I just had read that paper while looking for the researchgate page of the NASA paper.
What is the goal of this research? I always thought we want a reaction with a COP >5. An excess neutron every 30'' just shows marginal reactions are going on. Others like Arata did get tons of neutrons, when asymmetric LENR to 3-He instead of 4-He did happen.
A 1990 paper from last NASA references
"An excess neutron every 30'' just shows marginal reactions are going on"
Neutron-oil salesman, GRC is the last target
What is the goal of this research? I always thought we want a reaction with a COP >5. An excess neutron every 30'' just shows marginal reactions are going on. Others like Arata did get tons of neutrons, when asymmetric LENR to 3-He instead of 4-He did happen.
Wyttenbach , My interest in this research is because it validates some long held tenants of LENR and open the gates for further interest in the topic. This is mainstream acknowledgement, which is good.
They used Pt as anode in both experimental and control, so this would answer Eric Walker 's doubts about the potential radiation detected coming from the emitting Pt isotopes.
Curbina in the case of Frank Gordon's tabletop experiment, I was wondering whether induced alpha decay of Pt (190Pt) was possibly the source of the weak ionizing radiation (perhaps electrons), on the order of 3-30 eV, that Bruce__H mentioned. If 190Pt was the source, that would be very cool and would be new physics, because, theoretically, alpha decay is not something you can induce in a tabletop experiment. It would be a great day if subsequent investigation showed Frank's experiment to be reliable and reproduceable and that the important variable was the Pt anodes used in the codeposition. LENR would be vindicated. You'd no doubt want to swap out the anode material with something else as a step in putting such a conclusion on a firmer basis.
In the case of the NASA neutron bubble detector experiments and controls, Pt was present in both cases and so not really controlled for; the control runs in were apparently controlling for other variables. So the relationship of platinum to the NASA setup is unclear and not shown to be neutral.
Was there an indirect relation? Assume for the moment that platinum is involved in the NASA findings. Perhaps the control solution decreased codeposition of platinum from the anode and so platinum still played a role, but less of one. But more importantly, in case of the NASA experiment, the observable is the measured dose in the dosimeters, which could well be due to some phenomenon different from that causing the eV-level ionizing radiation seen in Frank Gordon's experiment. And the NASA experiment involved electrochemical cells rather than interaction with hydrogen. The NASA neutron experiment must be considered on its own terms. Presumably there are neutrons involved, and, in the case of the triple pits in similar CR-39 experiments, alpha particles as well. It's not obvious on its face that there's a connection to Frank Gordon's experiment, although there might be one. The differences in the two experiments are significant, making the experiments hard to compare. This is the case, even if neither experiment is due to artifact and some form of LENR is involved in both.
Wyttenbach , My interest in this research is because it validates some long held tenants of LENR and open the gates for further interest in the topic. This is mainstream acknowledgement, which is good.
In the Assisi summary I did show a delta background spectrum with known gamma lines 10x above background. What more do you need??
>>>> I did show a delta background spectrum with known gamma lines 10x above background. What more do you need??
I need you show NASA and CLEANHME how do it, and the whole question [if confirmed] is settled.
I need you show NASA and CLEANHME
The problem is these folks have no real clue of dense matter pyhsics. There is no electron screeing in LENR. This is the best joke since Newtons Apple - where I still raise the question what would have happened when Willhelm Tell....
The problem is these folks have no real clue of dense matter pyhsics. There is no electron screeing in LENR. This is the best joke since Newtons Apple - where I still raise the question what would have happened when Willhelm Tell....
Wyttenbach , Can you share a link to your Assisi presentation here or in other thread or point me where to look it? I certainly think I have read it but now I am sure I did not properly digest it, so I need to review it, understand it and share it with key people that might start opening some eyes. I know for you this is self evident, but a big part is missing, and that is widespread communication of your ideas to the people doing similar research in order for them to see how they are right or wrong in their interpretation of their data.
Wyttenbach , Can you share a link to your Assisi presentation here or in other thread or point me where to look it? I certainly think I have read it but now I am sure I did not properly digest it, so I need to review it, understand it and share it with key people that might start opening some eyes. I know for you this is self evident, but a big part is missing, and that is widespread communication of your ideas to the people doing similar research in order for them to see how they are right or wrong in their interpretation of their data.
Also, a basic description of the SO(4) stuff would be nice.
Low level excuse. Show true and good EXPERIMENTAL data at CERN, and CERN will follow. I assure you.
Latest SO(4) The proton and its resonances NPP2.3.pdf
poster (V04) ISCMNS Assisi:Poster ISCMNS Assisi 2019 04.pdf chptr. 13.1 Most active lines vs. background. There are 80 more lines...
"Assisi nel Vento" address is NOT Esplanade des Particules 1, Geneva.
"Assisi nel Vento" address is NOT Esplanade des Particules 1, Geneva.
You have to admit that the work of Wyttenbach requires a lot of “level up” just to be able to grasp it in a meaningful way. The topology used for modelation, and its rotation in 4D is a visualization challenge. I downloaded a thesis just to See if I could fully grasp the concept of 4D topological rotations. It helped to some degree but every time I engage the study of Jürg’s work I quickly find myself searching for material to upgrade my understanding of the concepts he uses to present the SO(4) model, just to get up to the point that I am capable of assessing if I have reached the basic level of knowledge to truly understand what he is saying. So far I am still far from that, and I’m afraid this is a show stopper for many that don’t even have the intention to get a better grasp of his ideas.
So far I am still far from that, and I’m afraid this is a show stopper for many that don’t even have the intention to get a better grasp of his ideas.
Thinking in 4D - at elast needed - requires a lot of mental training. You must be able to imagine how a 3D body moves (rotates around) in 4D with 4 rotations its 5D...It took me also more than a year just to get into it and much longer to understand (to some extent) it.
But at the end you can calulate the 6-Li gamma lines. Or you can show why Nickel has some problem in LENR and why it works with to low efficiency...
So how shall we teach it. No classic samples are available!
... "requires a lot of “level up” just to be able to grasp it in a meaningful way."
Deep theological insights perhaps? Not for the W's work in itself, but for large majority of people orbitating around "Assisi nel Vento" - not exactly a seminal meeting at MIT.
Assisi is well known for the famous Casa Andrea Rossi...And of course we did sleep in holy beds and got the eternal inspiration from the holy Francis we already did meet the year before in Oasi termi!
Latest SO(4) The proton and its resonances NPP2.3.pdf
I don't understand basic things here. What space are the rotations supposed to be in? Plainly not a space of internal variables like in the Standard Model. Are the rotations in a physical space that is supposed to replace space-time?
Dense matter has a different sapce/time structure. Time is co-linear with the space dimensions. At the De Broglie radius 6D dense matter space unfolds to the classic space.
I don't understand basic things here. What space are the rotations supposed to be in? Plainly not a space of internal variables like in the Standard Model. Are the rotations in a physical space that is supposed to replace space-time?
As Already said, reading the work of Wyttenbach requires a basis of 4D topology just to get what a rotation means. But that will get you just a bit ahead, there are many other things to get up to speed to just to be able to check for oneself the logical consistency of what is being proposed. I keep skipping ahead to what it can predict.
