I'll post it all in here if you like...then Bob can decide how silly it is himself.
A less grumpy version of this would be to say that when somebody asks questions to which they know the answer, and I know they know the answer ,just to demonstrate how smart they are (possibly even to themselves) I find it annoying.
Sure. Post it all on the clearance thread so as not do distract from this one. I ask questions to understand what is going on.
Here is another data plot from Russ George's "Atom Ecology" blog. I reproduce it here for the purpose of critique and review.
This one is from Mr George's June 10, 2018 blog entry called "Proper tools often lead to amazing scientific discoveries. The picture below is from the very top of that blog. It has no labels, shows no units, and does not bear a caption.
In remarks in the body of his blog post, George remarks that he has obtained a NaI gamma spectrometer and that it has yielded "... a forest of distinct gamma peaks, as seen in the image at the top of this post." So the image above is a gamma spectrum. It is certainly complex! I don't know whether this spectrum was obtained during one of the periodic gamma outbursts George sees, or from an era of elevated gamma emission stimulated by one of the protocols he claims he has, or was just taken during low (but above background) gamma emission that is apparently present most of the time.
In remarks in the body of his blog post, George remarks that he has obtained a NaI gamma spectrometer and that it has yielded "... a forest of distinct gamma peaks, as seen in the image at the top of this post."
I published some details in my Assisi summery/SO(4) main achievments paper. I also posted here in the forum some delta background pictures. The two orange lines above are the Americium lines used for calibration.
I published some details in my Assisi summery/SO(4) main achievments paper. I also posted here in the forum some delta background pictures. The two orange lines above are the Americium lines used for calibration.
I do recall this same spectrum being posted, with more details, on the old Androcles thread here on LENR Forum. Unfortunately that entire thread has since been deleted.
Coincidentally, I have just been looking through some of your material for exactly this point ...i.e., gamma spectra measured for the Atom Ecology system. The document I have been looking at is titled "Nuclear and particle physics version 2.0 <SO(4) physics>" and I downloaded it through a link (WyttenbachModel_Poster15 (003)) on Russ George's blog. I don't see anything about Atom Ecology spectra, however, so I suspect it is not the one you are referring to. Can you please post a link to the one you mean? Thanks.
Can you please post a link to the one you mean? Thanks.
Just go to: https://www.researchgate.net/p…hysics-20-new-SO4-physics
I have posted that link several times in several threads Wyttenbach, specially when people asks for your publications, I send them to your Researchgate page, but somehow they seem to never go the extra mile to download the papers and read them. I know understanding them is a whole other league, but I have them around and have felt the need to do a lot more reading for getting a better grasp. Understanding what a rotation means took a good lot of 4D topology reading.
Mind you, I don't admit I was wrong. I just quietly fix the mistake, upload a new version of the paper, and hope that no one notices. That's the beauty of being the librarian.
Librarians and landlords have a lot in common. Plausible deniability for one 
. Plausible deniability for one
I think that's very true. I am more concerned with being labelled as deniably plausible.
I have posted that link several times in several threads Wyttenbach, specially when people asks for your publications, I send them to your Researchgate page, but somehow they seem to never go the extra mile to download the papers and read them. I know understanding them is a whole other league, but I have them around and have felt the need to do a lot more reading for getting a better grasp. Understanding what a rotation means took a good lot of 4D topology reading.
Maybe we all should go there and load the papers 50x each, and beat Rossi’s Reads total.
I have posted that link several times in several threads
The specific link to a typical gamma spec readout is
https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog
The thing that I have almost got after 12 months of thinking about it is theb4D neutron hole..of 336.5 KeV
and the idea that it can be half filled and quarter filled. with 3D coupling.
.. there has to be a certain sized hole that the energy packets can fit into.. designed into the system.. by the creator of Baryons..
..
I am still hoping for some sort of primer on Wyttenbach's SO(4) ideas. An idea about such a thing was booted about a couple of months ago and it would still be useful. I don't even understand what 4D space the rotations are supposed to be in.
I am still hoping for some sort of primer on Wyttenbach's SO(4) ideas.
You definitely need a certain level in math e.g. topolgy, 4D EM theory ( not taught at universities) and higher order rigid rotating mass mechanics (taught in mechanical engineering..!). There will be no chance for lower grades to grasp it.
I think this is at least part of it...
The 4D math needs to be tightly coordinated with measured nuclear parameters such as magnetic moment/mass-energy( as in gamma levels)
otherwise it can be used to construct 4D elephants.
One of Pavsic recent papers
"It is shown that the generators of Clifford algebras behave as creation and annihilation operators for fermions and bosons.
They can create extended objects, such as strings and branes, and can induce curved metric of our spacetime.
