The "problem" of excess energy in cavitation heating commercial products

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Curbina

Dear Cherepanov2020 , I will say again that I appreciate your enthusiasm. I have not interacted much with you as your posts in Russian don't make things easy for me, most of my time spent in the forum is from my phone, and for some reason my phone doesn't integrate well with google translate, and I can't get automatic translation for the forum, and the only way I can read your posts is copying and pasting them to the online Google translation link, which is time consuming.

Thanks for sharing the links to the document you share in English. I have to ask you, who authored these documents? You or someone you work with?

I think they are an interesting collection of quotes, references, and links, but I read and re read it and I get the impression that all that information is presented in a way that doesn't have a driving thread and therefore looks like reading a collection of newspaper clips that can be interpreted in many ways, some even can be construed as contradictory statements.

Can you offer us in a paragraph or two, like an abstract, of what is what you really want to convey with all that, in order to have a better optic to how to engage in the reading of your bulky document?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Display More

All the links that I have presented to you are links to articles that have been written by me ... It seems to you that they are not connected with each other by some kind of logic ... But this is not so ... There is logic ... For 4 years, having studied more than 1700 scientific articles and experiments, I began to doubt what is written in physics textbooks, and came to the conclusion that there is NO "electrostatic field" or "electric field" in nature, which is not in nature " electric charges "and that there is no" Coulomb barrier "in nature ... It was hard! At MEPhI they taught me differently ... I had to translate the original articles by Charles Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson ... They had a different idea of the concept of "charge" ... Mass ... Mass of electric fluid ... Mass of magnetic fluid - these are their concepts ... That is, if we translate it into dimensions, then these are kilograms ... I suggest you translate this phrase of Thomson - the definition of "charge" - "Charges. - En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse qaa = ∑An d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire qab = ∑Bn pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres. "

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год – https://drive.google.com/file/…WBiu0I_k/view?usp=sharing

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5BjX/53n16KZqW

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. – http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/126/90/416/0079/0316

«3-я Памятка» Кулона – «TROISIEME MEMOIRE», 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2PQR/ZmiskSvXh

«3-я Памятка» Кулона – «TROISIEME MEMOIRE», 1785 год - https://drive.google.com/file/…PQAcr0IV/view?usp=sharing

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР – https://drive.google.com/file/…La-Nz2Gj/view?usp=sharing

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/36jS/5fWpDQ6Ta

«Charges. – En vertu des theorems fondamentaux, on devra distribuer sur la surface de la sphere A une masse q_aa = ∑A_n d’electricite, et sur B une masse de signe contraire q_ab = ∑B_n pour produire les memes potentiels sur ces spheres.»

Quote from Curbina

Dear Cherepanov2020 , I will say again that I appreciate your enthusiasm. I have not interacted much with you as your posts in Russian don't make things easy for me, most of my time spent in the forum is from my phone, and for some reason my phone doesn't integrate well with google translate, and I can't get automatic translation for the forum, and the only way I can read your posts is copying and pasting them to the online Google translation link, which is time consuming.

Thanks for sharing the links to the document you share in English. I have to ask you, who authored these documents? You or someone you work with?

I think they are an interesting collection of quotes, references, and links, but I read and re read it and I get the impression that all that information is presented in a way that doesn't have a driving thread and therefore looks like reading a collection of newspaper clips that can be interpreted in many ways, some even can be construed as contradictory statements.

Can you offer us in a paragraph or two, like an abstract, of what is what you really want to convey with all that, in order to have a better optic to how to engage in the reading of your bulky document?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Display More

K. Schreber German physicist ... K. Schreber proves that "our conclusions of electrical and magnetic units from the basic units of mass, length and time contain arbitrary assumptions ..." and the main thing is that "... without introducing such assumptions, we cannot even form systems of such units ... "120 years ago, the remarkable scientist K. Schreber was actually ignored by the scientific community, but as he rightly noted -" ... the conclusions are based on four basic laws of pondemotor actions of electric and magnetic forces - two Coulomb's laws, the law of electrodynamic actions and the law of electromagnetic actions ... "

Jewish physicists "cleaned" the Internet from mentioning it ... The only thing I found today is https://archive.org/details/an…gggoog/page/n179/mode/2up

And I managed to download this material - Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, May 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5gF4/3va7SkJYn

Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, May 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…ShRlLsMX/view?usp=sharing

How did I "get out" and find it?

