SAM Model:-
Back in 1932 Nobel prizewinners Cockroft and Walton were thinking along similar lines, they said:-
This was at a time when Chadwick had just discovered the neutron and Rutherford considered it to be
a proton containing a bound electron, hence they say " 3 protons and 2 electrons "
I think Jurg would argue that Rutherford was/is right
"Since about six months SO(4) physics just uses electrons and protons to model all mass - including the neutron of course"
Cheers Pete..
Display MoreTalking about orbit, you should understand the existence of electron deep orbit(n=0).
n=0 is the unknow orbit to nuclear physics researcher so it cause the difficulty in understanding the mechanism of cold fusion.
Pre-existing work of of GUTP, SAM, SO(4) or the standard model with Q field theory is not correct
Electron deep orbit theory is developed by the theoretical researchers and the evidence is available.
paper link
Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply From Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30250.95688
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27304.49926
This is conseptually exactly the same as dense hydrogen which is a condensed EM state that enables a whole spectrum of electroweak/magnetic and relativistic interactions. So in a general conseptual sense you are "right". The true mechanism is possible in more than one of those theoretical models because it stands on basic principles that don't require measurements beyond what most of those models accept. All that is required is hydrogen and a garden of metals, conductors and semiconductors with the right properties. For ease of understanding, this is like kneeling or a posture of prayer for the atom, you don't have to know what is under the ground to get closer to it snd change your posture. Same with electrons and the hydrogen atom. Power is releases on your electromagnetic knees 😊🙏🏽. Hence why one can insist that these theories have right parts and must therefore not be far from what I have described.
This is conseptually exactly the same as dense hydrogen which is a condensed EM state that enables a whole spectrum of electroweak/magnetic and relativistic interactions. So in a general conseptual sense you are "right". The true mechanism is possible in more than one of those theoretical models because it stands on basic principles that don't require measurements beyond what most of those models accept. All that is required is hydrogen and a garden of metals, conductors and semiconductors with the right properties. For ease of understanding, this is like kneeling or a posture of prayer for the atom, you don't have to know what is under the ground to get closer to it snd change your posture. Same with electrons and the hydrogen atom. Power is releases on your electromagnetic knees 😊🙏🏽. Hence why one can insist that these theories have right parts and must therefore not be far from what I have described.
This is not conceptual but is based on the theoretical study and experiments which proved the existence of electron deep orbit.
I think you have not read my paper, so you should reply after you read and understand my paper.
Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply From Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30250.95688
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27304.49926
I am grasping the jist of this. The point I am making is there is a big difference between a hydrogen atom merging with a nucleus as a neutron and a dense hydrogen dipole orbiting at relativistic speeds just outside the nuclei in pseudochemical EM arrangements. Both of these hypothoses have different scales of energy, one produces interesting rare effects and is a stablizing multi-element affair. That being said I am greatly intrigued by the model, it could overlap with what has been proposed along with other atom models.
I know SAM model and I totally agree with SAM model, however SAM model lacks the theoretical and experimental verification.
So I proposed the theoretical study which is electron deep orbit based theory of neutron.
That is in the following my paper.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
Display MoreThis is not conceptual but is based on the theoretical study and experiments which proved the existence of electron deep orbit.
I think you have not read my paper, so you should reply after you read and understand my paper.
Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply From Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30250.95688
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
Of course this is debatably proven in the lab, you are one of many people who have released theoretical study and experiment measurements with favorable conclusions of H*, better will come after. I am largely agreeing with you. The "Deep electron" hydrogen atom can be orbiting the core itself.
Of course this is debatably proven in the lab, you are one of many people who have released theoretical study and experiment measurements with favorable conclusions of H*, better will come after. I am largely agreeing with you. The "Deep electron" hydrogen atom can be orbiting the core itself.
Thanks, so I would like to add one more important aspect of the issue of Cold Fusion.
The Deep Electron Orbit is not implemented in nuclear physics, and I think that Cold fusion must based on nuclear physics and So nuclear physics must correct the mistakes.
Thus I am sending this information to the major university and research institute, however they have not replied at all.
To correct the mistake of neutron model because it shows that neutrinos do not exists in a sense that neutrino hypo does not hold based on the correct neutron model.
So I hope all of the Cold Fusion Researcher notice this mistake and they will request to their colleague of nuclear physics researcher to think on the correct theory.
The mistake was in 1932, between WW1 and WW2 and the number of nuclear physics established the nuclear physics theory.
But lately the number is so large and so it seems to be practically impossible to correct the mistake at once.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
So many things to talk about...
In the Structured Atom Model (SAM) we see three (3) "types" of electrons in fact. The normal known ones called "outer electrons". Then by default the "inner/nuclear electrons" and a third type which may or may not correspond to the "Electron Deep Orbital - electrons".
