Synthesis Model 92U235
Your model is interesting.. but
to explain the best information on U235 structure that we have
which is the numbers on the gamma cascade
its going to take a lot more than one scientist or two..with individual inspiration
Perhaps Rossatom and CERN are too busy with engineering other stuff..
Maybe its better to start with something simpler
Li6 Li7?
Do you have any structure for Li6?
Display MoreYour model is interesting.. but
to explain the best information on U235 structure that we have
which is the numbers on the gamma cascade
its going to take a lot more than one scientist or two..with individual inspiration
Perhaps Rossatom and CERN are too busy with engineering other stuff..
Maybe its better to start with something simpler
Li6 Li7?
Do you have any structure for Li6?
Robert !
Explain to me the figures for lithium-6 presented in the photo. Left in blue and right in black. I'm interested. And if not difficult to explain the source of these data.
My model is lithium-6. Please do not pay attention to the green arrows where the neutrons are.... This hypothesis belongs to Kanarev and today I am not ready to further support and develop it... I doubt that the neutron rotates in a stable nucleus - this is the problem... But ... But maybe I'm wrong...
Left in blue and right in black.
The blue are the KeV's of the photon
The black are the halflives in kevs and mevs..
I think
They are very short .. perhaps femto seconds
Source is IAEA livechart
"Gammas" or "Schema"
This hypothesis belongs to Kanarev
Li6 model
Interesting geometry 2D 120 degrees..
I doubt that this is stable but at least Kanarev tried
I have no model
I vaguely remember
there is a 4D model from Wyttenbach.
This model accounts for the first gamma line,,
2186 ? Kev with 0.8 kev error
and the Li6 magnetic moment, and the mass
with good accuracy.
The Wyttenbach theory also has calculations for the "
Rydberg-UD hydrogen"
I am not competent to critique the model
but who is?
Display MoreHansen and Engelen,, "violates the law of baryon conservation".
perhaps they missed out on some aspects of the history of science..
Saying that Holmlid's results violate socalled laws therefore they must be wrong
is so Ptolemaic
Kepler's measurements were inevitably verified by others and led onto inter alia
Newton's Law of Gravitation..
Holmlid is so Keplerian
"Repetition of experiments is required not pondering by nonspecialists"
Kepler got rid of Ptolemiac epicycles and Copernican circles..
but it caused him some headaches
"I was almost driven to madness in considering and calculating this matter.
I could not find out why the planet would rather go on an elliptical orbit. Oh, ridiculous me!
Perhaps Holmid is wrong on his interpretation..
but Ptolemaic style refutation won't lead to progress
Robert ! How difficult it is to get through to you... You accuse Holmlid of misinterpretation... But I find it funny and sad... Both of you are mistaken and both of you don't understand it... Here is a screenshot from Vladimir Alexandrovich Chizhov's presentation.
Video of this event can be viewed here - 56 minutes 44 seconds -
Klimov-Zatelepin seminar March 1, 2023, part 15 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAp4-r8aGic
The well-known Wilson chamber ... tracks in it ... The delusion of millions of physicists is that this "trail" is left by a "flying charged particle" ... This is not a proper understanding of what you see ... Famous discoverer "positron" Anderson also misunderstood these tracks and therefore misinterpreted his experiment ... But what is really happening?
In Anderson's photographs, we actually see a visualization of the "passage of mass - a photon or ethereal mass" in camera space. Part of this mass was taken away by clusters of bound electrons from the general flow and light photons were emitted - light photons are the very part of the total mass that clusters of electrons and magnetons move in space ... For example, Anderson saw a track that deviated to the north magnetic pole of a permanent magnet - this means that the cluster has turned in the form of an arc to this magnetic pole with its south magnetic pole. If Anderson saw a track that deviated to the south magnetic pole, then this means that the cluster of electrons and magnetons turned its north magnetic pole towards the south magnetic pole of the magnet.
Thus, in the first case, the electrons in the cluster stand with the north magnetic poles forward, and in the second case, with the south magnetic poles forward.
Electrons did not fly and do not fly in chambers! And the mass "flies" there, which electrons move in space, and light is a part of this mass.
Robert ! How difficult it is to get through to you... You accuse Holmlid of misinterpretation..
