————————————————————————–
|
 |
|
||
|
||||
In his answer, he said: “we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.” In his paper, he says: “The step-wise Euler method described here can also be used in the event the state-equations are nonlinear due to choosing an arbitrary α = α (r).”
Also, in his paper he says: “Allowing α = α(r) would distort the radial axis used to plot Bz(r) and Bθ(r)”
That is related to what you want. So, if you choose the adequate α = α(r), then yes, the current density j may fall off more strongly with r (which is not the same as saying that alpha is a function of j). Even more, with the adequate α = α(r) you may get a more convincing argument for the Titius Bode observation to replace the one made by Don in 2015, in which he used a constant alpha of 19.5, seemingly leaving lots of unused possible orbits between real orbits.
Cheers,
On 2 December 2017 at 02:04, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wro
Juan and David,Read especially section 3 and the derivation of equation (14):then tell me where Don or I made a mistake. Alpha does to me seem to be a function of j, and then would be the key to fitting the Bessel function to the solar system. I’m always willing to accept that I’ve made an error, but here I don’t even understand the objection. Perhaps Either of you can help?—– Forwarded Message —–From: Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net>To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017, 12:15:10 PM MSTSubject: Re: If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?Alpha is not a function of j.
Alpha is a scale factor between the dimensionless independent Bessel function variable, x, and the real-world variable, r.An Example: The first zero of Bessel function of J0(x) is at x = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of j and B ends – where the z component stops and the encircling wrap-around component is maximum. It’s where the “first orbit” is. So, if we want to use “astronomical units” (Earth-Sun distance) as our real-world radius unit, the orbit of Mercury is at about r = 0.3. That means: alpha = x/r = 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on r or j or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at x = 8.6537, or r = 8.6537/ 8.016 ~ 1. (I don’t know what happened to Venus??)The point is, we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.Feel free to disagree, but I want to make sure you understand where I am coming from on this.Don
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 1, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net> wrote:
Jim,
Here are my reactions to your last email.
D
<ForJim2.docx>
|
12:05 AM (10 hours ago) |
|
||
|
|||
This keeps ringing for me – The spatial frequency of the bessel function as a function of r:
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.c
I am too wasted to think clearly right now, but on first sight it seems that you are both right.
Don is right in that alpha is not strictly a function of j, and you are probably right in that alpha is not a constant along all the filament but a function of r, thus making j a more complex non-linear function than what is simplistically assumed in Don’s paper. He even says: “If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.”I’ll expand later.On 2 December 2017 at 02:04, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wro
te: Juan and David,Read especially section 3 and the derivation of equation (14):then tell me where Don or I made a mistake. Alpha does to me seem to be a function of j, and then would be the key to fitting the Bessel function to the solar system. I’m always willing to accept that I’ve made an error, but here I don’t even understand the objection. Perhaps Either of you can help?—– Forwarded Message —–From: Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net>To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017, 12:15:10 PM MSTSubject: Re: If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?Alpha is not a function of j.
Alpha is a scale factor between the dimensionless independent Bessel function variable, x, and the real-world variable, r.An Example: The first zero of Bessel function of J0(x) is at x = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of j and B ends – where the z component stops and the encircling wrap-around component is maximum. It’s where the “first orbit” is. So, if we want to use “astronomical units” (Earth-Sun distance) as our real-world radius unit, the orbit of Mercury is at about r = 0.3. That means: alpha = x/r = 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on r or j or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at x = 8.6537, or r = 8.6537/ 8.016 ~ 1. (I don’t know what happened to Venus??)The point is, we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.Feel free to disagree, but I want to make sure you understand where I am coming from on this.Don
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 1, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net> wrote:
Jim,
Here are my reactions to your last email.
D
<ForJim2.docx>
Platonic solids/The Structure Atom Model (SAM) by Edwin Kaal from Science to Sage on Vimeo.
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:14 AM, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:
Found a link to polygons in spinning fluids…Symmetry-Breaking of Interfacial Polygonal Patterns and Synchronization of Travelling Waves within a Hollow-Core Vortex-don
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:14 AM, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:
Found a link to polygons in spinning fluids…Symmetry-Breaking of Interfacial Polygonal Patterns and Synchronization of Travelling Waves within a Hollow-Core Vortex
|
10:42 AM (8 hours ago)  |
|
||
|
||||
Hi Don (and all),
If you are diving into the subject of LENR (the N usually standing for “nuclear”), make sure you get Steven Krivit’s three-book series.
