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

[JeanTate]

Don't know much about quantum tunneling other than it is thought to be related to superconductivity. Mills discusses how superconductivity arises classically and produces equations for the transition thresholds for high temperature superconductors (see Eq 25-45). So I don't agree with your claim that he has ignored quantum tunneling.

<snip>

I would recommend that you take time to understand tunneling better. What you wrote is not much better than what markie writes, when he tries to be an astronomer.

 

[JeanTate]

I have in mind the chromosphere, particularly at times of solar flare. The chromosphere is immediately above the photosphere and experiences a huge temperature gradient from (relatively) cool (cooler than the photosphere and where CO can exist) in the lowest layer to very hot in the outer. It is there in the chromosphere where the bright spots (bright in visible to soft xRay) occur just preceding and during solar flares. While it is thought that the main energy driver is magnetic fields and associated accelerated electrons, there are lots of unanswered questions about how this can translate to the distribution of the spectra observed.

The parallels to the SunCell are apparent to me, namely high electron flux and the presence of atomic H.

From Wiki: It is not yet fully understood what phenomenon causes the temperature of the chromosphere to paradoxically increase further from the Sun's interior. However, it seems likely to be explained, partially or totally, by magnetic reconnection.

You might want to have a chat with optiongeek ... it may be that you two have, um, different understandings of the power of hydrino reactions in the wild.

 

[The Man]

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

"immense centrifugal 'force'" from what?

Hint: When the direction of motion of the ballbearings changes in a different way (due to the striking of the volleyball). So to do the fictitious forces (like centrifugal force) that result from their, well, previous changing of direction (before the the volleyball strike).

ETA: Hint 2: Guess where that immense centrifugal 'force' (inertial force) comes from? The rigidity of the strings that continually change the direction of the ballbearings.

 

[The Man]

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.

Nor should it be difficult to understand where those motions cancel or constructively sum.

The problem is when one tries to overly complicate the motions of the rings it actually makes them less complicated as the tendency becomes to introduce counter motions.

 

[The Man]

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".

It was asserted here some time ago, with, If I recall correctly, a citation from Mills. Again, if I recall correctly, it was cited to deal with some problem with the rings but introduced other problems.

 

[The Man]

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.

Great so that would be a non-uniform charge distribution, to result in a non net zero current distribution.

Yet here you claim current density is uniform while charge density “need not be uniform”.

The ignorance remains just yours and perhaps Mills’

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.

"waves of increased charge (and mass) density" would require a non-uniform "current density" at some periods of time.

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.

Trying to be less directly self-contradictory might help. Also trying to be more clear can help. For example the density waves you note mean charge and mass density can’t always be uniform. However distribution over some sufficient period of time can be.

I’ll also note, as I did before, that such instantaneous peaks of charge and mass density give a probability of finding such a peak somewhere at some time, as HappySkeptic99 notes previously basically just mapping the probability density of locating an electron somewhere at some time onto a sphere.

 

[optiongeek]

I would recommend that you take time to understand tunneling better.

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

 

[abaddon]

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

Apart from the fact that it doesn't?

 

[JeanTate]

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

Um, sorry, but this is sorta as bad as some of what markie has written on dark matter. So no, we most certainly do NOT agree.

You’re new to this topic, here in the ISF, optiongeek. And I doubt that you’ve read much, if any, of the early parts of this thread, let alone its predecessors.

I recommend that you spend an hour or three catching up.

I think you’ll find a) that there’s very little that hasn’t already been discussed; b) that RC and others have posted thorough and detailed rebuttals of what Mills fans have posted; and c) many critics have grown tired of reading the same, already thoroughly debunked, stuff being recycled.

Oh, and you may be quite amused by the many contradictions in what Mills fans have posted ... it seems there’s quite serious disagreements, among Mills fans, on what the BBofBB actually means!

 

[JeanTate]

One more thing: there will be a dramatic change from ~February 2019, when Mills makes several working prototypes of BLP’s hydrino-powered generator available for truly independent testing ...

 

[abaddon]

One more thing: there will be a dramatic change from ~February 2019, when Mills makes several working prototypes of BLP’s hydrino-powered generator available for truly independent testing ...

Yes, that has been only six months away for thirty years now.

 

[The Man]

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/barr.html

 

[Hans]

One more thing: there will be a dramatic change from ~February 2019, when Mills makes several working prototypes of BLP’s hydrino-powered generator available for truly independent testing ...

WELL YEAH I wonder if he'll make'm out of peanut butter, or maybe adamant, atium, promethium, wishalloy, uru, taydenite, orichalcum, nanite, inerton or will Mills panic and call out for help that the men in black have taken his plans?