"PERHAPS Holmid is wrong "..
no accusation there
something lost in translation?
difficulty with understanding English? Perhaps..
Perhaps Holmid is wrong on his interpretation..
Do you know much about Holmlid.?.
He writes
"The energy release of 630±30eV corresponds to an interatomic distance D–D of 2.3±0.1pm. This material is probably an inverted metal with the deuterons moving in the field from the stationary electrons, which gives a predicted interatomic distance of 2.5pm, close to the measured value. Thus, we prove that an ultra-dense deuterium material exists..."
He is probably right about "ultra dense" but 2.5pm distance/2.3 pm distance relies on assumptions of a Coulombic interaction...Perhaps right perhaps wrong. .
Display More"PERHAPS Holmid is wrong "..
no accusation there
something lost in translation?
difficulty with understanding English? Perhaps..
Do you know much about Holmlid.?.
He writes
"The energy release of 630±30eV corresponds to an interatomic distance D–D of 2.3±0.1pm. This material is probably an inverted metal with the deuterons moving in the field from the stationary electrons, which gives a predicted interatomic distance of 2.5pm, close to the measured value. Thus, we prove that an ultra-dense deuterium material exists..."
He is probably right about "ultra dense" but 2.5pm distance/2.3 pm distance relies on assumptions of a Coulombic interaction...Perhaps right perhaps wrong. .
Robert ! Re-read my answer to physics - Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/QUjd/fsJKtB66n
Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…E5Q6I_ji/edit?usp=sharing
Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -
Deal with Maxwell's mistakes... Do it patiently and systematically. There are no "Coulomb forces according to Maxwell" in nature, and that is why Holmlid's similar phrases - "....can be observed by pulsed laser induced Coulomb explosions..." or "...the Coulomb explosions have a KER of 630eV. .." or "we prove with certainty that the spectra are due to D+ ions and not to photons...", have no physical meaning !!! That's why you're both wrong...
Re-read my answer to physics -
Cherepanov maintains "Perhaps" ...is an accusation?
and then asks for people to read his "answer to physics?"
The thread is about Holmlid... not Cherepanovysics or antiMaxwellism
Please read Holmlid if you want to comment on this thread ,
Holmlid made over twenty years of experimentation.
Probably some form of dense hydrogen does exist.
which might explain how a simple visible 532nm laser on a catalyst loaded with hydrogen
can produce such energetic particles as kaons and pions
contrary to orthodox thinking..
What is your comment on that?
"
Several different constructions have been used for the H(0) source [29,30,35].
In the source, the catalyst forms H(0) from natural hydrogen or deuterium gas at a pressure between 1 105 mbar and 200 mbar.
Display MoreCherepanov maintains "Perhaps" ...is an accusation?
and then asks for people to read his "answer to physics?"
The thread is about Holmlid... not Cherepanovysics or antiMaxwellism
Please read Holmlid if you want to comment on this thread ,
Holmlid made over twenty years of experimentation.
Probably some form of dense hydrogen does exist.
which might explain how a simple visible 532nm laser on a catalyst loaded with hydrogen
can produce such energetic particles as kaons and pions
contrary to orthodox thinking..
What is your comment on that?
https://www.researchgate.net/p…blicationItem&_rtd=e30%3D
"
Several different constructions have been used for the H(0) source [29,30,35].
In the source, the catalyst forms H(0) from natural hydrogen or deuterium gas at a pressure between 1 105 mbar and 200 mbar.
Robert !
You are not able to link Maxwell's fatal mistakes and the entire physics of elementary particles, which overnight "collapsed" and evaporated - it is no more ... This physics is wrong ... But what is there? And there are MOUNTAINS of garbage in the form of similar articles and reports ...
Quoting Holmlid's article -
«Particles with kinetic energies in the high MeV range are easily generated by nuclear processes in H(0) using laser pulses of >0.1 J (0.1–0.6 J) [8,19].»
Holmlid could not understand and still does not understand that he did not have PARTICLES with kinetic energy, but he had a “photon mass” that moved at a certain speed, and this mass was moved by electrons - electron clusters ...
