Detailed treatment of Maxwell's errors

Quote from RobertBryant

1813 who cares

1835,,Gauss

Cherepanovian revisionism of history has not reached Wikipedia yet..

"The law was created by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835. However, it was not published until 1867.

It is one of the four Maxwell's equations on classical electrodynamics.

The other three are Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's circuital law.

Note the other Western European names..

Gauss Faraday Ampere..

Maxwell the alleged corrupter of Western Physics has accomplices..

pointillism started with Kepler

Display More

I repeat once again - If you want to discuss the delusions of Gauss, then for this you should study his treatises. And it should be discussed in a separate thread.

In your comments you do not give a reference to the original Gauss treatise. Instead, you provide links to Wikipedia, which provides information in which physicists "fitted" Gauss's mathematics to physics ... But nature knows nothing about Gauss's mathematics, protons and electrons do not know anything about Gauss's mathematical abilities and they are not required to obey Gaussian math! This is exactly what you don't want to understand! You are constantly reminded of this by Wittenbach on this forum.

Quote from RobertBryant

What does Maxwell have to do with LENR?

Is this thread intentional distraction

or just a pet peeve?

You're not right. Back in 2013, Alexander Parkhomov and a number of Japanese researchers were puzzled by the absence of a “Coulomb barrier” in their experiments.

Here is Parkhomov's article - "Cold transmutation of nuclei: strange results and attempts to explain them" - http://www.unconv-science.org/pdf/1/parkhomov-ru.pdf

Parkhomov writes - "For a long time it was considered indisputable that such processes are possible only at very high temperatures (millions-billions of degrees) and therefore they were called "thermonuclear reactions" [3], pp. 758-760. This is due to the fact that the necessary for the fusion of nuclei, their positive electric charges prevent close enough approach. To overcome the repulsive forces, energies are needed that are achievable only in accelerators or when heated to a very high temperature. The practical development of thermonuclear fusion could solve the energy problems of mankind, however, the technical implementation of this plan turned out to be extremely complex and costly."

«Therefore, an assumption arose that the CTN phenomenon is related to the fact that the screening of the electric charge of the proton (deuteron) can be carried out by an electron whose orbit is much closer to the nucleus than in ordinary atom. Such a hypothetical atom received the name “hydrino” [16], [17]."»

«It is possible that the shielding of electric fields nuclei is possible without exotic “compressed” atoms. E.N. Tsyganov points out that, according to a number of theoretical considerations and experimental data, even a simple introduction of hydrogen nuclei into the crystal lattice of metals is sufficient for the appearance of strong screening, sufficient in some cases for the occurrence of CNS [18].

Let us assume that one way or another, the proton can “break through” through the Coulomb barrier and see what this should lead to using the example of nickel, which when interacting with hydrogen, it gives the most powerful effects of CTN.»

«And as soon as the protons line up in this lattice coaxially along the direction of the spin, the concept of the Coulomb barrier disappears. There are “holes” in the Coulomb field. When these “holes” are oriented along the axis, attractive forces arise. Protons fuse with each other, capture an extra electron, and a deuterium nucleus is formed.»

«First of all, attention is drawn to the low intensity of hard gamma and neutron radiation, indicating an insignificant role in the process of CTN of conventional nuclear reactions. From this follows the insufficiency of explanations that show the possibility of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by nuclei at low energies and the further course of the process along the lines studied by nuclear physics. One gets the impression that in the process of CTN, a certain conglomerate is formed from the nucleons of many nuclei, which then decays into nuclei with the highest possible stability, i.e., non-radioactive. The task of hypotheses adequate to the CTN phenomenon is to explain how this can happen.»

The bewilderment of researchers is now absolutely clear - they could not know in 2013 that there is no "electric field according to Maxwell" in nature and there are no "Coulomb forces according to Maxwell". For this reason, there is no "Coulomb barrier" in nature.

In the same 2013, Filimonenko, gave an interview, and noted that there is no "Coulomb barrier" in nature - see my video at 14 seconds - There is no Coulomb barrier in nature, October 27, 2021 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivsN4vKSURo

Quote from RobertBryant

Note that Wyttenbach does not have an allergic reaction to Maxwell

Maxwellian logic is here to stay in Western Physics

but needs to be adapted to SO(4)

"

In SO(4) the charge flows on 2 circles that are two time (2D) orthogonal.

