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

[Hans]

...and markie is at it again:

No no hydrinos exist

Yeah over there see see that was one

There is one over there


Behind the door


In the sky!!!

 

[markie]

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??

I've claimed that they have already 'proven it to the world'? I don't think so. They've essentially proven it to my satisfaction, but clearly not to the satisfaction to the skeptics of this forum, and certainly not to the world.
Having a goal to prove something to the world is one thing, achieving it is another.
I believe it was early 1989 when Dr. Mills first made his personal breakthrough discovery regarding hydrino. It would be a fitting 30th year anniversary for that breakthrough to send shockwaves through the world. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm looking forward to it.

You'll have a better time looking backwards.

 

[Hans]

I've claimed that they have already 'proven it to the world'? I don't think so. They've essentially proven it to my satisfaction, but clearly not to the satisfaction to the skeptics of this forum, and certainly not to the world.

Having a goal to prove something to the world is one thing, achieving it is another.

I believe it was early 1989 when Dr. Mills first made his personal breakthrough discovery regarding hydrino. It would be a fitting 30th year anniversary for that breakthrough to send shockwaves through the world. I'm looking forward to it.

Y E A H right....................lol.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I've claimed that they have already 'proven it to the world'? I don't think so. They've essentially proven it to my satisfaction,

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time,

but clearly not to the satisfaction to the skeptics of this forum, and certainly not to the world.

But you cant fool all of the people all of the time.

Having a goal to prove something to the world is one thing, achieving it is another.

wow, for almost a second I almost think your brain engage for a moment.

I believe it was early 1989 when Dr. Mills first made his personal breakthrough discovery regarding hydrino.

You mean that sloppy original discovery where he found out metals burn and sensitive equipment not calibrated correctly can give bad readings?

It would be a fitting 30th year anniversary for that breakthrough to send shockwaves through the world. I'm looking forward to it.

OOPS wrong again. Pity

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

― Mark Twain

 

[JeanTate]

I've searched for a set of computations based on QM theory that can rival the simplicity, compactness and universal predictability of GUTCP. I haven't found yet, nor has anyone on this thread been able to point me to one. There are versions that provide absurd levels of precision but only through the use of multiple magic fudge factors like in the computation of Li's ionization you have linked. Alternatively, I have found packages such as [Spartan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_(chemistry_software)) that provide values no better than random guesses when compared across multiple atoms and molecules. No one has ever been able to show me a methodology that derives from the Schrodinger equation that I can implement in a spreadsheet but gives both accuracy and predictability.

It's a simple test really. Show me a method that works as well as GUTCP does for 1 - 20 electron atoms/ions. In years of asking this question, no one has come close to answering it.

Apart from the fact that none of Mills’ values are within the published uncertainties around the experimental estimates - so Mills’ work is useless, scientifically - there’s the question of why you think the approach you use has anything to do with science.

I’ve asked you about this, more than once, but have yet to read a response from you.

Why?

 

[JeanTate]

If a physicist actually believes that a photon can interfere with another photon, I'd like to hear about it. It's when light interacts with matter that diffraction and interference patterns can be generated. Incoming light is absorbed by an atom and reemitted in directions that need not be entirely random, leading to potential patterning.

You probably already know this, but in case not ...

The double slit experiment can be - and has been - done so that there’s only one particle (photon, electron, buckyball, etc) in the device at any time. The results are unequivocal: over time an interference pattern builds up, just like the one you get with lots of particles. And many variations have been done, all with the same results.

 

[JeanTate]

None of the above really. The Shell Theorem has to do with a static, charged shell within which there is a uniform field that exerts no net force. This is not descriptive of Mills' hydrogen atom, which is comprised of a moving charged electron shell within which is a central proton and its strong radial electrical field that ends at the electron shell. Apples to Oranges.

You left out the trapped photon. And the infinite number of precessing, non-interacting ribbons.

 

[JeanTate]

Sure he does, all over the book. In fact his book used to have the word "quantum" in the title. Mills is generally fine with much of the pre Heisenberg QM.

You’re a laugh a minute markie!

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Nah. I’ll wait for you to tell us all about it, here.

But it might be a good idea to wait until five prototype hydrino-based generators have been independently tested.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

OK, I did ask.

A polite summary of the response: many a community college has Physics courses which markie would benefit from; and he could also audit a relevant university course. As it stands, he seems very confused.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They've essentially proven it to my satisfaction, but clearly not to the satisfaction to the skeptics of this forum, and certainly not to the world.

Why didn't they do it last year like like they said they would? What stopped them from doing the thing they wanted to do that both you and Mills claims they have been capable of doing for a long time? What stopped them from simply showing the hydrino compounds both of you claim they have had for a long time?

