Arnaud Verified User
  • Member since Apr 2nd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Arnaud

    For me the case is closed. The SO(4) proton 3D/4D orbit bond exactly reproduces Mills measurements. Mills measurements are the only reliable ones as he produces pure H*-H*. In Holmlid's case there are always surface clusters of H*n where n = 7,19,31,..Spin orbit's couple long range so what he sees is a combination of orbits at work. This also explains that his values of radius 2.3pm and energy 630eV are way off.

    Also the Dihydrino model for radius etc. is way off but only few %. Only the coupling works as this is based on energy.


    What is needed are better experiments to understand how we must map SO(4) --> 3D,t. Also in Holmlid's case he e.g. should verify that he works on an e.g. well defined n=7 cluster, then we could refine the cluster coupling.

    So if I understand right, the 2.3pm is a false interpretation by Holmlid of his results. By 'surface cluster', do you mean coplanar in 3D,t ?


    Too much shortcuts in you answer to grasp what you try to explain.

    There are no deep electron orbits. This is a silly extrapolation of long time refuted (Dirac) models that are not withstanding basic mathematical logic. All mass is EM mass and a bound electron is EM-flux. Rotating flux can have any speed >>c in reference to the classic 3D,t space as experiments do show.

    Then was it your interpretations of Leif Holmlid results with your SO(4) theory?

    Thank you Jürg, One of the best introduction to your SO(4) physics you have made so far!

    Alan Smith

    yes, i think the best way to be well uniform should be chemical plating, here by a beam we should have small thickness variations mostly we stay at nanometers level.

    Only a SEM will show something. Here we see nothing with a classical microscope.


    Now, with today understandings, only the experiment will prove which method is best.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Great work can !

    Tellurium is the perfect match from n=inf to n=1/8 !!! Shame tellurium is as rare as platinum. This could be the cause of its rarity : H(n=1/8) could sporadically fuse with its catalyser.

    Out of curiosity, I made a small script for generating automatically a list of electron catalysts according to Simon Brink's theories. This allowed not only to effortlessly list them all for all energy levels, but also plotting only a limited subset.


    For example, in addition to the full table, I also tried making one which only includes very common elements, and another only including noble gases.

    can It would be interesting to have this table in absolute error instead of relative. At 10keV, 0.1% is a lot of eV (10) in comparison of matches at 100 eV range.

    axil: If you try to add energy to a proton (inside deuterium it works best) , then the magnetic moment tries to balance it by releasing a certain quantum of energy, what lets the proton fall into a "deep" magnetic state. A chain of protons in such a deep state can mediate (accumulate) the energy hole what finally leads to D-D fusion.


    The interesting point is how e.g. iron oxide is promoting such deep magnetic states.

    Could you give us the source of infomation regarding Iron oxide (Fe2O3 or Fe3O4 ?) promoting the deep magnetic states ?