LENR is occurring in SAFIRE

They are nice people. Glad to have met them. They are straddling the new but known, and the totally unknown in the same experiments. Let's see where they take it.

Insulation was maybe for mixing down their new video soundtrack?

The egg carton insulated walls are meant to absorb the 150 dB audible phonon strange radiation from the Safire system.

Quote from Director

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

The above is a very important video.

This video needs to be seen by more. Hope all unfolds well!

Quote from Shane D.

"Golden Age of Physics"

The internal conflicts and spats around the Copenhagen era

have been obscured

by a goldtinted sepia..and dogma.

Change gonna come rather than QM plus ca change

I believe that change is imminent

But the change is not going to be by ethereal SAM

The magnetic forces in the nucleus cannot be wished away like this

"There is only one fundamental force: the electrostatic attraction force that is acting between the proton and the electron.

Quantum twin? Sorry there were quantum effects on the server

Quote from Shane D.

Interesting. In reading the comments of the new Safire video, I saw Structured Atom Model (SAM) mentioned as an explanation for the transmutations. Monty Childs wrote in response, that he is in contact with them (Edo is one of the founders). Here is the SAM website:

There is ample space for new atom models - at least as long as people do not thoroughly understand the physics of the nucleus.

SO(4) physics is a basic model and gives a mathematical definition of the SO(4) quantum structure of any nuclei. This structures automatically reproduces the basic structure of the periodic system and allows to calculate e.g. magnetic moments or to analyze the gamma spectrum. It also explains why e.g. technetium is not stable.

But the complexity of the nuclear structure is growing with each added n/p what leads to many possible alternative structures. Latest after ⁸⁴Kr the main symmetries are gone and higher mass Isotopes start to look like complex aggregates of basic nuclear structures. Thus for practical purposes is is always helpful to have a good heuristic model like SAM (classic potentials only) or Philippe Hatts www.philippehatt.com model that is able to show the possible differences between isotopes.

Nevertheless there will always be a difference between models that only (seem to) explain structures or are able to calculate nuclear properties. Calculation just started and is exact for the D-D fusion path. Going much further would need added man-power, what has to wait until physicists are able/willing to understand why SM/QED is a fail.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is ample space for new atom models - at least as long as people do not thoroughly understand the physics of the nucleus.

SO(4) physics is a basic model and gives a mathematical definition of the SO(4) quantum structure of any nuclei. This structures automatically reproduces the basic structure of the periodic system and allows to calculate e.g. magnetic moments or to analyze the gamma spectrum. It also explains why e.g. technetium is not stable.

But the complexity of the nuclear structure is growing with each added n/p what leads to many possible alternative structures. Latest after ⁸⁴Kr the main symmetries are gone and higher mass Isotopes start to look like complex aggregates of basic nuclear structures. Thus for practical purposes is is always helpful to have a good heuristic model like SAM (classic potentials only) or Philippe Hatts www.philippehatt.com model that is able to show the possible differences between isotopes.

Nevertheless there will always be a difference between models that only (seem to) explain structures or are able to calculate nuclear properties. Calculation just started and is exact for the D-D fusion path. Going much further would need added man-power, what has to wait until physicists are able/willing to understand why SM/QED is a fail.

Display More

SAM makes that claim, to have found the structural rules that make up the nucleus. A simple algorithm does not work, since the nucleus is always looking for balance in the charges. This happens on a small scale up to 12 nucleons (nuclets, or clusters) , between the nuclets and the extra "neutrons" in the whole structure. Structural integrity if you will..
Applying a linear logic will break every time, since the mentioned structures morph and change while adding nucleons.

I agree that SM/QED has many fundamental flaws and/or assumptions that prevent us from gaining this understanding.

The nucleus is much more complex and detailed then we currently think.. Time to open that 'black box".

Quote from RobertBryant

The internal conflicts and spats around the Copenhagen era

have been obscured

by a goldtinted sepia..and dogma.

Change gonna come rather than QM plus ca change

I believe that change is imminent

But the change is not going to be by ethereal SAM

The magnetic forces in the nucleus cannot be wished away like this

"There is only one fundamental force: the electrostatic attraction force that is acting between the proton and the electron.

Display More

We had a long debate about this. (Not sure the debate is over...)
Here is a summary of this put together by Jan Emming (SAM):

Dear AHG members,

1. Recently, several papers have been circulating in the Ad Hoc Group relating to the nature and structure of the nucleus. Since nucleons have a magnetic moment, it may reasonably be assumed that currents are involved. The recent paper by Paolo Di Sia: The “Renaissance” in Nuclear Physics: Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutations, makes this assumption and calculates the magnetic fields of coupled circulating currents. Their results show that in a close-packed nuclear lattice, valid binding energies and magnetic moments can be obtained by considering the magnetic forces between nucleons.

However, comments by Jean-Luc Paillet, in a December 18, 2018 email to the Ad Hoc group, disputes the validity of the derivation of the magnetic field from electric currents using the Biot-Savart law. Andrew Meulenberg in an email of December 17, 2018 comments that he doesn’t think either that the derivation is correct, even though Di Sia may have the right concept.

In the paper the nucleons are represented as circulating currents; see their Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, below. There are no assumptions as to the nature of the currents; only that they circulate in the two circuits 1 and 2. The author calculates the magnetic field at P2 caused by the current i₁ for the two different “phasings,” implying that the currents vary in time.