I open the magazine "Electricity" - the imperial magazine, for 1899 - https://www.booksite.ru/elektr/1899/1899_15_16.pdf on 219 pages and the Jew Kogan presented this information ... but ... at the end of the article this scoundrel added - “It is clear that the practical applicability of our units -“ ampere ”,“ volt ”, etc., K. Schreber cannot have these revelations ... This is the defamation of physicists!

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Curbina

Dear Cherepanov2020 , thanks for your answers, it really provided a better context from which I can focus my reading if your reports. You are then trying to look back with a fresh perspective, something that is often a good exercise.

You probably will realize that among LENR researchers there’s a constant effort to perform the same task, but that process has created more parallel theories than any degree of consensus. Your ideas add to the pool, but when it comes to test ideas, the lack of experimental resources is what often hinders further exploration. We have a cumulative body of anecdotal and experimental observations that are as important and as tantalizing as they are hard (or even impossible) to replicate, most of the time.

Even if I am a staunch supporter of the field, I have to be aware, and to a limited extent agree, with many that argue that there’s no single LENR experiment proven and independently verified enough times to even be certain that the field is real. We have teams that have become very efficient at replicating their own work (case in point, the NEDO program in Japan), but replication outside the group is non existent. Hence, you must forgive me (and perhaps many of us) that don’t jump with enthusiasm when someone comes to the table to add more ideas, no matter how good or elaborate they are, as the field is not stumped because of lack of evidence, or new ideas, or research venues, but by lack of resources both human and economic to increase the rate at which the ideas are tested.

I appreciate your sharing of your work, now I can fully understand that you have done a great and detailed review, going back to the roots of some key concepts, and shedding light on some aspects that were left insufficiently resolved and led to assumptions that have limited the scope of formal research based on this incomplete ideas. Now the next step is thinking of experiments how to test those ideas. That’s the part when things slow down, unfortunately.

Display More

Dear Kurbina! Let's understand each other ... This, of course, is not so easy to implement ... Personally, it was difficult for me - a graduate of NRNU MEPhI, who was told at all lectures that electrons have orbital rotational motion around the nucleus of an atom, it was difficult to give up this thought ... But, paradoxically, it was at the same time easy for me to do ... Why? The fact is that when I left the walls of my institute in 1978, my brain was tormented by the following problem - "How do two electrons carry out an" electron-electronic "bond between two molecules - after all, one of them randomly and indefinitely orbits around the nucleus of one molecule, and the other electron also randomly and indefinitely revolves around the other nucleus of the second molecule? How does this happen? Can two particles moving at high speeds carry out attraction to each other? This is an obvious contradiction ... "This is how I suffered in 1978 and subsequent years ... But luckily for me, I stumbled upon the website of F.M. Kanarev on the Internet. - https://www.micro-world.su/, and there I found an article that Philip Mikhailovich wrote in 1993. In this article, he analyzed the mistakes of Niels Bohr and his delusions and showed that electrons do not have an orbital motion around the nucleus of an atom ... Here is an excerpt from his textbook –

The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment of its stay at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with an energy of 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained

13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40

but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

-13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)

and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negative charge of the electron. Clever, isn't it?

And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)

Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Comprehend THIS ...

Let us write down similar relations for the transition of an electron from the first to the third and fourth energy levels.

Ee - 13.60 + 12.09 = Ee - 1.51 (3)

Ee - 13.60 + 12.75 = Ee - 0.85 (4)

From relations (2), (3) and (4) follows the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom -

Ee - Ei + Ef = Ee - E1 / n^2 → Ef = Ei - E1 / n^2, (5)

where: Ef = hvf is the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon; Ei is the ionization energy equal to the energy of such a photon, after the absorption of which the electron loses its bond with the nucleus and becomes free; E1 - the binding energy of the electron with the atomic nucleus, corresponding to the first energy level is also equal to the photon energy.

For a hydrogen atom, E1 = Ei = hv1 = hvf. Taking this into account, the mathematical model (5) can be written as follows

hvf = hvi - hv1 / n^2 → vf = vi - v1 / n^2 (6)

We have obtained a mathematical model of the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, which includes only the frequencies of absorbed or emitted photons, that is, the frequency of rotation of photons relative to their axes. And where is the frequency of rotation of an electron around the nucleus of an atom? There is no it. There is no rotational motion of the electron around the atomic nucleus! The electron interacts with its proton of the nucleus "linearly"; along the axis of rotation of the proton, i.e. the axes of rotation of the proton and the electron are aligned. This knowledge makes it easier for you to understand how LENR installations work - you will eventually come to the idea that only magnetic interactions occur there - nuclear reactions are of a magnetic nature.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment of its stay at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV.

