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

[W.D.Clinger]

Sorry, don't know enough about stability to comment much.

That explains a large fraction of your last several hundred comments.

 

[MEequalsIxR]

This is all interesting but it is sort of deflecting from the issue Mills and BLP have not demonstrated anything except self generated propaganda. No prototypes no revolution in generating power, no dark matter, no magic chemicals and no hydrinos. Not a single atom. When can we expect the miracles?

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Sure, and L4 and L5 points too. Is that a problem?


Sorry, don't know enough about stability to comment much. Let's just say that with unalterable orbital velocity and with precession of a given ring into the third dimension, the picture deviates somewhat from typical perturbation concerns around orbital mechanics.

Mills does not claim precession of the rings -- that would change the math. That is your creation, because you found a paper on precessing rings (that are only stable for a precise starting condition, and not in the general case). Plus, that would only work if the rings were independently movable. The stability in that situation requires oscillations under small purburbation (and fall apart under larger ones).

As for the unalterability argument, that falls apart. The velocity is determined by the total energy, and the potential energy. A perturbation changes the potential energy by kicking the shell center off the nucleus. This deforms the shell if it is not rigid, or by pulls the charge density to one side if it rigid.

Neither of those is a stable situation, and as we already know from the shell theorem, if the shell shape and charge density remain constant, there is no restoring force at all.

Your argument would be like saying "we know the Moon has to keep a specific speed around the Earth, so if an asteroid gave a kick the Earth, it wouldn't affect the relative orbit of the Moon.". That would be obviously false. The Moon would go into a new elliptical orbit.

Stability is not something to hand-wave away. Even in QM, people have done dynamic calculations on the wavefunction to determine stability. Mills does not have any mathematics that would imply stability. He has thrown away the radial dimension and all its mathematics (except for the force balance equation in the static equilibrium situation).

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This is all interesting but it is sort of deflecting from the issue Mills and BLP have not demonstrated anything except self generated propaganda. No prototypes no revolution in generating power, no dark matter, no magic chemicals and no hydrinos. Not a single atom. When can we expect the miracles?

Yes, IMO this really really needs to be repeated. A few weeks back someone requested that we spend more time demolishing Mills "science". I really think that could backfire. There are now whole pages of this thread that look like Mills supporters are engaging with actually scientists. There's a post from Myriad that could actually look like a third party consultant working to improve a working Mills device out of context. Nothing wrong with talking about how bad Mills science is but I really think the obvious simple stuff, Mills not delivering on promises, needs to be repeated frequently.

 

[JeanTate]

I think it is (or was) worth spending time on Mills' "science". True, little new has been covered these past few weeks, that was not covered in older posts (including those in predecessor threads to this one). Maybe it'd have been better to simply link to those older discussions?

Anyway, for every ISF member who's participated in this thread, recently, and who has at least the equivalent of a first year University Physics 101 or Mathematics 101, it's screamingly obvious that Mills' "science", re hydrinos etc, is total nonsense.

An interesting corollary: if "below ground state" hydrogen were ever to be discovered, Mills would as shocked as everyone else. Why? Because the physics-based explanation of what it is will bear no resemblance whatsoever to what's in the BBoBB!

 

[Reality Check]

Oh but it does matter, and makes all the difference. ...

The difference, markie, is that not even Mills is stupid enough to state that his delusion is immovable and static because he knows that hydrogen atoms move and are dynamic. There are things called hydrogen gas where atoms move and the elections in them are not fixed in 1 place (not immovable). There are things called hydrogen spectra where electrons absorb and emit photons - they are not static.

What Mills delusion is ignorant about is that there is no net force between a charged shell and a charge inside it as you know. That shell is a rigid shell. Your "immovable and static" is at least irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes it is a bit of a misnomer. Only an aspect of the wave function collapses...

You misread the post which was about your lack of understanding about the collapse of the wave function, markie. The "markie's inferred lack of surfing ability" is a comment about you.

There is none of your ignorant delusion of a violation of a classical conservation law. QM obeys all of the classical conservation laws, e.g. conserves energy and momentum.

For others:
There is a collapse of the wave function but it is not the wave function vanishing or becoming a single value. It is the collapse of a set of possible eigenstates of a wave function to a single eigenstate. for example we solve Schrodinger's equation for the hydrogen atom. That gives a solution for position that can be represented as a sum of the possible state vectors. We measure the position of that election to get 1 of those state vectors. The wave function has collapsed.

