LENR Theories Discussion.

Quote from Drgenek

There are not two walls to a room nor just two walls to surround a city. You are the one who is crying, mudding up the theory and trying to put others down rather than understand. There is nothing to gain by causing confrontation, so let's stop it.

In a rectangular waveguide resonance occurs in both between the long and between short sides of rectangular part of the waveguide. Dislocation loops allow for a greater range between upper and low cut off frequencies. The requirement for specific frequencies to cause clusters is valid theory for the success of dislocation loops as compared to crystal metal. The theory fits with Miley report. Further, Brilliant Light Power liquifies the metal which would cause same effect as dislocation loops only more of them. BLP gets even more energy with the same ingredients: metal, water and electricity.

As I suspected, you confused a microwave guide with a resonator. A microwave guide has four walls (to use your terminology) while a resonator (your microwave oven, for instance) has six. What I don't get is why you feel a need to complicate a simple theory? It seems that many of the participants here are so deeply involved in their theories that they can not see the simplicity and beauty of other approaches to problems.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You are not educated in communication. For people in the field you idea is nonsense, best case a lab curiosity nothing else. LENR is nt a chain reaction. Why do you believe such weird thing?

Y inour argument only shows that you never got the basics. Einsteins differential equations are the source of the nonsense. You cannot make a derivative of the Lorenz factor only dilettantes will do this. The derivative of a constant or a skalar valued function is never suddenly a function of velocity.

The reality is that you cannot convert ⁵⁶Fe into energy and any experiment based on E=mc² m= ⁵⁶Fe will fail hence the equation is falsified. Do you understand??? Physics= experiment - not given by silly differential equations...

Silly is in the eye of the beholder. I consider your use of the Biot Savart Equation (not a law) silly. If you apply Gauss's Law to the sources of a magnetic field you get zero. Apply it to the sources of an electric field and you get the total charge. It's silly to expect something that gives zero to create something that gives a non zero result.

Quote from GRMattson

It's silly to expect something that gives zero to create something that gives a non zero result.

You definitely missed math education!

Do you understand the following??

F(charge):: sin(x) + sin(x+72) + sin(x+144) + sin(x+216) + sin(x+288) = 0

Quote from Curbina

Drgenek That is my bad! I reviewed the email sent to me then but I have been really busy since, to no avail. It is a long and bulky video file hosted in google drive, so I don't think we can host it here, we can post the link if you agree to it, but we should create a separate thread for it.

Okay, Thank to Alan and yourself. I' put my analysis in short videos, put them on U-tube, create a thread for them, then link them. This will allow everyone to see how I see useful pieces fit for more complete understanding of things LENR under a unified thought.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You definitely missed math education!

Do you understand the following??

F(charge):: sin(x) + sin(x+72) + sin(x+144) + sin(x+216) + sin(x+288) = 0

Not without context, which is something you never supply.

Do you understand the significance of:

Sin(x)^2 + Cos(x)^2 = 1 in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave?

Quote from GRMattson

Not without context, which is something you never supply.

This is a simple 5 rotation magnetic=EM flux showing that an equation = 0 delivers important information about charge=induction in a 6D volume.

Real physics needs a bit more deep understanding of math & topology than the standard model KIndergarten uses.

The Gauss flux law is 1D physics as 2D are invariant. This law fails to give the correct potential for the general source ( n>= 3) problem, but this is an other story of self deception.

From Robin van Spaandonk

Temperature dependant CF

Wyttenbach

Your 6D treatment must be consistent with what happens in 3D I would characterize your 6D rotation as a vector operator analagous to the curl. From Maxwell's Equations we get that the curl of The flux density yields a time varying electric field. But the divergence of this field must always be zero. Hence, no charge. I conclude your 6D rotation of flux to charge must be in error.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes. This is important. It does exhibit positive feedback from high temperatures, but that is not the same as a chain reaction. Combustion also has positive feedback.

I think cold fusion is too slow to be a chain reaction. Certainly it is not a chain reaction on a rapid atomic scale, where one nuclear reaction directly triggers another, as in a fission bomb.

I suppose there is a some chance it is chain reaction, but I hope it is not, because that might cause an explosion.

If LENR exists and has the NAE mechanism that many propose - then chain reactions are not expected - in fact pretty well impossible - because the exothermic reaction is mediated by very specific configurations in a solid-state lattice - and those will be destroyed by excess local energy.

Not - "LENR is too slow", so much as "LENR has to be too slow or it will destroy itself".

Quote from GRMattson

Not without context, which is something you never supply.

Do you understand the significance of:

Sin(x)^2 + Cos(x)^2 = 1 in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave?

F(charge):: sin(x) + sin(x+72) + sin(x+144) + sin(x+216) + sin(x+288) = 0

for those confused - I think that equation uses the (very unusual for mathematicians) units of degrees for angle. But whatever, you can embed that equation in the complex exponential sum:

$\sum^{n=4}_0 e^{i\frac{2\pi n}{5}}$

Which is symmetrical on an argand diagram and therefore obviously 0.

And it is many such mathematical truisms that underlie the known properties of electromagnetism.

Quote from GRMattson

Your 6D treatment must be consistent with what happens in 3D I would characterize your 6D rotation as a vector operator analagous to the curl. From Maxwell's Equations we get that the curl of The flux density yields a time varying electric field. But the divergence of this field must always be zero. Hence, no charge. I conclude your 6D rotation of flux to charge must be in error.

Your conclusion is done the wrong way around. You never can prove a 4D system with the help of a 3D system. What must hold is that the 3D projection of the uniform 4D math is equivalent to the 3D math. So may be once study basic logic.

