Proposition:Request to correct the nuclear physics model and neutron model by Cold Fusion Society

Quote from nkodama

AS I explained previously nuclear physics has the serious mistakes and the correct model of nucleus is that nucleus is consitituted by proton and internalelectron and neutron is proton-electron pair and no neutrino as a fundamental particle.

This is summarized in the paper.

transmutation experiment by Iwamura shows that d is two proton based on the small D2 model

small D2 model is that D2 at the surface T site of the metal compress the covalent-bonding to transit the electron from n=1 to n=0(deep orbit) to create small D2,

which covalent bonding can shield the coulomb repulsive force completely to cause fusion.

Iwamura use D2 so the 2d were added to the target metal and the increase of the atomic number is 4, d is 2proton.

Therefore it is clearly probed that nucleus is consitituted by proton and internal electron by the experimental result of "d is two protons".

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

Thus it must be corrected for the physics society not only for LENR society.

Thus LENR society need to have the standard model of Cold Fusion na I proposed that simple reactro of Pd(Rod) and D2 (original reacttor).

This can cause cold fusion after the long-term loading of D2 under the electrolysis condition and can trigger cold fusion by the local heat generation.

however the mecjanism is the same of small D2 at the surface T site.

Thus small D2 theory is mp proposition of standard model.

It is very important to undersnand the small D2 model and electron deep orbit theory for Cold fusuio researcher so please study seriously.

Mechanism of Cold Fusion by bond compression(Including E-CAT and NASA theory and they are based on small D2 theory)

Post

Mechanism of Cold Fusion by bond compression(E-CAT and NASA theory)

Mechanism of Cold Fusion by bond compression(E-CAT and NASA theory)
Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply from Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control

https://www.researchgate.net/p…6756_Kodama-LENR-20210412



lenr-forum.com/attachment/17659/
lenr-forum.com/attachment/17658/
typical evidence of bond compression
biological transmutation
it is easy to understand the mechanism of bond compression to see the biological transmutation(Fig19).
It can cause cold fusion by the mechanical stress in…

nkodama

Jul 6th 2021

Novel Cold Fusion Reactor with Deuterium Supply from Backside and Metal Surface Potential Control

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

Display More

The neutron is not a fundamental particle and many know it. It served the QM model that was still being developed back then when the free neutron was discovered. There are so many ways of showing that the neutron is in reality an electron that resides between protons. (Bohr said so I believe during the 7th Solvay conference)

Even the mass calculation of the neutron is wrong. they simply (wrongly) added the mass defect value and/or the gamma ray emitted from a fusion, to the 'neutron' value while in fact it comes from two particles (protons) coming together and releasing all their relative energy in relation to each other.. Which they receive back when disintegrating again.... Not just one particle, both do. So that leaves me with the conclusion that Hydrogen 1 in fact is an "energized" system and this may well be why the electron does not "fall into the nucleus". More to come about this in the future...

Quote from Edo

The neutron is not a fundamental particle and many know it. It served the QM model that was still being developed back then when the free neutron was discovered. There are so many ways of showing that the neutron is in reality an electron that resides between protons. (Bohr said so I believe during the 7th Solvay conference)

Even the mass calculation of the neutron is wrong. they simply (wrongly) added the mass defect value and/or the gamma ray emitted from a fusion, to the 'neutron' value while in fact it comes from two particles (protons) coming together and releasing all their relative energy in relation to each other.. Which they receive back when disintegrating again.... Not just one particle, both do. So that leaves me with the conclusion that Hydrogen 1 in fact is an "energized" system and this may well be why the electron does not "fall into the nucleus". More to come about this in the future...

Display More

Ruggero Santilli is other researcher that supports the idea that the neutron is a proton-electron pair.

Of course your model is correct but in reality we need to generate - muons for fusion to occurs at an appreciable rate. This is all apparent from Leif Holmlid's work.

Personally, i consider rather the neutron as more fundamental than the proton.

Proton becoming a kind of disaggregated neutron.

However we should consider neutron as the sum of , yes, a proton, an electron and " space" generated by this "disintegration".

This "space"generated must be linked with mass and energy equivalence, in few words, masses and energy AND space generated are equal.. Then we again have to had dimension numbers depending of the space location.

Revolutionary

Quote from Curbina

Ruggero Santilli is other researcher that supports the idea that the neutron is a proton-electron pair.

