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

[markie]

That's why magnetic compasses sometimes point north and sometimes south, but you can't predict which it will be.

Oh, wait...

Thankfully even a QT theoretician will treat a compass as classical and predictable. So he won't get any more lost in the woods than he already is.

 

[markie]

Really?

I don’t recall you telling us about Mills’ ideas on black holes, neutron stars, gravitational wave radiation, neutrino oscillations, and much more.

Oh he has all kinds of juicy information about those things. But you'll have to read the book. Don't want to spoil it for you.

 

[Myriad]

Thankfully even a QT theoretician will treat a compass as classical and predictable. So he won't get any more lost in the woods than he already is.

I haven't looked but have little doubt that Mills knows that a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field will experience a torque which will align it parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field.

Does Mills know or not know that a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field will experience a torque which will align in parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field?

A quantum Mills might possibly know it and not know it at the same time, depending on whether he's trying to pretend his physics is classical or not.

 

[markie]

snip snip

The hilarious part of optiongeek's post is that he sought to answer/evade JeanTate's question by trying to impress us by pointing to Mills's ability to simplify the triple integral of equation (1.156) into equation (1.157):

Funny, I got no impression at all that optiongeek was trying to 'impress us', no more than I thought Mills was trying to impress us by retaining the sin(theta)^2 and cos(theta)^2 terms. Optiongeek simply confirmed that the triple integral was performed correctly, because (as I recall) you seemed to have a problem with the magnetic term result and were implying that Mills was just making it up.

 

[markie]

Wait ... you and optiongeek are in disagreement, again!?

That’s not very impressive.

Funny I don't recall being in any substantive disagreement with what optiongeek has said.

 

[markie]

No, he is saying that using Mills equations gives the wrong answer even if you don't make any sloppy mistakes.

What is this RC and RBF have about 'wrong' and, by implication, 'right'? A calculated result is either closer to the measured value or not. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[markie]

22 January 2019 optiongeek: Shows that Mills is incompetent at arithmetic.

5.4089 as calculated by optiongeek is not equal to 5.40390 as calculated by Mills in his Big Book. Unless we assume that optiongeek missed out a "3" to make the value very close which he now denies.

Optiongeek did not miss a 3. It was Clinger who made the error and put in a 3 when it shouldn't be there.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

He probably still has shelves of hydrino hydride crystals in the building.

Then why did he fail to show them to the world as he promised a year ago? He lied to us again.

 

[markie]

You keep bringing this up but it's not a good argument at all. The epicycles were basically calculated backwards to fit the observations so of course they were a good fit.

The upstart theory as you refer to it may not have fit the observations as well especially at first but it did something the epicycles never did - it explained why the orbits were as they are. Variations between observations and predictions of Uranus orbit led to speculation about and the subsequent discovery of Neptune and Lowell was said to have looked for Pluto (he called it planet X) because of further unexplained differences. The places where it doesn't fit really shows why it's a pretty good theory. It shows places where something is amiss and gives reason to look deeper and has led to discovery.

I just don't see mills work doing any of that. Unless of course some dihydrino turned up and could be verified...

We agree at least that a good theory should be predictive.
BTW it took Newton to explain the 'why' of ellipses via the inverse squared gravitational force.
What has Mills predicted that wasn't alreday known? I can think of two things right now: the accelerating expansion of the universe and the mass of the top quark, although that figure was not as close as it could/should have been. We'll see about the hydrino and the anti gravity pseudo electron.

 

[markie]

Then why did he fail to show them to the world as he promised a year ago? He lied to us again.

He sent the crystal compounds out to many labs, even the Chalk River national lab in Canada. I wish I could see all those report results showing anomalous readings but afaik apart from a few universities such results have only come out indirectly via rare press interviews with a few lab researchers. Iirc one researcher described such crystal compounds as having organic attributes.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

He sent the crystal compounds out to many labs, even the Chalk River national lab in Canada.

No he didn't. He promised to prove this to the world a year ago and didn't. You're referring to a very old lie here.

 

[markie]

Remove "moving" and that is the shell theorem yet again !

There are no net forces between the charged static electron shell and the proton. That includes your "strong radial electrical field that ends at the electron shell".

Mills stupidity is not showing that whatever his delusions are about "moving" add additional forces that fix a proton inside his shell.

Ask any competent physicist if, given a negative electrical shell (moving or not) and an equal positive charge in the centre, if the field inside the shell will be uniform. It will not. The shell theorem does not apply. There will be a 'net force' between the proton and any point on the shell surface. That is precisely why the shell has to be moving, for the centrifugal outward 'force' to balance an inward coulombic force.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What is this RC and RBF have about 'wrong' and, by implication, 'right'? A calculated result is either closer to the measured value or not. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

wronger then? satisfied?

Sure are pretty sassy for a guy who can't even find his lost dihydrino's

ROTFLMAO

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

 

[jsfisher]

Ask any competent physicist if, given a negative electrical shell (moving or not) and an equal positive charge in the centre, if the field inside the shell will be uniform. It will not. The shell theorem does not apply. There will be a 'net force' between the proton and any point on the shell surface. That is precisely why the shell has to be moving, for the centrifugal outward 'force' to balance an inward coulombic force.

You might want to seek medical assistance. Your foot appears to have what is a bullet hole in it.

 

[markie]

No he didn't. He promised to prove this to the world a year ago and didn't. You're referring to a very old lie here.

How do you know he didn't? You don't.
See page 21 of the thesis you can download at http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2077

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

How do you know he didn't? You don't.

Cite the confirmation of hydrinos that proved them to the world. That was the freaking promise. You can't possibly believe that hydrinos were proven to the world last year.

 

[jsfisher]

How do you know he didn't? You don't.
See page 21 of the thesis you can download at http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2077

Where, exactly, on page 21 do you see any mention of Mills providing samples to anyone? Moreover, since you are responding about a claimed promise from a year ago, how is a thesis from 1997 relevant?

 

[MEequalsIxR]

[snip]
BTW it took Newton to explain the 'why' of ellipses via the inverse squared gravitational force.[snip].

I was speaking of Newton.

 

[markie]

Where, exactly, on page 21 do you see any mention of Mills providing samples to anyone? Moreover, since you are responding about a claimed promise from a year ago, how is a thesis from 1997 relevant?

Apologies, somehow I got the documents mixed up. Here's a later paper from about 2001 where crystal samples were sent to various labs, see page 24.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.20.8498&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I'm not sure what 'claimed promise' of one year ago you are referring to.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Apologies, somehow I got the documents mixed up. Here's a later paper from about 2001 where crystal samples were sent to various labs, see page 24.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.20.8498&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I'm not sure what 'claimed promise' of one year ago you are referring to.

https://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/1st-quarter-2018-update.pdf

Page 9. "2018 Program Goals". One goal is to prove our power source to the world in the near term through power measurements, identification of the hydrino products of the reaction, and engineered power systems.

So why didn't they do that? You claim that they have the proof. It was a goal to show the proof last year. Why didn't they do it? It's supposed to be proven to the world by now.

You've actually claimed they've already done that. Why were they promising it as a goal just last year if they'd already done it??