Hmmm ... the post has been here 12 hrs, (in this category: "media-news-video-library-no-discussions-please") and I now just have to ask regarding batteries - do you know what an "ion" is? As in Sulphur ion, or Lithium ion.
I have a counter question - do you understand how a sulfur nucleus is formed, and then it is transformed into a sulfur molecule due to the fact that free electrons interact with the protons of the nucleus - each bound electron has its own nuclear proton.
Videos are on youtube Cherepnov.
old school back to being new again as age remembers most of this.
@Cherepnov Maybe you should get back to basics. You recently showed a diagram of an EM wave. A similar diagram appears on page seven of Church of SM. Yours is more colorful. But both figures are incorrect. To get to the correct representation take one field, say the magnetic wave, and apply Maxwell's Equations to get the electric field. You like doing calculations. So, have at it.
Being the year it is...
A thread for Martin Fleischmann quotes might be apropos.
Usually, if you have a new idea, you very rarely break through to anything like recognizable development or implementation of that idea the first time around - it takes two or three goes for the research community to return to the topic.” - Martin Fleischmann
Now Stan and I were still working in secret at that time but, because of this development, we had to inform the University of Utah because we thought that they might need to take patent protection." - Mattin Fleischmann
Now, of course, cold fusion is the daddy of them all in a way, in terms of value, so I think that viewed in a social way, from the point of social considerations and economics, it will tell you that this thing will stay around." - Martin Fleischmann
Scientists are really very conscious of the fact that they stand on the shoulders of an enormous tree of preceding workers and that their own contribution is not so enormous.” - Martin Fleischmann
“One of my theme songs is that if you can't do it in a test tube, don't do it.” - Martin Fleischmann
“You see, I am a very conventional scientist, really.” - Martin Fleischmann
“The problem is that replacement of Quantum Mechanics by Quantum Field Theory is still very demanding.” - Martin Fleischmann
“It has been suggested at various times that I should start an operation in the United Kingdom but - bearing in mind my age and medical history - I think this would be not a very sensible way to go forward.” - Martin Fleischmann
“It is not necessarily true that expensive experiments are not worthwhile doing but there are plenty of rather cheap experiments which are certainly worth doing.”
- Martin Fleischmann
“It doesn't matter whether you can or cannot achieve high temperature superconductivity or fuel cells, they will always be on the list because if you could achieve them they would be extremely valuable.” - Martin Fleischmann
“I think you know that I classify science as British science, American science, and everybody else.” - Martin Fleischmann
“I have had this view of the optimization of the electrode design for a long time. Historically we went through various phases in the work and eventually worked on large sheets - very large sheets - of palladium.” - Martin Fleischmann
“I think British science is becoming more like American science - and then there is everybody else, I'm afraid.” - Martin Fleischmann
“I don't suppose I'll ever retire completely.” - Martin Fleischmann
“American science is much more organized, much more hierarchical than British science has been.” - Martin Fleischmann
“I am a caricature of what British science is about in the way I work.” - Martin Fleischmann
“If it had been anything else, we would have said, 'People don't want us to do it. Forget it. Let's just leave it alone.' But this is not in that category. This is interesting science. New science. With a hint of a possibility of a very useful technology. Therefore, if you've got any integrity, you don't give up. You only give up if you find you are wrong. But as long as you believe that you are right, you have to continue. And you have to take the consequences.” - Martin Fleischman
I agree with Wyttenbach that the COP values are still too low. I presume that is his 'joke'. We might have to use a fission-fusion approach to supply LEN reactors with sufficient neutrons for cold fusion to occur. And that would involve all sorts of complications with the atomic energy authorities. So, for now lets continue with our theoretical assessments of our empirical CMNS or LENR devices. I just have proposed re-writing E = mc^2 as E = mc^n as the simplest relativistic explanation where n varies between 0 and infinity. What's wrong with that? 
Oil, water, rock and gas are loaded there...
What's wrong with that?
Ask Boris. You missed the mask...
Boris is an idiot pretending to be intelligent.
Or maybe he is very very intelligent by pretending to be an idiot. Thus he will worm his way out of his present predicament, start a war like good old Mrs T (Margaret Thatcher) - sorry for the politics here.
I agree, ever since Fleichmann & Pons published their empirical results in 1989. But now we have to move on from this and accept LENR as an empirical fact. There is no point in debating this further as to whether it 'works' or not. All the studies since then have established this but without an understanding theoretically. The best research was carried out by Leif Holmlid's group identifying the formation of muons by bombarding a CMNS target with a YAG laser, then halved the wavelength to the visible spectrum ie 495 nm green laser which produced the same empirical results. Showing that RESONANCE was critically important. So there we have it, now we have to explain THEORETICALLY why this HAPPENS.
Being the year it is...
A thread for Martin Fleischmann quotes might be apropos.
