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

[markie]

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.

The moon's 'preferred direction' is to fall into the earth. It remains in orbit due to its velocity.

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.

On the contrary, I believe that the force exerted by the proton on any point on the shell is the same as the force exerted by that point on the shell onto the proton.

 

[JeanTate]

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.

Giving up on this part of Mills' theory fantasy costs little; it's the orbitsphere which is central to Mills' claims, along with the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator.

The centrality of the orbitsphere to Mills' claims may be one reason why markie (and to a lesser extent, optiongeek) continues to deny simple calculus, Newton's 3rd Law, the opinions of "competent physicists", and so on. Accepting the shell theorem's applicability to the orbitsphere concept translates to leaving only the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator as evidence.

One possible caveat: apparently there's a "trapped photon" (singular, never plural) inside every orbitsphere; maybe we can expect to soon read about how this makes the shell theorem moot?

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

This is a fourth, somewhat minor, theme in the flurry of recent posts; one not mentioned in my summary post.

Apart from the veracity of the claims make by markie (and BLP/Mills, if markie is reporting accurately), there's a big elephant in the room, deafening silence.

Suppose, just suppose that the "validations" do report excess energy, which the validators do ascribe to "hydrinos". Likewise, that those who tested BLP/Mills samples found strong evidence for hydrinos.

Suppose further that at least a big minority of the validators, collectively, are scientists, not any different from their non-validator colleagues.

(Yeah, maybe some supposes too far)

The existence of hydrinos - "stable, below ground state forms of hydrogen" - irrespective of how good or (as seems to be the case) bad Mills' theories magic is - would truly lead to a Nobel Prize or two; it would almost certainly usher in a revolution in physics comparable to relativity or QM.

Yet markie would have us think that the reason so many competent scientists have remained silent about this - not even putting their "validation reports" in their lists of publications, on their own webpages, for example - for years, perhaps decades, is something like NDAs, loyalty to and faith in Mills/BLP, being too busy, etc. (If any have a financial stake in BLP, and if that's the reason for their on-going silence, well there's a special place in scientist hell for them).

Curious.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

On the contrary, I believe that the force exerted by the proton on any point on the shell is the same as the force exerted by that point on the shell.

And that is just one of the many truly ridiculous things you believe.

ETA: After I wrote this, markie edited his post to make it less ridiculous. He still doesn't understand the "and opposite" part of Newton's third law, but we shouldn't hope for miracles.

 

[markie]

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?

If I may. That single small error beginning in the second or third decimal place - and in the context of a larger table - is not that noticeable.

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)?

• 
  Yes that is a typo in equation 10.48. There should be a delta in front of E total.
  
  

  [*]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?

  Yes both are correct. One is in the context of potential energy, the other ionization energy.
  
  

  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.)
  
  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.

  
  Congratulations that you can do curve fitting. I didn't check your results but assume that on average your results would have an even lower error than Mills values. But hey you could have gone to an equation of order 25 and got all 26 experimental values *exactly*. How lazy hehe.
  Of course, what you did was a mere mathematical exercise. Mills is doing physics calculations using known physical constants and applying the same physical principles and calculations over all atoms and ions. So, hardly comparable. But I appreciate your effort and the diversion.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

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.

Let's go over this again.

A spherical shell with uniform charge density will create zero field inside it.

The proton will create a field around it, but that field creates zero net force on the spherical shell.

Yes, this is necessary via Newton's Third Law, but is also easy to prove by simple geometry. The proton will attract the side it is closest to. But, it will attract the side is farthest from by THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT. This is your point of confusion. It is easy to prove, both by calculus, or by a simple geometrical construction combined with the inverse-square law.

 

[markie]

Giving up on this part of Mills' theory fantasy costs little; it's the orbitsphere which is central to Mills' claims, along with the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator.

The centrality of the orbitsphere to Mills' claims may be one reason why markie (and to a lesser extent, optiongeek) continues to deny simple calculus, Newton's 3rd Law, the opinions of "competent physicists", and so on. Accepting the shell theorem's applicability to the orbitsphere concept translates to leaving only the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator as evidence.

One possible caveat: apparently there's a "trapped photon" (singular, never plural) inside every orbitsphere; maybe we can expect to soon read about how this makes the shell theorem moot?

Don't think I'm 'giving up' on understanding what Mills is doing. Rather, I'm just really beginning.
The 'trapped photon' has its function in altering effective nuclear charge, but it is not required to fix a supposed shell theorem problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

If the shell was rigid, which direction do you think it would choose as "down", pray?

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.

On the contrary, I believe that the force exerted by the proton on any point on the shell is the same as the force exerted by that point on the shell onto the proton.

