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

[Dave Rogers]

True, the electron shell itself can exert no restoring force to whatever is in it.

So, by Newton's Third Law, whatever is in it can exert no force on the electron shell. You just refuted yourself.

That is because the shell itself generates only a uniform field inside it, with no differentials in field strength. The important point however is that as soon as one introduces a charge inside the shell, the field inside is no longer uniform, and so there is indeed a preferred position.

And now you just contradicted yourself. You admit that the electron shell can exert no restoring force on whatever's in it; you're then claiming that this doen't apply when something's in it. So your bizarre, other-worldly interpretation of the shell theorem is that it only applies to the force between a shell and an object that doesn't exist.

Regarding Newtons third law ; I've only heard of this applied bidirectionally ; so when one is talking about the effect of a charged shell with effects in all inward directions, I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

Newton invented this clever thing called "calculus" to cope with problems like that. You may want to look into it, it's only been around for a few centuries but in general the conclusions people have jumped to tend to be pretty rigorous.

But bidirectionally it would work ; a single point on the shell would experience and equal and opposite reaction to the proton as the (point) proton is experiencing from that point on the shell.

And here you seem to be using your ignorance of the basics of calculus and vector addition to excuse you from having to believe the shell theorem.

I wouldn't appeal to competent physicists any more if I were you. There's quite a few of us on the forum, and we all find your ramblings to be physically absurd and internally contradictory.

Dave

 

[hecd2]

That you had apparently not even heard of it until you were exposed to it on this thread suggests that your education in the field is appallingly incomplete at a very basic level.

He had not heard of it but was instructed in it on one of the predecessor threads about 18 months ago. He is in denial.

 

[hecd2]

In the book. But beware, it's old fashioned classical mechanics.

As in the “classical” meaning of classical mechanics. Balls bouncing off planes? Good luck with that. A reference ours be good.

No, but less reflective materials would tend to absorb more photons and heat up, perhaps releasing in the infrared.

That’s not what you said before, and moreover any far infrared emission as a result of heat forms no part of the observed fringes in a double slit experiment.

Afaik Mills uses the same formulae and methods that produce the classical wave equation results, so yeah.

Good luck explaining how he comes up with the same formula and methods without using wave interference. The challenge was for you to do it using explicitly Millsian (ie non-interference) theory. So please do it for us.

 

[Hans]

He had not heard of it but was instructed in it on one of the predecessor threads about 18 months ago. He is in denial.

Denial? No he is into creating 'possibilities', his job - sorry - purpose - here is to cause enough interaction/discussion to make someone else think there is a 'possibility' that Mills is right. Markie doesn't need to right he just needs to muddy the water enough so people might think that it isn't a scam but a lone misunderstood genius at work......

 

[jadebox]

I agree with all of the above, but it doesn't appear HappySkeptic will agree with the very first part.

You still don't understand what "net" means.

We all agree that the shell can experience a force between it and whatever is in it. But, you are the only one who believes that the "net inward force" is non-zero. It isn't. At all positions of an object within the shell, the net force between the object and the shell is zero. By choosing to define an "inward force," you are attempting to ignore that force is a vector. Add up all the "inward forces" correctly, as vectors, and you always get zero.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Not commenting on Shell theory, but I do believe the highlighted statement is incorrect. In Mills' model, the two S electrons orbit at the same radius. However, they do occupy different spin orientations.

Actually, I don't believe that Mills believes this is the case for He. Mills does not believe in the Pauli exclusion principle. To him, the first electron takes up the inner shell. The next must be outside it. This is necessary for him to explain the ionization energies.

In QM, the spin-coupled electrons are in the same S-shell. Because of the radial distribution of electron probability, each partially shields the other. Mills cannot have this, as his shells are infinitely thin. In QM, the ionization of the first electron changes the energy state of the remaining one, as they were in an entangled state (the ionization energy being the difference between entangled 2-electron state and final state, not the energy of either electron). Mills disputes this as impossible, and claims that they were both at different energies to start.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Good luck explaining how he comes up with the same formula and methods without using wave interference. The challenge was for you to do it using explicitly Millsian (ie non-interference) theory. So please do it for us.

I do know that Mills hand-waves about mirror charges, for the case of electron diffraction. Actually, he is correct. To make the electron feel a barrier, the barrier must be conductive. A conductive barrier will create a mirror charge that allows the electron to "see" the barrier.

However, all this explains is how the electron wave experiences a barrier slits. No mirror charges, would mean no barrier. Experiencing a barrier in QM terms means entanglement with the barrier, and can be explained in terms of exchange of virtual photons (not something physicists usually bother with describing) -- something Mills also talks about.

The diffraction itself must be explained in terms of a wave, exactly as in QM.

Mills distracts his audience with sciencey-sounding explanations, which are taken from actual physics. They don't have anything specifically to do with extended electron frisbees, or whatever he is peddling.

 

[optiongeek]

Actually, I don't believe that Mills believes this is the case for He. Mills does not believe in the Pauli exclusion principle. To him, the first electron takes up the inner shell. The next must be outside it. This is necessary for him to explain the ionization energies.

