LENR based on SO(4) physics model

Quote from Alan Smith

Roger Stringham is pretty old now, and has a comfortable life in Hawaii. He would never fully let go of the tech, at one point refusing to accept many millions of dollars for it.

I hope his son will go on with the research!

Unzicker last week did a Gootube talk on S3 and today on rotations of S3, that is, SO(4).

Oh I hope that Unzicker and Wyttenbach get together and talk math and new physics!

I think Alexander would be very encouraged and intrigued by Jurg's work.

One muon source in the middle of a Dt fusion tank looks very nice but is not very optimum regarding the fusion vessel volume, fusion point distance to walls, muon decay length to Dt gas, tritium handling, heat extraction, operating redundancy of the complete system or muon thermalizing materials. We are designing a system that will be able to operate 24/7 even if half of the muon sources are down.

We all believe that you can get COP >1 with the Holmlid muon production reaction.

But we also know that D/T muon catalyzed fusion produces a more or less unstoppable load of 14MeV neutrons, if you try to scale up the reaction to some MW. The big advantage in your case is that the reaction volume can be much, much smaller than an ITER Tokamak. There is also no deadly risk from damaging the flux containing magnets. Nevertheless we here do talk of 10meter thick Boron concrete walls!

But how to harvest the 14MeV neutron energy, that is the main energy component ? (Same problem in ITER only 10'000x worse because of diluted flux).

I'm personally not a friend of dirty nuclear reactions albeit these are physically interesting. I only did join physics again because I see a clear path for clean cold fusion. So you will enter tough game!

Quote from Alan Smith

Formulas for magnitudes of the spinning magnetic field (SMF) produced by protons, electrons and neutrons are derived. Interaction mechanism between each group of particles and with others produced spinning magnetic force (SM-force) of different magnitudes. Energies resulted from these interactions and mass changed are derived.

THE_SPINNING_MAGNETIC_FORCE (1).pdf

Alan Smith : Did you get a Nigeria letter?? Not even funny...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Alan Smith : Did you get a Nigeria letter?? Not neven funny...

I skimmed it, doesn't seem too sketchy besides insignificant linguistic technicalities. Wish there was more theoretical application of the implications though. Legitness becomes palatable with logical application. Is their region your issue or is the paper critically flawed from a scientific perspective?

10 m concrete?, no no, this is not s runaway system. Easier to just use a water cooled jacket or liquid Hydrogen.

Neutron shielding with heat extraction already exists and can be delivered from several companies.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1738573319305212

Quote from SindreZG

https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1738573319305212

This is to block the tiny neutron flux from a proton beam.

You should really look at the neutron flux from a 10MW reactor at least!

Quote from Ahlfors

"Coherent states in matter can spontaneously form due to the interaction with the radiative component of the electromagnetic field.

The paper is classic SM (standard model) nonsens. A proton will never catch an electron to form a neutron under what ever condition.

But SO(4) physics shows that a group of coherent protons can form 3-He and 4-He. During this process neutrons can form out as both 3-He and 4-He in reality contain no neutron substructure. This means the formation of 3-He from protons emits neutrons.

It's grand time that all this SM nonsense stops as it really does not help us to make progress.

Quote from Wyttenbach

The paper is classic SM (standard model) nonsens. A proton will never catch an electron to form a neutron under what ever condition.

But isn't electron capture by a proton a common method of radioactive decay, well evidenced without resorting specifically to the standard model? From the most accurate science reference on earth, wikipedia

Some common radioisotopes that decay solely by electron capture include:

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

But isn't electron capture by a proton a common method of radioactive decay, well evidenced without resorting specifically to the standard model?

This simply is statistics. Inside a nucleus there are no free protons/electrons and very often also no neutrons. For example 4-He contains no neutrons albeit the tables do write Z=2,N=2 what is obviously wrong. You cannot split off a neutron from 4-He and simply get 3-He or the other way round.

All nucleus internal bonds are based on p-e bonds with different winding numbers. If a nucleus captures an electron then a complex transformation happens where the external charge gets reduced by 1. But if e.g Z goes from even to odd then the electron just helps to reconstruct the "missing neutron" like structure. The other way round a neutron would disappear.

Quote from Shane D.

Don't blame Ahlfors. He put it in Clearance, and I moved it here.

No problem also no blame: It is just curious how many people waste their live time with nonsensical work. Further it's not a long time since I discovered the 4-He structure and formation mechanism from protons only. It's anyway hard to digest. Who will correct all the text books?

Quote from Wyttenbach

This simply is statistics. Inside a nucleus there are no free protons/electrons and very often also no neutrons. For example 4-He contains no neutrons albeit the tables do write Z=2,N=2 what is obviously wrong.

You are saying helium-4 has no neutrons? Doesn't the atomic mass, charge, every other measurable attribute say it does have 2 neutrons? How is it "obviously" wrong? That is a strong expression indicating only fools would think otherwise. If you have a different model that says otherwise, then great, please share the equations and predictions. But please don't say basic atomic models are "obviously wrong". That kind of behavior starts to go down the trail of the "I know everything and all these fools know nothing" which is not a good look, nor conducive to convincing others

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

You are saying helium-4 has no neutrons? Doesn't the atomic mass, charge, every other measurable attribute say it does have 2 neutrons? How is it "obviously" wrong? That is a strong expression indicating only fools would think otherwise. If you have a different model that says otherwise, then great, please share the equations and predictions. But please don't say basic atomic models are "obviously wrong". That kind of behavior starts to go down the trail of the "I know everything and all these fools know nothing" which is not a good look, nor conducive to convincing others

A helium like compound couldn't measured without neutrons, it would be 2 shrunken H2 snuggled together.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

You are saying helium-4 has no neutrons? Doesn't the atomic mass, charge, every other measurable attribute say it does have 2 neutrons?

I promulgated the (He =2n +2d ) tradition for years..

how else could we counteract the repulsive proton force

except with the strong force from the 2 neutrons .

that's why helium has no third ionisation energy

Helium formed from 4xp? ... just doesn't make common sense.

Here is another view ..(He =udd + udd+ uud +uud)

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

Ic only we could crack open helium to see what's there

I doubt whether we would see two neutrons and two protons as separate entities..

as depicted in the text books

I really need that SO(4)- 4 -dummies course so I can theorise down to the 1.3 eV level

like Wyttenbach..in The proton, electron structure, its resonances and fusion products (NPP2.2)

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

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

A dummies course would be highly desirable. The gap between the SO(4) insights of Wyttenbachand ours is currently very high, causing even some frustrations.
I tried to grasp the papers of Jurg, but failed partly up till now. Which LENR-Forum members do fully understand them? (Just curious).

I will start a retry for giving a more simple intorduction as also most physicists just know what they learnt and no longer are able to do basic reasoning...

It would also be good to see a first practical LENR application based on that theory.