Quote from Cydonia

Personally, i consider rather the neutron as more fundamental than the proton.

Proton becoming a kind of disaggregated neutron.

However we should consider neutron as the sum of , yes, a proton, an electron and " space" generated by this "disintegration".

This "space"generated must be linked with mass and energy equivalence, in few words, masses and energy AND space generated are equal.. Then we again have to had dimension numbers depending of the space location.

Revolutionary

I would like to agree with you - the neutron is a more fundamental particle than the proton ... ... But there is one circumstance that interferes with this reasoning ... The source of the mistakes of physicists who worked in the past is that they - 1) relied on Maxwell's delusions about that in nature there is an "electric charge"; 2) used an "energetic" approach to the consideration of nuclear reactions - they represented nuclear reactions as a collision of two billiard balls; 3) used the molecular kinetic theory, which is the theoretical virus in physics - that's why they slipped into the "energetic" approach.

What was required before and what is required now to correct the situation? One should look for sources of FORCE generation that are responsible for one or another physical phenomenon or physical action. And I thought about it...

First - what I noticed - no one was looking for a source of generation of FORCE, which lead to the decay of a neutron, and no one asked the question - "Why does not there exist a FORCE that leads to the decay of a neutron in a stable nucleus?"

These questions led me to the idea that a free neutron must rotate before decay and this rotation generates an internal FORCE, which I called the "POWER of the secondary magnetic field", and which breaks the neutron over and over again in the same proportion, generating a proton and electron - electron, which the same force catapults the electron from the proton and we have "beta radiation" ...

The question arose - what object spins a neutron - a free neutron ... The analysis showed that these are gamma photons ... The question arises - "Why are gamma photons not able to spin a neutron in a stable nucleus?" The analysis showed that this rotation is hindered by the proton, which interacts with the neutron, and this is hindered by the "double bond" of the neutron in a stable nucleus - the neutron is usually associated with the protons of the nucleus and the neutrons of the nucleus ...

But there are unstable nuclei... And what is the situation with an unstable neutron in such nuclei? It turns out that in such nuclei an unstable neutron has only one bond, and this bond is not with the proton of the nucleus, but it is the bond of the unstable neutron with another neutron of the nucleus - this neutron has two bonds or more ... For this reason - having one bond with the neutron of the nucleus, an unstable neutron has the ability to unwind, i.e. it has the ability to rotate, and if so, then it has the ability to get such a strong rotation that leads it to decay ...

And now on to the main problem...

To spin a neutron, we need a gamma photon, and its gamma photon can only emit a proton and, at the same time, an excited proton, i.e. before that, the proton must absorb the gamma-photon... The process went in cycles and I don't see the "beginning" and "end" in it - what is primary and what is secondary?

A "THIRD PERSON" comes to the fore, which launches these chains - otherwise it is not clear how it all was born ...

Thanks for understanding.

In fact, to do my reasoning, i didn't considered all things already wrote even if most of them should be right.

Here, this is how i imagine the universe.

At the beginning a "compacted area" then when it have been expanded the first solution at left side is an isotropic way " in all direction".

If we consider now the blue waves here as a part of the initial "starting point" no one should be able to cross another one.

Now at right side, if the universe is rather anisotropic, for example, if the starting point continued to move even after the big bang, we should have a kind of anisotropic model as we see at right side.

In this way, the blue waves should cross themselves.

Crossing the blue wave means , relativity concept, energy by difference of relative " energy" between each waves.

Meaning that "energy" or 'speed" is directly linked...

Now, as i suggested to atom structure thinkers, it's necessary to consider " in mind" an "full time" the atom nucleus both inside the entire universe to be more lucky to define a good logic of all things.

Ok, in this way what could be an atom ?

In my mind a kind of a locally retroactive movement of the blue waves .

Well, the retroactive movement of some "lines" will do the matter because its relative lower speed VS universe speed which is higher.

Now, about dimensions numbers, at "our"scale it appears we are living in a 3D space.

In fact, it's not really the truth..

However this retroactive movement could be consider in 3D for simplification.

Then atoms are only a kind of local folding of its field lines by retroaction of the field of the primordial universe.

Lines which slow down create the baryonic matter ( ours) those which don't slow down make the hidden matter which continues its expansion.....

This link well explains to me how "create" spheric atoms" from linear waves.