The third type we call "quasi inner electron". We chose this name because, due to the fractal growth of the nucleus (somewhat akin to a tree or antlers) in Carbon groupings (icosahedrons), some outer electrons can in heavier nuclei be pulled in between the branches of the structure. So in effect these electrons would be floating right above the "surface" of the nucleus or rather in between while not being a real inner electron in between the protons and part of the nucleus. Since they are within the boundaries of the nucleus, they are in effect no longer an outer electron and "seen" as a inner electron, or neutron in the SM. Hence the name quasi, since it is an outer electron, but counts as in inner one.
Here is a random depiction of what I was just talking about. Colored spheres are simply protons, highlighted is the "quasi inner electron". (Cr depicting the 2 Quasi inner e)
Display MoreSo many things to talk about...
In the Structured Atom Model (SAM) we see three (3) "types" of electrons in fact. The normal known ones called "outer electrons". Then by default the "inner/nuclear electrons" and a third type which may or may not correspond to the "Electron Deep Orbital - electrons".
The third type we call "quasi inner electron". We chose this name because, due to the fractal growth of the nucleus (somewhat akin to a tree or antlers) in Carbon groupings (icosahedrons), some outer electrons can in heavier nuclei be pulled in between the branches of the structure. So in effect these electrons would be floating right above the "surface" of the nucleus or rather in between while not being a real inner electron in between the protons and part of the nucleus. Since they are within the boundaries of the nucleus, they are in effect no longer an outer electron and "seen" as a inner electron, or neutron in the SM. Hence the name quasi, since it is an outer electron, but counts as in inner one.
Here is a random depiction of what I was just talking about. Colored spheres are simply protons, highlighted is the "quasi inner electron". (Cr depicting the 2 Quasi inner e)
YES SAM model has the complete different nucleus model from standard theory.
The current nuclear physics' nucleus model is incorrect after the introduction of neutron as a fundamental particles.
Before the introduction of neutron as a fundamental particle, neutron is thought to be tightly bound proton-electron pair, but Heisenberg introduced neutron to stabilize the nucleus in 1932, when the mistake happened. The time is between WW1 and WW2, so the collaboration of nuclear physics researcher is difficult for the nuclear bomb.
In case that neutron has the electron deep orbit which bind the proton and electron in the tight state, the nucleus need to be constituted by protons and internal electron, which is the original nucleus theory.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27304.49926
NPP 2.0 is based on toroidal orbits only. But the tori have a higher order. SAM is a LEGO brick model that fails to show the already classically known s and p waves. SO(4) physics can shows how these alpha particle waves evolve. This knowledge is key for LENR and thus I will only publish it when people start to work with the model. Just giving away the fruits for nothing is the wrong decision.
SO(4) physics can shows how these alpha particle waves evolve.==>refer to my post on SO(4).
SO(4) is correct just because it is based on the real science of electron deep orbit theory, which was the common understanding among researcher in the 1930S.
This is the same as SAM assumption that neutron is not a fundamental particle but tightly bound proton-electron pair, and nucleus is constituted by proton and internal electron.
Refre to my paper. I explain the history in this paper.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
NPP 2.0 is based on toroidal orbits only. But the tori have a higher order. SAM is a LEGO brick model that fails to show the already classically known s and p waves. SO(4) physics can shows how these alpha particle waves evolve. This knowledge is key for LENR and thus I will only publish it when people start to work with the model. Just giving away the fruits for nothing is the wrong decision.
AS I explained, SO(4) is correct because it is based on the correct neutron model.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
Of course this is debatably proven in the lab, you are one of many people who have released theoretical study and experiment measurements with favorable conclusions of H*, better will come after. I am largely agreeing with you. The "Deep electron" hydrogen atom can be orbiting the core itself.
This is the experimental evidence on the electron deep orbit.
A recent presentation at ICCF23 has pushed deeper into this subject, proposing a logical structure for the nucleus consistent with known atomic properties. I mentioned it in the ICCF23 thread, but it's worth adding here since it's pertinent to the topic:
Theoretical possibility of producing platinum from tungsten using low-energy nuclear reactions
Edit: Author looks at Iwamura transmutations. After studying Edo , he became a fan of LENR. Shane D.
Display MoreSAM Model:-
Back in 1932 Nobel prizewinners Cockroft and Walton were thinking along similar lines, they said:-
This was at a time when Chadwick had just discovered the neutron and Rutherford considered it to be
a proton containing a bound electron, hence they say " 3 protons and 2 electrons "
I think Jurg would argue that Rutherford was/is right
"Since about six months SO(4) physics just uses electrons and protons to model all mass - including the neutron of course"
Cheers Pete..
Ratherford made mistake that neutron is a fundamental particles.
Actually neutron is tightly bound proton-electron pair.
This is really important for cold fusion.
because bond compression theory is based on this physics.
>Since about six months SO(4) physics just uses electrons and protons to model all mass - including the neutron of course"
===>this theory is correct just because it is based on the hypo that neutron is proton which is wrapped by electron in his paper.
