Single circuits generate nuclear reactions

[aleks]

w is the angular momentum.

w is angular frequency - always was, in all books dealing with Fourier transforms. Not to note that plot shows power spectrum which has nothing to do with momentum (note the "w -> inf" mentioned, which is unapplicable to momentum)

[Feynman]

I meant to say angular frequency.  This does not change the fact you have yet to explain how a power spectra at w=0 is equivalent to "DC". Please post detailed reasoning.

According to classical physics the angular frequency ω associated with a charge revolving in a circular orbit of radius r with a tangential velocity v is ω=v/r. The regular frequency f is related to the angular frequency by the relation f=ω/(2π). This should be the frequency associated with the escape of an electron from the hydrogen atom. Therefore

(h/2Ï€)(v/r) = = m[(αZe?)?/pθ?]Î"pθ

[Koen1]

Well you guys can keep slapping eachother with formulae,
but most often one can quite clearly describe what one means
to say in words, which is clearer to others and may sometimes
help to avoid confusion about formulae...

In any case, the Vall?e theory and Naudin and other peoples experiment
based on it seems pretty clear and not at all ambiguous, so I don't really
see any advantage in switching to Aleks's interpretation which appears
to involve more complicated mathematics to describe what apparently
is effectively the same thing. Or at least, if Aleks is right it is.
If Aleks's approach is equivalent then the Vall?e approach seems less
complicated a way to describe the process,
and I am not entirely convinced it is truly "merely" 'electro-acoustics'
and not the Protelf process, so the "if" is quite big.

My primary interest is in getting a system like this to work.
If the Vall?e theory and Naudin-like replication is sufficient to make
such a "synergetic reactor" work, then by all means let's do so.
After we all have our homes running on Protelf generators,
we can spend as much time as we like arguing what the exact
proper interpretation is, and if maybe Aleks's interpretation could
be a more plausible explanation...
But arguing about it at this point seems a bit like arguing whether
Edisons light bulb emits light due to incandescence or due to
arcing, without actually having a lightbulb to do experiments with...

[Feynman]

This has been exactly my point from the start, and is why I have no tolerance for the 'armchair theorists'.  I am done with this ridiculous discussion, it has been simply a colossal waste of time.


For those people who actually build things and do experiments, rather than just sit on their asses in front of their keyboards, I would like to post some sources of equipment:


Juan's original paper, professional translated to English:
http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/electronically-activated-radioisotopic-carbon-generator.pdf

Toroids:
http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/TTX-7812/790950/TOROIDAL_TRANSFORMER,_7.8VAC_6.3A,_25.2VCT_2.2A_.html
http://www.cmi-ferrite.com/Products/Standard%20Cores/Large%20toroids.htm

Thoriated Tungsten:
http://www.diamondground.com/tungmaterials.html

Pure Carbon Rods:
http://www.tedpella.com/carbon_html/carbon1.htm

[aleks]

I meant to say angular frequency.  This does not change the fact you have yet to explain how a power spectra at w=0 is equivalent to "DC". Please post detailed reasoning.

http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/other/dft/
Note X(0) is called "DC" (do a search on the page). But I'm surprised I should tell you this. Direct current is a constant value current; while zero-frequency component of Fourier transform is the same as an average of a serie, and represents constant component.