Krivit was an editor for the American Chemical Society 2008 and 2009 technical reference books on LENRs and editor-in-chief for the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. He is the leading author of review articles and encyclopedia chapters about LENRs, including invited papers for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons.
Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the dogmatic attitude of academia as a whole, it is a pleasing surprise to see that he could publish books with titles like “Hacking the Atom”, “Fusion Fiasco” and “Lost History” and still be considered an authoritative voice within conventional circles.
Here are the links (each kindle ebook is just 4 bucks):
Of course, LENR is one of the many subjects that will be addressed in Chris Reeve’s incoming Controversies of Science social network. His preliminary controversy card about LENR can be found here (you may also want to check out my comments there regarding a possible relationship between LENR and cavitation phenomena):
https://plus.google.com/+
Happy explorations!
Juan
On 2 December 2017 at 14:56, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:
Lady and Gents,About Low Energy Neutron Reaction (LENR)An impressive index of the slides linked above is on slides #4 and #5.This topic is about elemental transmutation.Frank Znidarsic’s data for his theory in ‘Control of the Natural Forces’ came from a cold fusion (LENR) experiment’s frequency data, plus Podkletnov’s gravity beam frequency data (duplicated by Dr. Li in NASA’s Alabama facility), wherein Znidarsic realizes there is a resonant frequency of a nucleus that is caused by a delay of nuclear (Coulomb field) response –which delay IS conjectured to be the root-cause of the infamous fine grain constant (Planck’s constant). In this line of thought, transmutation occurs during resonance with nuclei driven with electrical or magnetic activation (Podkletov) OR sonic activation driven by EM (LENR) as in cold fusion experiments. The key is to create a spatial-resonance of the nucleus, vibrating in space, of a sufficient population of atoms.The magic frequency realized by Mr. Z. is 1.094 megaHz-meters. (I.e., a one meter circumference conductor would magnetically cohere with nuclei at 1.094 megaHz.Frank Znidarsic <fznidarsic@aol.com> is a really nice guy, though Frank couldn’t follow my home-made vernacular in magnetic resonance of a rotating field (around the axial symmetry of a torus knot array).Some notes/links on Frank Znidarsic: http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Frank_Znidarsic Videos/links on Eugene (Evgeny) Podkletnov: http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Euge ne_Podkletnov_portal -don in Colorado
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:
I am too wasted to think clearly right now, but on first sight it seems that you are both right.
Don is right in that alpha is not strictly a function of j, and you are probably right in that alpha is not a constant along all the filament but a function of r, thus making j a more complex non-linear function than what is simplistically assumed in Don’s paper. He even says: “If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.”I’ll expand later.On 2 December 2017 at 02:04, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Juan and David,Read especially section 3 and the derivation of equation (14):then tell me where Don or I made a mistake. Alpha does to me seem to be a function of j, and then would be the key to fitting the Bessel function to the solar system. I’m always willing to accept that I’ve made an error, but here I don’t even understand the objection. Perhaps Either of you can help?—– Forwarded Message —–From: Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net>To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017, 12:15:10 PM MSTSubject: Re: If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?Alpha is not a function of j.
Alpha is a scale factor between the dimensionless independent Bessel function variable, x, and the real-world variable, r.An Example: The first zero of Bessel function of J0(x) is at x = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of j and B ends – where the z component stops and the encircling wrap-around component is maximum. It’s where the “first orbit” is. So, if we want to use “astronomical units” (Earth-Sun distance) as our real-world radius unit, the orbit of Mercury is at about r = 0.3. That means: alpha = x/r = 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on r or j or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at x = 8.6537, or r = 8.6537/ 8.016 ~ 1. (I don’t know what happened to Venus??)The point is, we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of r for it, that’s good.Feel free to disagree, but I want to make sure you understand where I am coming from on this.Don
On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 1, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net> wrote:
Jim,
Here are my reactions to your last email.
D
<ForJim2.docx>
ORMUS
http://32youtube.com/search.php?q=david+hudson+ormus
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/presentations/virginiabeach.htm