RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Dave Roberson Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake Interesting results. One question I have is what material is used as a gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber? It is hard to believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used. I answered my own question. Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone wanting to replicate the experiment. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily unstable
In my opinion, the rate at which heat energy is removed from the casing by the airflow is a strong controller of the reaction stability. As expected, as long as the internally generated heat due to the reaction is less than the amount of heat energy escaping through the case at a given temperature, the device should usually be stable. There may be some delay related energy releases that lead to local runaway events. This is a complex system that looks simple. I am hoping that we finally have a device that works. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Arnaud Kodeck Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:24 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily unstable The huge size of the reactor is an advantage against runaway of the LENR reaction. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Friday, 28 June 2019 01:56 To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Exponential and self-heating reactions are not necessarily unstable Arnaud Kodeck wrote: The design of the reactor is huge to compare with the amount of heat. Oh come now. Obviously it has not been optimized. It is 60 cm long and the meshes are only 30 cm long. It is half empty. It also has not been driven to maximum temperature. Mizuno has projected that it could be far hotter with much higher power density.
RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake
Interesting results. One question I have is what material is used as a gasket between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber? It is hard to believe that nothing is required to prevent leaks. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:18 PM To: Vortex Subject: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake Here is an edited version of a message I posted at LENR-forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6013-mizuno-reports-increased-excess-heat/?postID=113176#post113176 “SOT” and “THH” are denizens of that forum. Someone at LENR-forum wrote, "I think [Mizuno and Rothwell] probably have made some kind of mistake." I don't think so. I have seen many, many mistakes. I have made many myself! They do not look like this. I cannot imagine what error it might be. But that's the thing about errors: you cannot imagine them, so that's why you make them. SOT has repeatedly emphasized the large power of this experiment. I countered by saying the signal to noise ratio of previous experiments was better, even though power was 0.3 W, 0.5 W, or 5 W (Miles and McKubre). Their instruments were so much better, they could measure this low power with more confidence than Mizuno measures 250 W. That's true from a strictly scientific or technical point of view. However, SOT makes a valid point here. It is true that the higher the power, the less likely a mistake becomes. High power automatically increases the signal to noise ratio. (Up to a certain point it does, until you have to move to a different calorimeter, which may have a whole new set of problems.) In the paper, I made a point similar to this, on p. 5: "1. A comparison of the outlet minus inlet temperatures with a 50 W calibration versus the 50 W excess heat test (Fig. 5). This is the raw temperature data from the calorimeter. This is the simplest first approximation. Assuming only that input power and the air flow rate is the same in both tests, this shows that much more heat is produced in the excess heat test. The temperature difference is 10°C higher with excess heat." It is dead simple to confirm a 10°C temperature difference. Mizuno, I, or anyone with experience would do that with the thermometers and the Omega handheld thermocouples. We would do it several times a day. The inlet temperature is the same as ambient. It is shown on the thermometers hanging on the wall. You can see at a glance it is correct. You can measure the outlet temperature by holding a thermometer in the wind coming out of the calorimeter. So, I do not think there is any way that measurement is wrong. I do not think the blower could be running much slower than it does during calibration. That fact would stand out boldly on the screen. The power consumed by the fan is shown continuously, in the data that scrolls down from the HP gadget. THH insists the fan may be running much slower. I think he said 20%. Or was it 50%? Both numbers are impossible. The blower fan would not slow down that much; the motor would burn out, and the fan would stop dead. The input power has to go somewhere, either into mechanical movement or waste heat. That much waste heat will burn the motor. However, for the sake of argument, even if we assume the fan slowed down by 50%, there would still be massive excess heat. THH raised another issue. He claims the actual air speed might be much slower than we think, both during calibration and during active runs. I showed that is incorrect, because the calibrations produce a reasonably close balance, and furthermore the heat losses from the calorimeter chamber that we estimated from input power minus output captured in the air flow (Fig. 2) are confirmed by other methods. You can confirm them yourself with the numbers in the ICCF21 paper, p. 8. However, for the sake of argument, even if the air flow rate is far lower than we think, as long as the fan is running at about the same speed it was during calibration, there would still be excess heat. Not as much as we think, but there would still be some. In my opinion, there is no chance that the temperature difference or the air speed (or both together) could be wrong by such a large factor that 50 W looks like 300 W. That is out of the question. The results reported at ICCF21 were closer to the margin. The likelihood of an error was higher. The two papers are: ICCF21https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTincreasede.pdf ICCF22 https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheata.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...
Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Brian Ahern Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; jone...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages... I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months. It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on September 25 2012. I have the components, but no circuit diagram. I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are essential. That is important information Brian. During your testing did you isolate the device inside any form of magnetic shielding? Also, did the device performance depend upon its orientation? I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the local environment? You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that you will share as much as you can. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...
Nice sized flywheel. Could store a lot of energy so it is going to be hard to prove that the magnets are the real source. I am skeptical. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Terry Blanton Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages... 40 kw of mechanical energy uh-huh. They sure know what they are talking about.
RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity
The discussion of a violation of the conservation of energy or angular momentum perked up my curiosity. I have searched many times for a trick that gets around the rules to no avail. So, I decided to simulate a simple yet elegant model system that I think might be of interest to the group. My model consists of a mass attached to a lossy spring which is attached to a stationary rod. The heating due to the conversion of spring energy is collected within a thermal storage mass. I used OpenModelica as a platform and suggest that everyone obtain a copy of this very powerful modeling program. For initial conditions I gave the 1kg mass a velocity of 1 meter per second in the X direction. The spring, which has a spring constant of 1 Newton per meter is stretched by 2 meters to reach the mass located along the Y axis. The spring loss, or damping constant was chosen to be .2 n*s/m so that the Moment of Inertia changes gradually as the orbit of the mass around the fixed point slowly changes from what appears to be an ellipse to a circle as the system reaches a stable condition. The initial system contains 2.5 joules of energy. Two joules are contained within the stretched spring according to the equation E=1/2*K*Y where K=1 and Y=2 meters. One Half joules are in the form of kinetic energy of the mass which is 1 kg moving at a velocity of 1 meter per second. My thermal energy capacitor begins at 0 Kelvin with no heat storage. When all the transient motion had settled down I then calculated the total energy to be the same 2.5 joules as during the initial phase. At the end of the simulation the spring was only stretched to the square root of two long from a beginning of 2 meters. That meant its energy was only 1 joule after simulation. The mass is now moving at a velocity of the square root of 2 in a circle so it has increased its energy to 1 joule. Finally, the heat storage capacitor reads .5 degrees Kelvin which translates into .5 joules of energy. As you can see, the energy of the closed system remains exactly the same while the Moment of Inertia is allowed to change in a smooth manner. Of course, the angular momentum is shown to be constant as theory would require. The initial angular momentum of the mass is calculated by M=angular velocity*Moment of Inertia. Angular velocity is Tangential velocity / radius or .5 in the initial case. The Moment of Inertia is M*R squared or 1*2 squared which is 4. So total angular momentum is .5 * 4 = 2. When the dust settles and the simulation completes you will see that the orbit is circular and has a reduced radius of the square root of two meters compared to an initial value of 2 meters. The mass has a linear velocity of the square root of two meters per second which is increased from its original value of 1 meter per second. The final Moment of Inertia has been reduced to the square root of two squared or a value of two. The final angular velocity of the mass becomes the square root of two meters per second divided by the radius which is also the square root of two. The angular velocity yields 1 radian per second. Taking the product of the angular velocity and the MoI gives you the angular momentum of 2*1 or 2. I am confident that everyone noticed that my model consisted of 1 small mass attached to a spring which is held fixed at its far end. The actual complete system has an identical mass and spring connected to this point and symmetrically opposite in position and velocity, etc. So, think of two masses connected at opposite ends of a lossy spring. They are rotating about a common point that is fixed in space with no linear motion. I hope that this simple model will inspire others to play around with mechanical system modelling to obtain a better understanding of physics. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10
RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity
Vibrator, I am confident that if you confine your concept to a closed system that both the angular momentum and angular energy will be conserved. In a simple case of a rotating object, if the MoI is changed by a factor of two, then the object spin will speed up or down by that factor. And, as a consequence the angular energy will remain the same since it is proportional to the square of the angular speed but inversely proportional to the MoI. I can not comment upon your special system because for some reason I did not get additional information about your setup. You can be assured that the conservation laws are intact. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Vibrator ! Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error. Some kind of resolution! It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people here with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', one way or the other. I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother of all absurd claims.. What it is: - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys rotational KE. - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration. - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU. There are two different forms of input work applied: - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann sum via Excel. Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em. Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up more sims.. The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work at all.. yet a 200% KE gain. With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially negative.. I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many orders over noise. Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty.. Climbing the walls here..
RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge
I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the frequency of the laser. That might explain why it took so much longer to cut the metal. Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited by the laser was measured? Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: JonesBeene Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge This is good to see. I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined to find answers. It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a number of ways. Holmlid’s work is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his disclosures as difficult as possible to replicate. The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be revived. New game. But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD. From: Axil Axil Holmlid replicator http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/ JonesBeene wrote: Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon. It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong interest in the complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then it is part of their mission. They also have a long history of nondisclosure – a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R&D. This was engrained before the cold war. All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something. Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would it be truly ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep secrets deeply hidden. Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R&D to be published on LENR also means little – the information could have been part of a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone. Look at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to ignore. Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than terrorists. In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come. So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is concerned - or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he is operating in the realm
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time as being normal. Only outside viewers see time slow down. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no >return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not >escape the black hole. In this understanding, time slows down >asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running >(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon. > >To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the >electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate. >(Unless I'm mistaken.) If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole. (Outside wouldn't be a problem). > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Robin, I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information about the conversion that takes place. If the mass equivalent remains the same and its center also is conserved then what is different? Of course the photons would interact differently than the two particles but that effect would be localized I think. Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons and electrons of the same energy? Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other >than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event >and other particles. > >Dave If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe. IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Philippe, If you choose a frame of reference that is stationary to the center of mass of the two particles, which is at rest relative to them, then there can be very little motion associated with the two. When the conversion to energy takes place two photons are released exactly in opposite directions keeping the effective center of mass in the same place. Is there reason to believe that photons do not have actual mass and hence gravitational attraction? If they do have mass then nothing has changed in the universe other than a conversion of mass into energy. All gravitational effects remain the same. Does that not make sense? I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event and other particles. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dave, This is absolutely true and not challenged at all. My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy .Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation .Nevertheless mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the two created photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy. Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson a écrit : Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM To: Jürg Wyttenbach Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; mules...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a hole of mass .This is what happens between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti (positive)mass. On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. See you soon in Paris, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : Dear Philippe Thanks for Your information. >From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic >moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected >value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a >proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe >do exist. The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/elect
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM To: Jürg Wyttenbach Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; mules...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a hole of mass .This is what happens between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti (positive)mass. On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. See you soon in Paris, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : Dear Philippe Thanks for Your information. >From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic >moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected >value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a >proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe >do exist. The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/electron measurements...) But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math rules. Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building rule. Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown. I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the nucleus, we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly defined by the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the building of the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing mass/magnetic flux and must be (re-) filled to become active. If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a positron (antimatter) does not hold. An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp (Units J/T) what needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like 1.913 / 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what includes their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same holds for the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact energies, we can only derive some base frequencies! "Nothing" is said