"Physchemistry of the microworld" which was opened for us by the Russian physicist Kanarev F.M., 1993-2016

    You can not blame the inventor. We must blame the 100'000 idiots that later, blindly copied. "repaired" it and made it a religion!


    It's a like a good car - first repair (flash Gordon), second repair (Dirac brain fart) third repair (Feynman electronic worms..) and now after 100'000'000'000'000 repair costs nobody wants to through away the rotten car, ITER mafia building, CERN fantasy particles.

    Of course I do the same with my car too. It still runs but the end is in the horizon. So you are allowed to drive with the SM but you will never make it out of the city..

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from LeBob

    Effects of atomic electrons on nuclear stability and radioactive decay. paper I ran into that talks about also the connection of ionisation and the disturbance of core electron fields and electroweak decay rates on unstable elements.

    In this phrase from the researchers - "The condition of nuclear stability and the decay schemes of unstable nuclei depend on the state


    of the electron shells "contains the" hardest "theoretical virus that prevented these physicists from interpreting their results correctly in 2003-2005 ...


    Electrons do not "inhabit" !!!


    All nuclear reactions during the explosion of the wire in these researchers proceeded by a magnetic mechanism with the participation of helium-4.

    My articles on this topic -

    About geology and beyond, October 30, 2016 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2Ust/3PwUZftyZ


    About geology and beyond, October 30, 2016 - https://drive.google.com/file/…SwNE53AP/view?usp=sharing


    We parse the file "LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER.doc", January 13, 2019 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5squ/JpmsHYSga


    We parse the file "LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER.doc", January 13, 2019 - https://drive.google.com/file/…_57YFsrB/view?usp=sharing

    Their clouds or fields or spheres of influence are layered due to energy balances inside an atom. The phenomina is different to what you are saying. Most of what is called "lenr" sprouts from core electron effects, interaction of the EM/weak force inner sanctuary of atoms if you will. He4 isn't required unless it is an accelerated decay product. What you say about geology brings up a whole other side... Terra's geothermal activity is fueled by atomic decay. Radioisotope dating of carbon isotopes isn't completely accurate because rates can be altered with subnuclear EM energies. But that's a good energy source rest well.🙏🏽

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    Quote from LeBob

    Their clouds or fields or spheres of influence are layered due to energy balances inside an atom. The phenomina is different to what you are saying. Most of what is called "lenr" sprouts from core electron effects, interaction of the EM/weak force inner sanctuary of atoms if you will. He4 isn't required unless it is an accelerated decay product. What you say about geology brings up a whole other side... Terra's geothermal activity is fueled by atomic decay. Radioisotope dating of carbon isotopes isn't completely accurate because rates can be altered with subnuclear EM energies. But that's a good energy source rest well.🙏🏽

    The roots of your delusions are "historical". The sequence of mistakes began, apparently, from the moment when Maxwell read the letters of Cavendish ... and the incorrect translation from French into English of the treatises of Coulomb, Poisson, Thomson (Lord Kelvin) ... The result of these mistakes was the modern formula of Coulomb's law ...

    “In the objective system of units CGS (cm, g, s), k was taken as a dimensionless unit, k = 1, which led to the absurd dimension of the charge q, expressed in fractional powers in units of length and mass ( [q] = g^1/2 cm^ 3/2 s^-1). "

    In 1899, Schreber exposed Maxwell, but Schreber's "voice" was not heard - his criticism was ignored ...

    At the beginning of the 20th century, these erroneous ideas formed the basis of the model of the hydrogen atom - physicists like Niels Bohr needed to create a model of a stable hydrogen atom and for this they put a "+" on a proton, and put a "-" on an electron, but nothing of this nature did not exist and does not exist ... Why so? And because Charles Coulomb interacted "masses of electric fluids", it was about the mass of electricity, and his definition of "charge" included mass and nothing else, i.e. the dimension should have been in grams, and not in this dimension - "g^1/2 cm^ 3/2 s^-1". Do you understand this deep difference ... Thus, there were no "electrical forces", "electrostatic forces" in the hydrogen atom and there are not. Read Schreber -


    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG

    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing

    I continue ... In 1993 the Russian physicist F.M. Kanarev presented the errors of Niels Bohr in his analysis of the spectra of the hydrogen atom - "The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment it is at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with energy 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained

    13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40

    but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

    -13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)

    and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negative charge of the electron. Clever, isn't it?

