Atom-Ecology

  • Jirohta Kasagi mid 2018

    30 yrs of nuclear research and still few answers..

    but still boxing on in emeritus status... gambatte ne.


    No proton reactions... no neutrons

    and no hard gammas

    Where does the anomalous heat come from?????


    Perhaps that <50 kev region is vital... if noisy....

    to investigate ''other possibilities"


    The nuclearfields that occur in LENR reactions are>10exp10T

    These fields are fast oscillating and are able to interact with all orbital electrons of distant nuclei.

    An external field will superimpose with the radial coulomb force of the nucleus

    what leads to a smaller binding radius for the electrons.

    Further the orbits will assume a toroidal shape, what induces a secondary field,

    that is aligned with the “LENR” produced field.

    This process, for its nuclear neighborhood,

    finally has the same characteristic (shaking electron cloud) as a fast thermal movement of a nucleus.

    Thus, after a critical distance, we see induction heating by strong nuclear fields."

    Wyttenbach ; https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20

  • Last week (and some of the week before) we have spent a lot of time building and upgrading equipment- here's some of the visible parts.


    Low-background cubical reactor housing (with gamma spec in position looking through a peephole) made from 12mm thick steel plate and lined with 1mm copper sheet- to improve the signal/noise ratio. It cuts background down by better than 50%. A triumph of man over heavy metal by Martin.



    We needed a kiln- as we had everything to hand I built one.



    Excellent voltage controlled UPS with 2kWh backup capacity to keep our wandering mains voltage under control. An Ebay find for less than $200 with almost new batteries.


  • NPP2.0 delivers exact nuclear/particle masses and radii and explains many more things STDM physicists dream of since 80 years

    More things than Isaac Newton would dream of in 1692.

    The latest NPP2.0 update suggests that gravity is due to

    the spin of the proton and the electron


    The UniversalGravityconstant can now be expressed

    using basic physics knowns,


    -the proton mass and radius, the electron mass and spin g factor, c ,

    and the Bohr radius

    and the fine structure constant

    The latest update shows that

    G=mec2 (1-1/ eg 2)( rrp 3/ ao 2)(1FC')5/(2FC*mp)2


    Calculated results G = 6.6740850357 e-11-m3/kgs2


    Measured results 2014 G = 6.67408+-0.00031.

    This match of theory  versus data is impossible in the Standard Model


    I checked these calculations just once on a calculator.

    Perhaps someone else can?

    For those who are interested in weightloss

    a decrease of 10% in the fine structure constant may make you very light..

    due to the power of 10 12 in the formula.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog



    me

    Electron mass

    9.10938356 e-31 kg

    c

    Light speed

    299 792 458

    eg

    Electron spin g factor/2

    1.00115965218091

    rrp

    Relativistic proton radius

    0.837653007352 e-15

    ao

    Bohr radius

    52.917721052700 e-12

    mp

    Proton mass

    1.6726218982 e-27 kg

    1FC’

    Flux compression

    factor(complementary)

    16(alpha/2pi)2


    2.158196106 e-5

    2FC

    Flux compression

    factor

    1- alpha/2pi

    0.99883859026758

    alpha

    Fine structure constant

    0.0072973525664

  • I have had problems confirming Wyttenbach's calculations.


    I entered all values in a spreadsheet. If I use the values of shown in the table shown in RobertBryant's post then I get a value for G that is very close to Wyttenbach's but differs in the last few decimals


    Wyttenbach gets 6.6740850357 E-11


    I get 6.6740850305 E-11


    BUT ... in the table the factor 1FC has the value 2.158196106 E-05 whereas going by the calculation shown I get 2.1000748195 E-3


    Substituting the new value for 1FC in I get G = 5.82252082258 E-01


    - Could there be something wrong with the formula for 1FC as shown in the table?

  • I get 6.6740850305 E-11


    That's good enough for me.. but then I'm not Germanic and my calculator rounds off after nine places or so.

    Thanks for doing this Bruce.

    Could there be something wrong with the formula for 1FC as shown in the table?

    Wyttenbach uses 1 - 1FC = 1FC' .. perhaps it should be called a complementary 1FC

    I adjusted my post accordingly

    There is rationale ... but it gives me a 4D headache.. to start thinking about it


    the formula calculation is just about my paygrade level?(




  • It's been formulated from the words and thinking behind several papers including

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog

    you might enquire from Wyttenbach on researchgate as to whether this formulation is valid

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juerg_Wyttenbach

    G = me c2 (1-1/ eg 2)( rrp 3/ ao 2)(1FC')5/(2FC*mp)2.

    it is difficult to find a similar formula that gives the value G to nine or more places.,with the same basic physics quantities

    Here is an old Standard Model effort by Roza with several rubbery fudge factors which gets G=6.67..

    but he could get anything depending on the fudge

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1603/1603.08406.pdf

  • I’m been trying to get a mental picture of what that formula represents physically. And what it tells us about underlying processes. I’m not sure I’m up to the 4D mental gymnastics... but head aches excluded it’s fun trying. :)


    This is a great result though... I wonder what else it throws up especially if it makes predictions that have not yet been verified.


