nkodama's dedicated thread of LENR theory

  • added on 2020/08/18

    I dropped the plan to use SOR and spectroscopic way

    because transition from ground state to DDL is almost impossible nuclear physics theory.

    we need information of Copmress of H- below.


    As I discussed in Cold Fusion mechanism from metal property not from nuclear physics.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6351-cold-fusion-mechanism-from-metal-property-not-from-nuclear-physcs/?postID=141562#post141562

    and I also found the paper of

    Cold Fusion used the metal property and we have the similar experiment of H- compress.

    https://www.jst.go.jp/pr/announce/20171031/index.html

    負電荷をもつ水素の新たな性質を発見 ~圧縮しやすく、金属原子間の相互作用をブロック~

    •Discovery of a New Property of Hydrogen with Negative Charge-Easy to compress and block interaction between metal atoms-



    I believe that this experiment is caused by DDL and so we can use this way for the hydrogen study.

    If the smaller hydrogen is stable we can use that sampe for the spectroscopic study.

    It is not clear so someone who knows the researcher of the below members.

    I sent message to 京都大学(Kyoto-university)

    •山本 隆文 京都大学 工学研究科 助教、陰山 洋 教授らの研究グループは、

    川上 隆輝 日本大学 准教授、John E. McGrady オックスフォード大学 教授、Michael A. Hayward 同教授らとの共同研究で

    someone who knows the menbers above, could you send the info of DDL and my hypo(Compress caused DDL state-smaller hydrogen) ?



    http://www.nikkei-science.com/?p=52072

    水素原子の研究の基本となるのは分光観測(光スペクトルの観測)。水素原子は基底状態では,電子はエネルギー準位が最も低い軌道(1S状態)にあるが,例えば2S状態や2P状態などエネルギー準位が高い軌道も多数存在する。そうした軌道間のエネルギー差に相当するエネルギーを持つ光子を電子が吸収すると,例えば1S状態から2P状態への遷移が起こる。また2Pから1Sに遷移する場合は,そのエネルギー差に相当するエネルギーを持つ光子を放出する。だから水素原子が吸収・放出する光の波長や振動数を精密に観測することで,電子の軌道を詳しく調べることができる。これが分光観測だ。逆に電子の軌道のエネルギーがよくわかっていれば,特定波長のレーザー光を照射することで電子の軌道遷移を起こすことができる。

    The basis of research on hydrogen atoms is spectroscopic observation (observation of optical spectrum). In the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the electrons are in the lowest energy level orbit (1S state), but there are many orbits with high energy levels such as 2S state and 2P state. When an electron absorbs a photon having an energy equivalent to the energy difference between such orbits, a transition from the 1S state to the 2P state occurs, for example. In addition, when it transits from 2P to 1S, it emits photons with energy equivalent to the energy difference. Therefore, by precisely observing the wavelength and frequency of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen atoms, the orbits of electrons can be investigated in detail. This is spectroscopic observation. On the contrary, if the energy of the electron orbit is well known, it is possible to cause the orbital transition of the electron by irradiating the laser light of a specific wavelength.

    Proposition

    (1)To find the researcher of hydrogen electron orbit with SOR and ask them to study to find DDL

    We have SOR lab in Japan and so Could you find the researcher who studies Hydrogen electron orbit in this article?

    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/a…su1932/57/4/57_4_528/_pdf

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/13492/


    KEK(高エネルギー研究所) is the best.

    http://www.spring8.or.jp/ja/ne…esearch_highlights/no_72/

    English page

    http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/

    https://coldfusionblog40835089…/05/maly_deep_dirac_i.pdf

    page-4 table1A


    Is 500MeV necessary to put electron to DDL????

    If so the available SOR facility is limitted.

  • Because average KE of DDL are of order 50 -- 250 MeV (depending on radial quantum number of the Dirac equation solution), I think 500 MeV would be even enough. But as Alan Smith said, the only way to prove it would be to test it experimentally, using spectroscopy.

  • I would like to find the researcher of high energy physics who can run the experiment to verify DDL.

    I will transfer 50% of my patent equity of D ion implantation trigger of cold fusion

    because the huge impact on physics and so the priority is verification of DDL.

    Now it is very difficult to talk with researcher in this field because they totally believe the physics today because hydrogen electron orbit theory is in the text book so it is easy to deny DDL.

    So I decided to put the priority on the verification of DDL.

    Actually my patent had the Notification of patent rejection from Japanese patent office and I asked the reason in Japan's Cold Fusion group in Facebook and one person told me that all of the researcher and company do not use the word of cold fusion to avoid the patent category of cold fusion and after the grant of the patent they tell in public that they have the cold fusion patent because patent office now think that cold fusion is non-science.

    I do not like this cheating so I decided to use word of cold fusion and not to try to avoid such categorization and so I had the notification of patent rejection.

