• Todays Analysis:

    As you might know, the relation K/V=1 only holds for two points (for real elliptic orbits) of a trajectory and is not the general solution. This is no problem for the S1 orbits but all the others...

    Also mc2 is mere speculation as you cannot accelerate an electron to c. Further the electron mass on deeper orbits classically should increase... What also Mills neglects as this would mess up his force equation.


    This only tells that such simple models only should be used in the limit of an equivalence relation and not to predict anything new...

  • As you might know, the relation K/V=1 only holds for two points (for real elliptic orbits) of a trajectory and is not the general solution. This is no problem for the S1 orbits but all the others...

    Also mc2 is mere speculation as you cannot accelerate an electron to c. Further the electron mass on deeper orbits classically should increase... What also Mills neglects as this would mess up his force equation.


    This only tells that such simple models only should be used in the limit of an equivalence relation and not to predict anything new...


    Note that we just add a non interacting ensamble of points all paths of a the relation K/V=-1 as a ring has constant K,V hence all points remaining in the ensamble satisfy that. Hence that relation is fine to use.

  • In my previous post the deduction of the eigenvalues for the ring distribution was i bit off putting by just claiming the averaging meassure exists that link GUTCP and Bohr Sommerfeld. The next blog post deduces it and it turns out to be a quite natural probability measure. Maybe QM will be slaughtered next and proven to be a huge weirdo model that has fooled the whole world for decades. It will most likely a be similar manipulation as we did to deduce GUTCP but with the magic of complex numbers in stead.


    Deduction of the mesure

  • I for one am very impressed with the visible and sustained brightness of BLP's recent method and use of tin. Much better than before. I hope it also corresponds to a much better COP.


    The brightness of the (13.5 nm?) EUV emitted from tin and used for the future silicon chip etching would be invisible to the naked eye of course.

    What sustained brightness? All I ever see is 5 second clips until the viewing port is blackened. I see nothing commercially viable yet.

  • What sustained brightness? All I ever see is 5 second clips until the viewing port is blackened. I see nothing commercially viable yet.

    I'm referring to this video Shane linked to about 4 days ago, showing 30 seconds of brightness.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


  • A few notes on EUV from wiki:


    The required utility resources are significantly larger for EUV compared to 193 nm immersion, even with two exposures using the latter. Hynix reported at the 2009 EUV Symposium that the wall plug efficiency was ~0.02% for EUV, i.e., to get 200-watts at intermediate focus for 100 wafers-per-hour, one would require 1-megawatt of input power, compared to 165-kilowatts for an ArF immersion scanner, and that even at the same throughput, the footprint of the EUV scanner was ~3x the footprint of an ArF immersion scanner, resulting in productivity loss.[22] Additionally, to confine ion debris, a superconducting magnet may be required.[23]

    A typical EUV tool weighs 180 tons.[24]

    DUV vs. EUV Tool Energy Consumption (measured 2020):[25] EUV tools consume at least 10x more energy than immersion tools.


    Ed: Seems that the mirrors absorb most of the EUV, up to 96%, which is the main inefficiency

    Ed2: This is because almost effectively everything absorbs 5-10 nm light

  • I'm referring to this video Shane linked to about 4 days ago, showing 30 seconds of brightness.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Thanks. I missed that one. Still it's only 30 seconds and I'm not fond of the fluctuations. Safire show several hours of footage and stability (if they dont turn it up to 11).

    Is there any cooling on these experiments? How much heat are they actually producing? Why is it taking so long? Where is a closed loop test?

    The most impressive thing I've seen with BLP is the water boiling but I'd want to see that independantly verified because of all the other red flags.

    This one is in Rossi's basket at this stage.

  • This one is in Rossi's basket at this stage.

    Ouch. I can understand being suspicious after their 30 years of experimentation, missed deadlines, unkept promises, and10's of millions from investment with little to show, but IMO just their business model, lab, validations, videos, and papers put them in a whole other category than Rossi.

  • Is there any cooling on these experiments? How much heat are they actually producing? Why is it taking so long? Where is a closed loop test?

    Okay, "Walmart" shopper ... those details will be on the back of the shrink-wrapped, bubble-packed blister-pack you pick up in the hardware section ...


    Failure to have paid attention to incremental progress up to this point leads to these kinds of questions, and you expect a one-line answer? His investors have done their due-diligence, no one else apparently is capable of doing so with publicly available information, which Mills has actually been quite generous with? That's all I can conclude ...

  • Failure to have paid attention to incremental progress up to this point leads to these kinds of questions, and you expect a one-line answer? His investors have done their due-diligence, no one else apparently is capable of doing so with publicly available information, which Mills has actually been quite generous with? That's all I can conclude ...

    Actually one of our members, and occasional posters Simon Brink did replicate one of the various devices BLP created, the response to which was (I believe) a 'cease and desist' from BLP's lawyers.

  • My thoughts are that this topic deserves its own thread. I don't know anything about Gaia except what I learned from the funky video clip full of outrageous claims about the envisioned initial commercial embodiment of Egely's invention that awkwardly prefaced Egely's own presentation. I believe that George Egely warrants a very serious and careful consideration though - this invention might be the real deal. If it is, then it's an incredible and profound gift to the world.

  • Ну для мира далеко, но пусть делает пыль, так образуются конкреции

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • I have yet to search for Gaia patents relating to Egely.


    Group thoughts on his presentation? Opinions?

    I'd like to watch it again, connectivity issues, but he mentioned that few scientists have brought together all the understanding, and yet he missed mentioning the most notable replication of energetic reactions in water plasmas in the history of the world by Jonathan Phillips ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0360319908002607


    That's not easily missed. I'd like to talk to him about it, and for sure - I'm behind everyone who is fair and positive on this quest.