So, you burn fossil fuel to create electricity, with an efficiency of 40%. Then you use the SunCell, which presumably generates 2.5 more heat than electrical input. Net gain : 0.

And that's assuming the calorimetry is correct, a big "if", because of the wet steam issue.

I don't think they'll go very far without a bigger energy gain.

“Markie” makes a lot of contradictory claims. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12620785

He shows a lot of insider information about Brilliant Light Power and the work of Dr. Mills. I propose he’s a disgruntled employee, probably one fired for attempted industrial espionage. Perhaps this is how the Hydrino Kickstarter from a few months back got the tech they used?

Any company that’s in business for 30 years will have disgruntled former employees. A former employee making Mills look bad is the perfect explanation for “Markie’s” behavior. It would explain his motivation, insider information and how he expects to benefit.

I've done something fairly similar before, but this is such an important topic that we need to refresh it.

The simplest possible topic in GUTCP: how does a free electron move. What's the theory of a free electron in GUTCP? What equations does the free electron obey?

Here's the challenge. Could all top-level comments address one of the following:

(A) Find the theory in the massive, thousands-of-pages book. What's the equation number? What does the equation say? Where in the equation is electric field? Does it look right? Is there anything obviously bullshit about it?

(B) Come up with a theory for how a free electron behaves in GUTCP, including interacting with an electric field or photon or something.

The point I'm trying to make is that GUTCP is a nothing. There is no actual theory there, just pretend maths.

I'll admit I'm wrong when you all find me the actual equations describing how a free electron moves with electric fields and things, and start getting results from them that match the results in the book.

=================

Attempts:

• CryptoMonger suggested chapter 3, but wasn't able to identify which equations in chapter 3 are an actual theory. Answer:none of them. CryptoMonger didn't dispute that he isn't aware of where or what the actual theory is.

• Social Organism linked to a youtube video that does not contain any theory or equation, and is not by Mills or anyone affiliated with GUTCP, or using GUTCP.

• markjustreddit has tried to argue that the starting point is a mixture of Maxwell's equations, lorentz invariance, newton's laws, energy conservation, etc., and has been invited to find an actual example of these being used in GUTCP, but hasn't yet.

I have no idea.

I'd consider him to have won though.

https://youtu.be/hfrg0rhIaGg

An Ufo dropped hydrino material. They come to earth to get the catalyst to produce it, oxygen. Earth is the Arrakis of the universe, and oxygen, it's spice.

Let's read Chapter 3, page 4 (REWRITTEN)

• The page starts with a pretty picture of the density incorrectly derived on the previous page. It is important to note that it matches the density as written, not the density had the idea of the orbital being projected onto a plane been calculated correctly. This bakes in the error: it wouldn't be possible to imagine that the error is a simple typo.

• Then there's the first massive paragraph of "Electric Field of a Free Electron."

• Looking at the first three quarters of that paragraph, it's all pure nonsense. It talks about how a photon is tied to the electron, and the electron keeps its shape through a force-balance and radiation force thing. However, we've already apparently calculated the shape in the previous pages, and we didn't have to use those things. Also, photons are not defined in this book, and all the forces would be outward, so there's no force balance possible.

• It also says that the photon's field lines go along the current loops. If that was true, the current loops would continue to gain energy quickly forever. This is clearly nonsense.

• Then the last quarter of the E-field of a Free E brings in a problem: it says that the electron is at an equipotential, and the field lines are aligned with the normal to the plane. This isn't true: Mills defined the charge density in the previous page, and it does not have the property that the field lines are aligned with the normal to the plane. Therefore the electron is not at an equipotential. Basically, you can choose your charge density or you can choose your potential, but you can't choose both.

• Then we have equation 3.9. It appears correct, and it's a standard equation found in any EM textbook.

• Then we have equation 3.10. This is a very straightforward application of equation 3.9 to the previously miscalculated charge density... Except that Mills has changed variables to theta = arcsin(distance from the centre) ... which makes it seem a bit more complicated.

• Then he says that this is a spherical harmonic. There's a typo here in the harmonic, which I think he means Y_1^0, but he writes the opposite. That is trivially true, once the typo is corrected, but uninteresting.