    The most important reason is that my invention is based on the cold fusion mechanism and so I have no way to hide this.

    So I must put priority on the DDL verification to show the patent office that Cold Fusion is science.

    Moreover the impact of DDL is huge and current researchers believe the current theory of hydrogen electron orbit just because it is written in the physics textbook.

    Thus I want to change this situation for science and physics.

    send me email or private conversation in this forum if you are interested.

    my poatent

    new coldfusion electric power generator with D+ gas-flow trigger to create D2 in T site

  • I would like to confirm the current hydrogen electron orbit theory.


    here is the hydrogen spectral series

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

    and my question is that are there a uninterpreted week spectral caused by DDL in this line?


    DDL need the multiple photon


    This may be the reason why it is so difficult to find them directly, a’la 1920 measurements of optical lines. Probability of transition is small and one has to measure all photons

    to get ~510 keV line.

  • Stable deep electron orbits are completely screwed up nonsense. We would see them in electron scattering experiments as resonances --> NOP!


    The other problem is that the Dirac equation cannot be used below the Bohr level due to a physical mismatch between the dominating forces.


    You can always postulate mathematical correct physical nonsense like Mills stable Hydrinos or deep Dirac levels.


    Even worse all QM approaches miss the second spin axes and thus are an oversimplification of the physical situation.

  • I know some researchers are suspicious about DDL who insisted your way. But I do not find any other theory to predict Cold Fusion, and only DDL is the more reasonable explanation than other theories. Physicas always need the experiment and so why have not you(reseracher of cold fusion and fundamental physics) run experiments for a long time ????

    I think we Must think of the impact of DDL. This can offer the cause of ColdFusion and nore importantly the heydrogen is the abundant element in space and on earth so its fundamental property must be understood by the experiment without discussion.It is OK to insist the opinion of your theory of cold fusion

    but please think about the impact of DDL.Hydrogen electron orbit is so fundamental in physics and so we must fix the issue if it exists.

    It is not easy to discuss this kind of issue because everyone believed the standard theory just like”E pur si muove” by Galileo.


    Experiment first discussion next if we consider the impact.

  • the Dirac equation cannot be used below the Bohr level

    Dirac tried to use maths to model the electron to explain the muon..

    After a few years he produced a model.. in 1962.

    Dirac's conclusion is misleading..


    "The present theory has no electron spin, so it cannot agree accurately with experiment."


    https://royalsocietypublishing…bs/10.1098/rspa.1962.0124


    Dirac should have written


    ""The present theory has no electron spin, so it does not agree with reality. at all"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_membrane

  • Physicas always need the experiment and so why have not you


    Why not contact Zhang , Fu and Dai in Shanghai..

    physics experiment always needs finance and equipment.. maybe they have some

    "

    In this work we provide a new experimental method to
    explore the deep Dirac levels. The DDLs may be populated by high intensive lasers

    through the mechanism of e+e − pair or the NEET,

    Because the DDL orbit is very close to the nucleus,

    the electron capture (EC) rate can be enhanced greatly.

    We estimate that the EC rate will be about 108 times higher if the DDL exist.

    The characteristic EC decay γ-ray could be used as the indicator of the DDL’s existence

    "

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.07837.pdf

  • I sent a several email to his university and his personal email address, but no reply.

    the paper was issued on (Dated: March 27, 2017),

    bu it has passed 3years , and so I think they failed the experiment or did not find DDL.

    So I review their theory in the paper of Experimentally Study the Deep Dirac Levels with High-Intensity Lasers , III. POPULATE ELECTRONS TO THE DDL and

    So I think their method is not good because they use e*e-pair creation close to the nucleus

    but I do not think the possibility is very low compared with the lifetime of such pair.

    III. POPULATE ELECTRONS TO THE DDL

    Directly populating DDLs via photo emission must be highly forbidden, because otherwise a lot of high energy ambient photons can be observed due to the fact that the DDL is about 0.5 MeV below the normal Bohr ground state.

    The DDLs may be populated via electron-positron pair effect.

    When a relativistic electron approach a nucleus,e−e+pairs can produced through the following two pro-cesses

    Z+e−→Z+ 2e−+e+(11)

    Z+e−→Z+e−+γ→Z+ 2e−+e+(12)

    >The larger the electrical field, i.e. the closer to the nu-clear, the higher the possibility is.

    >Therefore, the electrons in thee+e−pairs produced near the nuclei have higher chance to be bounded to be DDLs.

    >Because the electron in the DDL is very closer to the nucleus, it has higher possibility to be caught which results in a short EC life time,

    >if the EC decay model is allowed. The changing of the nuclear EC life time may be used as an indicator of the DDLs

    So I looked for the conventional way in article and found the article with spectroscopic methods.

