Posts by Wyttenbach

Quote from Drgenek

nuclei created electronuclear gravity.

What ever word you add to gravity its just nonsense! Fusion is a complex process that involves different layers of action as the nuclear structure is formed in steps. The classic idea of a nuclear force was refuted (falsified) quite a long time ago. If two Deuterium touch at rest nothing will happen. If they touch spin aligned then D*-D* may come into live where in the case of D*-D* this can be several steps to more stronger electro weak D***-D*** bonds. Where the exact starting point of the D-D meta stable state occurs is an other discussion.

So as Göthe ones said in Faust: If you don't understand it invent a new word...

Quote from GRMattson

The magnetic field has zero divergence, but the charge creates electric fields that have non zero divergence, a miraculous result.

If you would fully understand the Maxwell equation then we could exclude miracles. Any change in flux/area leads to charge not current as most misunderstand because of sloppy notation.

So the only thing you must find is a flux topology that leads to a constant change in flux. This only works in higher dimensions as the flux must be self enclosing. Of course the CT works fine if you make the proper extension as in SOP.

Theory Nobels are only given to people with a large brown tongue that respect all the errors made over the past 100 years and accept the SM holy bible. All theory Nobels of the last 50 years have been awarded for crap science. So one really should think whether one goes down 10 levels to be named together with the worst cheaters of the last 100 years.

Quote from Cydonia

I'm agree with you that this DD fusion wasn't probably the good one, and again agree that probably a kind of spallation reaction occured.

D-D fusion is the normal case under a non kinetic environment. IF you provide to much H then H-D may lead to 3-He that has been confirmed in many Japanese reactions.

Sonofusion targets and glow discharge targets did show 10x above background 4-He already around 1990. Either you do cold fusion and know the relevant people or you just repeat the garbage of other garbage tellers.

I did publish gamma spectra with > 100 known lines 2..10x above background. What else do you want to discuss?

Quote from Drgenek

The speed of light as measured is precisely as predicted. So, when special relativity predicted gravity as a function of speed of light, it seemed natural that gravity would be in some way be derived from the electromagnetic force

GR did predict nothing. This is p-value hackling as we say today. The formula E=mc² simply is nonsense for dense mass and can never be used as a field equivalent. So this is one of Einsteins major errors. Only the Poincaré version is sound that is dm=E/c². Only a fool believes that you can make m= 56Fe c²....

GR still uses "G" the believed gravitation constant that for 99.9999% is not constant at all. So GR is a homorphism to G for "g" about 1.

You can look into SOP how to exactly derive "G".

Quote from GRMattson

He doesn't seem to understand that the divergence giving zero is just as important as non zero. The current density J from Maxwell's Equations has a zero divergence.

All EM flux loops are closed, thus by induction divergence is always 0. There is no need to find an additional prove.

I always explain to the standard model church followers that the 4 potential fails for particles and hence renormalization is impossible. Because the electron/proton are not point sources and far more important the rot operator is not local! charge occurs at the rim of the rot area! Every child knows that EM flux lines cannot pass through a charge. Only brain dead mathematicians try this miracle.

One more thing: If the current density from Maxwells (exactly Farraday) equations would have 0 divergence we would live in a dark world...

The induction law gives j=const*dphi/dt (phi EM flux) You can transform this "t" also into space coordinates for a rotating body.

Then it (simplified) becomes j=dphi_i/dw_i.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

There are a lot of equations in the application

3) rotM= -∂E/∂t,

Before you write down fantastic equations you should at least define the meaning of the letters you use.

And may be think about why E should change for neutral matter...

Then you should also explain the physical meaning of e.g. rot(M) etc. and always keep in mind that your equations should work here down on earth.

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.

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 THHuxleynew

My chemistry was from a long time ago, but x = 3-6 makes the Pb1-x content negative! Am I mistaking something?

Such first year students questions are easy to answer x is the amount/number of Pb atoms that are replaced by the same amount of Cu.

Of course any drug dealer would have the same fantasy to replace 1 part of heroin with 3-6 parts of water...

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 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.

Quote from SindreZG

. 7 m tof tube is not possible in the GU lab, maybe the new one they have now.

Yes I checked his later publications from 2014 on where he had max 2 meters to the last sensor.

This explains many strange claims he made as at the beginning the explanation for 7m was clearly given from the K⁰_L live time (51ns) and speed he claimed to be 0.75c. So 7 meter still is a bit low but 0.75c is speculative. I usually tell people (for safety reasons) to measure at about 10 or more meters. Usually charged particles are a smaller problem.

This also explains the initial spectrum on the Noront home page that I said was a Pion recombination spectrum as calculated from SOP. Such things happen if you catch excited matter prior to decay.

I also sent him some dissent e-mail about the mu^- claims as these should rarely occur from H.

But of course the K⁰_S live time is much shorter and he still should be able to see halve of the signal. The problem is that his target foil catches Kaons and muons and then the Kaons do convert to the S state and mess up the signal.

There is very good reason to use a much longer tube! Or much better a separate path for the charged particles!

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.

Quote from SindreZG

Thats rubbish Wyttenbach and you know better.

I saw a picture of his first apparatus. The tube was at least 7 meters long. I don't know what he later used. But Kaons can also be delayed by placing some foils. The problem with this is that you loose a lot of signal.

Regarding foil calibration. It's all in the book - US army work. But if you have a portable UDH source with a known spectrum then a calibration would be good.

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 RobertBryant

Holmlid's latest response to the status quo

Holmlids response is clear. If a signal is amplified (multiplied) by a standard (Al,Cu) target/behind a target we usually see muons. After this the rest is clear.

What most replicators simply don't grasp is that they have to measure at about 7 meter from the UDH foil as it takes some time until the Kaons do decay. So any replication in a shorter tube is just a fake or a kind of cocktail.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

The chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion occurs in the Sun,

Fusion in the sun happens in the corona or along strong magnetic gradients. The most interesting cluster reaction is 12p -> 12C --> 2Alpha 3He n and many other paths with Deuterium etc..

Why you have the idea that this reaction is cold fusion can only answer a medical adviser..

Quote from axil

The full quote is, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts

I guess what you do is teh exact opposite. You never did produce data, but countless useless theories...So you never will grab Jack the Ripper.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

You complicate things because you don't understand.

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?

Quote from GRMattson

Why don't you write down the differential equation that leads to Einsteins Equation. (For comparison).

Your 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...

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

I am a pure theoretical physicist. I believe that I have discovered the secret of cold nuclear fusion. I proposed various experiments to experimenters to confirm the theory, but for various reasons the experiments were not performed.

The main reason is that 63Ni is not cheap and we all know that normal Nickel isotopes react perfectly with Deuterium and it needs I EM power stimulation (see Brillouin - company name) for working with Hydrogen.

Nobody involved in real lab CF research ever will discuss about CF/LENR being real. If you see a gamma spectrum then its real if you just have a sheet of paper then its fiction.

So sad to say: Nobody will discuss with you about 63Ni & CF as the real CF problems are much more complex.