To conclude all particles doesn't exist really by themselves because are only different "expressions"of the fondamental anisotropic waves field.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

I would like to agree with you - the neutron is a more fundamental particle than the neutron ... But there is one circumstance that interferes with this reasoning ... The source of the mistakes of physicists who worked in the past is that they - 1) relied on Maxwell's delusions about that in nature there is an "electric charge"; 2) used an "energetic" approach to the consideration of nuclear reactions - they represented nuclear reactions as a collision of two billiard balls; 3) used the molecular kinetic theory, which is the theoretical virus in physics - that's why they slipped into the "energetic" approach.

What was required before and what is required now to correct the situation? One should look for sources of FORCE generation that are responsible for one or another physical phenomenon or physical action. And I thought about it...

First - what I noticed - no one was looking for a source of generation of FORCE, which lead to the decay of a neutron, and no one asked the question - "Why does not there exist a FORCE that leads to the decay of a neutron in a stable nucleus?"

These questions led me to the idea that a free neutron must rotate before decay and this rotation generates an internal FORCE, which I called the "POWER of the secondary magnetic field", and which breaks the neutron over and over again in the same proportion, generating a proton and electron - electron, which the same force catapults the electron from the proton and we have "beta radiation" ...

The question arose - what object spins a neutron - a free neutron ... The analysis showed that these are gamma photons ... The question arises - "Why are gamma photons not able to spin a neutron in a stable nucleus?" The analysis showed that this rotation is hindered by the proton, which interacts with the neutron, and this is hindered by the "double bond" of the neutron in a stable nucleus - the neutron is usually associated with the protons of the nucleus and the neutrons of the nucleus ...

But there are unstable nuclei... And what is the situation with an unstable neutron in such nuclei? It turns out that in such nuclei an unstable neutron has only one bond, and this bond is not with the proton of the nucleus, but it is the bond of the unstable neutron with another neutron of the nucleus - this neutron has two bonds or more ... For this reason - having one bond with the neutron of the nucleus, an unstable neutron has the ability to unwind, i.e. it has the ability to rotate, and if so, then it has the ability to get such a strong rotation that leads it to decay ...

And now on to the main problem...

To spin a neutron, we need a gamma photon, and its gamma photon can only emit a proton and, at the same time, an excited proton, i.e. before that, the proton must absorb the gamma-photon... The process went in cycles and I don't see the "beginning" and "end" in it - what is primary and what is secondary?

A "THIRD PERSON" comes to the fore, which launches these chains - otherwise it is not clear how it all was born ...

Thanks for understanding.

Display More

From my perspective, from what I have learned in the past few years looking at nuclear reactions again, with the Structured Atom Model in mind, it would seem that the 'inner' or 'nuclear' electrons are "a" amount of charge (the elementary charge) that is captured between two protons. These two protons are connected to each other via the electron, otherwise they do not have that connection. As soon as there is an electron between the two protons, they can and will energetically neutralize in relation to each other, and in that process, we see a photon emitted. The electron is simply the amount of charge that can be captured by the two protons (halves!) that "can see each other". The other halves, pointing outward, also have that charge, but the connection would have to be in a loop around the nucleus, which we call an "orbital".

The gamma ray (2.225 MeV) comes from the "discharge" of two protons touching and the electron is the captured, but also needed charge that provides the actual connection between the two.

So my question to this day is "Who decided, when, why and how that the free neutron is a fundamental particle?"
We tried to read through proceedings of the Solvay Conference, dug through WIKI and asked people we know, but alas, there is no clear answer yet. If someone can help out here, perhaps this would shed some light on the matter....

The neutron decays to a p and e and 0.78 MeV. Mind you this is a proton with an electron that is still in the inner state. obviously there is no connection to another proton anymore. The free neutron would therefore be a composition of a p and an e that is lob-sided still according to a normal inner state where the electron has two protons on both sides. Obviously this will correct itself to the normal H-1 state. The release of that energy is because an electron has to be forced into that position in the first place, or rather when the circumstances provide that state whereby two protons are touching and there is for starters a double attraction to that one touching point so it can stay there. The free neutron is a ripped off proton with that inner electron that will decay quickly. How is this fundamental? It is not, and therefore we need to understand that the only way forward for anything having to do with nuclear physics is to accept that the free neutron is a composition of a proton and an inner electron. It does not reflect the same situation as when in the deuteron bond in the nucleus, Stepping away from neutron being in the nucleus and accepting the SAM concept of deuterons being the building blocks of the nucleus suddenly the whole periodic table makes complete sense. with all the weird jumps in numbers, p/n ratios, number of isotopes, periodicity etc etc. Binding energy calculations are also completely in line with the observed values very much.

ow, and since the electron can be in the nucleus again, we do not need something like positrons or positive electrons, or the whole notion of "anti-matter".... math becomes so much simpler then!