This is how old physics understands TOF-MS -
“Time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS) is a mass spectrometry technique in which an ion's mass-to-charge ratio is determined through a time-of-flight measurement. The ions are accelerated by an electric field of known strength. This acceleration causes the ion to have the same kinetic energy as any other ion with the same charge."
There is no electric field in nature. There are no "electric charges according to Maxwell" in nature! It is for this reason that it has now become clear that there are no "charged particles" in nature and the concept of "ion" is absolutely meaningless, and the movement of "ions" with kinetic energy is nonsense.
«Clear signatures of D + D fusion like 4He and 3He ions have been observed by TOF-MS [19]. Heat generation above break-even from nuclear processes (mainly muon-induced fusion) initiated by laser pulses was published as early as 2015 [20]. The MeV particle signal gives accurate ns range timing intensity distributions [21–24]. The final particle (primarily muon) velocity corresponds to 10–500 MeV u−1. By using two [20] and three [23] collectors in line, it was shown that these particles have mass and that they penetrate through mm thick metal with some attenuation and often a slight delay. Magnetic deflection studies confirm that many of the initially formed particles are neutral and that the mass of the charged particles is in the light meson range or lower [25].»
And now it is clear that what Holmlid writes is also nonsense ...
But nevertheless, the experiments were... And intersting results were obtained...The trouble is that the interpretation of the experiments, which is presented by Holmlid and thousands of other researchers, is incorrect, as it relies on Maxwell's delusions and mistakes. There is no movement of muons in nature, but there is a movement of "photon mass" or "ether mass", which is mistakenly understood as a "muon" particle. It's a completely different physics...
I thought I was reading the antiMaxwell Manifesto for a moment
AntiMaxwellers of the world unite 
So I guess there is no reason to postulate "dense Hydrogen" from
Holmlid's experimental results?
is there a Cherapanovist hydrogen that produces these results?
2.3 eV green photons hit hydrogen molecules
the maximum energy you might expect from orthodox hydrogen
is 2x13.6 eV?
There are no "electric charges according to Maxwell" in nature! I
Several billion people have been using CRT's for watching TV for more than 60 years....
All this happened with an non existing non flying electron....
This is one of the biggest miracles !!!
Several billion people have been using CRT's for watching TV for more than 60 years....
All this happened with an non existing non flying electron....
This is one of the biggest miracles !!!
Dear Robert! Dear Yurg!
You are one of the most inquisitive physicists on this site!
Is it really that hard for you to open Maxwell's treatise - https://archive.org/details/el…axwrich/page/n77/mode/2up ???
Here is a small sketch... Paragraph 40 from Maxwell's treatise...
Any physicist knows that if he solves some problem in which it is required to determine the value of "Force", then as a result of all manipulations he should get the dimension of "force" ... If he does not receive the dimension of force, then he must check the correctness of his formula by which he solves this problem.
Maxwell writes words and without symbols -
“…, so that if f is the repulsion between two units at unit distance, the repulsion at distance r will be f r-2 , and …”
Answer me a simple question - "Do I have the right to write the symbol Frep instead of "repulsion" ?" If I have such a right, then following the way Maxwell writes the dimensions in the equation, we get the following formula -
Frep[F] = f[F] r-2[L-2]
A sane physicist immediately notices that the dimension on the right is not equal to the dimension on the left, and therefore this formula is not true ... But you forgive Maxwell this stupidity ... Why is Maxwell allowed to write such nonsense? -
FGen.rep[F] = f[F] • e1[Q]• e2[Q] • r-2[L-2]
I am against and therefore I put an inequality sign ...
These are only two mistakes of Maxwell - fatal mistakes of Maxwell.
Several billion people have been using CRT's for watching TV for more than 60 years....
All this happened with an non existing non flying electron....
This is one of the biggest miracles !!!
Joseph John Thomson mistakenly believed that electrons were flying in his device in 1897 - the so-called "cathode rays" are just clusters of electrons and these clusters moved the photon mass, creating the illusion of an electron flying ... Thomson suggested that, it was his hypothesis .. .... But the electron could not fly, since the assumption that the electron flew there is based on what Maxwell suggested - this is the existence of "Maxwell's electric charge" - it does not exist in nature, the existence of an electric field in nature is a hypothesis Maxwell - there is no electric field in nature, and as you have seen there are no "electric forces according to Maxwell" ... If none of this exists, then there is no reason for the electron to fly in the Thomson device - there was no "electric field" created there, there was no there is no "electric charge according to Maxwell".
