doesn't mean that it can't be addressed.

There is really two issues, I suppose. The first is that even the very best scholarly journals tend to have low thresholds for letters-to-the-editor sort of communications. The rebuttal by Mills that I have seen was four pages of bare assertion and hand-waving. That it could not get past any journal editor on its own merit says something quite significant about those four pages.

The second is your point, that it is still eligible to be discussed. It certainly is eligible for discussion, but markie attempted to use "but Mills said" as a summary dismissal of Rathke. My non-physicist reading of Mills was that he had introduced an assumption-asserted-as-fact into the mix, but I am not qualified to judge the assumption on its merits nor whether it leads to the conclusion Mills asserts.

Perhaps markie can present Mills' argument in a way that would engage those with a better background in the subject. Meanwhile, I'll stand with the argument-from-authority I've accepted, but only because it was from an established authority.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Even our new resident "PhD" says that the earth inside a shell of mass would be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball, jostled every which way without any kind of force restraint except when it hit the shell. In other words he is saying that the laws of orbital mechanics don't apply if the orbiting masses transition to a spherical shell.

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.

So, to see if I understand you correctly:

Lets say there's a planet with a moon in a perfectly circular orbit, with the planet at the center of the orbit. If a perturbing force was applied to the moon, orbital mechanics would cause the moon to return to a perfectly circular orbit with the planet at the center? Or if a perturbing force was applied to the planet, orbital mechanics would cause the planet to return to the center of the moon's orbit, without the moon's orbit changing?

Or if this doesn't apply with just one moon, lets go with you example of two moons of equal mass and equal distance from the planet on opposite sides of the planet. If a perturbing force were applied to the planet, orbital mechanics would cause the planet to return to the center of the orbits of the moons, with the moons retaining a perfectly circular orbit?

 

[markie]

Looking up Rathke's paper and looking at the "Cited By" link reveals 26 further papers that cite Rathke's original work. Mills rebuttal is listed there but I can't seem to open it. Picking another one:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3309



Here's another one:

http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/505/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf#page=106



I haven't read them all yet but if anyone wants to check some of them out please share what you find.

Mills response to Rathke can be found on the Millsian website here:

http://www.millsian.com/papers/Rathke'sresp012108Web.pdf

It's the lengthy version. I've read a much shorter and concise version but can't locate it.

 

[mgidm86]

Just popping in to see where the free energy generator can be purchased. I'm assuming there is one since this thread is in the Science forum and not the woo section.

 

[markie]

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Any model of an extended electron is going to require that there are two simultaneous components of spin in order to satisfy the observations of the SG experiment. This by its very nature is going to seem un-physical. For instance, if we imagine a material spinning sphere we see a ball rotating about a single axis with two poles (and those poles being unavoidable as in the hairy-ball theorem) and there is no physical way that a solid sphere can spin about two orthogonal axes simultaneously. Logically it seems that whatever material that is spinning must therefore be more "fluid like" in it properties so that we at least might have a chance of describing some kind of complex motion that could manifest this observed dual spin while also maintaining the observed isotropy of the electron as a whole. While QM seems to accurately describe atomic and sub atomic physics it has nothing to say about the physical structure of the electron (a point particle) nor the origin of charge, inertia or mass. We are taught to trust that what we observe in the macroscopic world simply does not apply to the microscopic world and we should just "shut up and calculate", yet ironically if any theory of an extended electron forces us to stretch our understanding of what we observe in the physical world it is immediately dismissed as being un-physical and therefore invalid.
Also our experience with charge is at the scale of the electron and above. We say that the charge of an electron "-e" is a fundamental constant and, with the exception of quarks having 1/3 or 2/3 charge, all observed charges must be integer multiples of this elementary charge. We don't know the origin of charge or even how to deal with smaller charge components that might perhaps make up the smaller pieces, if any, of an electron. The electron we call a fundamental particle, yet again, ironically, at the same time we know that uncharged photons can be combined to create a charged electron and positron pair and likewise the "fundamental" electron can be annihilated by meeting a positron back into uncharged photons. This offers another clue that perhaps the “fluid” that might make up an extended electron is electromagnetic radiation and that it can somehow be configured to manifest charge as well as the observed spin properties of the electron.

