CAT2025E — Universums Historia

CAT2025C | edition 2026II26 a BellDHARMA production | Senast uppdaterade version: 2026-03-03 Universums Historia ♦ HumanRight is a knowledge domain

Content Innehåll denna sida · webbSÖK äMNESORD på denna sida Ctrl+F · sök ämnesord överallt i index SAKREGISTER · förteckning över all websites

14Jan-26Feb2026: ATOMICuniverse:Compiled 26Feb2026

NuclearMASSReviewed ¦ SummingRings ¦ PREPAMnuclearMass ¦ PurposeIllustrated2 ¦ NuclearMASS ¦ PREPAMspin ¦ PREPAMcharge

Introduction ¦ Ex6C16 ¦ Agent26Fe56 ¦ EnviMePro ¦ PrecisionCON ¦ HowToCal ¦ DmaxREF ¦ mDMathOverview ¦ mDmath ¦ mDEx ¦ The6 ¦ FirstBasic ¦ LawGeneralSIMPLE ¦

A412710 ¦ ShortCASE ¦ BasicEquated ¦ CompFirst ¦ Solving1H3 ¦ HeliumREF ¦ A12640 ¦ CalK ¦ ConAPS ¦ TestFRAME ¦ StrongGreen ¦ StudentCritical ¦ UnitedProvisions ¦ NucCHECK

AdvancedEX1 ¦ Na23 ¦ The23_24solution ¦ The27_28solution ¦ NOTE2003 ¦

REGULARnFCONS ¦ Nuc2He6 ¦ Nuc3Li8 ¦ Be8HeelIllustrated ¦ eqLi8 ¦ Beryllium4Be8HEEL ¦ HowFCONworks ¦

Advanced ¦ DmDEsons ¦ TripleSolved ¦ SolvingE ¦ EPS3P ¦ Conditions ¦ STRATEGY ¦ TNEDnsREF ¦

AtomicMassUnit ¦ KAEs ¦ EPStool ¦ GENERALmD ¦ SampleEX2 ¦ EndPoint ¦ TestResult ¦ DamBreach ¦ mDbackground ¦ LEAD ¦ Ionization ¦ MassIssues ¦ mDResolution ¦

SCOPE ¦ Tagged ¦ ConSER ¦ SpecialCon ¦ CoveredAs ¦ iTOPcomp ¦ FCON ¦ Ellipsis ¦ StrategyCON ¦ Convergence ¦ SampleEX ¦ ConEX ¦ Detailed ¦ ExplainedProcedure ¦ AllCollected ¦ Purpose ¦ PurposeIllustrated ¦

SINGLEtool ¦ SEinAction ¦ StudAQuest ¦ MsWORKS2003 ¦ BerylliumKlacken ¦ ANOMALIERNA ¦ TransverseEllipse ¦ Helium3Synthesis ¦ He3SyntILL ¦

MsWORKS2003 — Helium-3-Synthesis

CAT2025A ¦ CAT2025B ¦ CAT2025C ¦ CAT2025D ¦ CAT2025CheopsPetrie ¦ CAT2025ChPetrieApix ¦ CAT2025E

Our atomic universe — related physics and mathematics — Introduction

ATOMIC MASS DEFECT FROM ATOMIC MASS UNIT

IronTOP ¦ CONTINUED FROM CAT2025D — THE Ai MACHINE WORLD PROPAGANDISTIC CONFESSION

ENHANCED TNED ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD CALCULATED PRECISION

HUMANRIGHT Life

Gravitation and electricity UDHR10Dec1948 — DEFENSE fundamentals : teaching and education .. ?

MICROSOFT CORPORATION ENTERPRISE ON THE NEAREST:

— How does one know not to appear offensive?

KNOWING, FOR SURE, ONE DOES NOT STAND INSIDE THE MOB, OFFENDING THE MOBBED VICTIM, KNOWING THE MARKERS AND SIGNALS DEFINING WHICH IS WHAT, CAPABLE OF EDUCATING ALSO OTHERS WHO SHOW INTEREST .. How .. ?

— A parent who cannot educate its child on such fundamentals ..

— Would that parent be a recommended, trusted, a Custody Guardian of the child?

— My bet: No way. Not even close to. Days. Years. Words. No clue. No sign. No sound. Generations pass .. oblivion establishes .. centuries .. no .. ? Do tell.

— Most certainly not. The foundation of Civilized Defense; ”.. the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ..”. Unless .. long dead and gone: Where .. ? Do tell.

Established Earth Academy Feb2026?

WHAT ABOUT THE GENERAL SOCIETAL A TRAIN OF HOLDERS OF AN OFFICIAL POSITION? Do any of these know the educative answer? Show. Do tell. Say.

— The12. TheAdditional26. Shredded defense foundation. Shredded freedom. What?

