Where is the ATOM battery?

This document has been translated and published with a voiceover by Bob Greenyer, with the permission of the author Alexander L. Shishkin and the article is speaking from his perspective having conducted more than 50 years of continual research in this specialist field. I have been thinking about this article for a long time. It was prompted by works of L.A. Kulak [1] and N.V. Petrov [2], published on the website of the Academy of Trinitarianism. The main idea is that "the process of extracting energy from the Aether goes on in all electromagnetic oscillatory systems" [2]. But the Aether, as a source of energy and prima-materia, is disregarded by modern classical physics. For example, the Bohr model of the atom (Bohr Model) is a semiclassical model of the atom proposed by Niels Bohr in 1913. He based it on the planetary model of the atom put forward by Rutherford. However, from the point of view of classical electrodynamics, an electron in Rutherford's model, moving around the nucleus, would have to radiate energy continuously and very quickly and, having lost it, fall onto the nucleus. To overcome this problem, Bohr introduced the assumption that electrons in the atom can move only along certain (stationary) orbits, in which they do not emit energy, and emission or absorption occurs only at the moment of transition from one orbit to another [3]. Theorists have successfully proved the absence of radiation purely mathematically. However, the atom also rotates, so one more assumption must be made - there is some kind of eternal battery inside the nucleus of an atom. But even modern researchers, who accept the existence of the Aether, still for some reason adhere to the generally accepted model of the atom in their research. Indicative in this sense is the work of V.N. Zatelepin and D.N. Baranov dedicated to "dark hydrogen". In the work [4], the authors talk about "dark" matter and provide experimental evidence for the existence of "dark hydrogen" (Barut ion). In this non-classical model of an atom, two protons rotate around the nucleus in the form of an electron pair bound by magnetic forces. And again, the authors refer to theorists who prove the absence of radiation from a mathematical point of view. But where does the energy to sustain the processes come from? Is the "eternal battery" hidden in all components of the atom? According to the authors, "dark hydrogen" is born during an electric discharge in a heterogeneous water-air environment and, according to their assumption, is a stable particle. The characteristic size of this particle is about 10^-13 m. The authors conducted a series of experiments and presented the following evidence confirming the "dark hydrogen" model: * “registration of hard X-ray radiation in the range of 260 ± 30 keV during a spark breakdown of a water-air medium, * registration of the correlation of hard X-ray radiation in the range of 250 keV and a radio signal during a spark breakdown of a water-air medium, * registration of soft X-ray radiation in the range of 14 keV during an electric discharge in a water-air environment.” However, the mathematical proofs of theorists are opportunistic, since theorists, as a rule, adapt to the regime that exists in science. The assumptions of the authors and the experimental evidence they provide do not convince me for the following reasons: * The authors note that “the reproducibility of the experiment (registration of gamma rays with an energy of 260 keV) is not very high. It was possible to obtain such data only in two launches. The reason is that the electronics cannot withstand the very stressful conditions of the experiment and constantly fails…. Perhaps the reason for the failure of electronics is the spread of "dark hydrogen" from the discharge zone and its entry into the components of electronic devices.”As the practice of similar studies shows, the source of X-ray/gamma quanta in the range of 260 ± 30 keV can be natural radioactive elements. For example, during the alpha decay of Radon ( 86 Rn-219 ), a gamma-ray quantum with an energy of 272 keV is emitted. In the 92 U-235 decay chain, gamma quanta are produced with energies (in keV): 204.290, 237, 270 and 272.351. In the 92 U-228 decay chain, gamma rays with energies of 246, 242 and 241 keV will be registered. At the same time, the fact of accelerating the decay of radioactive elements under the influence of electromagnetic pulses has long been known [5]. Such gamma quanta can be successfully detected according to the coincidence scheme, with a triggering high-voltage pulse, since a high-voltage pulse can initiate the decay of a radioactive element nanoparticle that has fallen into the discharge zone. * Soft X-ray emission in the region of 28 keV can also be associated with the decay of uranium and thorium:92 U-233 - 29 keV,92 U-237 - 26 keV,90 Th-231 - 26 keV,90 Th-233 - 29 keV. Soft X-rays with energies up to 10 keV are constantly recorded under any rapidly occurring mechanical and electromagnetic effects on matter and are associated with the formation and destruction of energy clusters (ECs). This is described in detail in [6]. Energy clusters are quasi-stable formations. They are constantly present around us, but fundamental science, as a rule, does not notice these formations. ECs have many names: Tesla called them “radiant energy”, Wilhelm Reich called them “orgone energy”, G.A. Mesyats called them “ectons” [7], Ken Shoulders called them “charge clusters” [8], Yu.N. Bazhutov - "Erzions", I.M. Shakhporonov - "Kozyrev-Dirac