So if the current pattern of an orbitsphere is generated by this complex construction of great circle elements then at a single point on the sphere, the scalar component must be additive but the vector component must not. IE they must pass through each other and superimpose. We know that electromagnetic energy can do this and we can observe that photons for instance ( a particular form of EM energy) don't bounce off each other (ie their vectors don’t change) but they do superimpose.

On the issue of non interaction of the great circle loops that comprise the current flowing at any point of the surface of the orbitsphere here is what Mills has to say about it:

Illuminating post, and the quote from Mills was very pertinent.
If I may add a scenario. Two disks are spinning, one just above the other. They have the same angular momentum magnitude but are spinning in opposite directions. The Jean Tates among us, when asked what the vector sum of the angular momentum is, would think they are pretty smart and say Zero, some further suggesting that there is thus nothing going on at all, that it all just zeros out! But that is far from the physical reality of the compound object, which has an angular momentum and kinetic energy of twice a single disk.
Now imagine those two disks were superimposed and were somehow able to travel through each other, each unaffected by the other. It would be the same situation.
The problem is that some people just can't wrap their heads around the concept of non interaction.

 

[markie]

So, to see if I understand you correctly:

Lets say there's a planet with a moon in a perfectly circular orbit, with the planet at the center of the orbit. If a perturbing force was applied to the moon, orbital mechanics would cause the moon to return to a perfectly circular orbit with the planet at the center? Or if a perturbing force was applied to the planet, orbital mechanics would cause the planet to return to the center of the moon's orbit, without the moon's orbit changing?

Or if this doesn't apply with just one moon, lets go with you example of two moons of equal mass and equal distance from the planet on opposite sides of the planet. If a perturbing force were applied to the planet, orbital mechanics would cause the planet to return to the center of the orbits of the moons, with the moons retaining a perfectly circular orbit?

As someone correctly implied earlier, such a perturbation would really result in an elliptical orbit. So this shows that the analogy between orbiting planets and the electron orbitsphere breaks down. Specifically, an orbiting planet in an elliptical orbit has a varying velocity, depending on its location in the elliptical orbit. In contrast, the orbitsphere does not have the luxury of changing its speed. A boundary condition for non radiation is that the speed of all infinitesimal points of mass-charge in orbit around the proton are the same. Thus, the orbital radius is the same in all directions - a perfect sphere.

 

[JeanTate]

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Any model of an extended electron is going to require that there are two simultaneous components of spin in order to satisfy the observations of the SG experiment.

<snip>

The rest of your lengthy post seems to hinge on the validity of this assertion.

Can you please explain, in detail, how you came to this conclusion?

Thank you in advance.

 

[JeanTate]

Illuminating post, and the quote from Mills was very pertinent.
If I may add a scenario. Two disks are spinning, one just above the other. They have the same angular momentum magnitude but are spinning in opposite directions. The Jean Tates among us, when asked what the vector sum of the angular momentum is, would think they are pretty smart and say Zero, some further suggesting that there is thus nothing going on at all, that it all just zeros out! But that is far from the physical reality of the compound object, which has an angular momentum and kinetic energy of twice a single disk.
Now imagine those two disks were superimposed and were somehow able to travel through each other, each unaffected by the other. It would be the same situation.
The problem is that some people just can't wrap their heads around the concept of non interaction.

Can you support this (these) assertion(s) with appropriate mathematical detail(s)?

 

[JeanTate]

Just popping in to see where the free energy generator can be purchased. I'm assuming there is one since this thread is in the Science forum and not the woo section.

You’ll have to ask BLP for answers; no one here has anything that would help.

From what I understand, BLP, and its predecessors, have been promising a concrete answer. ... for 30+ years!