Let me make this clear: You claim they did the hard part years ago. You and they have been claiming they have hydrino compounds for years. All they would have to do to make good on their goal is show them to some institute capable of making a press release. They are in driving distance of some of the most prestigious universities in the country. Does Mills not have a single person capable for driving or even calling a cab?

They failed this simple goal which Mills says is a keystone of the companies value.

I believe it was early 1989 when Dr. Mills first made his personal breakthrough discovery regarding hydrino. It would be a fitting 30th year anniversary for that breakthrough to send shockwaves through the world. I'm looking forward to it.

So markie is looking forward to proving it to the world in 2019. Which means we're all looking for forward to the next excuse. Like the excuse you have to make for next month which was your last prediction.

 

[wollery]

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.

I think you need to go check what the phrase "net force" means, because you are completely misapplying it here.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

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.

Hi. Competent physicist here.

You are completely wrong. You described the exact situation where the shell theorem will apply.

Mills declares that the shape of the electron is an infinitely thin shell when around an atom. He says it is a sphere in the S-state, because, well that's the shape in QM (minus the shell part).

Note that Mills just declares this true. He has no equation for it, because he throws out all QM wave equations. He simply takes the results of QM, and imagines the electron probability cloud as the surface of a shell, instead of a 3D wavefunction. To explain the P and D shells, etc., he re-introduces the wave idea, and claims that a photon is trapped inside the shell, and that photon wave creates the spherical harmonics that a QM wavefunction requires.

Now, if this simplification can yield easier equations that come close to reality, then it is a mildly interesting thing. But, as a construction it is a failure at the level of basic physics.

Forget for a minute that the orbitsphere is a sphere. It can obviously take different shapes, depending on whether it is part of a molecular bond (which Mills simply claims makes it an prolate ellipsoid, with the charges at the ellipse focii. Really?). It also takes different shapes depending on the photons inside. However, Mills is clear that it is an infinitely-thin shell, always.

If Mills were right about the shell, he has a problem, because the shell theorem does apply, as long as the shell is rigid. If it isn't rigid, then it needs new properties, like elasticity, restoring force. In that case, the shell theorem is not valid, because a motion of the nucleus will deform the shape of the shell, causing a non-zero net force. The question is, does this fix the problem of stability? Mills has to keep uniform charge density (or does he? Are the charge densities compressible in a single loop, and what is the coefficient?). The reality is that no, a deformable surface would not be stable. References have been posted here before. And, if the charge density does not remain uniform, it makes it even worse for stability -- the nucleus would attract the charges to one side, and never get back to center.

Imagine a set of millions of particles in orbit in loops as in Mills construction, but allowed to freely move (i.e., not forced to stay in position relative to their neighbors). That system is stable(ish) because perturbations cause a particle to change its relative phase, position, and radius relative to their neighbors. There is always an ELLIPTICAL orbit that is stable, under any minor perturbation, provided each particle can move independently. If we add any constraint on motion regarding relative positions with the neighbors, we no longer have orbital motion. We have orbiting hula-hoops (if solid) or orbiting rubber-bands (if deformable), neither of which is stable.

Mills construction is impossible based on basic physics. It could be useful as a thought experiment to see how far a reduced-dimension construction can get you. The answer is -- not far.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Having a goal to prove something to the world is one thing, achieving it is another.

But you and Mills have repeatedly said that they achieved this goal a long time ago.

Let me emphasize your lying (and it is your lying, not just Mills, now): You and Mills have both claimed they achieved this goal a long time ago. You've used the excuse that Mills is bad a predicting deadlines for a long time. This wasn't a prediction. If you and them aren't lying they had and have had hydrino compounds for a long time.

You should note that there were other claims on that page that BLP failed at too. That page that I cited from a year ago also promised engineered power systems would be part of the proof to the world last year. Didn't happen. How many times have they made that promise and failed?

But that's a promise you already have an excuse for.

So markie put your thinking cap on and let's hear why they weren't able to meet a goal that they claimed they'd already met. Why didn't they show any capable party their hydrino compounds?

 

[hecd2]

Hi. Competent physicist here.

You are completely wrong. You described the exact situation where the shell theorem will apply.

Markie has been in erroneous denial of the shell theorem for more than a year, even though he has had it explained to him again and again. He simply refuses or fails to understand that the electric field inside a thin shell araising from the shell is zero and therefore a point charge inside a thin spherical shell of any charge or no charge feels no force and it’s position is unstable. I have no idea why Markie is incorrigible on this point.

 

[markie]

Hi. Competent physicist here.

You are completely wrong. You described the exact situation where the shell theorem will apply.

