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

[Hellbound]

Brings up an Interesting question for markie.

Let's say I have an object, A. It's mass is M. What gravitational force does object A exert?

Now, let's say I have two objects, A and B. Both have mass M. What gravitational force does A exert on B? What force does B exert on A?

 

[JeanTate]

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. <snip>

Yet, oddly, you never thought to say any of this, in any of your earlier posts on this topic?

Why is that?

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.

So, you personally checked all the steps Mills describes, in going from an impressive list to a formula (actually, more than one)?

Specifically, you checked for both blind derivation (e.g. equation a follows - mathematically - from equations b and c), and for the extent to which the derivations make sense, in terms of the physics?

And in doing so, you found no errors, no "-" instead of "+"; no terms apparently dropped, missing, or added; no typos; ...?

Of course, none of this is the least bit interesting.

Why?

Because the values Mills (and you, apparently) arrive at are inconsistent with experimental results (within the stated uncertainties).

In the optiongeek world, a generator shaft which must be 0.3210 ±0.0005 m in diameter (per specs) but which is actually 0.3268 m in diameter will do just fine. I guess you're lucky that no engineer in any manufacturing plant would put up with such nonsense.

 

[JeanTate]

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

You clearly do not live in optiongeek world.

Mills/BLP's failure to develop a working prototype hydrino-based generator, or produce ~gram quantities of hydrinos (or compounds) for independent testing, after several decades of trying, is utterly irrelevant.

In optiongeek world, the application of the shell theorem to show that the orbitsphere concept is physically DOA, is also utterly irrelevant.

Likewise, the failure of Mills' "20 ionization calculations" (or however you want to summarize them) to match the experimental values (within uncertainties) is, likewise, utterly irrelevant.

You see, in optiongeek world, the only thing which is real is that she can transcribe what's in Mills' BBoBB into a spreadsheet (correcting for errors Mills made), turn the handle, and produce numbers which are ~close the experimental ones. No other test of Mills' ideas is required, or even relevant. Indeed, one gets the impression that, in optiongeek world, any and all other tests - including demanding working prototypes for independent testing - would be banned.

 

[markie]

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.

You are correct given your understanding of 'net force', both when the proton is in the centre and off centre. So for instance if the proton were closer to one side, the flux would be higher at a given point on that side of shell compared to a given point on the opposite side. It might appear then that it would exert more pull on that side. However, because the far side has more surface area, the combined flux on the far side perfectly (as it turns out) balances the smaller and closer and higher flux side. (Note: this is valid for a sphere, not a circle.)

That said, I don't want people to misapprehend that this kind of 'zero net force' translates to no force at all. Rather, the proton is exerting an inward force on the shell. What prevents the shell from collapsing inward is its tangental velocity, which, given the shell's mass, translates to a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'. By orbital mechanics, it is the shell's constant tangental velocity that requires that it is at a fixed distance from the proton. This is the reason for the proton's "preferred" position in the centre, as I've mentioned before. So in summary it is the attractive force of the proton on the electron shell, combined with the tangental velocity of the shell, which fixes the proton in the centre. The shell theorem can take a rest.

 

[Reality Check]

Usual massive stupidity about the shell theorem

...a supposed shell theorem problem that doesn't exist.

25 January 2019 markie: Usual massive stupidity about the shell theorem and the problem it makes for Mills deluded orbitsphere.

The shell theorem shows that any outside force, e.g. colliding H atoms, will make the proton blast thru the shell. That is a real problem that Mills and markie do not address.

 

[markie]

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.

Generally you won't be able to get anything much cleaner than decimal digits.
Using integers and well known functions and constants will almost invariably be messier. Conversely, if trying to express Pi as the ratio of two integers, if the total number of digits of those two integers is (say) ten, it won't be able to approximate Pi to much more than ten decimal places. Sometimes a bit more if you're lucky.

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.

No one will be able to concoct such a story, which only gives credence to what Mills has accomplished.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No one will be able to concoct such a story, which only gives credence to what Mills has accomplished.

Mills has accomplished nada. as was pointed out by the last video, he doesn't even know how to apply a jacketed cooling system on his failed generators.

Not once in all 30 years of trying and millions of dollars thrown at the problem has he managed any new discovery or accomplishment so far. In fact it just might be the second most spectacular failure in recent history, behind Theranos.

Even the Juicero is more successful than Mills has been. At least they made a product.

 

[markie]

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

That's a good question. I don't know how much electrical energy it is consuming, but if I had to guess it may be an average of 1000 amps at at 5 volts, so 5kW of continuous input power (although the power may be pulsed). So five hair dryers' worth of heat energy input. For energy output one could do a very rough estimate based on the amount of red glow and assuming a certain emissivity. Given that it looks like a COP of at least an order of magnitude. This is ignoring possible energy from chemical reactions of H2 with whatever , which would be insignificant compared to the electrical input anyway.

 

[markie]

Brings up an Interesting question for markie.