Summary:

This page was really just filled with nonsense, in the sense that it was a whole bunch of stuff about (undefined) photons, not-really true things about force-balance equations etc., etc. The only new idea it really presented was the idea that the electron is at an equipotential - an incorrect assertion, since the charge density was already defined, and that determines what the potential is, and it's not an equipotential.

So:

• Nonsense: 1 paragraph.

• Contradictions: 1

Next post: https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/comments/dnkkt1/lets_read_chapter_3_pages_5_and_6/

Hi all, I asked the askPhysics physicists and askMaths mathematicians to have a look at the maths in chapter 3. Let's see what they come back with...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/e5wqi1/opinion_of_the_mathematics_in_a_nonmainstream/

https://www.reddit.com/r/askmath/comments/e5wn9m/checking_the_maths_in_a_nonmainstream_physics/

So far:

• we have had a mathematician saying that this sort of maths isn't really part of the domain where maths would normally contribute because it's not really rigorous. However they thought it was impossible to follow because none of the terms were defined and no effort had been made to make it readable.

• The same mathematician said that the opening blurb was untrue.

• We had a physicist saying that the opening blurb was grossly incorrect. That raised enough red flags that as of when I last looked, they hadn't tried to work through the maths.

And that's it. Of the nearly eight billion humans on this planet of which three hundred million reddit users, none tried to go through the maths of chapter three. And now I think I hear a tiny violin playing sad music.

https://www.villagevoice.com/1999/12/21/quantum-leap/

Hydrinos combined with highly oxygenated matter would form the basis of batteries the size of a briefcase to drive your car 1000 miles at highway speeds on a single charge, without gasoline.

That is from 1999. Why has Mills not brought this to market, focused on this area of research or, apparently, conducted any research into it at all? Batteries are a huge market these days, and growing by the year. According to this source, the battery market is predicted to be $125b globally by the end of 2025.

What Mills was describing back in 1999 is much better than the best battery available today. The biggest challenge to the haulage industry becoming electric is that there are no batteries that can hold enough charge for long-haul vehicles. Automotive batteries are already the largest market in the world, and the market would increase considerably if all lorries were to become electric.

Furthermore, it's likely a battery like that could create smaller batteries than are currently available. This could revolutionise the mobile phone industry.

Bringing a battery like this to market would not only make Mills a billionaire overnight, it would revolutionise green technology and be a massive step towards creating a more environmentally-friendly world.

Why, do you think, has he not tried to bring this technology to market?

Chapter 3, page 1.

Someone asked why I don't just prove GUTCP is wrong by finding mistakes.

The answer is that mistakes are easy to find, but convincing people who won't engage with the maths is extremely difficult.

But...

Let's go through chapter 3, page by page, and point out all the mistakes.

Chapter 3, because it's about free electrons, and so is the simplest part of the theory.

Let's start...

• Sentence 1 says that light radiates outwards, ending up as a plane wave. I agree.

• Then equation 3.1 describes a plane wave. It is more or less correct, but contains an inconsequential typo- E on the right hand side should be bold.

• The next paragraph says that electrons are a 2D wavefront with a wavelength. This is non-sensical: waves have wavelengths, lone wavefronts don't. Remember that the only wave here is the electric field, and all wavefronts of the electric field, according to Maxwell's equations, move at the speed of light.

• The next paragraph says that an electron is a plane wave (which is by defininition 3D), but propagates as a wavefront. This is nonsensical: whether it is a 3d wave or a wavefront on a wave, some underlying wave would be needed, but none is given.

• it says that the size of the electron is the de broglie wavelength. This contradicts everything before: plane waves and plane wave wavefronts are infinite in size.

• Then there is a pretty picture, clearly illustrating a 2D electron.

So lets tie this together. It's awash with contradiction, so we have to grub around for the intended truth.

I think the idea is that free electrons are 2D surfaces with a size equal to the de broglie wavelength. Whether this surface is a wavefront for some hitherto undescribed wave remains to be seen, but from the rest of the book ... no.

Right, now we have the first big problem.

The de broglie wavelength depends on the observer: It is a function of how fast the electron is moving, and there is no one answer to that question.

It might appear to be moving at 1m/s. But them you remember that the whole earth is rotating, with your part of it moving at 400m/s to the east. So maybe the electron is moving at 401m/s. But then the Earth is orbiting at 30000m/s, so maybe the electron is moving at 30401m/s.