In QM, the spin-coupled electrons are in the same S-shell. Because of the radial distribution of electron probability, each partially shields the other. Mills cannot have this, as his shells are infinitely thin. In QM, the ionization of the first electron changes the energy state of the remaining one, as they were in an entangled state (the ionization energy being the difference between entangled 2-electron state and final state, not the energy of either electron). Mills disputes this as impossible, and claims that they were both at different energies to start.

As I've mentioned before, I've replicated Mills' 1 - 20 electron calculations in my own spreadsheet. From my experience in going through these calculations, I found that both S-shell electrons in He share the radius provided by Eq. 7.35:


r_1 = r_2 = a_0(1/(Z-1) - (sqrt(3/4) / (Z(Z-1)) ))

 

[HappySkeptic99]

As I've mentioned before, I've replicated Mills' 1 - 20 electron calculations in my own spreadsheet. From my experience in going through these calculations, I found that both S-shell electrons in He share the radius provided by Eq. 7.35:


r_1 = r_2 = a_0(1/(Z-1) - (sqrt(3/4) / (Z(Z-1)) ))

You are correct, though I swear I saw a whole set of confused videos from Mills collaborator Jonathan Philips explaining otherwise (The New Quantum Physics ones).

https://www.youtube.com/user/audrip/videos

A paper of that is here (not my dropbox link, so it may disappear one day)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nkyo5m7rk6ira6k/Corrected%20Pre-quel%20CQM%20Phillips_AuthorProof%20414%20Highlighted.pdf?dl=0

 

[Dancing David]

It is the wave function, as abstract as it is.

This demonstrates you haven't understood that in QM, the photon or an electron is a wave ALL the time, for all particles.
The wave/particle duality is a human construct that the universe ignores all the time.
They are waves all the time, during interactions the cross section of the wave may be constrained by the energy of the interaction, however it remains a wave before, during and after all interactions.

 

[Reality Check]

...The proton will feel an outward force from the electron shell, but it will be the same in all directions and so there will be no net force on the proton.

Which is what we have been telling your for months, markie
The shell theorem means that there is no net force between a charged shell and an charge inside the shall.

A small inaccuracy - your statement only applies to a proton at the center of the shell. If it is displaced then considering only points gives a bigger force on one side than the other side and the proton blasts thru the shell. It is when we (starting with Isaac Newton 350 years ago) look at the force from areas on the shell that the net force is zero.

 

[Reality Check]

More possible delusions for virtual photons

...Don't get me started on virtual photons.

24 January 2019 markie: More possible delusions for virtual photons
This is really simple. Solve real physics using perturbation theory and the forces between particles are described by the exchange of virtual particles.

Electromagnetism is the exchange of virtual photons. This gives physics that is much more closer to the real world than classical physics. QED is one of the best tested theories in physics. Effects such as the Casimir effect that does not exist in classical physics are explained by virtual photons.

This brings up yet another lying delusion from Mills. Page 6 claims that the Casimir effect is predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is the only mention of Casimir in his book!

Mills lies. His reference is an uncited 2009 paper that uses the Finite-difference time-domain method to compute Casimir forces assuming a "time-evolution of electric and magnetic fields in response to a set of current sources, in a modified medium with frequency-independent conductivity". It is an ignored paper - no citations in the last 10 years. This is not Mills delusions about QM or classical physics.

 

[JeanTate]

A quick summary of the recent flurry of posts:

* application of the shell theorem shows that Mills' "orbitsphere" concept doesn't work, or has a fatal inconsistency (caveat: per markie's presentation of that here).

* the huge range of published results on a lot of "double slit" experiments is inconsistent with Mills' "classical physics (+quantum)" proposals (caveat: per markie's presentation of that here).

* Mills' published values for a single physical parameter for various ions (e.g. Li⁺) - derived from his published formulae - do not match, or are inconsistent with, the published experimental values (including the uncertainties).

* little, if any, of this is new to the thread (though some details may be); these same three things have been extensively discussed here before (including this thread's predecessor threads).

Is that about right?

 

[Reality Check]

As I've mentioned before, I've replicated Mills' 1 - 20 electron calculations in my own spreadsheet....

As we have mentioned before, this is a waste of anyone's time because Mills does not get any correct ionization values !

 

[markie]

You seem surprised, yet you know he made up the whole cryodistilled dihydrino liquid thing as evidenced by your silence once it was pointed out.

Why you mistake my silence for 'knowing' something is rather odd to me frankly.
I gave you references to where cryodistillation was used by Mills and company to purify gases. That's what I 'know'. I really have little idea if he ever pursued collecting and storing liquid dihydrino itself.

You also know he made up the whole "we have working prototypes" thing, as evidenced by the fact that was over 10 years ago and yet still no one has ever seen it operating.