Let's say I have an object, A. It's mass is M. What gravitational force does object A exert?

Now, let's say I have two objects, A and B. Both have mass M. What gravitational force does A exert on B? What force does B exert on A?

Well object A does not exert a gravitational force on anything but itself if there is nothing around it.
If there is an object B of the same mass M as object B, the force will be proportional to M^2/r^2, where r is the distance between A and B. The force on A will be the same as the force on B, but in opposite directions. Class dismissed.

 

[Hellbound]

Well object A does not exert a gravitational force on anything but itself if there is nothing around it.
If there is an object B of the same mass M as object B, the force will be proportional to M^2/r^2, where r is the distance between A and B. The force on A will be the same as the force on B, but in opposite directions. Class dismissed.

Yet you seem unable to apply this to a shell around a proton. Interesting.

 

[Reality Check]

Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic

...For posterity, Mills' assumptions and first principles are described on page 41:

More blind faith in Mills deluded book when the delusions and lies in it have been given to him !

FYI, optiongeek, 2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

Start with my 25 January 2017 post about page 15 (SHORTCOMINGS OF QUANTUM THEORY...") of the 2016 edition and answer this simple question:
Is the Schrödinger equation wrong because it is non-relativistic ("Lorentz invariant")?

The abysmal ignorance of "The appropriate eigenvalue must be postulated and the variables of the Laguerre differential equation must be defined as integer in order to obtain the Rydberg formula" is easily understood, optiongeek.
An eigenvalue equation is basically an operator on a function that is equal to a scalar times that function. Schrödinger's equation is an operator (a Hamiltonian) on a function that is equal to a scalar (energy E) times that function and is an eigenvalue equation. The eigenvalue is the energy E!

The solution for the hydrogen atom has no "Laguerre differential equation". The solution has generalized Laguerre polynomials.

The parameter of the generalized Laguerre polynomials does include the principle quantum number n. This is not Mills lie of "must be defined". This is a mathematical result of solving Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom.

 

[JeanTate]

Generally you won't be able to get anything much cleaner than decimal digits.

So you won't take up either challenge?

OK (not that I expected you would).

Using integers and well known functions and constants will almost invariably be messier. Conversely, if trying to express Pi as the ratio of two integers, if the total number of digits of those two integers is (say) ten, it won't be able to approximate Pi to much more than ten decimal places. Sometimes a bit more if you're lucky.

You say this based on what, exactly?

Maybe you've heard of Ramanujan? If he were still alive, I've no doubt he would disagree.

No one will be able to concoct such a story, which only gives credence to what Mills has accomplished.

Well, a story as crazy as ignoring the shell theorem, while building orbitspheres, gives credence to Mills' fantasies, I'll give you that.

But I agree that no one will concoct such a story ... not because no one is able to, but because no one is interested in doing so.

Of course, when the five independent testing labs confirm not only the existence of hydrinos, but also of the excess energy produced in BLP's working prototypes ...

 

[Reality Check]

...try to find the aberration between this list and the results produced from GUTCP such as the ionization energy of Li.

A really dumb question, optiongeek. Mills utter stupidity of cherry picking a few QM results to include in his "classical" theory is irrelevant. All it does is expose his stupidity of not including all of the verified QM results.

Mills does not get the ionization energy of Li.
Mills lies that he gets the ionization energy of Li.

QM does derive the correct value of the ionization energy of Li.

 

[hecd2]

You are correct given your understanding of 'net force', both when the proton is in the centre and off centre. So for instance if the proton were closer to one side, the flux would be higher at a given point on that side of shell compared to a given point on the opposite side. It might appear then that it would exert more pull on that side. However, because the far side has more surface area, the combined flux on the far side perfectly (as it turns out) balances the smaller and closer and higher flux side. (Note: this is valid for a sphere, not a circle.)

That said, I don't want people to misapprehend that this kind of 'zero net force' translates to no force at all. Rather, the proton is exerting an inward force on the shell. What prevents the shell from collapsing inward is its tangental velocity, which, given the shell's mass, translates to a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'. By orbital mechanics, it is the shell's constant tangental velocity that requires that it is at a fixed distance from the proton. This is the reason for the proton's "preferred" position in the centre, as I've mentioned before. So in summary it is the attractive force of the proton on the electron shell, combined with the tangental velocity of the shell, which fixes the proton in the centre. The shell theorem can take a rest.

More nonsense. Whatever causes the shell from collapsing, whether it is tangential velocity at every point (and for the moment we’ll ignore the fact that the tangential velocity cannot be non-zero at every point on the sphere according to the hairy ball theorem, or every cow has at least one cow-lick, or any well behaved vector field on a 2-sphere has at least one zero), or whether it is because the shell is rigid, is irrelevant to the force experienced by the proton. That force is zero at all locations within the sphere, and therefore there is no constraining force on the proton and it is free to move within the sphere. For the scenario where the tangential velocity prevents the shell from collapsing (ie the shell is not rigid), a non-central location of the proton will exert a non-uniform force per unit area on the shell, which will cause it to distort and collapse into the proton. The non-rigid, deformable orbit sphere supported by orbital mechanics is even more unstable than a rigid shell.

