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

[markie]

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.

I believe that WhatRoughBeast and probably some others here believe there would be a "net inward force" from the proton on the shell.
Beware of your vector thinking. By your standard, if we sum up the gravitational force of the earth on the moon over one full orbit of the moon, the net force will be zero, leaving people scratching their heads in wonder that the moon can remain in orbit at all.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

some questions for optiongeek

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?

That's about right.

With regard to your third point, we know the value for lithium that's given in Table 10.1 is not the value obtained from equation (10.25) as alleged in footnote f of that table. The other values in that table were allegedly obtained from equation (10.48). Having spent an hour or so of my life looking at Table 10.1 and those equations, I have some questions for optiongeek.

I'm only posting here in the hopes that someone has something relevant to say about the GUTCP-based derivations for the spin flip and the 1 thru 20 electron ions that seem impossible according to QM. My concern is that I've missed something and therefore I no longer need to regard these as proof that Mills' math is superior to QM. So far, the discussion has simply confirmed that the equations are accurate.

As explained below, I don't think the highlighted statement is accurate.

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

How did you replicate the value for lithium that's shown in Table 10.1? We know that value is different from the value Mills claimed in equation (10.25). When you were replicating Mills's calculations, how did you fail to notice that error in Table 10.1?

Equation (10.48), which is the alleged basis for all of the non-lithium values in Table 10.1, says: E(Ionization) = E(Electric) + E_T. I have three questions about that:

• I believe the E_T term should be ΔE_T. Can you confirm that apparent error in equation (10.48)?
• The value of E(Electric) presumably comes from equation (10.43). Because of the minus sign that begins the right hand side of that equation, and the fact that all of the constants and variables mentioned in the fraction are positive, that equation says the value of E(Electric) must be negative. In equation (10.25), however, the minus sign is absent, so the corresponding term is positive. During your replication of Mills's results, you must have noticed that difference between the two equations. Based on your experience, are equations (10.25) and (10.43) both correct as written?
• Did you really type these equations into your spreadsheet exactly as they are shown in Mills's book?

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.

Allow me to explain how easy it is to come up with an equation that is far simpler than Mills's equation (10.48) and is slightly more accurate (assuming the values given in Table 10.1 really do come from equation (10.48), as you have repeatedly assured us they do).

First, let's note that equation (10.48) specifies the ionization energy as a function of Z. if you trace back through the equations giving the value of E(Electric), you'll find that Z not only appears linearly in equation (10.43) but also appears in equation (10.42), the equation for r₃, which appears in equation (10.43). You will notice that equation (10.43) is not a simple polynomial in Z; although the value of r₃ is an algebraic function of Z, that function is far more complex than a simple polynomial function of Z.

The following cubic function of Z is therefore a great deal simpler than the function given by equation (10.48):

f(Z) = 0.005035826300931423 Z³ + 3.2268883952560006 Z² - 8.67775469504161 Z - 1.1090053331352037​

Not only is that formula simpler than the formula given by Mills, it is slightly more accurate (as judged by the RMS relative error) for the ionization energies given in Table 10.1, excluding only the first two rows. (Mills used a different function for the first row, and got the value given in that row wrong, so I think it's fair for me to come up with a slightly different function for the first two rows.)

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.

I can assure you that the method I used to come up with the cubic formula given above can be applied to all of the tables in Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos. (Mills uses different formulas for each table, so it's only fair to let me come up with different formulas for each table.)

Please note that I am not claiming my formula is based on quantum mechanics, or that it has any scientific value. The only thing I'm trying to demonstrate here is that it's actually quite easy to improve upon the simplicity and accuracy of Mills's formulas.

That fact suggests you should bring other criteria to bear when you start to compare Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos against quantum mechanics.

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.

Methinks you are not an authority on that. I suspect you are confusing generality with being in closed form, which is a confusion Mills has gone to some trouble to foster.

 

[markie]

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.

Interesting. It looks like you have escaped the infamous collapse of the wave function and can surf indefinitely.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Interesting. It looks like you have escaped the infamous collapse of the wave function and can surf indefinitely.