At a fixed point, we consider the Clifford algebra Cl(8) of the 8-dimensional phase space,
and show that one quarter of the basis elements of Cl(8) can represent all known particles ofthe first generation of the Standard model,
whereas the other three quarters are invisible to us and can thus correspond to dark matter.
https://www.researchgate.net/p…edResearchPublicationItem
Pavsic writes something useful about the 4th dimension being assigned to the time domain ...not being time at all..
"The fourth dimension was identified with time, x0 ≡ t. Such identification, though historically very useful, has turned out to be misleading [19, 20, 21],[9]. In fact, x0 is not the true time, it is just a coordinate of the fourth dimension."
However the homage Pavsic pays to the Dirac equation looks like Standard Religion to me
la 'iilah 'iilaa mueadilat dyrak
"There is no God but the Dirac Equation....
However there must be something better than QED/QCD.
If they cannot even construct magnetic moments for one neutron and one proton
how can they construct theories for
deuterium 1n 1p
He3.. He4..
Li6 Li7 etc etc.. gamma levels... nuclear decay...
I was looking at Wikipedia about magnetic moments
It is 'encouraging" bullshit propaganda.
which covers up a horrible contradiction called " a discrepancy"
and the truth that a SM calculation will NEVER be available... not just "not yet available."
from Wikipedia...
"For a proton, the end result of this calculation is that the magnetic moment of the neutron is given by μp = 4/3 μu − 1/3 μd,
where μu and μd are the magnetic moments for the up and down quarks, respectively.
This result combines the intrinsic magnetic moments of the quarks with their orbital magnetic moments.
| p | 4/3 μu − 1/3 μd | 2.79 | 2.793 |
| n | 4/3 μd − 1/3 μu | −1.86 | −1.913 |
While the results of this calculation are encouraging,
the masses of the up or down quarks were assumed to be 1/3 the mass of a nucleon,[18]
whereas the masses of these quarks are only about 1% that of a nucleon.[19]
The discrepancy stems from the complexity of the Standard Model for nucleons,
where most of their mass originates in the gluon fields and virtual particles that are essential aspects of the strong force.[19]
Further, the complex system of quarks and gluons that constitute a neutron requires a relativistic treatment.
A calculation of nucleon magnetic moments from first principles is not yet available.
Attempted to add missing content in Wikipedia open comment area long ago and was sent a 3 page nasty after they deleted it.
they are defensively not part of th..
Here are 2 more data plots from Russ George's "Atom Ecology" blog. I reproduce them here for the purpose of critique and review.
The first one is from George's blog entry "Cold cold fusion ecology" of October 13, 2018. The figure is from the very top of the blog entry and is completely unlabeled, however from the body of the text we understand that it shows an 8 hour stretch of spontaneous gamma activity.
The blue trace is lab background and the red one is activity from one of 8 reactor units in the lab. George has posted spontaneous gamma outbursts before. The special point here is that this reactor was not receiving any external heating at all when it began to burst. George notes that this was the only one showing elevated gamma activity at the time. If so then the previously noted synchronous activity across multiple units is absent here.
The second data plot is from George's blog post "The daily heresy of 07 May 2019. Once again the plot axes are unlabeled, however this time there is a title and a legend printed on the plot ..
According to the text accompanying the plot, the "knotch" is a dip in gamma counts intentionally evoked by some sort of manipulation to experimental conditions (exactly what change is not reported). According the George this is evidence that the elevated gamma emissions are not simply lab artefacts. All gamma activity here is said to be coming from reactors with not external heating input. Although it is difficult to discern on the time scale shown, I see no evidence of ongoing (i.e., outside the notch) synchronization between the gamma signals from the 4 reactors. In particular, in an earlier blog post ("Huygens synchronicity observed in Atom-Ecology and cold fusion", July 9 2018) George had posted a plot showing gamma activity strongly periodic at about 4 cycles per 10 minutes which presumably was synchronous between 2 reactors (although he showed only 1 of the traces). I see no hint of that activity here.
I have now shown all of the data plots I could find in Russ George's Atom-Ecology blog poss between May 2018 and the present day, i.e., everything covering the dates for which the Atom-Ecology fuel was in play. Here they are all in one place. There are 7 of them. Most are from 2018 and one is from May 2019. Five show gamma count time-series, one shows a gamma spectrum, and two show reactore temperature time sequences.
I have now shown all of the data plots I could find in Russ George's Atom-Ecology blog poss between May 2018 and the present day, i.e.,
Unluckily, for seeing more, we need some additional money for enhancing the lab. Otherwise we just will have some more fun...
I can tell you about this one - those spontaneous gamma bursts were from a cold reactor in the small hours of the morning and were completely unexpected and (from memory) never repeated. We could only assume that some remote cosmic event was responsible, but could not determine what that might have been from astronomy data. It was then and remains a puzzle. As for different graphs showing different things, we were running multiple experiments with dozens of different fuel candidates, and these would sometimes exhibit a unique feature not seen in other experiments. There are well over 5M data points from this series, which happily survived a malicious attack on our server.
