Mike, I have no doubt that an electron that is spread into the two dimensional orbitsphere would not radiate. I think that the exclusion of the radial charge current components are not necessary for this to be true. I read many pages in Mill's well written document and came across an equation where he states that any inclusion of a radial current would lead to radiation and I am confident that is not true under certain circumstances. As I discussed earlier, the only requirement is that the currents associated with the orbitsphere would need to be continuous and of a DC like nature. It is easy to demonstrate that a steady flowing charge that is not reversing or changing magnitude with time at every point in space will not lead to radiation. A magnetic field will be formed by the flowing current, but no far field RF radiation pattern will be established.
Perhaps you can clarify one point which so far has escaped my understanding of Mill's theory. Does his calculated orbitsphere change pattern with time under stable non radiation conditions? A simple way to put this question is: Does the stable orbitsphere have an AC component associated with it? I would assume that you would have the answer to this simple question if you understand his theory in great detail. I can attempt to clarify what I am asking further if you wish as I realize that the terms I am using may not match those that you are familiar with. The main point that I am attempting to make is that any smooth DC, 3 dimensional current pattern will not lead to far field energy escape(radiation). There are an infinite number of complex 3d shapes that are possible if the only constraint is to prevent radiation of photons. I have not analyzed the case where an AC current flow is required, so that might force the 2 dimensional patterns as calculated by Mills. So far I have not seen evidence that his electron orbitsphere is of an AC nature instead of the DC. Can you verify that he calculates AC flow (charge being a function of time at any spatial point) in these patterns? I am not attempting to discredit Mills in any way, and as a matter of fact would be thrilled to find that his work could simplify the many complexities of quantum mechanics. I just seek a better understanding of how his theory works and the nature of his electron orbitspheres. So far I have concluded that they are DC like and I hope someone can correct this belief if it does not accurately reflect his theory. Can anyone help answer this question? It is interesting that the BLP experiments show some of the expected lines from deep space radiation. That certainly might qualify as evidence in support of hydrinos. I hope to find time to look into that further since the other competing claims as to what constitutes dark matter seems like a long stretch. I find it easier to suspect that some error in measurement or understanding of gravitation or space is more likely than those. Can Mills bring us a bottle of hydrinos to analyze? They should generate pressure and have weight just as normal hydrogen even though it would be impossible to see them with normal illumination. Perhaps someone has seen a collection of this material in the past that I am unaware of. If, on the other hand, no one can collect hydrinos for measurement, then their existence is suspect. Can a loss of mass attributed to the formation of hydrinos and their subsequent escape from the system be shown? This would be strong evidence as well. One would think that a relatively large amount of hydrino formation must take place to generate a significant amount of chemical energy especially at the [1/4] state and the loss of this much mass, due to diffusion, easy to measure. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mike Carrell <mi...@medleas.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2014 7:02 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement Dave, I suggest you [free] download Vol. 1 of Mills GUTCP and follow the mathematical derivation of the orbitsphere contain therein. Be aware that the notion of ‘zero thickness’ has been debated to death in past years. Be aware also that Dr. Connet, a mathematician and department head attacked Mills with savage rhetoric over years until Mills silenced him by pointing out Connet’s errors in reading Mills’ analysis. Connet conceded that ills work has merit. As far as ‘dark matter’ is concerned, look in the website for an image of a star field, and look carefully at the papers cited below the image. Essentially, hydrinos are created by stellar processes. They have mass, but do not radiate, which defines ‘dark matter’. The reactions creating hydrinos *do* radiate and are seen in telescopes as ‘unknown sources’. But, the same lines have been seen in BLP experiments producing hydrinos. Mike Carrell From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 2:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement 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 ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
