Quote from Edo

At a 3 body system we first are confronted with a choice, are the three bodies lined up or put in a triangular shape?!

Nature is not LEGO like organized. The SO(4) model clearly shows that in 4-He the flux of all proton joins and hence a new single body comes into existence. The same holds for all nuclei we know. There is some structure as e.g. in 6-Li where the more dense 4-He is orbited by a Deuterium and the resulting binding is weak.

In general we can say that the core of all isotopes is a complex connected alpha -particle "wave". If a model is not able to calculate gamma lines in relation to a claimed bond structure then you can just use it for descriptive tasks.

And last: If a model uses spheres we can directly conclude its Kindergarten and unphysical as spheres are not allowed topologies for stable flux.

So wat is the structure of the elements? Can you show, or is that too much "LEGO" for you?
How do you deal with the organization of the nucleons regardless of how strong they are 'attracted'?
"The SO(4) model clearly shows that in 4-He the flux of all proton joins and hence a new single body comes into existence."
So four become one, and then?

Quote from Curbina

... [Wyttenbach's] model ... I think has already bear experimental fruits.

I hear this from time to time. No one here understands Wyttenbach's SO(4) model, but it is said to have successfully predicted some sort of experimental results and that therefore it must have something to it even if few can understand it.

So ... why do you think this? What experimental fruits do you have in mind?

Quote from Bruce__H

What experimental fruits do you have in mind?

We can produce gamma rays with a minimal element mixture even at room temperature as already seen in London.

Science is nothing for trolls like Bruce__H who only likes to divert people.

Quote from Edo

So wat is the structure of the elements?

First you have to understand that all mass & charge is complex nested/coupled EM flux. For this you need some basic physics teaching that is missing at most universities. Like: What is homogeneous flux, what is stable flux. How do rotating bodies couple - in the limit force free!! Because the resulting external forces in a nucleus must be "0". Hence which minimal Lagrangian fully symmetric topologies do exists?

Then you have to understand that most fields as learned in mathematical physics do not exist 1:1 in our universe. How can a (point-) field disappear if two spheres just touch? (e-p)

Today's physics work well enough for some approximations in the so called far field. But charge and mass are still axioms = LEGO's and thus current nuclear & particle physics is not about physics...Its a kind of fringe numerology.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We can produce gamma rays with a minimal element mixture even at room temperature as already seen in London.

Great! Where can one read about the evidence for this?

Jurg model is the current best one even if often difficult to follow him..

At other side, yes, he doesn't make too much effort to simplifiy the understanding of his postulates for us, poor mortals we are..

Quote from Wyttenbach

Nature is not LEGO like organized. The SO(4) model clearly shows that in 4-He the flux of all proton joins and hence a new single body comes into existence. The same holds for all nuclei we know. There is some structure as e.g. in 6-Li where the more dense 4-He is orbited by a Deuterium and the resulting binding is weak.

In general we can say that the core of all isotopes is a complex connected alpha -particle "wave". If a model is not able to calculate gamma lines in relation to a claimed bond structure then you can just use it for descriptive tasks.

And last: If a model uses spheres we can directly conclude its Kindergarten and unphysical as spheres are not allowed topologies for stable flux.

No model is 100% accurate, and all of them are an attempt to represent reality in a workable way.

A model can be useful even if is not accurate, if it allows a better understanding of a phenomena and if it allows making predictions or explain observations that still have no explanation. In that sense I think Edo ‘s work is an improvement of element characterization and useful to provide an explanation or path of exploration to observations that remain elusive.

I wouldn’t normally post something like this in a visible thread because it is what can be considered a “hot potato” (transversally controversial), but I think that given the context of what we are discussing here, and regardless of where the author of the video is coming from, she makes several points that are painfully applicable to the discussion at hand.

Quote from Curbina

she makes several points that are painfully applicable to the discussion at hand.

The problem here is that the math behind general relativity did lead to great progress in several fields of math. In a mirror effect people thought that Einsteins model (that was not invented by him) really must be physics (the Nobel committee always denied it) and also must be true. From this point in time mathematical physics started to dominate the field. Unluckily most of the "famous" mathematician doing physics had no clue of basic physics. So a simple math trick of Dirac was hyped as brilliant new physics albeit, physically, it is outraging garbage and experimentally refuted since a long time.

But theoretical physicists ignore real physics= experiments since more than 40 years now...For 40 years CERN did not show any new proof for all the old garbage claims. Nobels have been assigned for several CERN fake news (like quarks/Higgs as "new" particles) in an act of self-praise among a caste of somehow stupid people.

One famous claim: Since the most brilliant Feynman (a brilliant teacher!) failed to integrate EM theory with gravity and the other forces it must be impossible...

Sorry to say it: It took me about 2 years of "mad work" to answer all questions ...

Thus we should discuss this in the thread (the church of SM physics) where it belongs.

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.