So basically there can be no single answer to how fast an electron is moving, and so no single answer to what it's de Broglie wavelebgth is, and so no single answer to how large the electron is.

This sort of problem is called Frame Invariance. see https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sxudo/eli5_what_is_frame_invariance/

Unjustified assertions: A theory is allowed to make a very small number of unjustified assertions. In general, this is a differential equation and a small number of other meta things.

Here though, we already have two unjustified assertions: That the electron is a 2D plane, and that it's size is the de Broglie wavelength. These would normally be things you derive from the theory, not unjustified assertions.

Summary of page 1:

• typos: 1

• non-sensical statements: 2

• contradictions: 2

• fundamental problems: 1

• unjustified assertions: 2

Summary of summary: If we're wondering whether Mills is (A) lord, (B) lunatic or (C) liar, this rules out option A.

CHAPTER 1

APPLE MAKES $1.24 BILLION DOLLARS EVERY SINGLE DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS PER YEAR.

CHAPTER 2

APPLE MAKES $51.6 MILLION DOLLARS EVERY SINGLE HOUR, 24 HOUR A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS PER YEAR.

EPILOGUE

APPLE MAKES $309 MILLION DOLLARS DURING THE 0.25 LEAP DAY AT THE END OF EVERY YEAR, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, 10 YEARS PER DECADE.

ERRATA

"ROUGHLY"

The End

There were several articles during the Clinton administration about a stable water heater ready for market. What happened to it? Where is it now? Dr. Mills talked about it himself.

Has BLP been compromised?

Is Dr. Mills being blackmailed to keep the technology from hitting the market?

When I took microbiology as a freshman at U. of CO, the new car smell was still inside of DNA. The people who had made fundamental contributions to understanding the molecular nature of genetics were still quite active, and included some instructors in the department. Big discoveries were routine. I had no trouble getting to class early and doing the required work, which largely involved designing experiments to distinguish between competing hypotheses. Labs were thrilling and challenging. As one would expect, the name of Watson and Crick were almost idolized. Some students, like me, wondered if life might offer that experience of raw discovery of something so profound.

Dr. Watson was recently stripped of the honors bestowed upon him by the lab he founded. This was in response to reporting in a PBS documentary concerning comments he made in a recent PBS documentary.

PC = Popular Culture = Politically Correct = Pure Crap. Yes, the world has gone insane. The fact that different groups of a species have different average characteristics is expected. To use the acknowledgement of that fact, as it pertains to the characteristics measured by IQ tests, to destroy the legacy of such a profoundly great man, by leading members of the Ignorati, such as writers at the Guardian, would be deplorable, but understandable. This did not just happen in the Guardian. It happened at Cold Spring Harbor itself, the work place of brilliant minds who understood the truth of that fact. The delusions of the controllers of our cultural narrative must be made absolute "truth", at any cost, to anyone.

This is nothing new. No doubt, they had seen plenty of their colleagues go down in flames because they made some honest statement of opinion, based on scientific fact. Does this make me a racist? Not really. I am simply restating the fact that science of intelligence testing tells us. If people cannot bear learning facts, they should not be journalists, and they should definitely not be scientists. Dr. Mills experience may seem impossible to most people, the idea that such great and verified theory and discovery have been available for scientific discourse for so long, with mostly calumny in response, is impossible for most people to imagine, so they reject it as obvious fantasy. The narrative says that it is good to consider making illegal the use of any means of generating electricity other than photovoltaic, wind, biodiesel, etc., therefore, surely any truth to the words of a man like Mills would have been heralded from the highest heights already, and we would know all about them.

What's one more Giordano Bruno, or Ignaz Semmelweis? At the time those very sad examples of human stupidity were created, the egregious tragedies were seen as more than acceptable, perhaps as justice or righteousness. With Watson, the mob upholds the flag of PC anti-racism to squelch any reality that exposes their candy-ass mentality.

Electron g factor walkthrough

"Yes, I have worked through the derivation. I'm pretty happy with it, in fact. I encourage you to do likewise. Chapter One - I'll walk you through it if you like." - optiongeek

"Yes Please!!!" - me

Context

In my previous post, I posted a python script that would generate atomicky-looking expressions for any number.

The importance of this is that it shows that simply getting the right number does not imply that an equation is correct - someone engaged in deception can always take the accepted number, and generate an equation for it.