    And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

    Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)

    Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Comprehend THIS ...

    Let us write down similar relations for the transition of an electron from the first to the third and fourth energy levels.


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.09 = Ee - 1.51 (3)


    Ee - 13.60 + 12.75 = Ee - 0.85 (4)


    From relations (2), (3) and (4) follows the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom -


    Ee - Ei + Ef = Ee - E1 /n^2 → Ef = Ei - E1 /n^2, (5)

    where: Ef = hvf is the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon; Ei is the ionization energy equal to the energy of such a photon, after the absorption of which the electron loses its bond with the nucleus and becomes free; E1 - the binding energy of the electron with the atomic nucleus, corresponding to the first energy level is also equal to the photon energy.

    For a hydrogen atom, E1 = Ei = hv1 = hvf. Taking this into account, the mathematical model (5) can be written as follows


    hvf = hvi - hv1 / n^2 → vf = vi - v1 / n^2 (6)


    We have obtained a mathematical model of the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, which includes only the frequencies of absorbed or emitted photons, that is, the frequency of rotation of photons relative to their axes. And where is the frequency of rotation of an electron around the nucleus of an atom? There is no it. There is no rotational motion of the electron around the nucleus of the atom! "

    Thus, in atoms there are no "clouds and layers of electrons" - each bound electron interacts linearly with its proton of the nucleus - a proton and an electron are trivial magnets and they have magnetic interactions and they do not have "electrostatic interaction" ... Why is an electron does not fall on a proton? But because it is repelled by the secondary magnetic field of both the proton and the electron itself.

    5 years ago at RUDN -

    The cumulative process of overcoming the Coulomb barrier in reactions of cold transmutation of atomic nuclei - A.S. Pushkin (the great Russian poet) was engaged in cold nuclear fusion (Samsonenko N.V. 01/29/2015) - https://www.youtube.com/watch? v = 1IAZuETr6BY


    Pulse energy Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich -

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    We parse the file "LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER.doc", January 13, 2019 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5squ/JpmsHYSga


    We parse the file "LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER.doc", January 13, 2019 - https://drive.google.com/file/…_57YFsrB/view?usp=sharing



    LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/3bDo/2dv9T9qXk


    LESSON-21. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF TRANSMUTATION ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER - https://drive.google.com/file/…9DNfAKQq/view?usp=sharing

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    . Электрон своим магнитным полем линейно взаимодействует с магнитным полем своего протона, который «сидит» в ячейке атомного ядра ... Понятно?

    Code
    А вот про клетку, в которой сидит протон - это очень верно.

    https://yadi.sk/d/WAuQu5ov3YYFpE

    here is a program for modeling the structure of atomic nuclei of all nuclides

    Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    User Rizk writes - Understanding low energy nuclear reactions. An overview by Péter Kálmán, Budapest University of Technology and Economics C3% A1n-budapest /? PageNo = 4  

    and I answer him -

    You wrote to Wittenbach -
    “This is very interesting.

    When i had to study the obligatory physics a few decades ago the lesson was something like this:
    - the magnetic field is a result of a movement of a charge
    - the magnetic field affects the moving charge by creating a force with the cross-product formula

    You tell now that the magnetic interaction doesn't need the charge at all but the interactions are between magnetic fields.
    Now the question is where does the required magnetic field for a magnetic flux based charge (e.g. electron) come from in this model?