...or will he used the tried and true method of 'wanting to make it better before releasing it'? LOL

 

[halleyscomet]

I think we agree that quantum tunneling arises from superconductivity. Mills provides a classically-derived equation that predicts the transition threshold for superconductive behavior. If there is a similar derivation arising from QM I'd be happy to compare and contrast. Is there something else about quantum tunneling that would help me understand what I'm missing?

Have you read this analysis of the Mills theories?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127

Legend has it that Mills put a "response" on his web site but pulled it not long after. As a result, as far as I know, the criticisms offered in the paper remain unchallenged except by hyperbole and insults from Mills faithful.

 

[markie]

He hasn't said. But it is clear he has tubes feeding something in to burn.

Sure he has said, many times. To quote a text under just the last video:
The SunCell® hydrino reactant gas mixture comprises hydrogen fuel added to fixed argon and trace gallium oxide inventories wherein the oxide serves as a source of O for HOH catalyst.

That's why it is such a joke. He has not isolated or quantified anything at all. All we know for certain is that he is burning something and thus we must jump to the conclusion it must be a hydrino? Really?

The Youtube videos are for the fans. If you want 'quantified' results you can check out the published papers at https://brilliantlightpower.com/publications/

Didn't we discuss this with you months ago? Any magician worth his salt knows how to misdirect like this. The founder of this forum back in the old days was a specialist at both doing it and also teaching others how to spot it! That's why silly tricks such as this have absolutely no chances of fooling most people here.

That's the problem ; you think it's a trick. Randi on the other hand would know what was a trick and what wasn't. Randi and Randy would probably hit it off. Maybe you could ask Randi to check out Randy and ask him what he thinks.

 

[markie]

By many minutes you meant a few seconds, right? That's all we get from YouTube. And glowing red hot, you meant appeared red, since we have no idea from the video how warm, if at all, it might be nor the nature of the glow.

As for the exothermic chemical reaction, maybe there is an exothermic reaction, but why do you assume it is chemical?

Presumably you've seen the videos of brilliant, destructive plasma in an open cell run under fume hood. Then presumably you've seen the videos with the plasma contained in closed vessels ; one where the plasma broke through the stainless steel wall coated with ceramic ; others where red hot spots formed on the vessel walls ; others where the reaction vessel was transparent and the plasma clearly visible. The question isn't is it chemical; the question is what chemical reaction is sustaining the plasma.

 

[markie]

Mathematics that are internally inconsistent, or just outright wrong in some places and which contradict each other from explanation to explanation. And ignore the bits that cannot be classically explained like quantum tunneling.
And no I am not confusing technological progress with quantum theory, I acknowledge that predictions made by quantum theory have led to observably working machines, unlike anything Mills has ever done.

I invite you to point to a mathematical inconsistency in Mills' book.
Mills does not ignore quantum tunnelling, rather he describes and quantifies it classically.
Breakthroughs in technology we made despite quantum theory, not because of it. The semi conductor / transistor and lasers were not invented because of quantum theory.

The energy output claimed by mills outstrips nuclear fusion by a factor of at least 100. So according to his theory we should not see minor fluctuations, the sun should produce so much more energy the earth would vaporize, jupiter should burn with the force of the sun and any underwater volcano activity should produce the force of a nuclear explosion as long as it goes on.

I don't know where you are getting this. The energy release to a H(1/4) bond is perhaps a hundred times more than forming an H-O bond. But it is probably on the order of a millions times *less* than energy from H H fusion.

When we fuse hydrogen to make helium, why does the magic orbital Mills claims that exists from hydrogen suddenly dissapear?

By the time energies are achieved for fusion, kinetic energy has ionized the hydrogen ; the electron is no longer in orbit. Even a hydrino atom will have its electron knocked out by a sufficiently high kinetic energy collision.

 

[markie]

You might want to have a chat with optiongeek ... it may be that you two have, um, different understandings of the power of hydrino reactions in the wild.

As far as I recall from reading Optiongeek's posts, I have concurred with everything he has said.

 

[markie]

"immense centrifugal 'force'" from what?

Hint: When the direction of motion of the ballbearings changes in a different way (due to the striking of the volleyball). So to do the fictitious forces (like centrifugal force) that result from their, well, previous changing of direction (before the the volleyball strike).

ETA: Hint 2: Guess where that immense centrifugal 'force' (inertial force) comes from? The rigidity of the strings that continually change the direction of the ballbearings.

Don't really understand your point, sorry. I think you're agreeing with me but I'm not sure. I would call what the strings have as 'tension' not 'rigidity' but hey.

 

[jsfisher]

Presumably you've seen the videos of brilliant, destructive plasma in an open cell run under fume hood.

Always with the change of focus. You tell a lie about the existence of videos showing minutes of red hot chemical reactions (and that may have been as many as three lies, actually), then when called on it, you respond by shifting the subject.

So far, all I've seen are short videos of, umm, well, something with a lot of speculation about what miracle was being shown.