Posts by Aleksandr Nikitin

Quote from bayak

They seem to be on the right track. Moreover, most likely, this is not thermonuclear fusion, but cold fusion. By the way, I will have a similar project, because I finally realized that plasma still needs to be twisted not with a propeller, not with crossed fields, and not with a rotating magnetic field, but with the help of a funnel into which gas is supplied, flowing at high speed from a cylinder.

Dear bayak!

I read your article describing your experiment. As far as I understand you, you want to start a cold nuclear fusion reaction in a plasma vortex at the appropriate temperature, breaking the Coulomb barrier.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Firstly, there is no Coulomb barrier in Nature. For example, there is no Coulomb barrier for neutrinos. The Coulomb barrier exists only in our heads.

2) Cold nuclear fusion is a non-mechanical process, and you are trying to start it using mechanical vortex motion of plasma.

3) You can read my proposals for solving the cold fusion problem in my article:

Quote from Drgenek

RocketStar tests fusion-enhanced in-space propulsion process | Aerospace Testing International

They have not yet realized that if they turn off the main jet engine and leave only cold nuclear fusion, then the thrust will still be there.

Quote from bayak

Keep it simple: jet engine + LENR = increased jet engine thrust.

Yes, at the first stage, it is possible to use hybrid engines to increase traction force: jet engine + LENR.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Once again, why not contact Shawyer with your ideas, rather than just posting here? I believe he will answer you.

In terms of inventions, a functional reactionless drive is long-term more important than functioning LENR, as it would allow us leaving the solar system.

That will be impossible without it. Send him an email with your ideas.

sprltd@emdrive.com

Once again: Roger Scheuer's jetless engine is a cold fusion generator LENR!

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Affirming the consequent[edit]

Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premise and conclusion are both true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:

1. If an idea is true (A), then it must be crazy. (B)
2. An idea is crazy. (B)
3. Therefore, the idea is true. (A)

It is not the logical-mathematical path that leads to discoveries in physics, but the philosophical-metaphysical path, the play of crazy imagination.

Read, for example, about the “Einstein arc” or E. Schrödinger:

“...Metaphysics is not part of the building of science itself, but is rather like wooden scaffolding, which cannot be dispensed with when constructing the building. Perhaps it is even permissible to say: metaphysics turns into physics in the process of development...”

Quote from Wyttenbach

I just want to remind people that the cavity EM drive is no mystery as all fields of non point source show divergence forces that are tangential to the main field axes. So the thrust is just the reflexion force issued by the tangential wave part. The other fact is: This is a very dumb way to produce thrust as divergence forces are second order at best and in gravity action shine up at the 5th digit. So you basically waste 10'000x energy for 1 unit of thrust.

With a clever mirror you could reverse this ratio...then the thrust would be proportional to the total wave energy.

Gentlemen! Mechanical traction force can be created only in a single fundamental way, namely, by “consuming” mass, that is, turning it into neutrino radiation.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

"You put me next to Bohr and Einstein, who considered themselves crazy."

No, I don't put you next to them. I put you next to Axil.

"The trivial orthodox expressions from school textbooks that “photons transfer energy” are of no use."

Tell that to people with solar panels on their roofs looking at their energy bill.

""Only crazy ideas can become true!" Niels Bohr"
Bohr never said that. He said something else with the word crazy in it that you misinterpreted to suit your supposed argument.

Niels Henrik David Bohr:

“If an idea doesn't seem crazy, it won't do any good.”

“Your idea is, of course, crazy. The whole question is whether she is crazy enough to be true.”

“Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true. (Said to Wolfgang Pauli regarding electron spin.)“

Albert Einstein:

“The question that puzzles me is: “Am I crazy or everyone else?”

Quote from Paradigmnoia

There are more chess game possibilities than atoms in the universe. Does that not mean chess is the universe?

Do you play chess? My address is at Chess.com

AAleksandraaa

Quote from Paradigmnoia

There are four times the number of photons per cm3 than neutrinos per cm3 in space

Your estimate gives the number of neutrinos and photons of the same order, given that there are countless of them in the Universe.

Doesn't this coincidence mean that they are one and the same?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

A typical response from a crackpot is to respond to an obviously accurate rebuttal, (for example that photons carry energy) with more unrelated crackpottery. It is called a smokescreen.

I do not deserve such high praise for my ideas from a typical orthodox: You put me next to Bohr and Einstein, who considered themselves crazy.

The trivial orthodox expressions from school textbooks that “photons transfer energy” are of no use.

"Only crazy ideas can become true!" Niels Bohr

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Photons carry energy, in case you never noticed solar panels, nor got a sunburn.

Don’t rush to declare what you don’t understand as non-existent.

Now I’ll tell you something crazy: the Sun doesn’t emit anything, it only absorbs!

And one more thing: Have you ever wondered that the number of photons in Space is equal to the number of neutrinos? Why did it happen?

Don't worry about me, I am in perfect health and clear mind. We're having a rainy spring, so it's still a long time before sunburn occurs.

Quote from GRMattson

So, what precisely are all those photon's hitting the earth from the sun carrying? Energy is defined as the ability to do work. When I grab my chainsaw and make firewood I'm not doing bookkeeping.

Sorry, GRMattson,

"There is nothing more practical than a good theory"

I'm afraid that with your scientific philosophy you will have to burn the stove with wood for a long time.