The 5 factor "golden Phase angle" sin sum function represents the coupling of the 4D 90 degree coupled CT rotation of the core EM flux that couples (is perturbed) by its own induced charge. So in 4D the orbits look 90⁰. in 5D they are tilted by the Golden angle. This is exactly what I said above. In the projection you see something else. This (5 rotations golden angle) is exactly how the SOP strong force factor is defined!

If we (SOP) calculate a magnetic moment of a nucleus then subsets of 5 waves are neutral = do not contribute to the magnetic moment as there is no externally visible charge flux.

This is why I used the term analagous. In a similar manner, you can't take a 3D equation like the Biot Savart Equation, which is only approximate in my opinion, and project it into 6D with any assurance of being correct.

I have no issues with your use of 72 degrees or the rotations or even topology. I am disappointed that you do not have a 6D equivalent of the divergence operator. In any case when you project your 6D theory into 4D you must get Maxwell's Equations. Those equations tell us that an electromagnetic wave carries no charge, as the divergence of a curl is always zero.

Quote from GRMattson

I am disappointed that you do not have a 6D equivalent of the divergence operator.

I agree that it needs a lot of new thinking to understand what a source means in 6D.

In 3D you have point source as a basis for differentials/integrals. Now this only works for a plane = 2D solutions as a Ball surface is 2D. If you work with 4rotations (5D) surfaces homogenous flux the source must be topologically expanded by 3 orders. So point becomes a line (S1) --> a sphere (S2) --> CT manifold <> S3 as S3 (as S2) cannot host any flux so the chain above is just to show the logic.

The force equation in 6D is relative to the 4 rotation CT surface. Classically every point on this manifold is a centre of mass/rotation. To get the full 4D/R center you must integrate over the full CT surface (manifold).

The problem with the Gauss divergence law is that it only holds for a single degenerate case of one isolated point source. Physically & mathematically there is no such thing like a homogenous volume charge and the field outside the integration surface never follows the gradient law for more than one source enclosed. This is just a crude approximation theorists usually ignore.

Real physics is way more complex than most believe to know.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Real physics is way more complex than most believe to know.

Real physics is very simple! It is complicated by mathematicians, because mathematicians have no imagination, they think logically.

Our World is transcendental.

“Everything is a number,” said the mathematician Pythagoras, but he realized that the diagonal of a square cannot be expressed as a number.

“There is One and it is All,” said the physicist Parmenides, but he could not explain the movement.

Everything becomes physically very simple if we postulate the primacy and absoluteness of the movement of our World, which (the movement) must be described mathematically.

The materiality of our World lies in its movement.

Dear !

In search of the mystery of gravity and a new source of energy in the course of my theoretical research, I was forced to come to the crazy fantastic conclusion, generated not only by imagination, but also by real observational experiments, that the “gravitational” engine is identical to a nuclear fusion generator!

The generator of nuclear fusion is the Sun, Earth, Moon and any material body, including humans. It is necessary that such a conclusion follows as a consequence of the new scientific paradigm that I am developing, postulating the primacy and absoluteness of the non-mechanical movement of our single eternal infinite World. The materiality of our World lies in its movement.

Nuclear fusion and analysis, which always occur during any movement of matter, is the method of movement and form of existence of our World.

The sun, stars, especially the supernova explosion SN1987A, the Earth and the planets, plants, animals and humans in which nuclear fusion and analysis occur, move beautifully, although they do not have any engines.

There is a need for laboratory experiments to use nuclear fusion for practical purposes as a new source of energy and a non-mechanical engine. .

On this path of knowledge, all modern problems of science are solved, for example, the creation of a Unified Theory, in practice - the creation of a new non-mechanical engine, new means of communication, a quantum computer and a new carbon-free energy source.

With best wishes for cooperation and assistance, in full health and clear mind,

Aleksandr Nikitin

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

In search of the mystery of gravity and a new source of energy in the course of my theoretical research, I was forced to come to the crazy fantastic conclusion, generated not only by imagination, but also by real observational experiments, that the “gravitational” engine is identical to a nuclear fusion generator!

Gravitation is 10E40 less strong than the electric force as its source is the 5 rotation electro weak force. The exact derivation you can find in SOP.

Logically it should had no impact on fusion at all. But one must prove it what is impossible due to the force gap. So you can make any claim, same as the GR freaks, String freaks etc.... when experiments are not possible then you should switch the field and join the believers of an adequate church.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Gravitation is 10E40 less strong than the electric force as its source is the 5 rotation electro weak force. The exact derivation you can find in SOP.

Logically it should had no impact on fusion at all. But one must prove it what is impossible due to the force gap. So you can make any claim, same as the GR freaks, String freaks etc.... when experiments are not possible then you should switch the field and join the believers of an adequate church.

What you do not understand does not need to be declared non-existent!

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

What you do not understand does not need to be declared non-existent!

You just did show that you don't understand. Else you would give us a mathematical equation that explains your idea.

Why are you forcing mathematics on us, like the madman who tries to convert non-believers?

No, I don't agree that mathematics solves everything, and besides, you seem to get bogged down in your hypotheses when you go beyond 4D ?

Moreover, in your model, does it exist accelerations/decelerations or yout donut speeds are almost constant, which I don't think as possible to well define the nucleus stability.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You just did show that you don't understand. Else you would give us a mathematical equation that explains your idea.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You just did show that you don't understand. Else you would give us a mathematical equation that explains your idea.

There are a lot of equations in the application. Look!