The various laboratory hydrino generating apparatuses through the years have operated and have been validated by various people as producing excess energy at a level where there was no conventional chemical explanation. Some of those validations, preSuncell, remain on the website. For instance look at https://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/ and you'll see validations for the electricity producing CIHT cell.

You also know last year he proposed as a goal to do things he previously claimed he already did long ago. So not only were the initial claims false, the goals for last year were also not met...yet again.

He has done those things, but apparently not to the point where the scientific community at large has taken serious notice.

With this large amount of fraud and wishful thinking in evidence, why in the world would you be surprised to find out he could have also purposely done it on his charts as well. I don't claim it was purposeful, but it certainly could have been. It absolutely would not surprise me in the least.

I am absolutely certain that Mills is indeed a fraud. What I don't know is if he has deluded himself in a sort of "beautiful mind" way or if it is deliberately done with malice. However, it is so obvious that it actually does require him to have a pathologically delusional mind in order for it to not be purposeful.

As for his followers like you and others... I'll simply quote it yet again since he said it best:

Oh and just to be clear. I am a skeptic, so I have already researched this Mark Twain quote. He never wrote it down in that exact wording but many times he wrote the same thought. So this could have been either a verbal quote or a paraphrased "quote".

For certain he did publish this though:
Which actually just might be more to the point regarding hydrinos.

I, and probably many on this forum, have been 'absolutely' certain on some things, only to have a change of mind later. Such is the human condition.

 

[optiongeek]

As we have mentioned before, this is a waste of anyone's time because Mills does not get any correct ionization values !

But what is better? QM methods that are 'accurate' only work as one-offs and depend on non-physical fudge factors.. QM methods that are general are many orders of magnitude less accurate than GUTCP.

 

[markie]

So, by Newton's Third Law, whatever is in it can exert no force on the electron shell. You just refuted yourself.

Not so. Your application of Newton's Third Law is in error. Just because the net force of the shell on a particle inside is zero does not mean that the net force of the particle on the shell is zero. For instance if a charged particle inside the shell was not in the centre, it would exert more force on the side of the shell it was closer too, clearly showing a non zero net force on the shell. Meanwhile the shell exerts a zero net force on the interior particle.

And now you just contradicted yourself. You admit that the electron shell can exert no restoring force on whatever's in it; you're then claiming that this doen't apply when something's in it. So your bizarre, other-worldly interpretation of the shell theorem is that it only applies to the force between a shell and an object that doesn't exist.

It's not about the restoring force of the shell on the proton. (The shell itself produces only a uniform field within, as per Newton.) Rather it is about the restoring force of the proton on the shell, because the proton's field is not uniform. You and some others are making an assumption of symmetry that isn't valid.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

He has done those things, but apparently not to the point where the scientific community at large has taken serious notice.

So he failed, yet again. Which is strong evidence that he is simply lying. He set a goal to show the world things that he'd been claiming he'd already done and failed to do so.

This is simple markie. Let me repeat. He said he wants to convince the world. He claims to already have the evidence that would convince the world. Why didn't he drive to some nearby university and show that evidence? He's put alleged pictures of this stuff in at lot of reports now. Just show it to someone at some reputable place and then start raking in the cash.

 

[markie]

As in the “classical” meaning of classical mechanics. Balls bouncing off planes? Good luck with that. A reference ours be good.
That’s not what you said before, and moreover any far infrared emission as a result of heat forms no part of the observed fringes in a double slit experiment.

Good luck explaining how he comes up with the same formula and methods without using wave interference. The challenge was for you to do it using explicitly Millsian (ie non-interference) theory. So please do it for us.

The same math can have diverse physical interpretations.
(Also, the same results can be derived from dissimilar maths and dissimilar interpretations.)
I wish I could be an Eddington for Mills' work. But currently I am not so much equipped. I'll work on it though.

 

[Reality Check]

* the huge range of published results on a lot of "double slit" experiments is inconsistent with Mills' "classical physics (+quantum)" proposals (caveat: per markie's presentation of that here).

There is also:
* The well known relationship between slit separation and fringe separation in "double slit" experiments is inconsistent with Mills' "theory", especially as presented by markie.

Everyone knows that the interference pattern changes with the distance between the slits. If the distance between the slits is doubled, the spacing between the interference fringes halves.
But Mills states that the interference pattern is each photon or electron interacting only with the slit they pass through. As far as they know the other slit does not exist.

* The "which-path", "double slit" experiment results are inconsistent with Mills' "theory", especially as presented by markie.

When we place a detector on a slit which the photon or electron passes through, the interference pattern vanishes. All of the photons or electrons act as a particles, even the ones that go through the other slit.
But Mills denies this can happen because Mills states that the interference pattern is each photon or electron interacting only with the slit they pass through. The other slit still produces an interference pattern!

* The delayed choice double slit" experiment results are inconsistent with Mills' "theory", especially as presented by markie.
Wheeler's delayed choice experiments demonstrate that extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits.
But Mills states that the interference pattern is each photon or electron interacting only with the slit they pass through. After they pass through the slit they to travel to the screen as determined at the slit.