Imagine photons carrying nothing but themselves!

Quote from Cydonia

Often you talked about cold nuclear fusion everywhere but what "cold' means in your mind and/or hot ? (temperature range)?

In my understanding, there is no difference between cold and hot nuclear fusion, but simply nuclear fusion. Temperature is not a condition for a nuclear fusion reaction, but a consequence.

Quote from JedRothwell

You mean "Dear ChatGPT!" I was quoting the ChatBot.

My comments to the last paragraph, which I hope you wrote.

Quote from Alan Smith

The idea that unless something moves (changes) nothing happens is intrinsic to science and philosophy, even something as trivial as the quantum jump pf an electron cloud from one orbital to another is movement. This concept of the unstoppable and continual nature of change predates written records but was first expressed (as far as I know) by Heraclitus who said "All entities move and nothing remains still" or if you prefer it by Plato "Everything changes and nothing stands still" That was around 500BC, so as I said, is 'nothing new'.

As for your interesting ideas about neutrinos, until we have dependable and practical means of detecting them your idea remains a speculation. Unfortunately I don't have room in my laboratory for a tank containing 50 kilotons of high-purity water and many thousands of photo-multipliers.

Display More

I agree with you. Of course, such ideas have been expressed since ancient times, for example, by Heraclitus, Aristotle, Plato. But I am rather a continuator of the ideas of Parmenides. But we live in the 21st century and it is incorrect to say in a scientific debate that everything already happened in Ancient Greece. Sorry, but maybe some of our contemporaries expressed such ideas?

About neutrinos.

1) a neutrino is a particle-wave-field,

2) neutrino, so to speak, is a “displacement current”,

3) in a laboratory experiment there is no need to focus on registering and detecting neutrinos, but it is necessary to register the PROCESS OF MATTER MOVEMENT that generates neutrinos,

4) for me there is no longer a need for laboratory experiments: Nature has already performed a wonderful experiment: during the explosion of supernova 1987A, 99% of the star’s mass turned into a neutrino field and cold nuclear fusion occurred in the remains!

Quote from Drgenek

The greatest untapped energy source is dark energy. Dark energy is produced as a product of the interaction of velocity of masses. The higher the relative velocity the greater the magnetic force between of the tiny dipoles of mass near zero. At the limit of velocity, the shear disintegrates mass to dark energy. These tiny particles are the cause of gravity and are fundamental components of the so call fundamental particles of the standard model.

At the smallest scale mass converts to energy and vice-a-versa. We call this action the uncertainty principle, but it is a direct consequence of the action in the above paragraph. Hence, due to conversion of dark energy to thrust, reactionless propulsion is possible.

A little over a year ago scientists proposed dark energy is produced by blackhole. Further, so call cold fusion produces Matsumoto blackholes. Because of the 1st paragraph above, Matsumoto blackhole produce dark energy. The most direct evidence of conversion of the product of "cold fusion" to energy is in the thread RE: Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop

For the model and mathematical derivation of origin of dark matter see RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

Display More

Dear Drgenek!

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.

Mass cannot turn into energy, energy cannot turn into mass. In Einstein's formula, both on the left side and on the right side there is energy. Energy is not a substance, energy is a measure (number) of the movement of matter.

Quote from Alan Smith

Aleksandr Nikitin Nobody who understands cold fusion believes it is anything but a natural phenomenon. And if nothing moves, nothing changes, so movement is part of every change. So for me, your idea isn't new.

Dear Alan Smith!

Your criticism is of an uncertain nature, and when you write: “Your idea is not new,” you must indicate by whom it was previously expressed.

I ask you to read my article more carefully. You didn't understand her. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but very briefly my idea is this:

1) in our World, it is not matter that is primary, but the non-mechanical movement of our World-Nature, the measure of which is energy. In our World, everything is relative, there is nothing absolute, that is, there is no state of rest, everything is in motion and change,

2) the movement of our World is, at a fundamental level, cold nuclear fusion, which is material-neutrino-energy induction,

3) Any engine (including supportless, motorless, non-mechanical, “anti-gravity” and so on) is a generator of cold nuclear fusion,

4) The movement of a material body in space and time is possible in only one way, namely, by “consuming” mass, that is, turning it into neutrino radiation.

Excuse me, who expresses such ideas?

My idea is more developed in the article that I attach. Thank you.

Quote from JedRothwell

These models aim to address the key challenge in cold fusion: explaining how nuclear reactions typically requiring high energies and temperatures could occur at room temperature and without significant radiation, as traditional nuclear reactions would predict. Despite ongoing research, cold fusion remains a contentious topic in the scientific community, with many experiments failing to reliably reproduce the initial claims, leading to skepticism about the feasibility of these processes as described. The models are largely theoretical and have not been conclusively proven or widely accepted in the scientific community.

Dear JedRothwell !

Everything great is always simple:

We have no other choice but to turn the problem of cold nuclear fusion into a postulate and solve it in a philosophical and metaphysical way, namely:

To postulate that cold nuclear fusion is a fundamental absolute property of the movement of our World. It occurs always and everywhere with any movement of matter. Our World is like this!

It is necessary that such a conclusion follows.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

A motorless, reactionless propulsion system is a cold fusion generator.

Quote from orsova

What to make of this?

https://thedebrief.org/nasa-ve…to-defeat-earths-gravity/

A motorless, reactionless propulsion system is a cold fusion generator.