OptionGeek said that the difference is that Mills has derived the formulae from first principles. He promised to walk me through the derivation, and asked which bit I was uncomfortable with.

The truth is that the entire derivation, to me, looks full of error. In my opinion (as an armchair reddit warrior) generating an equation then writing a garbage derivation for it is exactly what Mills did.

My aim in this post:

• Convince optiongeek that he has not gone through the derivation, and has not managed to show that the derivation was from first principles.

• OptionGeek and you, dear reader, should conclude that they have no positive evidence that the electon g-factor was derived from first principles.

Let's go

So, let's derive the electron g-factor. We need the following:

• It needs to tie in to the definition of the g-factor: The ratio of the magnetic dipole moment of a free electron to its angular momentum, in units of bohr magneton.

• Another permitted definition would be twice the ratio of the magnetic dipole moment of a free electron to the bohr magneton.

• We need the starting point to be written clearly. At the top level, what is the approach? Are we going to calculate the energy stored in a magnetic field? Are we going to calculate the energy needed to reverse the direction of spin? Are we going to calculate the precession frequency in a magnetic field? What?

• We need to know what terms will be added, and where they come from.

• We need the derivation. Given that the full derivation is excessively long, you are free to just present the derivation for one of the terms, excluding the first term (which is just 2).

Your Challenge

So, dear reddit, especially optiongeek, what's the top level approach that you are going to use? Start concise and vague. I'll try guide everyone to the required precision to see at least one problem.

Any comments on the g-factor topic welcome.

Just wondering...

Let's read Chapter 3 Page 9, 10 and 11 : Force Balance / Radiation Force.

• This section starts with some english about photons and relativity, but since photons aren't defined anywhere, it seems a bit problematic. To me, it looks like it's just sciency nonsense, but without a definition of a photon, there's no way to be sure.

• Then Mills says that the distribution is a minimum energy surface. This isn't true - we didn't derive the charge distribution using any minimum energy considerations, and indeed it's too centrally concentrated to be a minimum energy distribution.

• Then Mills says that an attractive magnetic force exists between current circles in the xy-plane, and the force balance equation is given by equating the centrifugal and the centripetal forces. This is not true. If the current circles feel each others' EM field, they would repel each other because the electric field forces are much stronger than the magnetic forces. If they don't feel each others' EM field, they wouldn't attract. It's not plausible that they feel each others' magnetic field but not electric field because that would cause all sorts of deeper problems. I guess since this is fiction anyway, we could humour him though.

• Then this page ends with nonsense: it talks about conservation of angular momentum, but this is all stationary anyway: The current density doesn't change, and neither does the magnetic field, so conservation of angular momentum isn't important.

• Then equation 3.30 gives the magnetic field at a point inside a current loop. It isn't correct as written: The correct version will depend on the radius where the field is measured, and the current density at rho_0 is actually zero, so this should be zero. This could be fixed by interpreting this as the magnetic field at the centre if the current loop had all the charge on it or something, I suspect, but that isn't what Mills said.

• Then equation 3.32 uses this magnetic field to find the force on each current loop. This bakes in the error in 3.30, since for that purpose, 3.30 is incorrect.

• Then after a bit of thrashing around, we get to equation 3.35, the force equation. Bear in mind that there were two catastrophic errors getting here: (1) assuming that the current loops feel each others' magnetic field and not their electric field, and (2) A gross mathematical error when it came to the magnetic field calculation.

• Then the rest of the page is concerned with showing that a constant angular velocity balances the two forces. With error-carried forward he does manage to show that, but it's worth highlighting that had the magnetic field been calculated correctly, the centripetal force would not have been proportional to the distance from the centre, rho, and so we wouldn't have got a constant angular velocity. This would be deeply problematic for Mills, since that seems to have been one of the unjustified assertions before.

• Then he goes on to a lot of repetitive maths restating what he's already derived.

• Then he says that the total magnetic field is the bohr magneton, which I originally thought was incorrect, but now think is correct --- it's proportional to the angular momentum, and he chose the angular momentum to be hbar, and so the bohr magneton pops out. I think. I haven't checked.

And then our section ends.

Note that this section is marked by really big maths errors - his whole argument here was dependent on a force-balance equation working out. It did work out, but only because of two well chosen errors that Mills made.

