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

[Dave Rogers]

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

Other than to assert with absolute certainty that the orbitsphere is stable, based on a complete absence of understanding. Thanks for admitting your own incompetence to make such a determination.

Dave

 

[hecd2]

I see that you edited your post and removed the reference to the hairy ball theorem.

Mendacious as well as ignorant and unteachable I see. I removed nothing. As you can see if you consider that you quoted me quoting myself and the three versions are identical.

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.

Nonsense. First of all two photons are not elements of the same entity. But more importantly you claim: “The current density for a non radiating membrane must be uniform.”. In other words, you acknowledge that the orbitsphere must possess a single uniform value for the current density at every point on its surface. The current density at any point on the surface is a single vector, and therefore the current density is a tangential vector field on the sphere. The hairy ball theorem applies and the orbitsphere is kaput.

 

[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!

Begging your indulgences, RecoveringYuppy, MEequalsIxR, et al. ... I'd like to add something which addresses surmises made be hecd2 and W.D.Clinger (and which some others - e.g. Dave Rogers, The Man - may also find interesting).

If markie (or optiongeek) had taken up my step 1, what had I planned next, then, etc?

A perhaps somewhat surprising answer: it would have depended ... on how markie had addressed my initial question.

I hadn't thought it all that likely that we'd start by exploring "infinitesimals", but was certainly prepared for this at some point (ha!). By setting the point charge outside the ring, I was prepared to explore symmetry, look at how to integrate all points on the ring, work on the concept of force being a vector, how to derive net force, see if a ring could be reduced to/made the equivalent of a point (net force the same? or not?), extend to a sphere (would have to have made sure symmetry was covered first; this could also be where optiongeek's question was considered), ... and only after all this, move the point charge to inside the ring/sphere.

However, the order of these (to some extent), and whether other things would have been covered (first, or later), would have depended on how markie responded, at each step. The biggest challenge I thought would be calculus and/or limits; my impression is that markie has a poor grasp of these (optiongeek seems to have an even weaker grasp), and neither is easy to work out on your own (for those who like this sort of thing, Lakatos, in his "Proofs and Refutations" explores some of the history somewhat analogous to this; from memory, it took mathematicians several hundred years to get fully rigorous! ).

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If markie (or optiongeek) had taken up my step 1, what had I planned next, then, etc?

I could see what you had planned. And my point is that what you were doing and what you planned to do will make Mills look good. I know that sounds odd to you because you know you have a better command of the science. But guess what? You have a better command of the science and that is not typical of the population in general nor is it likely to be true of Mill's marks. You're only convincing people who aren't likely to fall for this in the first place.

To most people many recent pages of this discussion could be pointed to as proof that Mills is being taken seriously and participating in a larger scientific debate. I don't think this is hypothetical. I think Mills actually does that.

 

[The Man]

Nope not what Einstein said, so stop pretending to be Einstein. As you have to impart or even take away some momentum to/from the particle to determine its position the resulting uncertainty of momentum in no way violates any "classical conservation law".

Einstein wouldn't deny that the measurement process would disturb an objects' momentum. That is just a popularization of the idea and is not what QM teaches. QM teaches that an object doesn't have a definite momentum when it is not measured. Einstein would not agree to that.

Had to check on this just in case I was misremembering and after checking my copy at home the dynamic description I gave is in fact how that aspect of QM was/is taught by Werner Heisenberg in "Physical Principles of Quantum Theory".

 

[markie]

Begging your indulgences, RecoveringYuppy, MEequalsIxR, et al. ... I'd like to add something which addresses surmises made be hecd2 and W.D.Clinger (and which some others - e.g. Dave Rogers, The Man - may also find interesting).

If markie (or optiongeek) had taken up my step 1, what had I planned next, then, etc?

A perhaps somewhat surprising answer: it would have depended ... on how markie had addressed my initial question.