You both have a point. He is correct that one can view the wavefunction as "all there is", and any property of the quanta, such as a particle position, as a result of projecting onto a basis that looks at position. Since any measurement is merely an entanglement with measurement apparatus (which itself has wave properties), one can view the whole thing as waves.

You are also right, Markie, that collapse has to happen sometime. However, no-one knows what that "time" is. Theoretically, it is entanglement forever, which seems false, as it would mean that all potential past histories are real at the same time (for instance, there is both a moon and not a moon). We have no idea the cause of collapse. That is the one problem of QM, and I believe that QM is incomplete because of it. Still, despite all attempts to make QM more "classical", no-one has succeeded. Not even Randell Mills.

 

[jsfisher]

I believe that WhatRoughBeast and probably some others here believe there would be a "net inward force" from the proton on the shell.

The shell is rigid, remember? Inward at one spot becomes outward at the diametrically opposed spot, and vice versa. The net force exerted by the proton on the shell is zero.

Beware of your vector thinking. By your standard, if we sum up the gravitational force of the earth on the moon over one full orbit of the moon, the net force will be zero, leaving people scratching their heads in wonder that the moon can remain in orbit at all.

You don't do analogies very well. The Moon is not a sphere with the Earth inside. Were it, though, guess what.

 

[hecd2]

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.

Yes it does. It means exactly that according to Newton’s 3rd law. If the net force of the shell on the particle is zero, then the net force of the particle on the shell is zero - that’s exactly what Newton’s third law states.

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You need to take a course on elementary calculus. The net force exerted on the shell by the charged particle is zero no matter where in the shell it is located for the same reason that the force exerted on the particle by the shell is zero, which is that the forces integrated over the sphere are zero.

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.)

Not just uniform. Zero.

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.

There is no restoring force of the proton on the shell. It is zero. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

 

[hecd2]

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.

Or in other words, I (Markie) can’t support my blind assertions that the double slit experiment can be explained quantitatively by non-wave interference (because those assertions are, not to put too fine a point on it, complete fantasy), so I’ll just slither out of the discussion and hope that no one will notice my abject failure. Got it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

Give me a break. You know he didn't. Even you are not that foolish. He didn't because he couldn't. He couldn't because dihydrinos don't exist.

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.

I looked. It isn't there. Nor is their any indication of hydrino production. I see him making claims it is verified. I see no verification. The statement, "
During April-May 2016, five independent third-party validations of Brilliant Light Power’s SunCell Technology were carried out at BrLP’s facilities in Cranbury, NJ." is beyond ridiculous. You don't see it? "Independent" but held at BLP headquarters. It's an oxymoron. all "verified" in a single day, but not even close to enough time to carefully check for hoaxes or properly devise controls. It's nonsense. It's not the scientific method at all.

It's much closer to the magician asking for volunteers from the audience to verify the magician is not pulling any tricks! When in fact this is actually part of the trick!

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

Because the scientific community by and large are not impressed by unverifiable phenomenon.

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.

Of course. I offered to eat my hat if I was wrong. Crow pie in a nasty straw hat shell. But of course that never happened, because you and your friends are all ridiculously parading about naked as escaped jailbirds. The Emperor has no clothes. And the rest of us are laughing at you because you refuse to admit you were fooled.

That's a key distinction here. We are not laughing at you for being fooled. It happens all the time. We are laughing at you for being so stubborn you refuse to admit you were fooled. And here we are beyond the time when you know you said you would come clean and admit Mill's was a fraud. And yet you still stubbornly refuse to admit you were fooled.

 

[Hans]

We are not laughing at you for being fooled. It happens all the time. We are laughing at you for being so stubborn you refuse to admit you were fooled. And here we are beyond the time when you know you said you would come clean and admit Mill's was a fraud. And yet you still stubbornly refuse to admit you were fooled.

UNLESS he wasn't fooled or not fooled. There is a third possibility.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

UNLESS he wasn't fooled or not fooled. There is a third possibility.

I see no evidence for that. Although it certainly is a possibility. Do you have some? Should my laughing turn to scorn?

 

[wollery]

I believe that WhatRoughBeast and probably some others here believe there would be a "net inward force" from the proton on the shell.
Beware of your vector thinking. By your standard, if we sum up the gravitational force of the earth on the moon over one full orbit of the moon, the net force will be zero, leaving people scratching their heads in wonder that the moon can remain in orbit at all.