Of course you are right as this is exactly what I show in SO(4) physics. Potentials are second order effects. The electron "orbit" is given by the magnetic resonance formula of the electron only. Basically all masses are EM masses and the bond is produced by topological charge. Masses can synchronize if there frame of reference (rotation number) does match.

QM - Schrödinger/QED (Dirac) totally fails after 4 digits because the math is based on a flat orbit = potential.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Wyttenbach

Of course you are right as this is exactly what I show in SO(4) physics. Potentials are second order effects. The electron "orbit" is given by the magnetic resonance formula of the electron only. Basically all masses are EM masses and the bond is produced by topological charge. Masses can synchronize if there frame of reference (rotation number) does match.

QM - Schrödinger/QED (Dirac) totally fails after 4 digits because the math is based on a flat orbit = potential.

Dear Wittenbach! I wrote above that the electron has no orbital motion, i.e. an electron does not revolve around the nucleus of an atom. Did you agree with this or not? If you agree, how would you like to understand this phrase - "The electron" orbit "is given by the magnetic resonance formula of the electron only."? This is absurd to me. An electron has only rotation around its own axis - this axis passes through the center of the electron's ring in the first approximation, or through the center of its torus in the second approximation ... Is that clear?

Quote from Cherepanov2020

An electron has only rotation around its own axis - this axis passes through the center of the electron's ring in the first approximation, or through the center of its torus in the second approximation ... Is that clear?

There is no single rotation axes in nature. Nobody ever did detect one. All forces lead to a two axes coupled rotation. This once was basic knowledge until 1915 but then the great simplification started...

All forces lead to a two axes coupled rotation

This is rather schematic view. It's true that according to Maxwell's theory the space-time behaves like elastic foam or jelly, which deforms in two perpendicular twisting directions (electric and magnetic fields) once it gets squeezed at certain point. And this deform can propagate itself into another dimensions in recursive way, which results in composite interactions (electroweak one).

But this is not full story. Quantum foam also thickens under shaking in similar way, like soap foam. Schrodinger equation describes elastic string, the mass density of which in each time and space interval is also proportional the energy density in each time and space interval (the Hamiltonian). Which means, the space-time (in which SO(2) transforms is supposed to apply) isn't flat, homogeneous and uniform. More twisting also leads into increasing density of it and thickening of quantum foam. Which is also reason, why quarks cannot be described by SO(2) gauge groups anymore and they exhibit fractional charges like anyons. In addition, there exist [nonabellian transforms](https://i.imgur.com/tH4QnQz.gif) mediated with scalar waves, which violate SO(2) transform.

BTW the discussions about SO(2) models actually detract understanding of negentropic phenomena, because they're 1) equilibrial and based on 2) energy balance in form of 3) transverse waves, which can radiate 4) freely into an outside. Whereas my theory overunity arises not because radiation (in form of SO(2) or whatever else gauge group) applies freely - but exactly from opposite reason: this radiation cannot temporarily apply and its energy gets withheld at place because of various reasons, like Gauss nonradiating condition and/or rate of permeability/permitivity change...

Overunity is emergent scalar wave effect, not transverse wave effect, so that discussion about these models is not only orthogonal to topic, but actually dual to it and detracting from its understanding. This is like attempt to simulate magnetic motor with some industrial magnetic field simulator based on energy conservation: this is not gonna to work..

Meet the Pistol Shrimp, a tiny shrimp that hunts using weaponized bubbles.

FRICTION BEHAVIOR OF IRON-CARBON ALLOYS IN COUPLES WITH PLASMA-ELECTROLYTIC OXIDE-CERAMIC LAYERS SYNTHESIZED ON D16T ALLOY

We study the tribological behavior of 45 steel, U8 steel, and SCh 21-40 cast iron in couples with plasma-electrolytic oxide-ceramic layers synthesized on D16T alloy in I-20 mineral oil and in the same oil with an addition of aqueous solution of glycerol. It is shown that, in the case of friction interaction of steel with plasma-electrolytic oxide-ceramic layers in oil-glycerol mixture, we observe the realization of the modes both of the selective transfer and of the transformation of elements in the contact zone.

The simple analysis would reveal that cavitation overunity may work only until bubbles remain very small, so that there is large difference between their radius during negentropic cycle. The nucleation of bubble formation with electrolysis thus may help greatly - one may guess, that for example Ohmasa's technology is based on this trick.

Quote

However, the increased production of neutrons reported for the cavitation is a first, at least for me.

LaClaire did cavitation experiments with laser pulses underwater - the resulting neutron flux got so high, it forced him to stop with experiments due to health concerns.