    When looking into the future when you have removed charge out of the equations i suppose the next step is to remove mass from those also? "
    You have the right idea and I want to support it ... Wittenbach and other visitors to this site do not want to believe that someone has been fooling physicists for 150 years ... Lazy people ... I really do not want to delve into history and understand what and how they said or wrote this or that physicist ... People are used to ... Why did I climb into history? The first trouble on my way was that for some reason the Coulomb barrier did not work in the hydro wave installations ... I became interested in this issue ... And I discovered that many experimenters have the same situation - the reactions go with a magic overcoming of the Coulomb barrier ... What did these physics? They, not knowing how to explain it, came up with the effect of tunneling ... Bad idea ...
    It really irritated me ... And so I came across an article by Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, who in a simple way revealed the mistake and delusion of Niels Bohr and proved that electrons have no orbital motion around the nucleus ...
    But this is not enough ... I began to repeat nuclear physics and found that in all formulas associated with the energy of a particle there is a "charge", but there is no rotation energy of both an electron and a proton ... A strange situation ... These particles have their own magnetic moment, these particles have rotation , but the energy of rotational motion is absent in the formulas ... Intuition told me that there should not be a particle "charge" ...
    At a seminar at RUDN Samsonenko Nikolai Vladimirovich said - "Nobody knows what an electric charge is" ...
    This provoked me and made me turn to the tracts of Charles Coulomb ... I translated them carefully and discovered that Charles Coulomb did not imagine the "charge" as it is interpreted by modern physics - all the texts indicated "mass" ...
    DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - "The Second Coulomb Memo", 1785 - https://drive.google.com/file/…WBiu0I_k/view?usp=sharing
    DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - "The Second Pendant's Memo", 1785 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5BjX/53n16KZqW

    DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/126/90/416/0079/0316

    Pendant's "3rd Memo" - "TROISIEME MEMOIRE", 1785 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2PQR/ZmiskSvXh
    Pendant's "3rd Memo" - "TROISIEME MEMOIRE", 1785 - https://drive.google.com/file/…PQAcr0IV/view?usp=sharing
    SURFACE OF TWO ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVE SPHERES - https://drive.google.com/file/…La-Nz2Gj/view?usp=sharing
    SURFACE OF TWO ELECTRIC CONDUCTING SPHERES - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/36jS/5fWpDQ6Ta
    After careful analysis of the articles of Maxwell, Faraday and German physicist Karl Schreber -
    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2ZuE/6EhstsLjG
    Die Jfaasse der elektrischen Grössen, 1899 - https://drive.google.com/file/…GK-6KBIZ/view?usp=sharing
    I came to the conclusion - the legacy of Charles Coulomb has been perverted!
    Charles Coulomb understood "charge" as "a mass of electricity", i.e. in the modern interpretation it is "the mass of free electrons" ... All Charles Coulomb's experiments are explained by the magnetic properties of free electrons!
    This is how my article appeared - Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1mSx/2ti91GWkP
    Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…5ADwlehP/view?usp=sharing

    Quote from Cherepanov2020

    "a mass

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masse#Etymology

    From Latin massa, from Ancient Greek μᾶζα (mâza, “bread”).

    Noun

    masse (plural masses)

    1. a paste, a dough
    2. large amount or quantity of something; mass
    3. something perceived as a whole, without distinguishing its parts
    4. a sum or combination of things treated as a whole
    5. a majority, especially of people
    6. an archaic unit of count
    7. (finance, law) a sum of allotted money
    8. (physics) mass
    9. (electronics) earth, ground (of e.g. a plug)

    translation is a skilled art...not for the lazy...

    Quote from jorgen

    Found this web site by Prof. Kanarev. Not sure if it is well known. A lot of information. Google translate works fairly well. Translation function in MS Word also does a fair job to translate russian text in available word documents.

    https://www.micro-world.su/index.php

    I want to supplement Kanarev's material ... In Russia I was recognized as the main follower of his paradigm ... I went further ... Today I deny the existence of an "electric charge" ... For many of you, this is a shock ... But I want to argue my position ...


    What to do? How to reach agreement? I suggest starting simple and then moving on to complex. Therefore, to begin with, please read this material carefully. Criticize my conclusions in this material and I will answer - I translated into English -


    Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1RW8/UmRBsBtPp



    Exposing Maxwell - A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Part 1, 4.02.2021 - https://drive.google.com/file/…NP6FzqAd/view?usp=sharing



    Thus, step by step, we will begin to understand each other ...


    Thank you for understanding !

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.