My understanding of fields is that the shell could be any thickness and that the electron cloud (I refer to the continuous charge field here) could occupy any three dimensional shape in space and still not radiate. The distribution does however determine the external magnetic field that is generated by the effective current flow. Motion of the charge distribution must be taking place for an external magnetic field to be present.
I was reading one of the papers listed on your site about what was real and unreal when I saw the 2 dimensional requirement. Do you recall any theory by Mills that suggests that radiation from the electron orbital can be suppressed if the motion of the electron charge is anything but constant and of a DC nature? My suspicion is that it is not possible for an overall balance to be present in the far field region unless the current is DC. Any acceleration of charge generates a far field pattern and only an equal and opposite directed acceleration can balance that out. I visualize a loop of wire when I think of similar behavior. Everyone suspects that an electron circulating around that loop is subject to acceleration and will generate a far field radiation pattern. My model says that this is indeed the case. But as more electrons are added to the wire, better balance occurs. Eventually, when a continuous stream of them are circulating around the loop, a complete balance occurs. Any direction that is probed in the far field region will be completely balanced at every point in space as long as an extremely large number are looping. This effect has one hole in it which is a steady DC magnetic field. The DC field can be very complex in 3 dimensional spatial shape which is established by the motion of the electrons path. One interesting complication is that the magnetic field must consist of at least 2 poles from which it emanates. This ensures that the field fall off quickly with distance and that its total energy is well contained. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Driscoll <jef...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement he does give a thickness for the electron shell - it is very small, the thickness is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius equation applied to the mass of the electron is much smaller than the diameter of the electron shell. I cut and pasted this from one of his pdf's - the equations are not shown in this email, but it is from page 8 of this: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Classical_Quantum_Mechanics_102804.pdf ============================== quoting from pdf above: The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but in order that the speed of light is a constant maximum in any frame including that of the gravitational field that propagates out as a light-wave front at particle production, it gives rise to a spacetime dilation equal to 2π times the Newtonian gravitational or Schwarzschild radius (equation deleted) according to Eqs. (178) and (202). This corresponds to a spacetime dilation of (equation deleted) Although the orbitsphere does not occupy space in the third spatial dimension, its mass discontinuity effectively “displaces” spacetime wherein the spacetime dilation can be considered a “thickness” associated with its gravitational field ============================ I have a *lot* of detail on Mill's theory at my website http://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current flowing through this total structure does not change the charge distribution with time. The net result of a system that I am describing is a DC current flowing through the structure. It does not require any restriction upon its loop path, contrary to what Mills assumes. Perhaps he should go back to his original equations and see how this relaxed requirement impacts his model. There may be implications for the behavior of the hydrino orbitals that he predicts. It is refreshing to review how he is able to apply classical theory to the atomic realm and I would love to see quantum theory replaced with a more deterministic model. That is a long shot. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 10:33 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear. The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question. The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of its electrons. Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior never includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their influence on the hydrino atom. In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD <jef...@gmail.com> wrote: I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory: http://zhydrogen.com I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom - and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct. http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD version). http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, peter...@gmail.com wrote: This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- if true: http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+Millions/9384649/story.html Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. Not LENR, but energy Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