    This is Great work by Wyttenbach I think.

  • Wyttenbach beat the boys at CERN to a precision measurement

    Its lucky that Wyttenbach kept the pre2010 NIST precision measurement for the 4-He mass.

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ergy_in_SO4_NPP216_update

    A 4.1 eV difference was abolished by using the Standard Model.,,theory .

    Who made the 2010 decree? Nixon?

    Its precisely in this 4eV difference that the weak 'gravity' effect shows up.


    NIST needs to know that a fudge of 4.1 eV is a theft from

    the GREAT BEAN COUNTER in the Sky.

    For GBC and humanity even a jot or tittle as small as 0.1 eV is precious.

  • I’m been trying to get a mental picture of what that formula represents physically. And what it tells us about underlying processes.


    G = me c2 (1-1/ eg 2)( rrp 3/ ao 2)(1FC')5/(2FC*mp)2.


    The formula doesn't mean much to me.

    Someone on twitter made a cursory comment

    "I haven’t dug in but anytime someone uses relativistic values and Bohr radius in the same equation,

    I get flaky. Bohr radius is a probabilistic value, not a true constant.”"


    So I got rid of the Bohr radius , ao, using the relation

    ao = h/ [me. c.(alpha) ]..where alpha is the fine structure constant

    to get an alternative formula


    G= me3rp3c4h -2mp-2[4alpha2/pi2]6 (pi2/4 ) (1-eg-2 ) {1-alpha }-2


    ..so alpha is mostly to the power 12 .....(the strike thru means divide by 2(pi))


    The calculation still comes out pretty exact using the NIST 2016 value of Planck's h

    G= 6.6740757.. E-11.

    but this alternative formula probably obscures the underlying processes.

    Wyttenbach's G still depends very much on the properties of the proton, electron... me rp mp...

  • Where in Wyttenbach's paper can I find the formula for G that you show in red in your post?


    Wyttenbach uploaded the formula in


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=projectUpdatesLog


    The significance of this unification of gravity with electromagnetics may take a few years for the world to realise,


    relative to Trump's tweets.


    Even Rutherford in1911 didn't realise for decades how significant his gold nucleus result was.




  • He's quite a guy is Wyttenbach, I think he will be back at the bench soon. We also have another part-time technician now- so we are 5 strong sometimes, which is tbh as many as we have bench space for.


    Inside the low-background box -all 40 kilos of it.



    And here's a close up - fuel tube with two thermocouples bound alongside with iron wire, inside a quartz tube with a heating coil. The gamma spec crystal is just a few centimetres from the action - peeping through a pot on the LH side of the box, and the minimal enclosure of thin alumina and quartz and alumina fleece insulation offers little resistance to those low-energy gammas.

  • ETA -We have an unusual problem with heating the water btw. The water heater kept tripping out - thermal overload. Easy to reset but after several resets I put a meter across the terminals. This was some months ago. Lo and belod I discover that our power supply- which should be 220V AC often drifts up to 245-250V. This is presumably because we are around 500M from a grid connection and the line continues past us to power an AirNav beacon at the start of Heathrow's ATC zone. Which presumably gets the 220V. Solution was to live with the frisky grid and buy a 2kW viltage controller/UPS to run all the instrumentation with. The reactors run on 50VDC, which is supplied by a pair of very high-spec/high stability 3kW server power units, so happily they were never affected

  • 3.2kW peak

    The per reactor heat output seems to be a bit larger than 25W

    for 2grams of fuel.. seems to be quite a bit of excess heat.. compared to Brillouin ~100w.


    - maybe a Mech E or EE would know more.. I am only a pharmacist / ChemE.

    2kW viltage controller/UPS, high-spec/high stability 3kW server

    I guess these were paid for by a donation from the Gates Foundation?

    together with the gamma spectrometer, neutron detector, reactors inter alia.


    Its 21C, in Sydney, cool.compared to 30/31 ... had to put a jumper on

    St Patricks Day brought torrential cooling rain from the North

    Best of Irish luck to the Essex team.

  • This was some months ago. Lo and behold I discover that our power supply- which should be 220V AC often drifts up to 245-250V.

    Nominal voltage for the UK is 230V (400/sqrt(3)). The upper limit is 230+10% = 253V, so there is nothing wrong with your power.


    At one point I was involved with figuring out what was wrong with motors in products we shipped to other countries, and found that some of them did not meet their upper voltage spec without overheating.