I hadn't thought it all that likely that we'd start by exploring "infinitesimals", but was certainly prepared for this at some point (ha!). By setting the point charge outside the ring, I was prepared to explore symmetry, look at how to integrate all points on the ring, work on the concept of force being a vector, how to derive net force, see if a ring could be reduced to/made the equivalent of a point (net force the same? or not?), extend to a sphere (would have to have made sure symmetry was covered first; this could also be where optiongeek's question was considered), ... and only after all this, move the point charge to inside the ring/sphere.

However, the order of these (to some extent), and whether other things would have been covered (first, or later), would have depended on how markie responded, at each step. The biggest challenge I thought would be calculus and/or limits; my impression is that markie has a poor grasp of these (optiongeek seems to have an even weaker grasp), and neither is easy to work out on your own (for those who like this sort of thing, Lakatos, in his "Proofs and Refutations" explores some of the history somewhat analogous to this; from memory, it took mathematicians several hundred years to get fully rigorous! ).

From this side of the fence, it looked like you were setting up a straw man. Your explorations would have been better served on a forum where they tackle difficult problems like that. And yes for a circle it would be difficult, but for a sphere (gaussian surface) not so much (given the relatively little I know).

 

[markie]

Mendacious as well as ignorant and unteachable I see. I removed nothing. As you can see if you consider that you quoted me quoting myself and the three versions are identical.

Nonsense. First of all two photons are not elements of the same entity. But more importantly you claim: “The current density for a non radiating membrane must be uniform.”. In other words, you acknowledge that the orbitsphere must possess a single uniform value for the current density at every point on its surface. The current density at any point on the surface is a single vector, and therefore the current density is a tangential vector field on the sphere. The hairy ball theorem applies and the orbitsphere is kaput.

Your unspoken assumption is that current at any one place and time has one direction only. And that is a reasonable. But this is not true on the orbitsphere. Movements of rings of mass and charge overlap as if other rings were not there. Superposition. Now, if we were to sum the vector directions at all places on the sphere then yes indeed by the hairy ball theorem there would be at least one 'zero' spot. But physically that does not mean that current is not flowing over that spot.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now, if we were to sum the vector directions at all places on the sphere then yes indeed by the hairy ball theorem there would be at least one 'zero' spot. But physically that does not mean that current is not flowing over that spot.

Physically, that means that the current density over that spot is zero. The current density either is therefore zero over the entire orbitsphere, or is not constant over the entire orbitsphere, notwithstanding your increasingly desperate and incoherent attempts to have it both ways.

Dave

 

[8enotto]

Can we even apply theory to what we seen in the video?

If theory has this to be a controlled and stable reaction why did some burn holes into the container? Why is constant outside power required? Why hot spots on the last test?

 

[hecd2]

From this side of the fence, it looked like you were setting up a straw man. Your explorations would have been better served on a forum where they tackle difficult problems like that. And yes for a circle it would be difficult, but for a sphere (gaussian surface) not so much (given the relatively little I know).

For a sphere, being able to calculate a special case of the circle is necessary, but you wouldn’t know that.

 

[JeanTate]

I could see what you had planned. And my point is that what you were doing and what you planned to do will make Mills look good. I know that sounds odd to you because you know you have a better command of the science. But guess what? You have a better command of the science and that is not typical of the population in general nor is it likely to be true of Mill's marks. You're only convincing people who aren't likely to fall for this in the first place.

To most people many recent pages of this discussion could be pointed to as proof that Mills is being taken seriously and participating in a larger scientific debate. I don't think this is hypothetical. I think Mills actually does that.

As I already said, I think - on balance - it may be better to address (old) claims about Mills' so-called science by referring to old posts in this thread (or its predecessors). New claims still need to be rebutted however (not that I think there are many of them, other than those related to new BLP videos).

How, then, would you recommend replying/responding to markie's apparently never ending nonsense posts?

 

[JeanTate]

From this side of the fence, it looked like you were setting up a straw man. Your explorations would have been better served on a forum where they tackle difficult problems like that. And yes for a circle it would be difficult, but for a sphere (gaussian surface) not so much (given the relatively little I know).