— Humanity from around 1800 became hijacked by a near two millenia established ”Minister Of God” self proclaimed Authority. To conserve its own unproclaimed world historical satanistic fury, it started to force the populations to cooperate under threat of punishment (earliest from 1648: Westphalian peace). Humanity became commanded to shed its blood through mutual killing and murdering, named duty, preserving the vocabulary of that type of fine upstanding world jurisdictional unquestionable dictatorship as divine — under threat of being hanged. The 1948 Declaration was aimed at a definite historical closure on that type of authority: a universal foundation of defense, completely independent of nation: ”.. the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world ..”: ”.. born free .. equal in dignity and rights ..”.

— You were saying .. ?

See also in COMPARING TRAFFICKING: THE Ai MACHINE WORLD PROPAGANDISTIC CONFESSION:

— You were saying .. ?

Cosmology, Ethics, morality, mathematics, physics, archaeology, biology, chemistry, teaching and education .. defense .. religion, The Bible .. common conduct .. dignity ..

The Jan2025 New Microsoft Edge Browser’s AI CoPilot response,

Explicitly on a sessional closure after clarifying dt in QI:

———————————————

HARVESTING

OUR ATOMIC UNIVERSE ILLUSTRATED: .. a beauty beyond imagination ..

HumanRight — LIFE: gravitation and electricity: — »WE OWN THE FORESTS». No you don’t. Not That way. Claiming so defines slavery, dictatorship, oppression: established. Have your say:

”.. born free .. equal in dignity and rights ..”. A30. No state. No person. No group. And that was exactly what was launched: The12. TheAdditional26. Authorized Universally Shredded Defense.

———————————————

ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISION ¦

ATOMICuniverse ¦

NuclearMASSReviewed: SummingRings ¦ PREPAMnuclearMass ¦ PurposeIllustrated2 ¦ NuclearMASS ¦ PREPAMspin ¦ PREPAMcharge

PREPAMmass: ATOMICuniverse

MASS — SPIN — CHARGE

PROVING RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

Compilation 2Mar2026

TNED — N3m15 and N3m1.08

Planck constant h = mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS

UNIVERSAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM — no speculation, no theory, just plain simple consequential mathematics:

— mass, charge, spin —

Kepler area momentum K = vr times mass = angular momentum: all basic Kepler math

RING FRACTAL SYSTEM (n→∞), c₀ = 2.99792458 T8 M/S

n(m/n) × c₀ × n(r/n)

m = 1.0086652u neutron mass

r = h/mc₀ = 1.3196610608 t15 M ≈ 1.32 Fermi , neutron gravity spin circle radius

NUCLEUS DEDUCTION

DEDUCING THE PHYSICALLY MOST TIGHT AND COMPACT POSSIBLE (ATOMIC)

NUCLEAR RING: N = 3, Polygonian Arc mathematics:

———————————————

FractPARC ¦ PREFIXxSIN — Ai Tutorial

Planck constant universal angular momentum fractal ring toroid form, as deduced

THE Modulus0 TOP SPINNING TOROID FORM FROM N = 3 as deduced in NUCLEUS DEDUCTION, all details accounted for in that article (27Dec2025).

Originally modeled in Simply 3D Windows 95

— a remnant of the free Internet world that once upon a time existed ..

SummingRings: NuclearMASSReviewed

3Mar2026

SUMMING RINGS — complementary to Nuclear mass from Dec2025

SUMMING THE N=3 TRANSVERSE TOROID RING AREAS

for building one larger ring toroid, from the basic given A=1 Modulus0 deduced toroid ring area parameters:

Differential equation derived result from a basic Modulus0 to a resulting general A>1 Modulus1:

From the Neutron-Proton A=1 to the Deuteron A=2, and further.

Note the Planck constant angular momentum spin form on the underlying transverse three rings: cannot be physically stopped as the basic illustrative mathematics shows. Attempting to ”stop” (particle collisions: nuclear spin gravity circle radius ceases to exists) atomic nuclear spin means the nucleus will (is forced to) disintegrate (into Planck energy E=hf=mc²). The basic transverse N = three rings underlies and define the general top spinning toroid form, the actual atomic nucleus as the fundamental form of mass = gravitation and its surface area connection for further parametric inquiry:

— The deduced surface area pressure Theta constant explains:

TNED deduced and related nuclear Planck ring gravitation constant surface area pressure

———————————————

Related ¦

The transverse basic deduced mod0 toroid surface ring area, times the deduced THETA constant 0.9408775986, times mass number A, defines the mass number A atomic nucleus’ corresponding transverse mod1 surface toroid ring area.

