... energetic reactions in water plasmas ...
Challenges to LENR in water include the dangerous build of pressure.
Dry systems evade this engineering hurdle.
IMHO dry over wet. Barring the exposure of a new perspective.
BLP update
-
-
Challenges to LENR in water include the dangerous build of pressure.
Dry systems evade this engineering hurdle.
IMHO dry over wet. Barring the exposure of a new perspective.
These are water plasmas, not electrolytic cells.
-
Sounds like contained water. Am I wrong? Water is very dangerous in some phases. With respect, Sir.
-
Sounds like contained water. Am I wrong? Water is very dangerous in some phases. With respect, Sir.
There are plasmas at low pressure. The method sections of the paper talks about it. The water provides the fuel and the catalyst.
Water vapor was generated by pumping on a reservoir(about 20 cc) of distilled, de-ionized water. The flow rate wasnot directly controlled, but rather a needle valve was adjustedto maintain the desired pressure, as measured by a MKSbaratron placed above the Welch two stage rotary vane oilsealed vacuum pump (Model 8920) with a rated capacity of218 l min1. This pump was attached to the chamber with a1 cm ID ultratorr fitting at the end opposite that at which gasentered. The entire system, except the spectrometer wasencased in a copper screen Faraday cage
-
-
This is long known since De Vries published his famous formula:: DE Vries fine_structure_constant.pdf
-
This is long known since De Vries published his famous formula:: DE Vries fine_structure_constant.pdf
Yea that's a very nice result. Note, using $k=1/2pi$ we have,
Gamma(a) =1 + a Gamma(ka)
And hence (c = exp(-pi^2/4)),
ca = Gamma(a)^2 = Gamma(a)(1+a Gamma(ka))
which is true if a is the fine structure constant hence
Gamma(a) = ca/(1+aGamma(ka))
and we see that Gamma(a) is a continued fraction,
Gamma(a) = ca/(1 + ca^2(1+ ca^2k/(1 + ca^2k^2/(1 + ....))))
This is similar to Rogers Ramunjan continued fraction
Actuallythis has been studied, see Study of F among others
And the fine structure constant is solved by,
ca^3 = (F(ca^2/k,k)-1)^2
-
This is similar to Rogers Ramunjan continued fraction
The 1/5 quantization makes sense as nuclear mass does 5 rotations!
-
The loops that Mills models might have a nice internal structure. I tried to model it as a solenoid and it has some interesting modelling aspects. I tried to find some
facts about this model in,
electron loop as an helix model.
I feel that Wyttenbach model and findings are lurking in this, I really do.
-
The infinite = circular solenoid is a good approach.
Now you only need to 180 degree change the logic. Charge is at rest as EM flux moves at light speed and the only force that remains is the Lorenz force.
EM flux inside a particle is fully bound so there is no infinite B field - just the flux lines = main part of EM mass given as Lorenz coupling.
In fact in the new SO(4) model everything is 180 degrees opposite to common thinking. It will take some time to get a good feeling.
Charge alone can never move at high speed as real charge needs a carrier (e,p). So charge moves with particles.
But as there is some symmetry you can use current loops to get some quantities.
So try to get the electron g-factor as done in :: https://www.researchgate.net/p…oid_Model_of_the_Electron
-
Display More
The infinite = circular solenoid is a good approach.
Now you only need to 180 degree change the logic. Charge is at rest as EM flux moves at light speed and the only force that remains is the Lorenz force.
EM flux inside a particle is fully bound so there is no infinite B field - just the flux lines = main part of EM mass given as Lorenz coupling.
In fact in the new SO(4) model everything is 180 degrees opposite to common thinking. It will take some time to get a good feeling.
Charge alone can never move at high speed as real charge needs a carrier (e,p). So charge moves with particles.
But as there is some symmetry you can use current loops to get some quantities.
So try to get the electron g-factor as done in :: https://www.researchgate.net/p…oid_Model_of_the_Electron
I added stuff to my blog post and it seams like your torus really are what needs to be modeled. The reason is that I think that there is maximum field strength that the space allows and that fixes the radius of the tube for the electron to around the order of the size of the proton. It all fit's very nicely, really like a puzzle. I which we could sit together some people to continue this effort to make a proper mathematical model that's based from fundamental properties. I which we could spend a month together a couple of us and continue this effort. I can get a mointh's time of my work as I have saved vacations days. It only needs planning.
-
Great idea for the future. I only need to first recover my eyes...
Keep in mind that there many minimal condition for dense mass that are ignored by the standard model.
- The torus is the only allowed flux surface as nothing else allows for a homogeneous cover. Spheres, as Mills does use, are excluded for this reason.
- The other limitation is stability = the flux has no way to escape. This requires a manifold with at least genus 2 or one knot e.g. the CT (Clifford torus)
- The used surface/body must be a minimal Lagrangian! Only circular orbits are minimal
Further what Mills and QM never did grasp: Charge paths never can cross. So spherical harmonics never represent orthogonal current loops - an other dumb Mills error.
EM flux lines cannot cross is an other restriction, what excludes doubles sided manifolds.
This is always said in respect to stable mass not excited mass!!
Here once again the classic errors of SM :: basics of physics36.pdf
-
Display More
The infinite = circular solenoid is a good approach.