    DDL study with SOR spectroscopic approach

  • The author of that article

    Kazutake Kohra died in 2019 at the age of 97

    Maybe Meulenberg or Paillet know someone who has the equipment to test DDL theory

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…jxTCMWbfAukZK23zMw&_iepl=

    Thanks a lots

    I have already takled with them and persudded them to work with SOR facility.

    And I also sent the information of DDL to the researcher of hydrogen in Japan and ministry of education.

  • But I do not find any other theory to predict Cold Fusion, and only DDL is the more reasonable explanation than other theories.


    May be you have forgotten your basic physics classes ... Before you repeat nonsense you should start to understand basic mechanics. A Hamiltonian is never a proof for a working physical system. Only a Lagrangian is able to give a complete picture. This includes all!! the forces at work that should bind an electron at a DDL level...


    In SO(4) physics we show how the H*-H* bond evolves. This is the first step to fusion as in the case of D*-D* the process is irreversible!


    If you want to understand the structure of dense matter then you should study SO(4) physics.


    And please stop spreading all this old cheese... you only missed Zitterbewegung ....

  • Wyttenbach - don't throw stones in the glass house....you should go back to school too, because you seem to have missed all lectures of gentleman-like behavior and common scientific interaction with your collegues on an eye-to-eye level. Not accepting others' opinion should not end up in such kind of argumentation and ranting you show here on a daily base....
    You can do better - give it a try!

  • Not accepting others' opinion should not end up in such kind of argumentation and ranting you show here on a daily base....


    Physics is not about having an opinion. Either a model is true and works within some experimental frame or it is dead wrong. Here we (except you) did discuss about very very deep electron levels what is more than outrageous nonsense.


    Do you really understand the difference between a Hamiltonian and Lagrangian??

  • Physics is not about having an opinion. Either a model is true and works within some experimental frame or it is dead wrong. Here we (except you) did discuss about very very deep electron levels what is more than outrageous nonsense.


    Do you really understand the difference between a Hamiltonian and Lagrangian??

    Why did I expect something like this response? ... My comment was about you as an individual that seems not be able to "normally" behave and respond to others - independend from the subject (I didn't comment on your or other ones physics, almost all other folks here can argue without losing contenance),.. It is all about your "kinderstube". This goes seemlessly in line with your provocant question about my or other's intellect (who have in your opinion no clue on your science or other science or your opinion). I will stop commenting on your ranting here because it is useless....

  • because it is useless...

    the difference between a Hamiltonian and Lagrangian??

    Useless?

    Richtig

    Ranting?

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch! (Pauli)

    ...Liebe Z , ein bissel OT.. vielleicht


    Liebe W.. Ich weiss nichts ueber Dirac.. aber.. fuer Interstellar das Hamiltonian .. ist gut

    https://authors.library.caltech.edu/89088/1/1.5047439.pdf

    "

    The traditional (Lagrangian) approach to the equations of motion in general relativity is founded on the path of least
    required mathematics; the student needs to have experience only with standard variational calculus. We have shown that
    this method is adequate,

    but a perhaps better (Hamiltonian)
    method requires perhaps less mathematics of a student; a student must only accept that it is the covariant components of
    particle 4-momentum that are the canonical momenta for the equations of motion.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03809.pdf


  • NO I will、But I also will study other theory.

    I insist that the basic physics must include some kind of the reality and the cutting edge physics must include the old theory.

    The traditional theory of quantum mechanics and coulomb potential and relativistic shredding equation is the basic for physics study and The most researchers outside Physics study this basic physics so it is easier for the researcher outside physics, which is the most important reason I like traditional physics. I know the researchers who want to use cutting edge physics because it is easier because less people could understand.

    I believe the indication with basic physics is the existence of DDL, so this is the reasonable motivation to run experiment to find the DDL.

    I have no extra explanation with your cutting edge theory probably other researcher working on the hydrogen just need the evidence on that.

    hare is the interesting property of hydrogen.

    https://www.jst.go.jp/pr/announce/20171031/index.html

    負電荷をもつ水素の新たな性質を発見=>Discovery of new properties of negatively charged hydrogen

    ~圧縮しやすく、金属原子間の相互作用をブロック~==>Easy to compress and block interaction between metal atom
    I found that lately hydrogen is used in the industry so we need to clarify the secret of hydrogen as soon as possible by the experiments.

    They need the evidence not the theory.




    I think we must be cautious about the completely new theory.

    The above is my position of the theory.

  • Are there also Deep Klein-Fock-Gordon Levels?


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193.pdf

    I red article of On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom but I could not understand at all about the theory.

    But DDL theory is standard and I can understand the theory.

    Both seems to be similar according to the results so I selected DDL theory.

    For me It is important for patent examiner to understand because I want to invent new cold fusion tool and I want to use theory to obtain the patent for the patent examiner to understand the cold Fusion theory because now patent examiner think that cold fusion is not science, so I want them to understand the theory.