 

[HappySkeptic99]

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Any model of an extended electron is going to require that there are two simultaneous components of spin in order to satisfy the observations of the SG experiment. This by its very nature is going to seem un-physical. For instance, if we imagine a material spinning sphere we see a ball rotating about a single axis with two poles (and those poles being unavoidable as in the hairy-ball theorem) and there is no physical way that a solid sphere can spin about two orthogonal axes simultaneously. Logically it seems that whatever material that is spinning must therefore be more "fluid like" in it properties so that we at least might have a chance of describing some kind of complex motion that could manifest this observed dual spin while also maintaining the observed isotropy of the electron as a whole. While QM seems to accurately describe atomic and sub atomic physics it has nothing to say about the physical structure of the electron (a point particle) nor the origin of charge, inertia or mass. We are taught to trust that what we observe in the macroscopic world simply does not apply to the microscopic world and we should just "shut up and calculate", yet ironically if any theory of an extended electron forces us to stretch our understanding of what we observe in the physical world it is immediately dismissed as being un-physical and therefore invalid.
Also our experience with charge is at the scale of the electron and above. We say that the charge of an electron "-e" is a fundamental constant and, with the exception of quarks having 1/3 or 2/3 charge, all observed charges must be integer multiples of this elementary charge. We don't know the origin of charge or even how to deal with smaller charge components that might perhaps make up the smaller pieces, if any, of an electron. The electron we call a fundamental particle, yet again, ironically, at the same time we know that uncharged photons can be combined to create a charged electron and positron pair and likewise the "fundamental" electron can be annihilated by meeting a positron back into uncharged photons. This offers another clue that perhaps the “fluid” that might make up an extended electron is electromagnetic radiation and that it can somehow be configured to manifest charge as well as the observed spin properties of the electron.

So if the current pattern of an orbitsphere is generated by this complex construction of great circle elements then at a single point on the sphere, the scalar component must be additive but the vector component must not. IE they must pass through each other and superimpose. We know that electromagnetic energy can do this and we can observe that photons for instance ( a particular form of EM energy) don't bounce off each other (ie their vectors don’t change) but they do superimpose.

On the issue of non interaction of the great circle loops that comprise the current flowing at any point of the surface of the orbitsphere here is what Mills has to say about it:

I see this as just a lot of hand-waving. Saying that a particle is some sort of frozen E-M wave has existed in the fringe-science group for a long time. Similarly, the idea that the space-time continuum is "made up of something" has been around for a long time too.

Gut-feeling ideas can sometimes spur new theories, but they are NOT a theory. Mathematics needs to be generated that fully explains the current reality, and then one needs to see if it has more elegance and explanatory power than a current theory.

Usually, new ideas are found to make sense for only a subset of reality, or in a toy model with reduced dimensionality. Perhaps one day the ideas may turn into something. Until then, they aren't theories.

QM theory has mathematics that works, and makes a minimum of assumptions about microscopic reality. If you can't measure it, you can't talk about it, is the scientific philosophy. Imagining deeper structures to reality may be fun, but may in many cases be impossible. The wavefunction truly does seem to not be a manifestation of any local hidden variables. Non-locality is a real thing. QM is extremely elegant (if annoying to calculate).

 

[Matthew Cline]

There is a electron magnetic moment, produced by a non net zero current distribution.

Wouldn't that imply that the charge density of the orbitsphere is non-uniform, since you claim that the speed of the infinitesimal charge-masses is uniform?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did you read Mills’ rebuttal, may I ask? If so, could you share your opinion?

I did. A long time ago. And, IIRC, it was, um, underwhelming

I don't have the maths to give a qualified opinion.

 

[markie]

Wouldn't that imply that the charge density of the orbitsphere is non-uniform, since you claim that the speed of the infinitesimal charge-masses is uniform?

It can get quite involved and I've been refraining from some 'details'. There is "charge density" which corresponds to "mass density", both of which need not be uniform, and waves of increased charge (and mass) density can travel across the surface. (But the hydrogen atom would have a uniform charge and mass density.) When the charge density is not uniform, there is an orbital angular momentum component added to the spin angular momentum. However, the "current density" is another matter and *is* uniform for a non radiative state.

I can't say I've wrapped my head around it completely yet and hopefully I'm not butchering up Mills' orbitsphere theory too badly.