Thanks for the video. The subject of cosmetology is a good model to show how flawed the human mind really is in its efforts to understand reality. However, what we believe about the Big Bang has no relationship to the survival of civilization. In contrast, what is believed about LENR may make all the difference in whether the CO2 problem is solved in time or not. Nevertheless, we can see in the behavior demonstrated in the vdeo just how flawed and unable intelligent people are in being able to focus on their long-term self-interests. We see this same flaw demonstrated in politics these days with catastrophic consequences. Apparently, the present humans are not designed to survive the technological age. At least 5 other human designs went extinct before our version arrived on Earth. Looks like our version will be number 6 to be replaced eventually. This video shows the flaw that will cause this to happen. People can not agree about what is real and will even kill to eliminate what they do not believe. At least now the killing has stopped.

Quote from Storms

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.

The reason I bring up the SAM model (yes I promote it as creator of it) is because I believe and think (dare I say 'I know') that this is an important topic in order to start an attempt of understanding LENR, nuclear reactions and the elements in general. I have to agree with you though, too many loose thoughts and I may have been guilty of that myself. Anyhow, understanding the structure of the elements just may provide clues as to what is happening in the LENR phenomenon.

Are you talking about yourself ?? Writing books even doing experiments does not make yourself as a reference all that.. Unfortunately most members from the oldguard think that so viscerally.

Quote from Storms

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop.

Quote from Storms

Quote from Storms

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.

Edmund, yesterday I analyzed one work by David Nagel... which he presented at the conference in 2021... I would be pleased if you read my comments... The analysis begins with section 5... I already wrote to you about your problems and the problems of other researchers - You are too accustomed to old physics and old knowledge and are not ready today to draw a line and abandon such concepts as "electric field" or "electric charge" ... This is a completely understandable and natural process ... This is how physics develops in such a difficult way ... It is very difficult to reformat your consciousness and your habits ... This is the first time you encounter such a point of view and reject it from the threshold - this is your self-defense ... But ... But nature does not care about the knowledge that we get at universities... This knowledge is false, and you can never build a good model of LENR on false knowledge... You have to go through this difficult path... If you start studying and analyzing more carefully the development of physics, starting with Maxwell and starting with the section "Electrostatics" in his treatise - this is exactly where you need to start and nothing else, then you will begin to understand the depth of the abyss into which we all fell thanks to Maxwell ... who did his best ... The followers who did not find fatal Maxwell's fallacies...

I wish you success on this difficult path, but you will have to go through it and drink the cup of that bitterness and disappointment that are inevitable after your insight...

Nagel should also be aware of my remarks. Moreover, all participants of the forthcoming conference should read my remarks... How to do it? There is little time left before the conference.

Input Stimuli and Output Signals for LENR Experiments, David J. Nagel, 2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ejAM/BZDS1iXyW

Input Stimuli and Output Signals for LENR Experiments, David J. Nagel, 2021 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…raB1_YBn/edit?usp=sharing

Following on from David Nagel's article "Input Stimuli and Output Signals for LENR Experiments"

I don't believe in your model even this one from Philippe Hatt.. Good or bad who knows .. ? However your approach is virtuous thank you for the community.. Alan Smith had tried a group of theoreticians.. but it's true the ego of all the theorists is a little too prominent to move forward on this topic.. Besides, I always wondered if they were able to manage their respective egos at Solvay..??

Quote from Edo

The reason I bring up the SAM model (yes I promote it as creator of it) is because I believe and think (dare I say 'I know') that this is an important topic in order to start an attempt of understanding LENR, nuclear reactions and the elements in general. I have to agree with you though, too many loose thoughts and I may have been guilty of that myself. Anyhow, understanding the structure of the elements just may provide clues as to what is happening in the LENR phenomenon.

Quote from Storms

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.

Perhaps we should focus on those who are progressing the dialogue into actionable steps, rather than postulating on unknowns, without any clear direction towards physical verification?

Theoretical Physics should alert us the probability of dangers, but should not be the sole guide for our understanding of physics. That is natures job to do when the right questions are being asked of it and we are carefully examining what it's suggests. I appreciate you have a strong focus on the LENR phenomenon, but it may not be beneficial to our understanding of the phenomenon to separate it from macro-cosmological systems which use the same elements in lower entropy states and order of magnitude +/- in causality of interacting systems.
These are just some philosophical ideas that I felt may be worth considering?

I have a more technical question that I think is important to examine.
Do you think CVD and expensive vacuum systems are needed for engineering the appropriate nuclear catalysts for these NAS, or can it be done with very precise electrolytic processes?
Is a breeder style reaction like in co-deposition scalable?