Now you only need to 180 degree change the logic. Charge is at rest as EM flux moves at light speed and the only force that remains is the Lorenz force.
EM flux inside a particle is fully bound so there is no infinite B field - just the flux lines = main part of EM mass given as Lorenz coupling.
In fact in the new SO(4) model everything is 180 degrees opposite to common thinking. It will take some time to get a good feeling.
Charge alone can never move at high speed as real charge needs a carrier (e,p). So charge moves with particles.
But as there is some symmetry you can use current loops to get some quantities.
So try to get the electron g-factor as done in :: https://www.researchgate.net/p…oid_Model_of_the_Electron
Bump again as it looks like all constants used to calculate properties of the electron given Maxwell are the introduction of maxuimum B field and E field this is interesting as
it implies that there is only 2 free parameters extra but we have 3 constants $h,me,e$.
See Yet another try analyzing a helix model for the electron (updated)
-
Display More
Great idea for the future. I only need to first recover my eyes...
Keep in mind that there many minimal condition for dense mass that are ignored by the standard model.
- The torus is the only allowed flux surface as nothing else allows for a homogeneous cover. Spheres, as Mills does use, are excluded for this reason.
- The other limitation is stability = the flux has no way to escape. This requires a manifold with at least genus 2 or one knot e.g. the CT (Clifford torus)
- The used surface/body must be a minimal Lagrangian! Only circular orbits are minimal
Further what Mills and QM never did grasp: Charge paths never can cross. So spherical harmonics never represent orthogonal current loops - an other dumb Mills error.
EM flux lines cannot cross is an other restriction, what excludes doubles sided manifolds.
This is always said in respect to stable mass not excited mass!!
Here once again the classic errors of SM :: basics of physics36.pdf
> Charge paths never can cross.
I think that you are wrong on this one. We need the charge to be uniform spherical and a loop does not fix that. So a superposition principle is needed and that is that all the crossing B fields at a point need to be the same as there are some cancellations though that needs to be taken care of.
-
> Charge paths never can cross.
I think that you are wrong on this one.
No this is basic physics charge always repels hence cannot cross.....
But in mathematics everything is allowed. OF course spherical harmonics are a perfect cover of S2. Unluckily as said there are no spheres (S2,S3) in real physics as spheres are not stable.
The potential of an electron/proton is not spherical as the Coulomb formula fails below the state n=3.
So I'm interested in real physics.
EM flux filaments can perfectly cover a torus in a homogeneous way. In the far field all charge looks point like but this is not "basic physics" what we must solver.
By the way: Do you know that radiation fields always have toroidal components and never are of perfect spherical symmetry?
-
-
Display More
No this is basic physics charge always repels hence cannot cross.....
But in mathematics everything is allowed. OF course spherical harmonics are a perfect cover of S2. Unluckily as said there are no spheres (S2,S3) in real physics as spheres are not stable.
The potential of an electron/proton is not spherical as the Coulomb formula fails below the state n=3.
So I'm interested in real physics.
EM flux filaments can perfectly cover a torus in a homogeneous way. In the far field all charge looks point like but this is not "basic physics" what we must solver.
By the way: Do you know that radiation fields always have toroidal components and never are of perfect spherical symmetry?
>> Do you know that radiation fields always have toroidal.
I think that is reasonable, the magnetic field of Mills orbitsphere is torroidal.
Using a uniformly spherical model means that you get the right energy values in an orbit sphere (same as QED). Also the individual helices satisfy a condition where the energy is minimized and you get a stable ring as the self repulsion of the outer ring is much less significant than these forces, hence you could look at the ring as almost solid. Also this means for the bound electron that it essentially consists of two spherical membranes that is hold together by an internal magnetic field that is way way higher than from the velocities you see when you calculate the currents normally in the atom. By starting from the ring and superpose infinitely many you will see that each point in the sphere will have the same magnitude of the internal magnetic field strength apart from the north pole and the south pole which can be ignored in the limit. Note here that the helix is a solid moving in a counter active to the velocity inside so the velocity in the reference frame where the helix as a solid, is in rest, is very very close to c. This means that the orbit sphere can be calculated as a super positional why using only currents with velocity of the speed of light for which there is a nice theory and structure. Therefore viewing the orbit sphere as a union of single particle is the wrong way to view it. It is in stead very very solid and a completely different limiting beast than what you suggest. Simply view it as a solid sphere with a tiny thickness of the order fm. Note also how combining two spin up's of the same size would create a higher internal B field than is allowed by space therefore the Pauli exclusion principle. But for a spin up and a spin down the B field would cancel as everything is super positional I expect that for this setup the limiting nature of things means that they can live together and at the limit of the fields meaning that they are still stable as we have double charge we have not produced energy. On the other hand if we have used a positron the charge will also be gone and we have produced essentially removed all stabilizing forces and energy is released. So I disagree with you not because you are wrong, but because we are using different models in our argument. If I considered your model and assumption I would agree.
-
On the stability of the orbit sphere
It remains to take one step to understand the nature of the electron. In fact, an electron can be represented by a set of closed current loops in the form of (2/3)-toric nodes (trefoils) stretched on a sphere without poles. However, one small remark should be made here - this entire flow (a set of current loops) lies at a point in our Euclidean space. Thus, it should be recognized that a point is not a point at all, and flows are not electric currents in Euclidean space.
-
-