In either case, the orbitsphere concept fails.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie that other posters here misapprehend the shell theorem

That said, I don't want people to misapprehend that this kind of 'zero net force' translates to no force at all.

A lie that other posters here misapprehend the shell theorem.

No one here has ever said that zero net force = no force at all. The shell theorem is that there are forces between the shell and interior charge and that they sum to give a zero net force. That leaves the interior charge free to move around inside the shell. Move the shell and there is no corresponding movement of the charge.

 

[optiongeek]

This is not Mills lie of "must be defined". This is a mathematical result of solving Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom.

But this is my point. Schrödinger's equation can't be solved for Helium, or Lithium, or anything else, which I'm sure you already know. In contrast, Mills' equations seem to do quite a bit better as the discussion in this thread has proven. Why does it seem to provoke so much angst when this fact is pointed out?

 

[JeanTate]

But this is my point. Schrödinger's equation can't be solved for Helium, or Lithium, or anything else, which I'm sure you already know. In contrast, Mills' equations seem to do quite a bit better as the discussion in this thread has proven. Why does it seem to provoke so much angst when this fact is pointed out?

(my hilite)

Maybe because it's not true (Mills' magic fails to match the reported experimental values, within the reported uncertainties)?

Maybe because a continued display of scientific ignorance gets some ISF members' goat up, when the same nonsense keeps being repeated, unchanged, in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology board?

Maybe because you keep ignoring questions asked of you, about your own posts, of direct pertinence to your claims?

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

You are correct given your understanding of 'net force', both when the proton is in the centre and off centre. So for instance if the proton were closer to one side, the flux would be higher at a given point on that side of shell compared to a given point on the opposite side. It might appear then that it would exert more pull on that side. However, because the far side has more surface area, the combined flux on the far side perfectly (as it turns out) balances the smaller and closer and higher flux side. (Note: this is valid for a sphere, not a circle.)

That said, I don't want people to misapprehend that this kind of 'zero net force' translates to no force at all. Rather, the proton is exerting an inward force on the shell. What prevents the shell from collapsing inward is its tangental velocity, which, given the shell's mass, translates to a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'. By orbital mechanics, it is the shell's constant tangental velocity that requires that it is at a fixed distance from the proton. This is the reason for the proton's "preferred" position in the centre, as I've mentioned before. So in summary it is the attractive force of the proton on the electron shell, combined with the tangental velocity of the shell, which fixes the proton in the centre. The shell theorem can take a rest.

Markie! You did it! You finally went to Wikipedia, looked up the Shell Theorem, and actually paid attention to what you read! Good on yer, mate!

So, um, why didn't you do this a week ago? And why didn't you think about it a bit before you responded? Specifically, why did you include the bit I've bolded?

You see, once you bought into the idea that orbitspheres are rigid spheres, your invocation of "orbital mechanics" flies right out the window. If you actually knew anything about "orbital mechanics", you would know that any external force will perturb a circular orbit into a non-circular orbit. As long as you're Wiki'ing, you need to look up the 3-body problem. We'll wait. With the orbits of the infinitesimal charge increments fixed at circular, and especially with a fixed velocity, there is no restoring force to keep the orbitsphere centered.

And yes, the Shell Theorem can take a rest - having scored a decisive victory.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

utter madness

This is not Mills lie of "must be defined". This is a mathematical result of solving Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom.

But this is my point. Schrödinger's equation can't be solved for Helium, or Lithium, or anything else, which I'm sure you already know. In contrast, Mills' equations seem to do quite a bit better as the discussion in this thread has proven. Why does it seem to provoke so much angst when this fact is pointed out?

It's not angst, it's laughter.

optiongeek does not understand that Schrödinger's equation does give us solutions for helium, lithium, and so on.

As I suspected, optiongeek does not understand that solutions need not be in closed form. Most of the solutions we obtain from physics (including classical physics, not just quantum mechanics) are not in closed form, so we use numerical methods when we need numbers.

Randell L Mills has fostered the false belief that solutions don't count as solutions unless they are in closed form. optiongeek has bought into that, just as optiongeek has accepted the Millsian rant against numerical methods.

Although Mills and optiongeek both reject numerical methods as "approximate", they are considerably less approximate than the Millsian equations (e.g. (10.48)), as has been pointed out in this thread.

When that was pointed out, optiongeek began to allege conspiracy by both theoretical and experimental physicists:

Thanks. However that derivation strikes me as the elaborations of a bad liar. Non physical fudge factor piled on top of non physical fudge factor. No thanks.

In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.

Of course, optiongeek has been unable to identify any actual errors in the science he/she rejects.

 

[optiongeek]

Of course, optiongeek has been unable to identify any actual errors in the science he/she rejects.

Well - for starters, how does the Schrodinger equation predict spin? That seems like a pretty glaring hole.