Quote from Storms

Thanks for the video. The subject of cosmetology is a good model to show how flawed the human mind really is in its efforts to understand reality. However, what we believe about the Big Bang has no relationship to the survival of civilization. In contrast, what is believed about LENR may make all the difference in whether the CO2 problem is solved in time or not. Nevertheless, we can see in the behavior demonstrated in the vdeo just how flawed and unable intelligent people are in being able to focus on their long-term self-interests. We see this same flaw demonstrated in politics these days with catastrophic consequences. Apparently, the present humans are not designed to survive the technological age. At least 5 other human designs went extinct before our version arrived on Earth. Looks like our version will be number 6 to be replaced eventually. This video shows the flaw that will cause this to happen. People can not agree about what is real and will even kill to eliminate what they do not believe. At least now the killing has stopped.

This reads rather cynical Dr. Could it be possible that our socioeconomic technology (Value of Money) which is our base layer of operation for human beings doing work over time, restricts other systems of lower entropy states from interacting with us?

These things take time and to change, but change is certainly universal constant and is un-avoidable. Let's just keep putting one foot in front of the other and eventually we may reach a new destination that had not been possible our past.

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
― Oscar Wilde

Quote from Wyttenbach

The problem here is that the math behind general relativity did lead to great progress in several fields of math. In a mirror effect people thought that Einsteins model (that was not invented by him) really must be physics (the Nobel committee always denied it) and also must be true. From this point in time mathematical physics started to dominate the field. Unluckily most of the "famous" mathematician doing physics had no clue of basic physics. So a simple math trick of Dirac was hyped as brilliant new physics albeit, physically, it is outraging garbage and experimentally refuted since a long time.

But theoretical physicists ignore real physics= experiments since more than 40 years now...For 40 years CERN did not show any new proof for all the old garbage claims. Nobels have been assigned for several CERN fake news (like quarks/Higgs as "new" particles) in an act of self-praise among a caste of somehow stupid people.

One famous claim: Since the most brilliant Feynman (a brilliant teacher!) failed to integrate EM theory with gravity and the other forces it must be impossible...

Sorry to say it: It took me about 2 years of "mad work" to answer all questions ...

Thus we should discuss this in the thread (the church of SM physics) where it belongs.

Display More

Most of us would likely agree that human influenced particle smashing doesn't give us a complete picture of atomic and sub-atomic physical reality where order emerges out of the perceived chaos.

What does having this dialogue about what is essentially metaphysics with mathematical language offer to help us understand the LENR phenomenon?
Do you purpose a testable hypothesis that can be engineered in either applied physics or computer simulations?
Any citation or source material would be appreciated on your hypothesis.

in the current world of the god energy, dreamers, preachers are only confined in forums not in the real world..

Quote from Diadon Acs

Perhaps we should focus on those who are progressing the dialogue into actionable steps, rather than postulating on unknowns, without any clear direction towards physical verification?

Theoretical Physics should alert us the probability of dangers, but should not be the sole guide for our understanding of physics. That is natures job to do when the right questions are being asked of it and we are carefully examining what it's suggests. I appreciate you have a strong focus on the LENR phenomenon, but it may not be beneficial to our understanding of the phenomenon to separate it from macro-cosmological systems which use the same elements in lower entropy states and order of magnitude +/- in causality of interacting systems.
These are just some philosophical ideas that I felt may be worth considering?

I have a more technical question that I think is important to examine.
Do you think CVD and expensive vacuum systems are needed for engineering the appropriate nuclear catalysts for these NAS, or can it be done with very precise electrolytic processes?
Is a breeder style reaction like in co-deposition scalable?

This reads rather cynical Dr. Could it be possible that our socioeconomic technology (Value of Money) which is our base layer of operation for human beings doing work over time, restricts other systems of lower entropy states from interacting with us?

These things take time and to change, but change is certainly universal constant and is un-avoidable. Let's just keep putting one foot in front of the other and eventually we may reach a new destination that had not been possible our past.

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
― Oscar Wilde

Most of us would likely agree that human influenced particle smashing doesn't give us a complete picture of atomic and sub-atomic physical reality where order emerges out of the perceived chaos.

What does having this dialogue about what is essentially metaphysics with mathematical language offer to help us understand the LENR phenomenon?
Do you purpose a testable hypothesis that can be engineered in either applied physics or computer simulations?
Any citation or source material would be appreciated on your hypothesis.

Display More

Quote from Wyttenbach

Today's physics work well enough for some approximations in the so called far field

the far field is actually the near field for most modern day chemistry..

but the 'field ' is a not straight forward matter..

to visualise nuclear structure we may need SO(4) 4D glasses

I will try again to describe a path that we might follow to reach a useful understanding of LENR. Please focus on what I'm saying rather than on your own favorite ideas. I will first list some facts that are supported by hundreds of studies. I will ask if you agree or not. If not, say why not? If you agree please answer the final questions.

1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in a chemical environment. In addition, this environment has to have certain rare characteristics.

2. This characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most often in PdD.

3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration.

4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction.

5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

These are the facts. The question is, "How can the barrier to the reaction be overcome without applying kinetic energy in order to produce He4"? What is the nature of the special condition that must exist in material to cause this process to occur on rare occasions? How can this condition be created in larger amounts?

Can anyone answer these questions?