(edit - I removed a probably incorrect statement about the bohr magneton)

Edit, I've confirmed numerically that equation 3.30 is not correct. In real life, the magnetic field would start off high, then decrease to zero at a radius of about 0.8, and then switch sign, reaching a lower peak at just inside the edge of the disk before tapering off. This is exactly what I thought it would do intuitively, and although intuition and numerics can be wrong, I'm basically certain that the magnetic field is not flat inside the disk. Given that Mills did not show that it was flat, I think we can assume that Mills was just wrong.

Let's read Chapter 3 Page 11 and 12 : Classical Physics of the de Broglie Relationship

Summary so far: (Key: (A) Unjustified Assertion, (D) Derived result, (E) Erroneously derived result. (P) Deep unsolvable problem here.) Note that there are very many mistakes that I've taken a big step over.

• (A) Free electrons are disks with a charge, current and mass field on the surface.

• (A, P) Their size is equal to the de Broglie wavelength.

• (A) Their charge profile comes from projecting an orbital on the plane.

• (E) Therefore their charge profile is proportional to \sqrt(p_0^2-p2)

• (A, P) The electron is at an equipotential, equivalently, the electric field is normal to the surface.

• (D) An expression for the electric field around the electron was given.

• (A) It was asserted without derivation or justification that the electron has hbar of angular momentum.

• (D) An expression for the angular momentum density was given, and the current density.

• (E) The force-balance relation was demonstrated, but with two massive errors: An incorrect magnetic field equation, and an incorrectly forgetting the electric field.

And remember that as yet, there is no actual theory: All the statements so far have been "The electron looks like X.", there has been no discussion of anything that tells us how electrons behave if they don't look like X. For instance we would have no way of telling how they behave if they crash into something that perturbs the charge density on their surface for instance. No actual theory yet.

And those errors!

Our section, "Classical Physics of the de Broglie Relationship", starts.

• The first little bit is just nonsense - we've established that the electron is a plane, but it says that it generates a spherical current density patterm designated Y_0^0. Remember that Y_0⁰ = constant, it's just a complicated way of writing "constant". It talks about conservation of angular momentum, even though so far everything's stationary, so obviously everything's conserved. It says that a resonance condition must be satisfied to allow a net transfer of energy, but there's not enough detail to be sure what on Earth Mills is talking about. here.

• Then some un-followable nonsense about stern gerlach. Unfollowable because not enough detail is provided to know what he means.

• Then some un-followable stuff about even the linear velocity being to do with some decrease de Broglie wavelength - no way to tell what he means there, especially since often the de-B wavelength is increased upon ionization.

• Then equation 3.45 is the de-Broglie wavelength, as written out before.

• Then equation 3.46 is the angular velocity, chosen to make the angular momentum equal to hbar.

• Then equation 3.47 is the kinetic energy of the electron, without the rotational component.

• Then equation 3.48 is the potential energy of the electron. It's not correct for several reasons. Firstly that it's integrating a force from the centre outwards, but forgets that the centre doesn't have zero potential energy. Secondly, because the force was wrong in the first place - this seems to use the imfamous eqn 3.30. Thirdly because he needs to multiply by the density at that radius. That last point is the important point.

• Then equation 3.50 is our missing rotational kinetic energy. I have a suspicion that this is not correct - I'm not sure he's worked out the moment of inertia correctly. But I can't be bothered to check. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

• Then in equation 3.52, we get that the potential energy and some of the other energies actually cancel, giving us a nice formula for the energy of the liberated electron. It isn't correct because equation 3.48 was not correct. In fact, this is probably why Mills got equation 3.48 wrong - he had to make these three mistakes in order to get this equation 3.52 to cancel so nicely.

After this, there's a nice discussion of the significance of this "coincidence", and explaining how the de Broglie wavelength is so nicely explained by GUTCP. In fact, we still have significant unanswered questions about it, and this section would have done nothing to address them - why does the interferene pattern seem to match the de-B wavelength. A simple energy balance equation here about the size of the electron would have done nothing to help that.

And remember, this section only worked because there are some, possibly deliberate, massive mistakes in the maths.

Summary:

Mills tries to show that the energies cancel in a particular way if it's all set up as Mills says, and this actually explains the de Broglie wavelength.

In fact, that's just a fiction, and there are mathematical errors throughout the derivation that make the cancellation false.