1. Feynman [1] and Griffith [2] both emphasize that Biot-Savart, strictly speaking, only applies to electrostatics. Griffiths states in section 5.2 that Biot Savart applies under the condition of “steady” currents (page 223). This means that the density of the circulating charge at each point must be constant: ∂i/∂t = 0. He also states that the law “represents a suitable approximation as long as the actual fluctuations are remote, or gradual.” However, in this situation, with time-varying fields, that stipulation doesn’t apply: time retardations should be considered. Thus, both Jean-Luc and Andrew are correct in their doubts about using the Biot-Savart law this way. However, there is more to the story.

1. This Wikipedia article gives the time-dependent generalized equations of the Biot-Savart law by Jefimenko, but stops short of solving the equations. Griffiths uses a Taylor expansion of the Jefimenko integrals in which the higher order derivatives are ignored. He reaches the surprising conclusion that Biot-Savart can be applied after all, due to the cancellation of two errors in the final equation. In his words on page 451: “the Biot-Savart law holds, with the current evaluated at the non-retarded time. This means that the quasi-static approximation is actually much better than we had any right to expect: the two errors involved (neglecting retardation and dropping the second term in Eq. 10.38) cancel one another, to first order.”

1. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the analysis in the paper by Di Sia, is defensible and that it can be applied to calculate binding energies and magnetic moments to a good approximation. This model of coupled ring currents appears to imply that the nucleus is a resonant system at a specific frequency, continuously exchanging energy between nucleons, manifested as mutual attraction or repulsion. All nucleons in a specific element/isotope accommodate each other, finding a way to resonate together. This also explains that there is a definite limit to adding protons or neutrons to a specific structure: at some point a “dissonant” candidate will not fit in. The analysis by Di Sia is made in the context of the FCC model from Norman Cook. It should also apply to the Structured Atom Model (SAM).

1. One important issue/question is whether stability of the nucleus can be explained by EM theory. This model appears to provide the mechanism for that stability. Feynman [1] makes the categorical statement: There are no points of stable equilibrium in any electrostatic field – section 5-2. Since the atom is thought to be a collection of static negative electrons and positive protons, quantum mechanics was needed for stability of the atom. Similarly, for a stable nucleus the strong force was postulated. Thus, the electrostatic repulsion between electronic charges appears to be balanced by the dynamic magnetic attraction in a system of synchronized oscillators. If the wavelength of the current is related to the size of the nucleon, on the order of femtometers, then the frequency of the oscillators would be on the order of 10²³ Hz. It appears that there is a direct analogy between the atom and the nucleus, in that both resonate at characteristic frequencies dependent on the number of oscillators/nucleons involved. Of course, the atomic (Rabi) oscillations are in the optical domain, with applications in magnetic resonance, solid state physics and quantum computing, for example. At the nucleon level, the resonances will be in the gamma ray region and any practical applications are way beyond current technology.

1. Finally, regarding Bob Cook’s email of February 7, 2019, where he refers to Mac Wheeler’s upcoming presentation to the APS on the synchronization of (biological) oscillators. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR19/Session/C56.11 It appears that Mac knows a lot about this subject and his paper should be relevant to the study of the nucleus, in addition to the biological applications mentioned in the thread of that email by Nigel Dyer. Nigel suspects a connection to proton-proton interaction for the synchronization. Could it be that the switching of proteins between two states approximately every 12 minutes, has something to do with the neutron decay time of 14 minutes? I am looking forward to see the text of Mac’s presentation in due time.

References:

[1] Feynman: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

Sections 5-2, 5-4, 14-1, 14-2, 14-5, and 14-7 (Biot-Savart)

[2] Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4^th Edition (2017), Cambridge University Press, by David J. Griffiths-Kindle edition.

Quote from Edo

One important issue/question is whether stability of the nucleus can be explained by EM theory. This model appears to provide the mechanism for that stability. Feynman [1] makes the categorical statement: There are no points of stable equilibrium in any electrostatic field – section 5-2. Since the atom is thought to be a collection of static negative electrons and positive protons, quantum mechanics was needed for stability of the atom. Similarly, for a stable nucleus the strong force was postulated. Thus, the electrostatic repulsion between electronic charges appears to be balanced by the dynamic magnetic attraction in a system of synchronized oscillators. If the wavelength of the current is related to the size of the nucleon, on the order of femtometers, then the frequency of the oscillators would be on the order of 1023 Hz. It appears that there is a direct analogy between the atom and the nucleus, in that both resonate at characteristic frequencies dependent on the number of oscillators/nucleons involved. Of course, the atomic (Rabi) oscillations are in the optical domain, with applications in magnetic resonance, solid state physics and quantum computing, for example. At the nucleon level, the resonances will be in the gamma ray region and any practical applications are way beyond current technology.

The perfect (average 9 digits) agreement with nuclear quantities and EM-theory is shown in SO(4) physics.

The classic QM/QED space SO(3)xSU(2)x(U) completely lacks the symmetry to describe magnetic coupling. Even worse all QM base formalism (based on Dirac EQ) developed over the past 90 years completely ignores internal magnetism. Thus almost all discussions/papers based on old QM/QED reasoning can be thrown in the waste basket.

It will be a hard wake-up when all these people in the self believe of their fame have to notice that they did act like clowns.

One of their last actions was to self service in favor of their friends the breakthrough price of 3mio. for (absolute nonsensical ) work about super gravity, albeit one jury member was aware that gravity could be exactly explained as an SO(4) EM-force.

There is one social rule: If highly paid people notice that they will loose their stake more than 50% of them develop criminal habits. Thus unpleasant times for physics world are ahead.