BUT....... "fill in argument according QM and ignore what atom model is used"

Most will not "go there", most will stay in line, most will attack that what threatens their paradigm, so I think my little rant here is just that, a little rant that will mostly go unnoticed while we follow the mainstream as if we had a nose-ring.

Edo

What about that w boson that's supposed to be involved in neutron decay? Can you get rid of it too. What bothers me is in that in the spiraling in of two neutron stars the gravitational fields eventually overlap and a tremendous amount of material is ejected, many earths worth. That material quickly expands, cools, and creates probably all the elements, but I don't see that happening in tens of minutes. Nor do I see trillions upon trillions of w bosons popping into existence on que as neutrons decay and quickly combine with protons and neutrons to form elements. There's also the matter of the collapse of the core of a large star to form a neutron star. That probably happens quickly too.

Quote from GRMattson

Edo

What about that w boson that's supposed to be involved in neutron decay? Can you get rid of it too. What bothers me is in that in the spiraling in of two neutron stars the gravitational fields eventually overlap and a tremendous amount of material is ejected, many earths worth. That material quickly expands, cools, and creates probably all the elements, but I don't see that happening in tens of minutes. Nor do I see trillions upon trillions of w bosons popping into existence on que as neutrons decay and quickly combine with protons and neutrons to form elements. There's also the matter of the collapse of the core of a large star to form a neutron star. That probably happens quickly too.

In the Structured Atom Model (SAM) we have a starting point of only one (1) actual particle, namely the proton and we consider it "fundamental". However, we do not know what a proton is....! Meaning there is much to say and discover still..
Having said that, it also means we do not acknowledge "quarks". I personally see this as a confusion with the actual bonds between protons, which normally is 3 bonds in SAM... coincidentally off course. Then there are sometimes situations where we see more than 3 bonds. When I mentioned something to this effect to someone I know that is learned in QM (not me so much) he said that " well it is interesting to note that sometimes we see more than 3 quarks" I cannot verify this, and hope someone will chime in to correct me.
What I am trying to say here is that SAM is in no way leaning or based on any other model, other than actual observations and accepted verifiable numbers such as an elementary charge, or the mass of Deuterium, or the number of total nucleons in an isotope etc. We see the proton as the only particle and the other component being 'energy'. There is no W boson therefore, so yes we got rid of it. To explain the free neutron decay, I point to my earlier rant and the video's on YouTube related to this topic (beta decay) Link -

now then..... neutron stars, exploding black holes and wormholes with dark matter bridges via spooky action at a distance... Many of these things I consider a result of the fundamental assumptions and accepting something such as a "quark" Which to my knowledge has never been directly observed (but I am sure someone will disagree). My best example is the neutron again, by accepting it, we no longer accept the inner electrons (which was commonly accepted before) and thus we need to explain (away) the electron in the case of Beta + decay, so a brilliant mind thought of a particle that is exactly the anti of the electron and "poof!, it's gone!" Then name it positron and we just created anti-matter to explain something (away).

I often make the 'joke' that the anti particle gets an e-mail from the particle with the exact time and location of appearance out of no-where, so they can annihilate each other, and the delay of that e-mail is the half-life......

I cannot accept these postulations and explanations.. nor do we need them in my personal opinion....

My apologies for the sharp tone sometimes, I am merely trying to provoke an actual debate because I think we need it. (and yes I am trying to 'sell' SAM)

Edo

Actually, the positron wasn't invented by a brilliant mind, but rather the track of one was observed by human eyes in a cloud chamber on the roof top of a building. A more down to earth experiment than you get at Cern. I don't think you are going to get anti matter to go poof that easily.

Quote from Edo

Many of these things I consider a result of the fundamental assumptions and accepting something such as a "quark" Which to my knowledge has never been directly observed (but I am sure someone will disagree).