Thus again betraying your ignorance of the subject matter.

The fact that the net force on the Moon during one full orbit is zero is why it stays in orbit. If the net force on the Moon wasn't zero it would be accelerated away from the Earth in a preferred direction and would leave orbit.

Also, your suggestion that a force can be exerted by one object on a second, while at the same time the second exerts no force on the first is so cringingly bad that I have to wonder where you got your science education, and would advise you to ask them for at least a partial refund.

But by all means, keep on asking for the opinion of competent physicists, and just keep on ignoring the fact that several of the people responding to you on this thread are working physicists and physics PhDs.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Yes, it does. That's not even an implication of Newton's Third Law; it is Newton's Third Law. You fail high school physics.

Dave

 

[Darat]

Latest video

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Latest video

Nothing to see here. Move along

 

[Darat]

Nothing to see here. Move along

You mean you can't see the excess power? Look it glows and is noisy! That must be all the dark matter flowing from it!

 

[jsfisher]

You mean you can't see the excess power? Look it glows and is noisy! That must be all the dark matter flowing from it!

Oh! Good catch. I just thought it was poor lighting for the video. Now I understand the real truth.

 

[markie]

The shell is rigid, remember? Inward at one spot becomes outward at the diametrically opposed spot, and vice versa. The net force exerted by the proton on the shell is zero.

You don't do analogies very well. The Moon is not a sphere with the Earth inside. Were it, though, guess what.

Really, if the moon was a static shell around the earth, some here would think that because the 'net force' of the earth on the moon shell is zero that the shell would be fine floating and suspended above the earth. No, it would want to come crashing down, inward towards the earth.

 

[markie]

Yes it does. It means exactly that according to Newton’s 3rd law. If the net force of the shell on the particle is zero, then the net force of the particle on the shell is zero - that’s exactly what Newton’s third law states.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You need to take a course on elementary calculus. The net force exerted on the shell by the charged particle is zero no matter where in the shell it is located for the same reason that the force exerted on the particle by the shell is zero, which is that the forces integrated over the sphere are zero.

Not just uniform. Zero. There is no restoring force of the proton on the shell. It is zero. You are making yourself look ridiculous.

Oh but there is a restoring forcing of the proton on the shell. It wants to 'restore' every point of that shell to its (the protons) location. Coulombic attraction. Again, the field inside a shell with a proton inside is not uniform.

 

[markie]

Give me a break. You know he didn't. Even you are not that foolish. He didn't because he couldn't. He couldn't because dihydrinos don't exist.


I looked. It isn't there. Nor is their any indication of hydrino production. I see him making claims it is verified. I see no verification. The statement, "
During April-May 2016, five independent third-party validations of Brilliant Light Power’s SunCell Technology were carried out at BrLP’s facilities in Cranbury, NJ." is beyond ridiculous. You don't see it? "Independent" but held at BLP headquarters. It's an oxymoron. all "verified" in a single day, but not even close to enough time to carefully check for hoaxes or properly devise controls. It's nonsense. It's not the scientific method at all.

Why you say 'single day' is beyond me, when it is described as over a period of two months. And, it appears you are not clicking the links on that page to read the actual validation reports by different authors.

Of course. I offered to eat my hat if I was wrong. Crow pie in a nasty straw hat shell. But of course that never happened, because you and your friends are all ridiculously parading about naked as escaped jailbirds. The Emperor has no clothes. And the rest of us are laughing at you because you refuse to admit you were fooled.

That's a key distinction here. We are not laughing at you for being fooled. It happens all the time. We are laughing at you for being so stubborn you refuse to admit you were fooled. And here we are beyond the time when you know you said you would come clean and admit Mill's was a fraud. And yet you still stubbornly refuse to admit you were fooled.

You're thinking that I know I've been fooled and am stubbornly refusing to admit it. On the contrary I do not know, or believe, that I've been fooled.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And, it appears you are not clicking the links on that page to read the actual validation reports by different authors.

You keep posting quotes from the liars website. Why do you keep doing that?