Mills declares that the shape of the electron is an infinitely thin shell when around an atom. He says it is a sphere in the S-state, because, well that's the shape in QM (minus the shell part).

Note that Mills just declares this true. He has no equation for it, because he throws out all QM wave equations. He simply takes the results of QM, and imagines the electron probability cloud as the surface of a shell, instead of a 3D wavefunction. To explain the P and D shells, etc., he re-introduces the wave idea, and claims that a photon is trapped inside the shell, and that photon wave creates the spherical harmonics that a QM wavefunction requires.

Now, if this simplification can yield easier equations that come close to reality, then it is a mildly interesting thing. But, as a construction it is a failure at the level of basic physics.

Forget for a minute that the orbitsphere is a sphere. It can obviously take different shapes, depending on whether it is part of a molecular bond (which Mills simply claims makes it an prolate ellipsoid, with the charges at the ellipse focii. Really?). It also takes different shapes depending on the photons inside. However, Mills is clear that it is an infinitely-thin shell, always.

If Mills were right about the shell, he has a problem, because the shell theorem does apply, as long as the shell is rigid. If it isn't rigid, then it needs new properties, like elasticity, restoring force. In that case, the shell theorem is not valid, because a motion of the nucleus will deform the shape of the shell, causing a non-zero net force. The question is, does this fix the problem of stability? Mills has to keep uniform charge density (or does he? Are the charge densities compressible in a single loop, and what is the coefficient?). The reality is that no, a deformable surface would not be stable. References have been posted here before. And, if the charge density does not remain uniform, it makes it even worse for stability -- the nucleus would attract the charges to one side, and never get back to center.

Imagine a set of millions of particles in orbit in loops as in Mills construction, but allowed to freely move (i.e., not forced to stay in position relative to their neighbors). That system is stable(ish) because perturbations cause a particle to change its relative phase, position, and radius relative to their neighbors. There is always an ELLIPTICAL orbit that is stable, under any minor perturbation, provided each particle can move independently. If we add any constraint on motion regarding relative positions with the neighbors, we no longer have orbital motion. We have orbiting hula-hoops (if solid) or orbiting rubber-bands (if deformable), neither of which is stable.

Mills construction is impossible based on basic physics. It could be useful as a thought experiment to see how far a reduced-dimension construction can get you. The answer is -- not far.

Well here you are diverting into a myriad of different topics, each of which deserves it's own thread. But the issue at present is simply ... the applicability of the shell theorem. The shell theorem is saying that a shell will contribute no net force to anything within it ; in other words the shell has no contribution to field differentials inside it. So, with a proton inside the shell, it is the sole contributor to differentials of field potential within the shell. But you seem to be implying that the field is uniform inside the shell no matter what is inside it, in which case any object inside the shell would have no preferred position. If so, you would be mistaken.

 

[markie]

You probably already know this, but in case not ...

The double slit experiment can be - and has been - done so that there’s only one particle (photon, electron, buckyball, etc) in the device at any time. The results are unequivocal: over time an interference pattern builds up, just like the one you get with lots of particles. And many variations have been done, all with the same results.

Yes, which underscores my point ; it is not about 'interference' with other photons. Rather it is about the interaction of a single photon with the material slit apparatus. Now, the QM position would be that the single photon (or whatever particle) is interfering with itself, with it own superpositions of quantum potentiality. Either that or it is interfering with real photons from other real parallel universes. I happen to disagree, wholeheartedly.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Let's see now ...

Do you agree that equation 1.156/1.157 correctly evaluates the integral? I believe it fairly represents the physics of the orbitsphere as described in the preceding text. And then when I plug it into my integral solver, I get the same result as shown. Can you show how these equations fail?

edit: as an aid, the following text:

(mu / 2) * integrate integrate integrate (((e * h) / (m * rho^3))^2 * (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) * r^2 * sin(theta)) dr dtheta dphi over 0 to rho over 0 to 2 * pi over 0 to pi​

when plugged into the Wolfram Alpha tool shows the correct results.

Oh lordy. Look at equation 1.158 where instead of cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) it is 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta).
<snip>

(my hilite)

optiongeek cites "equation 1.156/1.157"; you cite "equation 1.158".

The two of your can't seem to agree on what to cite, let alone what any of the equations actually means!

 

[markie]

Markie has been in erroneous denial of the shell theorem for more than a year, even though he has had it explained to him again and again. He simply refuses or fails to understand that the electric field inside a thin shell araising from the shell is zero and therefore a point charge inside a thin spherical shell of any charge or no charge feels no force and it’s position is unstable. I have no idea why Markie is incorrigible on this point.

You too seem to imply that the field inside a shell is uniform, no matter what is inside it. I'll continue to refuse to believe that.