I think you are right. The very readable linked paper here, by Brigitte Falkenburg (Heidelberg Uni) while a tad philosophical in parts -often a danger signal IMHO actually discusses this point.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-94-015-9391-5_25.pdf

Quote from GRMattson

Edo

Actually, the positron wasn't invented by a brilliant mind, but rather the track of one was observed by human eyes in a cloud chamber on the roof top of a building. A more down to earth experiment than you get at Cern. I don't think you are going to get anti matter to go poof that easily.

How correctly you wrote - "... observed with the eyes ..." The problem ... The problem is exactly the following - how to correctly interpret what "our eyes observe" ... And now let's try to return to 1932 .. Anderson is under the impression of "Dirac's mathematics" ... Anderson in 1932 could not imagine that the electron has its own magnetic moment, its own magnetic poles and its own magnetic field ... Without knowing these properties of the electron, could Anderson correctly interpret what he "observed with his own eyes"? The answer is unequivocal - "No! He could not correctly interpret his experiment!"

For this reason, it is ridiculous for me to listen to those who believe in the existence of the positron ... There was and is no positron in nature.

In Anderson's experiment, two electrons were observed - one of them flew with the north magnetic pole forward, and the other electron flew with the south magnetic pole forward.

The figure below shows the model of the birth of one electron and another electron - they fly away from the proton with opposite magnetic poles forward ...

On the left - the electron flies away - it is catapulted by the "secondary magnetic field", with the north magnetic pole forward, and on the right - the electron flies off with the south magnetic pole forward.

For this reason, in Anderson's experiment, these electrons were deflected by opposite magnetic poles of a permanent magnet.

I think each other has a hard time understanding that electrons, protons or neutrons can be characterized as particulate objects, but within a nucleus they just represent a fluctuation in speed and local energy of a pseudo wave in a more global and more complex system.

Besides, to understand the paradox of the electron as a particle and a wave at the same time, it's super wrong! In fact it can be considered as a 3D particle as soon as it is free outside the atom, but in the atom it is just a 2D wave.

Quote from GRMattson

Edo

Actually, the positron wasn't invented by a brilliant mind, but rather the track of one was observed by human eyes in a cloud chamber on the roof top of a building. A more down to earth experiment than you get at Cern. I don't think you are going to get anti matter to go poof that easily.

I stand corrected, that it to say, the curvature of that track bends "the other way" I think it was. And though I understand the logic, it does not mean in my mind that it is a 'positron' and it is still needed to explain the 'disappearance' of the electron. Still you are correct

Quote from Cherepanov2020

How correctly you wrote - "... observed with the eyes ..." The problem ... The problem is exactly the following - how to correctly interpret what "our eyes observe" ... And now let's try to return to 1932 .. Anderson is under the impression of "Dirac's mathematics" ... Anderson in 1932 could not imagine that the electron has its own magnetic moment, its own magnetic poles and its own magnetic field ... Without knowing these properties of the electron, could Anderson correctly interpret what he "observed with his own eyes"? The answer is unequivocal - "No! He could not correctly interpret his experiment!"

For this reason, it is ridiculous for me to listen to those who believe in the existence of the positron ... There was and is no positron in nature.

In Anderson's experiment, two electrons were observed - one of them flew with the north magnetic pole forward, and the other electron flew with the south magnetic pole forward.

The figure below shows the model of the birth of one electron and another electron - they fly away from the proton with opposite magnetic poles forward ...

On the left - the electron flies away - it is catapulted by the "secondary magnetic field", with the north magnetic pole forward, and on the right - the electron flies off with the south magnetic pole forward.

For this reason, in Anderson's experiment, these electrons were deflected by opposite magnetic poles of a permanent magnet.

Display More

This is a fascinating answer for me. Am I to understand that the electron simply followed the magnetic field lines that the electron(s) follow, hence the opposing rotation/curvature?
it would for sure explain the track that was observed (the one in the other direction). I like the explanation a lot .

Forgive me for asking, but what would be the best paper(s) to read about your and the original explanation, so we can compare and understand?

I kind of laugh at the attitudes shown here. There is no charge, but the electron spins to get it's magnetic moment. Why spin? If everything is created in higher dimensions, then the charge effect and magnetic effect can be created without any thing happening in our three dimensions. The effects are still real, like the positron track, or simply, action at a distance. Or the creation of two 511 KeV photons by the destruction of an electron and positron. Note that the total energy just equals the energy contained in the rest masses. No energy has been detected due to the destruction of the charges.