monopoles", L.I. Urutskoev - "Lochak monopoles", in everyday life this phenomenon is called "static electricity". Energy clusters are highly penetrating and behave like magnetic monopoles in magnetic fields. The destruction of an energy cluster produces an avalanche (of 10^8 - 10^11) of fast electrons with energies up to 10 keV and ions (five orders of magnitude less than electrons). Consequently, the energy cluster has an enormous energy of up to 0.5*10^17 eV (8 mJ). It is this energy that can explain all kinds of macrotracks (tracks, scratches, blackening, etc.) on photographic emulsions, optical discs and in cloud chambers. Therefore, active detectors in experiments involving extremely high intensity impacts on materials often register unusual (anomalous) signals (Photo 3), so that researchers think they are registering neutrons [9] and/or alpha-particles. The authors of the work [4] called a similar signal from the explosion of an energy cluster a “precursor signal” of the appearance of a gamma quantum.Similar anomalous signals were recorded by a helium neutron detector SNM-17 in the electrical explosion of titanium foil in uranium salts [10]. During the experiment, the authors noticed that some of the signals did not resemble in shape the signals from the control source neutrons and called these irregular signals "false". A large concentration of energy clusters leads to "freezing" of computers, failure of electronic components and circuits due to the explosion, on their surface, of EC and to accidents in power grids. This is the problem researchers face while working with electric discharges, which is directly noted by the authors of [4]. At high concentrations of EC, they can explode not only on the surface of electronics, but also directly in the room, putting electronics and appliances of power systems out of operation. Such a case occurred during studies on "...biological effects in the vicinity of a high-voltage electric discharge in a water-air environment". This fact was voiced by the author of the report, V.A. Pancheluga, during the 26th conference on the transmutation of chemical element nuclei and ball lightning. It seems to me that "Dark Hydrogen" is ill-suited to the role of "pest", being extremely small (a thousandth of an Angstrom) and unable to cause significant mechanical damage to electronics. Conclusion Atoms are unable to exist without receiving energy from the Aether. Therefore, the shell-like model of the atom described in [6, 14 and 17] has the right to exist, because it allows one to explain where energy for vital activity of atoms of matter comes from and many effects. The torus-like model of the atom and its "empty" shell, which turns into a torus-like energy cluster, is indirectly confirmed by the photographic plate capture of exploding clusters (photo 4). Very interesting photos from clusters exploding on the surface of SNM-14 cathode (Photos 5, 6 and 7 are taken from [6]). Photo 5 shows geometry of the experiment. A package containing films lies on a SNM-14. Exposure time is 116 hours [6]. Photo 6 shows a fragment in which the outlines of the detector are clearly visible. There were two 0.8 mm thick photodetectors in the package. Registration occurred only on the photodetector located closer to the surface of SNM-14. Thus, it was determined that the energy of the X-ray/gamma rays did not exceed 10 keV. Photo 6 and 7 show that the contour of the SNM-14 is drawn by separate "spits" from energy clusters exploding on the surface of its cathode [6]. Energy clusters, in my opinion, play the most important role in all physicochemical and biological processes. It is ECs that are responsible for cold, including biological, transmutation of chemical elements. Also, in my opinion, the most severe nuclear disasters in the USSR are associated with energy clusters. Mayak Chemical Plant The first disaster occurred on September 29, 1957, at the Mayak Chemical Plant (information taken from open sources published on the internet). Liquid radioactive waste was stored in special stainless steel tanks (about 1.5 m in diameter) of 300 m³ each. The tanks were installed in pits at a depth of about 8.2 m and surrounded by a 1 m thick layer of reinforced concrete. Over the tanks there were covers made of reinforced concrete 1 m thick. A two metre thick layer of earth was placed on top of the structures and green turf was laid to camouflage them. After the breakdown of the cooling system of one of the tanks which contained around 80 m³ of dried up highly radioactive waste (initially there was around 256 m³ of liquid waste: isotopes of strontium-90, cesium-137, cerium-144, zirconium-95, niobium-95 and ruthenium-106) there was an explosion. Experts estimated the explosion at tens of tons of TNT equivalent. The explosion completely destroyed the stainless steel container. The concrete cover, weighing 160 tonnes, was thrown off to the side 25 metres away. Similar concrete slabs of two neighbouring tanks were torn off. The windows of the buildings within a radius of up to 3 kilometres were smashed out. About 19 million curies of radioactive material in the form of aerosols, gases and mechanical suspensions, were released into the atmosphere, from the destroyed tank. So what exploded? The official explanations are unclear. My explanation is as follows. When radioactive elements decay, energy clusters are intensively built up in the volume of the tank. When the cooling system is working, these clusters are bound by water. Because of the cooling system failure, water evaporated and a huge amount (critical concentration) of EC filled the metal reservoir. Taking the energy of an explosion equivalent to 50 tons of TNT as a basis, it is possible to estimate the number of exploded clusters (N). The energy (W) released during the explosion is - W=5*10^4 (kg)*4.4*10^6 (J/kg) = 2.2*10^11 J. The minimum energy (w) stored in the cluster, we calculate from the condition that its energy is equivalent to 10^8 electrons - w = 0.511*10^6 * 10^8 = 0.511*10^14 eV = 0.82*10^-5 J. Therefore, the number of clusters in the container is - N = W/w = 2.2 * 10^11 / 0.82 * 10^-5 = 2.68 * 10^16. Given the volume occupied by clusters in the exploded container (220 m³), we can make a maximum estimate of the size of an energy cluster - about 20 microns. This value is commensurate with the size of "strange" radiation traces left on the surface of CDs and photographic film, and coincides well with the cluster parameters (0.1 µm x 0.5 µm x 15.6 µm) indicated in [6]. The detonator for the explosion of any of the multiple clusters was electromagnetic interference. The explosion then evolved by a chain reaction. During this catastrophe the isotopic composition of the radioactive waste should have changed. But studies were not conducted. Chernobyl The second severe man-made disaster occurred on April 27, 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (information obtained from open sources published on the internet and our own observations). On the night of 27 April, a planned shutdown of the reactor was envisaged for fuel reloading. During the shutdown, an experiment was planned to increase electricity generation at the shutdown reactor. To conduct this experiment, it was necessary to turn off the emergency systems and switch to manual control of the cooling system. The cooling system is very inertial, so when manually reducing or increasing the water supply in the primary circuit, the operators could not reliably control the heating or cooling process. Before the accident, the water supply was below the critical level. As a result, it boiled off. The decision was made to shut down the reactor. To do this, the button for the emergency release of neutron-absorbing rods was pressed. As the state commission investigating the causes of the accident later explained, the emergency release of the rods did not lead to a “quenching” of the reactor, but to a short-term increase in the power of the nuclear reaction. The catastrophe then unfolded according to the following scenario. The water evaporated and the entire volume of the reactor, engine room, air ducts and cooling system filled with energy clusters to a 'critical concentration'. This mixture of air and EC exploded within seconds. The consequences of the disaster are known. Considering that there was 20 times more radioactivity in the reactor than in the capacity of the Mayak plant, the explosion power was 20 times greater. I would like to emphasise that the explosion was volumetric, because I personally saw the folded metal walls of the enormous air duct (the size of the air duct is approximately 3 meters by 3 meters), not on the floor. My assumptions about the causes of the accident are confirmed by the authors of [11] A.A. Rukhadze, L.I. Urutskoev and D.V. Filippov, who showed significant contradictions between the official conclusion and the experimental facts. In particular, the authors of the paper drew attention to changes in the isotopic composition of Uranium in the spent fuel. The normal isotope ratio of 235U/238U in spent fuel should not exceed 1.1%. However, in the soil near the reactor, this ratio was as high as 27%. A change in the ratio of 235U/238U isotopes in a similar direction was observed in an electrical explosion of titanium foil in uranium salts [10]: the ratio of uranium isotopes before the experiment was 26.58%, after the electrical explosion of the foil it was 32.56%. To explain the reasons for the accident and the change in the isotopic composition of the fuel, the authors [11] suggested that Lochak magnetic monopoles were involved in the accident. I want to agree with admissibility of such comparison, because electric explosion of conductors in the exploding volume, sharply increases concentration of energy clusters, which instantly destroy, enhancing the explosive power, and affect uranium in the same way as during the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. And, as noted above - ECs in a magnetic field behave like magnetic monopoles. How close to the truth is the model of the atom and the hypothesis of the birth of energy clusters, proposed in [6], will be decided by time and experiments. So far this model makes it possible to explain many physical phenomena, for example, the Usherenko effect [12, 13]. In [14] the Usherenko effect was explained on the basis of ultra-deep penetration of radioactive isotopes into structural and shielding materials, during liquidation of the Chernobyl accident aftermath [14]. The proposed model allows an explanation of appearance of soft X-ray radiation when a metal billet is bombarded with particles of quartz sand [15], as well as when near a cavitating water jet [16]. An explanation of these phenomena was given in 2012 in [17]. The model of the atom and energy cluster outlined in [6,14 and 17] is schematic and does not claim to be a dogma. Much research and theoretical investigation remains to be done. I would be grateful for criticism and suggestions for experiments. My email: [email protected] This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit remoteview.substack.com/subscribe