Is this a protonic or a neutronic reaction ? Or both ?
Obviously protonic! 7-Li has a neutron excess!
Is this a protonic or a neutronic reaction ? Or both ?
Obviously protonic! 7-Li has a neutron excess!
electricfusionsystems.co
This is based on Lipinskis work that originally was based on WWII German work "stolen" by US military.
The 7-Li-P reaction can be triggered by 50..100eV that are needed to strip off/polarize the paired inner electrons. key for efficiency is the forming of a highly momentum polarized surface of aligned 7-Li(+).
Lipinskis failed to do it, as they ignored by modelling. Let's hope they really can get a sustainable COP > 3 process.
They use strong alkaline D2O, which load D+ into metal with OD-,
This simply is garbage. Pd loads neural H/D as the dissociation energy is very small in contact with Pd. The same holds for Ni!
You mix up liquide state with solid state.
4. Does the Commission wish to save the world as we know it?
By giving even more money to the 30 year long unsuccessful old guard????
This is not a scam.
It depends on how you define a scam. Who needs a micro watt battery at home????
Like, in one turn in 4D, a proton makes 3 turns in 3D? Something similar to a (1,3)-toric knot.
The flux on CT makes 8 turns where teh 3D flux uses 5. Its Fibonacci like 2,3,5,8. Difficult to get it as you also could say that the 3 waves = 3 tangents could be counted individually - what one has done in SM....But they have no clue of the basic rotation number for a flat field that is 2!
Mathematical logic is complicated. If you look at topological degrees of freedom then SM =1 3D flux on CT = 3. If you look on the projection of an orbit to a plane, then SM=2 circles CT = 8 (5 active for proton) circles.
The number 5 you also see in SM as 5 1/3 charges.... what is better the 3 quarks nonsense....
Most likely, quarks should be described in terms of the knot theory of the Clifford torus.
This is correct as I show in SOP that SM just handles the 3D/4D (3 rotation) flux (1.2% of the proton mass) of the proton. The main problem is that all physicists lack deep education in logic and thus most of what they did invent is just garbage from a mathematical-logical point of view.
GR: Is defined in 4D but mathematically its a 2D model due to the flat Riemannsch' Pseudo metric.
Dirac/Klein Gordon equation use the illogical fact that mass-energy = mc2. Factually only dm=E/c2 had been seen in field related experiments. Thus mass energy is not equal field energy.
Further scattering the CERN way works in the far field where actions become linear what explains why they cannot find the real nature of curved particle internal orbits.
So if we say SM physicists are idiots this describes only their illogical = idiotic handling of physics. Of course most are brilliant in basic math, but without understanding logic they have no clue how to use it in particle physics.
Do not expect that these folks will contribute even the slightest to progress in physics for mankind's profit, except in their spare time, where one member did develop the "WWW"..!!
CERN wants a new, and bigger, cathedral
This is a money laundering scheme for the industry as CERN's science game is over since a long time.
The Higgs Fake'
The fake Higgs particle has already been detected around 2001... As at that time the signal was only 3 sigma it got not published and CERN did keep in reserve in case the new collider cannot find the Higgs.
Of course CERN couldn't find any new physics/Higgs particle in the extended energy range (7TEV) of the new collider what tells us that we did waste some 10 billions for nothing except for a machine that could also work, with higher luminosity, in the old energy range up to 130 GeV...
So everything around the Higgs particle is just fake except that the found particle is a real particle what the Higgs cannot be.
A particle is real if one can measure its properties at t0,t1 at a distance > internal 4D De Broglie radius!! Thus must CERN particles (quarks bosons,..) are only virtual not real.
But worst:::
The fat proton (Higgs) like the Kaon/Pion is a doublet charged/neutral.... a very bad fit for Higgs...
the only way to influence a hydrogen atom in order to obtain energy is with the help of neutrinos!
Good is speaking! We now fianlly know, that light bulbs emit neutrinos and thus not photons did convert the Hydrogen in Holmlids lab....
In the video he suggests that the system continues producing thrust for long periods after the power is turned off.
This is a no go answer: The question is total energy in - total energy out!
Charles Buhler discusses a breakthrough propellantless propulsion device developed by Exodus Propulsion Technology that produces 1g (9.8 m/s²) thrust in hard-vacuum experimental testing
The question is always about how much energy is consumed for this thrust...
Another possibility is that the types of persons that are early adopters of electrical cars have a much higher level of aggressive drivers than the typical ICE car owner group.
Of course this is a fact as most kilometers are made by 3x overpowered sports/SUV-cars with far to high torque...
Parkhomov, by stating that the emission of neutrinos from metals can be enhanced greatly with temperatures above 1000 degrees Celsius,
Classical physics claims neutrinos for all missing mass that cannot be explained... but...
Classical physics experiment can only measure the photon energy equivalent of a neutrino that has an almost infinitesimally small cross section with real matter...We talk here of a few events/day in 100 tons of certain liquids.
So certainly neutrinos play no role in promoting LENR. What we know from real experiments is that proper resonant mixtures of magnetic isotopes strongly promote LENR. We can measure this with our gamma spectrometer where we can find the gamma chain for e.g. 60Ni+D* --> 62Zn --> 62Cu--> 62Ni.
This works very easily for a proper mixture and certainly not (or very slowly) for just Ni+D.
Consequently, the process of nuclear fusion (transmutation of nuclei) can be influenced by a moving neutrino field!!!
Neutrinos are the excuse of the standard model physicists that are not able to properly explain the mass loss during decay. This has led to the believe that neutrinos have mass. According the most recent experiments this mass is below 0.2eV. This means the mass differences for neutrinos should emerge from different speed that is varying between 99.9999999999% c and 99.999999999999999% c....
Or is something wrong here???
Of course something is wrong as the standard model has absolute no clue of the neutrino structure as it has also no clue of the photon and nucleus structure.
Our experiments tell that CF is a matter of knowing how to exchange the fusion energy. Our most recent experiment did show that the reaction 60Ni + D* runs as --> 62-Zn --> 62-Cu --> 62Ni if you know how to remove the energy...Certainly not by neutrinos...
Isn't there an episode of Dr. House and EVO's? Or was it mushrooms?
Where does the Chinese company says that? I missed it
How to make a Moskito an Elefant? Just turn your 1:10 tele...
We all wait the 100uW driven mm/hour top racing speed Tesla Snail-phi!