So when you say this, after saying...

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.

...are you lying, or simply too stupid to realise thateveryone can see you've just contradicted yourself?

Just to make this clear:

You admit that the net force of the shell on the proton is zero. According to Newton, whom you say you believe, we can express the net force of the shell on the proton as an infinite series of infinitesmal forces, such that the sum of the infinite series is zero. What you are claiming in the second quote above is that every one of these infinitesmal forces is equal and opposite to a corresponding infinitesmal force of the proton on the shell; but what you are claiming in the third is that the equal and opposite forces do not sum to zero. Or, more simply, you are claiming that -0 does not equal 0.

I'd ask you to reconsider your claims, but I'm beginning to think you're not intellectually capable of perceiving how stupid are the things you say.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Don't think I'm 'giving up' on understanding what Mills is doing. Rather, I'm just really beginning.

You'd do better to begin understanding what Newton was doing.

Dave

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

Paid consultants redacted internal reports does not even come close to independent verification. And no I didn't even bother after about 4 or 5 I gave up even reading them. It's so obvious actually that these probably were even written by the same person. The style of writing doesn't even change. At best all I could think is that some people were give a tour. and maybe asked to sign something about what Mills set up. I see no indication any of them actually replicated what Mills did with their own measurements.

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.

you may or may not know you've been fooled regarding the whole scam, but you have to know Mills never cryo-distilled pure dihydrino liquid.

It's the most ludicris of all his claims.

You expect me to believe something similar to this happened?\

Look I have just distilled pure dark matter. It is the breakthrough of the century, maybe the biggest ever. I have been working on it 30+ years. Finally I have irrefutable proof....

OK check that box and lets just toss it aside and go on to the next without even sending it out to be verified. D'oh

Yeah right Even you can't possibly be that dumb to believe that, or anything even close to that, happened.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

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.)

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.

Congratulations that you can do curve fitting. I didn't check your results but assume that on average your results would have an lower error than Mills values. But hey you could have gone to an equation of order 25 and got all 26 experimental values *exactly*. How lazy hehe.
Of course, what you did was a mere mathematical exercise. Mills is doing physics calculations using known physical constants and applying the same physical principles and calculations over all atoms and ions. So, hardly comparable. But I appreciate your effort and the diversion.

So here's a challenge: using numbers like 2, 10, e, and pi; simple functions like square root and ^2*; and physical constants like c, h, and alpha ... produce numbers like 0.005035826300931423, 3.2268883952560006, etc.

A second challenge: once you've got "good enough" matches, write a story about why those particular constants etc are consistent with "physical principles". This second challenge does not require you to be consistent or even plausible ... it just has to be no worse than markie's explanations of why the shell theorem is not applicable to orbitspheres.

* you must avoid things like "Bessel", or "Kolmogorov", or "Euler", or even "Weibull"; the challenge is keep it very simple, the sorts of things you can easily find in a standard spreadsheet (yeah, you can surely find Weibull, but you get the idea).

 

[JeanTate]

Giving up on this part of Mills' theory fantasy costs little; it's the orbitsphere which is central to Mills' claims, along with the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator.

The centrality of the orbitsphere to Mills' claims may be one reason why markie (and to a lesser extent, optiongeek) continues to deny simple calculus, Newton's 3rd Law, the opinions of "competent physicists", and so on. Accepting the shell theorem's applicability to the orbitsphere concept translates to leaving only the production of hydrinos (and compounds thereof) and a working prototype of a hydrino-powered generator as evidence.

One possible caveat: apparently there's a "trapped photon" (singular, never plural) inside every orbitsphere; maybe we can expect to soon read about how this makes the shell theorem moot?

Don't think I'm 'giving up' on understanding what Mills is doing. Rather, I'm just really beginning.

Time spent in a basic physics course, at a community college say (there are such things near where you live, right?), might be more productive.

The 'trapped photon' has its function in altering effective nuclear charge, but it is not required to fix a supposed shell theorem problem that doesn't exist.

Thanks.

Now nothing can save the orbitsphere ...

 

[Hans]

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

He is not fooled instead he is trying to fool us - with a spectacular lack of success.

 

[optiongeek]

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.

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


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?

Actually, I did notice the error as it originally appeared in Eq. 10.25. I reported it to Mills and he updated his value. Apparently neither of us noticed the error had been propagated to Table 10.1. This was some years ago and I can't find my email now but I'll let Dr. Mills know the error metastasized.

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)?
  

• 
  It's been a while since I did this, but I believe you are correct.
  
  

  [*]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?