This explains why there is no Coulomb stress in any nucleus.

This also explains that that the general Maxwell logic must be adapted to one more dimension,

because the classic curl operation would be co-linear (not orthogonal to!) with an existing flux of charge...

https://www.researchgate.net/p…Bz5xE3596r1-Wo0_g_mcBldSw

Display More

I support many of Wittenbach's statements, but this does not mean that I fully agree with him and his theory. It will be more useful for physics if Wittenbach abandons the concept of "electric charge according to Maxwell" ... And if he realizes that "electric charge" is a photon mass or aether mass, then we will have a global breakthrough in physics ... This is mine single opinion.

Quote from RobertBryant

Maxwell is dead Kepler is dead Gauss is dead

But the Coulomb force lives on in text book

That's it ... The question is legitimate ... But before taking the next step, let's figure it out - "What force lives in textbooks?" - The force that is presented in Charles Coulomb's treatise or the force that is presented in Maxwell's treatise...? Ironically, or rather, by Maxwell's "evil will", for some reason he called his law and his force "Coulomb force" ... For 150 years everyone agreed with this ... But I do not agree with this! I am against the defamation of Charles Coulomb! I want to clean up the good name of Charles Coulomb "stained by Maxwell"... No one can defend his good name except me... Charles Coulomb in his treatise presented us with a "charge" as a mass of electricity, as a special and unknown mass. He represented it as an "electric fluid" and talked about its quantity, he wrote about the density of electricity and explained it in his treatise as a mass of electricity on the surface of the balls. It was in this paradigm that Poisson, Weber, Ampère, Thomson argued ... But you are cunning guys - you turned a blind eye to this and you don’t want to notice it ... And today I return physicists to the paradigm of Charles Coulomb and explain - "mass of electricity" this is a photon mass, which is attached to itself by an electron - a free electron, which is on the surface of the ball... This electron has its own magnetic moment, this electron has its own magnetic field and its own magnetic poles. The more mass a given electron absorbs, the more magnetic moment it has and the more magnetic mass it pumps through itself and, thus, forms a more powerful flow of ethereal and photon mass...

Maxwell moved away from the paradigm of Charles Coulomb, Poisson, Weber, Ampère, Thomson... - he treacherously changed it with the help of his stupid and fatal mistakes, and thus plunged the physical community into a general delusion for a long 150 years...

There is no “Coulomb force according to Maxwell” in nature, but there is a “Coulomb force” in nature according to the paradigm of Charles Coulomb, who simply for objective reasons could not provide us with a more detailed description of what he called “electric mass” in 1785 ... Today, instead of Charles Coulomb, I am doing this and I am writing about this starting from January 19, 2021 - this is the very day when I discovered the aforementioned errors of Maxwell.

The textbooks do not talk about the "force" that Charles Coulomb presented in his treatise, and the textbooks present Maxwell's "force", which he treacherously called "Coulomb force", and Maxwell his own - the "law" invented by him, as a result of his erroneous mathematical manipulations, he called "Coulomb's law" ... Maxwell had no right to do this - a pure falsification of the teachings of Charles Coulomb.

Quote from RobertBryant

Please be specific..."one way or another" is handwaving

or maybe a dance?

This phrase is "Let us assume that one way or another, the proton can “break through” through the Coulomb barrier.", Alexander Parkhomov wrote in his article. Contact him.

Quote from RobertBryant

But Cherepanov still has no calculation or mechanism as to how LENR occurs?

Neither do I

Preaching " the Coulomb Maxwell barrier is wrong" serves to pass the time

until you come up with something..

Display More

Robert !

Once again, I am convinced that you are a lover of humor ...

You are pedaling a theme in which Cherepanov cannot do this and cannot do that ...

But besides Cherepanov, there are a lot of researchers ... In 2014, Edurad Tsyganov (JINR, Dubna) published his presentation and in it he presented the research of the Japanese from 2013 ... See the slides of this presentation below - the permeability for the Coulomb barrier for DD fusion -

I'm wondering how you will "humor" about these slides and the results that were presented?

Are you really not puzzled by "the size of the Kulln barrier of 0.04 eV"?