Display MoreDear Robert! Dear Yurg!
You are one of the most inquisitive physicists on this site!
Is it really that hard for you to open Maxwell's treatise - https://archive.org/details/el…axwrich/page/n77/mode/2up ???
Here is a small sketch... Paragraph 40 from Maxwell's treatise...
Any physicist knows that if he solves some problem in which it is required to determine the value of "Force", then as a result of all manipulations he should get the dimension of "force" ... If he does not receive the dimension of force, then he must check the correctness of his formula by which he solves this problem.
Maxwell writes words and without symbols -
“…, so that if f is the repulsion between two units at unit distance, the repulsion at distance r will be f r-2 , and …”
Answer me a simple question - "Do I have the right to write the symbol Frep instead of "repulsion" ?" If I have such a right, then following the way Maxwell writes the dimensions in the equation, we get the following formula -
Frep[F] = f[F] r-2[L-2]
A sane physicist immediately notices that the dimension on the right is not equal to the dimension on the left, and therefore this formula is not true ... But you forgive Maxwell this stupidity ... Why is Maxwell allowed to write such nonsense? -
FGen.rep[F] = f[F] • e1[Q]• e2[Q] • r-2[L-2]
I am against and therefore I put an inequality sign ...
These are only two mistakes of Maxwell - fatal mistakes of Maxwell.
All this - all the mistakes of Maxwell, are detailed by me here - Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/QUjd/fsJKtB66n
Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…E5Q6I_ji/edit?usp=sharing
Answer Cherepanov A.I. physicist Frederick David Tombe January 21, 2023 -
AntiMaxwellists of the World unite .
Its easy when there's only one.
Dense hydrogen??? LENR??
Who cares? ,,,the revolution is at hand!
May it prosper on a "central importance" thread
billion people have been using CRT's for watching TV for more than 60 years....
All this happened with an non existing non flying electron....
No wonder Boris Rosing was locked up in Kollas in 1931
Electrons? Counter revolutionary
"ABSTRACT This invention is used daily by billions of earthlings. But the name of Boris Lvovich Rosing, a professor at St. Petersburg Institute of Technology, whose 150th birthday is celebrated this year, is not widely known. All modern TVs are still working on the principles invented by Rosing. In his diaries, his student, Vladimir Zvorykin, always pointed out that he had only implemented the idea of Rosing.
Display MoreAntiMaxwellist
s of the Worldunite .Its easy when there's only one.
Dense hydrogen??? LENR??
Who cares? ,,,the revolution is at hand!
May it prosper on a "central importance" thread
No wonder Boris Rosing was locked up in Kollas in 1931
Electrons? Counter revolutionary
"ABSTRACT This invention is used daily by billions of earthlings. But the name of Boris Lvovich Rosing, a professor at St. Petersburg Institute of Technology, whose 150th birthday is celebrated this year, is not widely known. All modern TVs are still working on the principles invented by Rosing. In his diaries, his student, Vladimir Zvorykin, always pointed out that he had only implemented the idea of Rosing.
Robert ! Thank you for the article !
The author wrote - "Then, to transfer and reproduce moving images with different brightness of individual elements
(halftone images), he found a way to modulate the
intensity of the electron beam of the tube by changing
the number of electrons falling on the screen in
in accordance with the change in the brightness of the
elements of the transmitted image."
Actually Rosing did not know the nature of the "cathode ray" and he thought he had found a way to modulate
the intensity of the electron beam of the tube by changing the number of electrons hitting the screen, but in fact he found a way to modulate the intensity of the "photon mass" ("ethereal mass"), which the cluster of electrons transferred to the screen, relatively speaking, the "photon mass" fell on the screen and this mass was absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons of the screen - the material of the screen. He assumed that he created an "electric field" between the plates of the capacitor, but there was none. There was a magnetic field that deflected a cluster of electrons - you can call this cluster a beam of electrons, but they are electrons, they don’t fly in this beam, but stand, and the photon mass flies there inside the beam.