Some real science from the real world: ‘Quantum microscope’ peers into the hydrogen atom

The first direct observation of the orbital structure of an excited hydrogen atom has been made by an international team of researchers. The observation was made using a newly developed “quantum microscope”, which uses photoionization microscopy to visualize the structure directly. The team’s demonstration proves that “photoionization microscopy”, which was first proposed more than 30 years ago, can be experimentally realized and can serve as a tool to explore the subtleties of quantum mechanics.

This is an experiment that measured the position of the electron in excited hydrogen atoms. Mills delusion of a sphere is missing!

 

[hecd2]

Better to think of it as one membrane with inherent motions described as precessing rings of infinitesimal mass and charge.

This is an example of the deep inconsistencies of one instance of your musing to another. Recently you claimed that the sphere has no self interaction but a membrane refers to an elastic and deformable surface. Either the elements of the sphere have entirely independent dynamics or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

The membrane is in perfect force balance in a 2D surface.

Because you say so? You might want to consider the electrical field inside a ring of charge.

The cloud notion you imagine is a fantasy from from QM. QM doesn't even know what the cloud is actually composed of, if anything.

It has nothing to do with QM but is a consequence of the orbital mechanics of independent point like charged objects orbiting an oppositely charged pointlike object under inverse square attraction and repulsion.

And the loop does have rigidity due to force balance tension of the extreme forces involved

.
Word salad.

Electron density is too vague. Mills speaks in terms of charge density and also current density. The current density for a non radiating membrane must be uniform.

And since current density on the sphere is a vector field, it cannot be uniformly non zero according to the hairy ball theorem. There goes the orbitsphere right there.

The loop is not deformable, it is rigid because it is kept at very high force balance tension. That tension is between inward coulombic force and outward centrifugal force. And again, the restoring force has to do with orbital mechanics of motion, not a coulombic restoring force from the shell.
You are only speculating that it is not stable.

Meanwhile in the real world, such a loop (not inherently rigid) is inherently deformable and would be deformed by the slightest perturbation. I really recommend you to take Jean Tate’s free lesson on the field inside and outside a charged ring, so that you might understand how silly these claims are. As for the orbital mechanics that stabilises the system, perhaps you could write down the physics instead of making stuff up as you go along. Cos sure as hell, that ain’t any classical orbital mechanics that anyone else knows.

The attractive force cannot go off centre.

in your fantasy world perhaps, but you have demonstrated beyond the shado of a doubt that you don’t understand the physics involved, and what’s worse, you are unwilling to learn.

The orbitsphere under minor perturbation remains stable, while the whole atom is perturbed and moves. The orbitsphere is constrained to have a constant spin angular momentum and a constant mass, and thus, a constant velocity, and thus remains at a fixed orbital distance from the nucleus, which is another way of saying that the proton is locked into the centre.

Except you have failed to identify a force to “lock it into the centre” and every scenario you have described, sphere or ring, is unstable.

 

[hecd2]

Exactly the type of thinking that concludes that two photons crossing at 180 degrees each must have their velocity equal to zero for a brief instant. Unphysical and ridiculous.

Yes, what you said is ridiculous. But it has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[hecd2]

Hey it's not my thinking, it's Hecd's thinking.

Nope, nothing to do with me, it’s entirely your own nonsense.

 

[markie]

Mills does not claim precession of the rings -- that would change the math. That is your creation, because you found a paper on precessing rings (that are only stable for a precise starting condition, and not in the general case). Plus, that would only work if the rings were independently movable. The stability in that situation requires oscillations under small purburbation (and fall apart under larger ones).

Sure he claims precession. What else is it but 'precession' when the axis of rotation of the ring changes? This video shows rings in precession: https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/video/video_pages/Uniform_Orbitsphere.html

That paper on precessing rings said
"It is shown that passively stable orbits do exist for a range of rigid body rotation parameters and that these orbits are stable in three dimensions."
not simply "a precise starting condition" as you say.
Furthermore, the author says that the point mass in the centre is presumed to be much bigger than the mass of the rotating and precessing ring. With the orbitsphere rings it is made even more safe since each ring is of infinitesimal mass.

As for the unalterability argument, that falls apart. The velocity is determined by the total energy, and the potential energy. A perturbation changes the potential energy by kicking the shell center off the nucleus. This deforms the shell if it is not rigid, or by pulls the charge density to one side if it rigid.

As I said before, if it gets to that stage the atom is in the process of being ionized.