  
  Naturally I implemented the equations as they are intended rather than performing a literal transcription of the page text. I also did sensible things like separating all of the fundamental constants to a separate sheet so I could use values that I sourced independently. For instance, here is the text of the formula I used to implement Eq. 10.47:
  
  

  =([@Charge]-2)*Unit_Charge/(4*Two_pi*Permittivity*[@[Radius_2]]*Bohr_radius)

  
  As you can see, I used best Excel practices such as using named ranged where possible. I also used a single XBA formula to implement the relativistic correction factor. I'd be more than happy to share this spreadsheet with you if you are interested.
  
  

  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.)
  
  
  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.

  While I appreciate the effort you have taken here, I'm sure we all agree that simple curve fitting is exactly the kind of behavior to watch out for in an exercise like this. In this case, all you've done is demonstrate the principle of curve fitting while not actually explaining how any part of Mills' derivation actually is curve-fitting. From my perspective, he's taken well-known assumptions and physical laws, turned a crank, and generated results that i) can be shown to come from simple, understandable physics, and ii) are much closer than anything provided by similarly generalizable QM-based formulas. For posterity, Mills' assumptions and first principles are described on page 41:
  
  • Conservation of mass-energy
  • Conservation of linear and angular momentum
  • Maxwell's equations
  • Newton's laws
  • Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity
  • Four-dimensional space-time
  • Fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant
  • Fundamental particles, including photon, have h_bar of angular momentum
  • Newtonian gravitational constant G
  • Spin of the electron neutrino
  
  If you really want to disabuse me of the notion that Mills has done something special here, try to find the aberration between this list and the results produced from GUTCP such as the ionization energy of Li.

 

[Darat]

Don't think I'm 'giving up' on understanding what Mills is doing. Rather, I'm just really beginning.

The 'trapped photon' has its function in altering effective nuclear charge, but it is not required to fix a supposed shell theorem problem that doesn't exist.

How much excess power is being generated in the new video of a claimed working generator?

 

[Darat]

Actually, I did notice the error as it originally appeared in Eq. 10.25. I reported it to Mills and he updated his value. Apparently neither of us noticed the error had been propagated to Table 10.1. This was some years ago and I can't find my email now but I'll let Dr. Mills know the error metastasized.


It's been a while since I did this, but I believe you are correct.



Naturally I implemented the equations as they are intended rather than performing a literal transcription of the page text. I also did sensible things like separating all of the fundamental constants to a separate sheet so I could use values that I sourced independently. For instance, here is the text of the formula I used to implement Eq. 10.47:

=([@Charge]-2)*Unit_Charge/(4*Two_pi*Permittivity*[@[Radius_2]]*Bohr_radius)

As you can see, I used best Excel practices such as using named ranged where possible. I also used a single XBA formula to implement the relativistic correction factor. I'd be more than happy to share this spreadsheet with you if you are interested.


While I appreciate the effort you have taken here, I'm sure we all agree that simple curve fitting is exactly the kind of behavior to watch out for in an exercise like this. In this case, all you've done is demonstrate the principle of curve fitting while not actually explaining how any part of Mills' derivation actually is curve-fitting. From my perspective, he's taken well-known assumptions and physical laws, turned a crank, and generated results that i) can be shown to come from simple, understandable physics, and ii) are much closer than anything provided by similarly generalizable QM-based formulas. For posterity, Mills' assumptions and first principles are described on page 41:

• Conservation of mass-energy
• Conservation of linear and angular momentum
• Maxwell's equations
• Newton's laws
• Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity
• Four-dimensional space-time
• Fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant
• Fundamental particles, including photon, have h_bar of angular momentum
• Newtonian gravitational constant G
• Spin of the electron neutrino

If you really want to disabuse me of the notion that Mills has done something special here, try to find the aberration between this list and the results produced from GUTCP such as the ionization energy of Li.

With your contact with Mills could you ask him how much excess power was being generated in the new video?

 

[Dancing David]

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

That is bog standard QM

 

[jadebox]

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.

The net force between the earth and the moon over an orbit is zero. Otherwise, the moon would not remain in orbit. By definition, a non-zero net force would either pull the moon toward the earth or push it away. Since the moon stays in orbit, the net force must be zero.

I think it is very obvious that you don't understand what "net" means in this context. Would you mind stating what you think it means?

 

[Myriad]

Nothing to see here. Move along

On the contrary. It shows another complete thermoregulation failure.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Who are these "some here" of which you speak? Yes, the net force of the Earth and Moon on each other would be zero. No, the Moon would be not floating nor suspended.

No, it would want to come crashing down, inward towards the earth.

Crashing down? Seriously? Shall we add flat Earth to the crazy things you believe?