Usually, if you have a new idea, you very rarely break through to anything like recognizable development or implementation of that idea the first time around - it takes two or three goes for the research community to return to the topic.” - Martin Fleischmann
What is the source of all these quotes?
@Cherepnov Maybe you should get back to basics. You recently showed a diagram of an EM wave. A similar diagram appears on page seven of Church of SM. Yours is more colorful. But both figures are incorrect. To get to the correct representation take one field, say the magnetic wave, and apply Maxwell's Equations to get the electric field. You like doing calculations. So, have at it.
A weird suggestion for me is "...and apply Maxwell's Equations to get the electric field..." I remind you - on this forum I gave my analysis of Maxwell's mathematical errors, which led him to a delusion about what is in nature " electric field", "electric charges", "electric forces" ... It was Maxwell's errors that gave me the opportunity to assert that " there are no electric charges" in nature, there is no "electric field" in nature! So why should I use his fake formulas? Why are you asking me to do this?
There is no electric field and therefore there is no "electromagnetic wave" in nature! What is there? And there is a photon wave - these are groups of photons that emitted groups of free electrons ... A photon in the physical chemistry of the microcosm has a mass, therefore a photon wave is essentially a wave of photon mass ... And since a photon consists of an ethereal mass - elements of the ether, then one can speak of a wave as a wave of ethereal mass...
The ethereal mass in my understanding is a magnetic substance, i.e. the element of the ether must have magnetic properties - otherwise, both the proton and the electron during rotation should have fallen apart, but since this does not happen, I conclude that the elements of the ether are a magnetic mass ... A wave of magnetic mass is a photon wave - if you like, call it a magnetic wave ... All natural phenomena can be explained following this paradigm, and therefore there is no point in inventing and fantasizing about "electric fields" on this topic ...
And volcanic lightning ? charged obsidian ect?
As above so below
@Cherepanov
Vintage Cherepanov. Then why do you put diagrams with implied results from Maxwell's Equations in your posts? I'm not going to do your work for you, but for the sake of the community I'll do it this way.
Consider the radio wave from your favorite 100 thousand watt station. If the magnetic field at your radio behaves as Hsin(wt), then Maxwell's Equations say the electric field behaves as Ecos(wt), a phase shift in time of 90 degrees. The derivatives with respect to time do matter.
Now the energy carried by each field pulsates as it passes the radio, but the total energy in the radio wave does not thanks to a simple mathematical identity.
The question arises, as to whether energy is passed back and forth between the two fields. If so, that could be considered a type of resonance. Something to think about.
In any case, since the radio wave is as real as reality gets, then so are the two fields. And if the electric field is real then so is physical charge. The church of SO(4) is going to have to change it's pontifications.
For those who would like learn more about the interplay of electric and magnetic fields I recommend a study of microwave resonators. The theory is well developed and leads naturally to such things as skin depth and heating, and by distorting the resonator to EM-Propulsion. What about the effect of heating in space, where cooling requires the generation of infrared photons that carry away momentum? What?
Shooting electrons through a double slit, can show BOTH wave properties and particle properties of the electrons. How does your model explain these equally valid experimental results?
Now the energy carried by each field pulsates as it passes the radio,
Not 100% correct. The field strength goes with sin/cos... An EM radiation field is a perfect explanation for SO(4) physics as it shows that the energy transfer is done by resonance. Only if the receiver can go into resonance with the wave a coupling happens. This energy/mass transfer has been found by Poincaré.
The Maxwell equation for waves are only phenomenologial and by way not a complete solution. For this you will need SO(4). The Maxwell formalism does not explain how and why the charge is transported one needs to bend/maintain the EM wave. A "0" value for the B field vector means no more induction...On the other side what is the current topology that produces the B field?
just something amusing
@Cherepanov
Vintage Cherepanov. Then why do you put diagrams with implied results from Maxwell's Equations in your posts? I'm not going to do your work for you, but for the sake of the community I'll do it this way.
Consider the radio wave from your favorite 100 thousand watt station. If the magnetic field at your radio behaves as Hsin(wt), then Maxwell's Equations say the electric field behaves as Ecos(wt), a phase shift in time of 90 degrees. The derivatives with respect to time do matter.
I'm sorry G.R. Mattson... You've been on the site since January 24, 2022, if I'm not mistaken... And that's why you missed a lot... Exactly a year ago, I discovered Maxwell's mistakes and proved that Maxwell invented "electric charges", "electric field" and "electric forces"...
I invite you to this thread - Exposing Maxwell by German physicist Karl Schreber in 1899.
I wish you success ! Welcome to the new physics - "physical chemistry of the microworld" according to F. M. Kanarev. and Cherepanov A.I.
Theoretical species evolution of elusive gentle earth shattering observational perspectives.
So we share.
