In Australia the LCOE is still falling. it was $69/MWhr in 2020
but is still falling
May be Australia uses dirt cheap Chinese crap solar modules with halve the live time power production of the USA ones...
Wyttenbach
Verified User
- Male
- from Switzerland
- Member since Jan 15th 2016
- Last Activity:
- Portal
Posts by Wyttenbach
-
-
there flows should be locally minimal, and not globally as for a vacuum.
No: This locally is standard model nonsense. The whole flux must be globally minimal, else its instable. That's why SM people have no clue of physics at all and do not understand that you need minimal Lagrangian surfaces/manifolds for physics. Gauging is engineering physics only!
-
In this case, the dynamics of vector fields on the 3-sphere forms not only our Euclidean space, but also the Minkowski space.
That hence is flat (as all tangents by definition are flat) and cannot explain non linear effects in mass fusion!
-
you need to admit also that LENR - as a hypothesis - is equally unfalsifiable.
Try once to falsify that a cow never gives milk...
I could falsify our LENR gamma radiation!! I did see small green man behind the house...Just one bottle of wine had to be invested....to attract them...
To many junk scientists live on our planet!
-
As said we (in CF) always measure gamma lines we can predict... May be we live in the wrong church...
-
The obvious objection is why would electrons be held together since they are negatively charge and should repel each other. Yet, they exist and have been photographed. After years of study Ken Shoulder express amazement of these objects which he called EVs.
I already explained it once or twice. First real ball lightening has been produce by a Brazil researcher just by luck. An electric arc travelled over silicon dust along a window and bang! as sphere flew away. So the center of this sphere have been strongly positive silicon atoms. All Evos have atomic centers! I never did hear that one could produce them under vacuum....
-
Anyway, what i try to highlight is that something ( 3D ?) what go "too fast" ( relativistic) in one privilegied direction will "deform" its 2 other axis because it's not all spatially homogenous..
In basic physics (mechanics) that describes local mass action of coupled rotating systems all solution spaces are tori! The universe only contains rotating coupled masses...Further it blows up due to photon emission=pressure. Also "c" is no speed limit. Hence we first need a model that can describe real physics...
The key question is: Are some forces transmitted instantaneously? EM forces not, as experiments show, but gravity still is an open question! And "c" is derived from EM actions not from gravity where it gets misused due to a basic Einstein error...
-
Let's consider that one D is generated by 2 directions etc
This is a 2500 years old idea presented by Aristoteles... In topology it means that you can only walk in one direction once you did start. The "line" can have any shape depending on the structure of the space.
E.g. a sphere is 2D and lives in 3D Euklididan space...
-
may be once read Einsteins last words::
the famous Einstein citation of 1954 :: Einstein Remarks in a letter of 10 August 1954 to M. Besso : “Yet, by all means, I consider it as possible that physics cannot be founded on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In this case, from my whole castle in the air, gravitational theory included, but also from the rest of contemporary physics nothing remains.”
Fields are a mathematical crutch to map reality into a more general structure. Reversing the logic only tells that people do neither understand math nor physics!
The end of this madness was the prediction of a fiction called Higgs particle. Fact: No Higgs has been found in the new energy range of the LHC at CERN. The 125.95GeV energy has been found already a long time ago (SPS) and not declared a Higgs...
So field based physics is fake and the best way to cheat politicians ...
-
because a field possesses intrinsically less dimensions than a particle.
Basic rule of logic:: You cannot define something complicated by something simple. The sum, the parts are more than the parts.
Further in experiments only so called force fields can be proven. All other fields only exist in your head and are not real!
-
But the scientists in the study say they think most of the UK trees are giant redwoods.
Fertility is = 0 as the cone cracker beetle is missing...
-
Perhaps I will experiment with using it in conjunction with graphene,
Better is use carbon nanotubes, best double wall. Inner diameter 1..2 nm. If you want to dope them may be 3..4 nm.
But be careful as carbon is instable and may produce a lot of radiation including neutrons.
So for all carbon base CF a broad band neutron detector is mandatory!
-
The list of errors and misconceptions of the standard model (V2) has been published yesterday::
The basics of physics (or why the standard model fails)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379078038
The new model is here since about 4 years now:: The proton and its resonances R II https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374536554
-
Specifically, the lack of gamma ray emission in the reaction could be explained as a consequence.
I guess you never did LENR/CF experiments... We always see gamma radiation but you have to understand how it is produced.
I just posted this paper here, the authors had the kindness to share it with me and I thought it would be good to post it here. No need to be unpolite.
If somebody starts a paper with just math, then we know it has no value for us as these folks cannot tell us what problem they want to solve! Further the classic concepts for metrics like constant volume norm simply are garbage for nuclear physics. Everybody who can read can consult the period table and directly see that nuclear reactions do not conserve any norm...Even worse, the density is a logarithmic function...
-
Thus we must either give up the finiteness of de Sitter space entropy or the exact symmetry of the classical space.
The problem with GR (general relativity) is that it is not conform with real mass. This is independent of any space you use. So we here talk of educated nonsense that Eistein at the end of his live himself did throw in the garbage bin. But nobody ever did read what Einstein wrote after 1940...
-
DM me if this merits a thread or might better be elsewhere in the LENR-Forum.
Not at all! citation::
Ammonia consists only of hydrogen and nitrogen, so no carbon is emitted when the hydrogen is separated. The decomposition process requires a supply of heat energy of over 600℃, and currently, fossil fuels are used, resulting in the emission of carbon dioxide.
But methanol carries 4H/mol a bit heavier can be directly transformed in fuel cell. Ammonia will only work in classic combustion engines on ships. But it is a hype...
-
Bob Greenyer is the third most brilliant physicist
Tik-Toker???
-
This picture has been exploited in order to take care of the interaction behaviour both when Lorentz invariance holds and the spacetime is Minkowskian and when Lorentz is violated and must be recovered in a non-minkowskian spacetime.
This is the usual standard mode word salad one has agreed on since quite a long time. Unluckily particles that do fuse do not live in Minkovsky space and mass in general does not follow the Lorenz transformation. Special relativity has been falsified 1961 by Hefel Keating. But you also can do it by simply following basic math...
Even worse is the usage of Ricci flow that is an indicator for a local deformation of a real Riemann metric where in field theory (e.g.GR) usually a degenerated Riemann metric is used... So one has to be careful what people say and what they really do. E.g. degenerate means that all second order cross terms cancel out what leads to flat Minkowski space time as locally its linear...
But as said the metric inside fusing mass is not constant and the above just is word salad..
-
If you apply it to a city sized neutron star having several suns worth of mass, you find a very large force holding it together. Don't you ever do the math?
May be you should do the math for a nuclear force first....But obviously you only know the standard model that has no clue how the nuclear force evolves...
The Einstein league of the failed GR model undertakes all possible crazy steps to keep the importance of gravity alive.
-
It's what people who have studied the process of two neutron stars becoming one (or a black hole) matters.
These people obviously have no clue of nuclear physics. Why do they use gravity to explain a nuclear reaction?????
G is 10E40 weaker than the electro strong force why should it matter at all? Same with neuron stars what also is fake science. A nucleus usually contains no neutrons or just a few loosely coupled ones in high Z-isotope cases. Charge on nuclear level looks totally different.
fact is: Pressure leads to order what favors CF reactions. See proton 29 experiments.