(snip) Your argument would be like saying "we know the Moon has to keep a specific speed around the Earth, so if an asteroid gave a kick the Earth, it wouldn't affect the relative orbit of the Moon.". That would be obviously false. The Moon would go into a new elliptical orbit.

No it wouldn't. If the moon was constrained to keep the same velocity it wouldn't effect the relative orbit. But of course that situation is hard to imagine. Instead imagine an orbitsphere and proton, where the coulombic force of attraction is far greater than the inertia of the atom. So if the orbitsphere gets bumped, the entire atom will get moved and the orbitsphere remains intact. If the force of the bump exceeds the force of coulombic attraction then ionization will ensue.

Stability is not something to hand-wave away. Even in QM, people have done dynamic calculations on the wavefunction to determine stability. Mills does not have any mathematics that would imply stability. He has thrown away the radial dimension and all its mathematics (except for the force balance equation in the static equilibrium situation).

I've heard that in QM the stability of the hydrogen atom has been 'proven', but only when it is isolation. I highly doubt it is proven stable in the presence of, say, a magnetic field.

 

[markie]

Yes, what you said is ridiculous. But it has nothing to do with anything I said.

I see that you edited your post and removed the reference to the hairy ball theorem. This is currently in your post:
"Of course, as we know, it is not possible for all charge and mass elements on the sphere to have a non-zero velocity."

That is precisely the same thinking of adding vectors to achieve a zero velocity at any point, and then making the mistake of assigning a zero velocity value to each element.

The physical reality is that if two photons coincide from opposite directions, each photon retains the same speed - namely the speed of light - as they intersect each other. Similarly elements of infinitesimal mass and charge, when they intersect, if their velocity vectors happen to sum to zero, does not mean that each element has zero velocity. Rather, their velocities remain unchanged.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A few weeks back someone requested that we spend more time demolishing Mills "science". I really think that could backfire.

That was Squeegee Beckenheim, who is no fool;

On that note, I don't have the knowledge in maths or scientific knowledge to comment intelligently on optiongeek's claim re Mills' classical description of the electron magnetic moment, but I do know that it's the best argument I've seen made in this thread in a while.....I know that if I was a member of this peanut gallery that I'd be finding optiongeek a lot more convincing than almost anybody else, and I'd be more inclined to take Mills seriously than not.

Seriously, when was it that the kooks started posting mathematical formulae, inviting discussion of them, and the sceptics started posting repetitive rants characterised by different font sizes and colours?

Here what I'm seeing is optiongeek posting the maths and everybody else responding with dismissive verbosity.

If the maths is wrong, I'd like to see how it's wrong

Squeegee Beckenheim has gotten the more serious technical discussion he requested. To summarize:

• The Mills equation/formula that optiongeek had been flogging turned out to predict a value for the anomalous magnetic moment that is two decimal orders of magnitude less accurate than the value predicted by quantum mechanics.
• As the experimental estimate of the fine structure constant has improved over the past 30 years, the prediction made by Mills's equation has gotten worse, which is the opposite of what you would expect from a correct theory.
• optiongeek was also impressed by how accurately Mills had predicted the ionization energy of lithium, but the ionization energy computed using quantum mechanics is 12 times as accurate as the value Mills gave (incorrectly) in his Table 10.1, and the value computed using quantum mechanics is 18 times as accurate as the value obtained using Mills equation (10.25).
• When those facts were presented within this thread, optiongeek began to suggest conspiracy theories rather than face those facts.
• Mills rejects solutions unless they are in closed form, which is flat-out stupid. (The equations of classical mechanics, which Mills praises, frequently give solutions that cannot be expressed in closed form.) Both optiongeek and markie have bought into this crackpottery.
• Mills began his Big Book with a preface full of over-the-top nuttery. Short of adding a laugh track, it's hard to think what more Mills could have done to warn readers against taking him seriously.
• The orbitsphere idea presented in chapter 1 contradicts basic facts of both classical mechanics and mathematics. Its failings have been detailed from the very beginning of this series of threads, but markie has learned nothing from that discussion.
• The rest of Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos rests on the quicksand of that failed orbitsphere idea.

I apologize for linking to so many of my own recent posts. Those are the ones that were easiest for me to remember off the top of my head. A list that does justice to the hundreds of fine posts that preceded my own poor contributions would have been too long anyway.

 

[Reality Check]

A ignorant delusion of photons having zero velocity when they cross

Exactly the type of thinking that concludes that two photons crossing at 180 degrees each must have their velocity equal to zero for a brief instant.