So much nonsense, so little physics ...

ETA: There's no point in me writing anything else; the SB requirement has already been met.

 

[JeanTate]

Can we even apply theory to what we seen in the video? <snip>

Given that we know ~nothing about how the video was created, no.

Unless and until Mills/BLP sends a working prototype hydrino-based generator to ~five truly independent testing facilities (each of which commits to releasing their results publicly), it's all a magic show, full of smoke and mirrors and zero science.

 

[markie]

Q

For a sphere, being able to calculate a special case of the circle is necessary, but you wouldn’t know that.

Given: A sphere of uniform charge Q1 and radius r1.
Given: A point charge of charge Q2 is outside the sphere at a distance of r2 from the sphere.

What is the force between the point charge and the sphere? The answer is easy.

Is the answer easy in the case of a circle instead of a sphere? I don't think so.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

How, then, would you recommend replying/responding to markie's apparently never ending nonsense posts?

From a few pages back: "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"

Frequent repetition of the simple and obvious reasons that Mills can be recognized as a fraud. Don't go a full page of posts looking like a legitimate science discussion. Simple things like starting a post about one of his videos with "Assuming it's not entirely faked...". Make it obvious that questions are being ducked (which is what Red Baron Farms was doing with bolded red text).

 

[JeanTate]

Given: A sphere of uniform charge Q1 and radius r1.
Given: A point charge of charge Q2 is outside the sphere at a distance of r2 from the sphere.

What is the force between the point charge and the sphere? The answer is easy.

<snip>

Really?

Why should we accept your word for it?

Let's see you show this, with full working.

While we're at it, when will Mills send out hydrino (and/or compounds) samples for truly independent testing?

When will the first ~five working prototype hydrino-based generators be shipped, to truly independent testing facilities?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You just rewarded thread nannying. I'll try not to become drunk with power.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

markie, there are several questions you have been avoiding.

Mills (and you) have claimed that BLP has hydrino compound samples. Lately he even claims to have bottled samples of hydrino. He even calls that a product. Where can I buy it? Why did he fail to show these to the world as promised a year ago?

And let me point out that your usual excuse for him doesn't work. This isn't him being bad at projecting time tables. He already claims to have this stuff. Why isn't he showing it the world?

And please don't try to tell me that it's been "independently" validated by citing BLP sources. That just makes you look like a stupid liar. Any idiot should be able to figure out that Brilliant Light Power isn't independent of Brilliant Light Power. That's just too stupid for words. But I have to point it out because you've been that stupid more times than I can count.

 

[hecd2]

Your unspoken assumption is that current at any one place and time has one direction only. And that is a reasonable. But this is not true on the orbitsphere. Movements of rings of mass and charge overlap as if other rings were not there. Superposition.

Exactly - the “superposition” of two or more vector quantities at a point is a vector sum. In spite of your desperate and ridiculous claims the current density at any point must be single valued in exactly the same way that air velocity (a vector field) is single valued at a point.

Now, if we were to sum the vector directions at all places on the sphere then yes indeed by the hairy ball theorem there would be at least one 'zero' spot. But physically that does not mean that current is not flowing over that spot.

Yes it does. If the current density is zero at a point that means precisely that there is no current flowing at that point. By the definition of current density.

Edit to add: the mathematical and physics ignorance of Mills’s supporters on this forum is a pale reflection of the pure nonsense on which Mills lies and fraud is based. OK RY?

 

[hecd2]

Given: A sphere of uniform charge Q1 and radius r1.
Given: A point charge of charge Q2 is outside the sphere at a distance of r2 from the sphere.

What is the force between the point charge and the sphere? The answer is easy.

Is the answer easy in the case of a circle instead of a sphere? I don't think so.

How do you know? You have asserted that the answer to one is easy and the other is not but you have given us no reason to think that you are able to derive either answer. As I said, in order to derive the answer for the sphere you have to be able to derive the answer for a special case of the circle.