But this is only his assumption not proved ih his paper. SAM model also had no evidence thepretically.
This is studied by vavra Jerry.
Neutron to be Tightly Bound Proton-Electron Pair and Nucleus to be Constituted by Protons and Internal Electrons
Yes! (just did).
This link brings you to our publications page, which contains all (most) what we presented in the past years. The video (as a zip file) and PDF of the SAM presentation at the "14th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals" are there as well.
https://structuredatom.org/publications
Our thanks go to the organization for helping us out by making sure the video was shown (Since we could not make it to the conference)
ps. There was some talk afterwards, but we could not make it out via the Zoom connection. If there are any questions, comments or feedback otherwise, please contact us, all details are on our website.
https://structuredatom.org/foundation
Edo
The presentation we just gave (off-line video) deals specifically with the topic of the potential for 'missing element configurations'. These would mostly be what we know of as 'excited nuclei'. Some of these predicted elements would decay into the stable isotope of an element, i.e. Ca44 would be the result of a missing element in between Ca and Sc.
Then there are a couple of those missing element configurations that would be a noble gas. These are suspected to be stable.
Positrons we do not acknowledge in SAM, because the incoming e- (to be destroyed electron by a positron) will take its place in the nucleus, and therefore trans-mutate downwards in element nr. The gamma rays are created during the creation / destruction of the involved deuteron structure.
Also, We can see that this presentation is not the place to start for the SAM model. We gave this presentation without all the basics of the model and the many topics discussed and described. Many questions and remarks are in the book and... in quite a few short video's. These video's are created by Gareth of "Seethepattern" Youtube channel and are very useful to understand this whole topic.
Mass is a whole other topic that is not yet entirely solved for sure. We do have a very good understanding though thanks to the model of what is happening and how to "solve" this.
We are very much a work in progress, considering the huge topic and connections such a model would have.
Key point I would like to point out is that SAM neatly predicts fission in uneven parts, while all other models show a more or less even distribution in fission products. SAM has the products 'spot on'!
Edo
I have to ask Edo and his team because their work was presented at Assisi.
During questions after the presentation , Czerski who followed with interest this presentation said, we couldn't erase everything things around the nucleus structure.
Some parameters not speculative, only experiments datas must remain to be always considered.
He criticized friendly your work , because you didn't take in account the magic numbers for example ?
We (SAM team) tried to submit a paper and it was rejected because SAM (Structured Atom Model) does not use "point particles" but actual dimensions for Protons etc. Also the whole model is based on the numbers, data, observations the scientific community has established, but "we do not follow the laws of nature".
So I am really curious now....
How many here believe the neutron to be a fundamental particle? And how many believe that this 'fundamental' particle is still more massive in the nucleus? since the mass defect increases with the number of neutrons going down the PTE (more n, more mass defect...).
How many here use point particles and thus ignore reality?
A model that is developed and stands on its own, good or bad, highly accurate or flawed should not be shunned because it does not follow the current atomic model(s)!
This is the reason there is no real debate in science, let alone an honest one! Also, since we all believe to be correct and have all the truth we only defend our own piece of the puzzle and forget to look at the whole and the collective interest. The real truth is that we need to acknowledge that "We do NOT know" and have " very very poor understanding of nature and reality (physics)" The current thinking will never lead us further, just more sunk into the marsh, Why?, because we do not even have the basics right! and use models as we see fit that help us strengthen our perception and ego.
Leading me to the last question of the day, What is the correct atomic model and what are the implications of that for physics and LENR in specific?
Edo
Display MoreWe (SAM team) tried to submit a paper and it was rejected because SAM (Structured Atom Model) does not use "point particles" but actual dimensions for Protons etc. Also the whole model is based on the numbers, data, observations the scientific community has established, but "we do not follow the laws of nature".
So I am really curious now....
How many here believe the neutron to be a fundamental particle? And how many believe that this 'fundamental' particle is still more massive in the nucleus? since the mass defect increases with the number of neutrons going down the PTE (more n, more mass defect...).
How many here use point particles and thus ignore reality?
A model that is developed and stands on its own, good or bad, highly accurate or flawed should not be shunned because it does not follow the current atomic model(s)!
This is the reason there is no real debate in science, let alone an honest one! Also, since we all believe to be correct and have all the truth we only defend our own piece of the puzzle and forget to look at the whole and the collective interest. The real truth is that we need to acknowledge that "We do NOT know" and have " very very poor understanding of nature and reality (physics)" The current thinking will never lead us further, just more sunk into the marsh, Why?, because we do not even have the basics right! and use models as we see fit that help us strengthen our perception and ego.
Leading me to the last question of the day, What is the correct atomic model and what are the implications of that for physics and LENR in specific?
Edo
May I ask which Journal made the rejection of the paper?