A ignorant and irrelevant delusion of photons having zero velocity when they cross.

One of the well known parts of special relativity is that photons always move at the speed of light in vacuum and that is the same for all observers. Two crossing photons in vacuum have the speed of light.

This is the hairy-ball theorem. It is a mathematical result that for an ordinary sphere or any even dimensional sphere, there can be no non-vanishing, continuous, tangential vector field. There will be at least 1 point on the sphere has a non-zero tangential vector field. IOW: "In other words, whenever one attempts to comb a hairy ball flat, there will always be at least one tuft of hair at one point on the ball.".

A spinning charged shell has the same net force from the charges on an internal charge. markie's delusions about Mills delusions still has a proton blasting thru the shell for any perturbation.
We still have the accelerating charges emitting radiation.
We have the added complication of the magnetic field generated by the moving charges. Possibly the net force from magnetism on the proton is also zero. On the other hand the magnetic fields of spinning black holes and neutron stars create jets. Maybe markie has made the proton definitely blast through the shell !

 

[Reality Check]

The idiocy of argument from authority and lying about what that authority said

Of course I'll side with Einstein and say hogwash.

The idiocy of argument from authority, ignoring the death of that authority and lying about what that authority said.

Just because Einstein was an authority, that does not make his statements on a subject correct. What would make his statements correct is the evidence he presented.

Einstein died on 18 April 1955 - that is over 60 years of progress in physics that he missed!

Einstein never said "hogwash". Einstein was a reluctant supporter of QM because Einstein knew the physical evidence that QM explained. What Einstein mainly disagreed with in QM was its "spookiness". He wanted QM to have hidden variables or some other mechanism to make it deterministic. The EPR paradox is Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen stating a paradox in QM and resolving it within QM weith hidden variable (probably from the main author Podolsky). When Einstein wrote about his views, he was clear that he was stating an opinion, e.g. Physics and reality (1936).

Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he'd be a convert today

 

[Reality Check]

An idiotic link to a Mills propaganda video and probably lies about it

This video shows rings in precession.

An idiotic link to a Mills propaganda video and probably lies about it.

markie links to a propaganda video on the brilliant light power web site. It is less than 3 seconds long !

Mills having a graphic of lines around a sphere as it turns need not be "rings in precession".

 

[The Man]

Einstein's objection was more broad than to just the Bohr interpretation. He was opposed to indeterminacy and the statistical model arising from that. He was a believer in physical causation.

Technically his objection was based on completeness and local realism in that the wavefunction, as a description of reality, is incomplete if it lacks local realism.

You can read it for yourself.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf

Here's a comparison of quantum mechanics interpretations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison

you will find that the only ones asserting the wavefunction as unreal and non deterministic are the Copenhagen interpretation, Consistent histories (a generalization of the Copenhagen interpretation), the stochastic interpretation and Quantum Bayesianism (which also seems to be derived from Heisenberg and Bohr).

Not that broad and only one of the applicable interpretations, for those objections, doesn't seem to be derived from the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[Reality Check]

Idiocy of repeating what special relativity states

The physical reality is that if two photons coincide from opposite directions, each photon retains the same speed - namely the speed of light - as they intersect each other.

Idiocy of repeating what special relativity states !

No one (maybe not even Mills!) says that "two photons coincide from opposite directions" will have anything but the speed of light.

markie lied about the conclusion we would state about 2 colliding photons.

hecd2 did not write that the speed would be zero in his post: Seems like you missed this one too

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That was Squeegee Beckenheim, who is no fool;

Squeegee Beckenheim has gotten the more serious technical discussion he requested. To summarize:

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think Squeegee is intentionally trying to make Mills look like a serious scientist or is that inadvertent on his part?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think Squeegee is intentionally trying to make Mills look like a serious scientist or is that inadvertent on his part?

Neither.

Squeegee Beckenheim expressed an opinion somewhat at odds with yours, but he also expressed that opinion at a different moment in the thread. He wanted to see a more serious response to the technical-sounding argument(s) being made by optiongeek. I considered his request to be a reasonable one, and was one of many who responded to it.

In my opinion, Squeegee Beckenheim's moment of concern has largely passed. At this moment in the thread, your concern might be of greater importance than any remaining concern Squeegee Beckenheim might have. These things go in waves, so there might again be a time when genuine discussion might be of greater value than simply laughing at the nonsense. Each of us will judge such things for ourselves.