PREPAMnuclearMass: SummingRings

3Mar2026

NUCLEAR MASS — nuclear gravitation

REVISED DETAILED PRESENTATION from the previous NuclearMASS ¦ NuclearMASSend

— The Theta (ξ) detail leads to a (Planck angular momentum neutron [here TNED] defined and related) constant mass surface area pressure (p) holding for all atomic nuclei and their possible mass fragments (nuclear gravitation definition):

p = ([mn/3] · u) / ([tAR1 = (2pi/[K + Mod0 + 1])² · Mod0] · rn² · Theta)

p = (1.0086652/3)u / ([tAR1 = 2.268377804] · (1.3198971641 t15 M)² · 0.9408775986) = 150.1114413714 KG/M²

— NEUTRON mass (1.0086652u KG)/3 over the neutron transverse ring surface area ( M²) defines the Planck constant fractal ring angular momentum TNED nuclear deduced mass area atomic particle nuclear pressure 150.1114413714 KG/M², independent of variations in atomic mass (Uu), atomic mass defects (mD) or any nuclear atomic mass particle size;. tAR1rn²Theta = 3.7181654346 t30 M²;

Mod0 = 7(1/√3 + 1/2) + 2√(7 + 12/√3) = 15.00555349946510.

That closes the fundamental mass definition connected to the atomic nucleus as the fundamental form of gravitation (Planck Ring 2):

♦ by nuclear (fractal) surface. Not by volume. See also Planck Fractal Structural mathematics.

What we know Feb2026:

There is by far not even close a corresponding idea or mathematics part inside present academy, exposing any kind, nature or sort of comparing atomic nuclear mathematical physics. As TNED explains it: No speculation. No theory. Just plain consequential mathematics (COMA) from a given (Max Planck 1900) Planck constant: universal angular momentum. No speculation. No theory. No consensus. Natural science — or not at all. Especially the periodic system.

As stated (pNormRaCo ¦ CHECK4):

19Dec2025, on NuclearMASS:

As overwhelming the THETA deduction was, and is:

This was not reflected at first:

• atomic mass defects (mD) does not affect the Theta constant, its deduction and its validity:

• once given a defined surface area pressure, nuclear size independent and so valid, nothing at all, nos mass defects, not variations in mass at all on the level of MASS property can affect that Theta deduced constancy — unless we have missed even further arguing partys in this intriguing new subject, never before actually formulated in TNED.

WE WERE DECEIVED to a momentary walk OFF the TRACK,

Attracted by associated nuclear mass track math associations besides the main quest

— variation independency: gravitation cannot be shielded from (GRIP DEEP) —

— led.. for a moment .. astray .. and then again:

— BACK ON TRACK. Unless further embarrassing remaining explanations wants to visit.

• We are always on the right track, only as far as can be related, scrutinizing any aftermath detective interest. (The wonderful world of scientific research).

PurposeIllustrated2: PREPAMnuclearMass

.. Nothing is like a museum ..

In conclusion:

• none of the previously presented equative parts in (CAT2025D) section

• NuclearMASS to NuclearMASSend

• have any (direct) validity in this general TNED related physics and mathematics.

The pressure form as already presented through the Theta deduction, is only applicable as here presented in the above stated SummingRings:

p = ([mn/3] · u) / ([tAR1 = (2pi/[K + Mod0 + 1])² · Mod0] · rn² · Theta)

p = (1.0086652/3)u / ([tAR1 = 2.268377804] · (1.3198971641 t15 M)² · 0.9408775986) = 150.1114413714 KG/M²

— NEUTRON mass (1.0086652u KG)/3 over the neutron transverse ring surface area ( M²) defines the Planck constant fractal ring angular momentum TNED nuclear deduced mass area atomic particle nuclear pressure p = 150.1114413714 KG/M², independent of variations in atomic mass (Uu), atomic mass defects (mD) or any nuclear atomic mass particle size; tAR1rn²Theta = 3.7181654346 t30 M²;

Mod0 = 7(1/√3 + 1/2) + 2√(7 + 12/√3) = 15.00555349946510.

That is the one and only pressure detail available in this TNED related presentation, as scrutinized by this aftermath exposition.

NuclearMASS: PurposeIllustrated2

NUCLEAR MASS

Nuclear mass in TNED then just becomes as simple as it already is in the established corridors:

• atomic mass (U u) minus the atom’s electron mass (Z me).

THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS AS A FREE MASS ENTITY APART FROM ITS FREE SPACED ASSOCIATED ELECTRON MASS

(definition connecting and attaching to mass instrumental gravitational matters)

It does not affect or violate the Theta deduced constant, says Theta — because variations in mass is followed by variations in surface areas. The Theta constant certifies these variations to be mass/size independent — the true FRACTAL Theta aspect (nature of gravitation).

Explaining:

PeakCHECK:

— ”IF mass distribution really follows ..”

— No. Not in any absolute decimal detail. Only, as so also illustrated, on the graphics surface, due to the large ratio differences between atomic masses and atomic mass defects.

Meaning:

• Using the U = U(HOP) – Zmw / (r/r0)²

• involves MASS AND SIZE VARIATIONS.

• But, says the Theta constancy: Variations of any form and their relations cannot prove an exact equivalence with NO variations. On the surface (CHECK1-2), yes. In deep, no (CHECK4).

— So: The entire attempt of presenting ”relational results” (attempting to reach a ”nuclear mass definition”) will only, as proven, present ”a fractal enlarged chart diagram” (FirstFractal, TheSolution, TheCOMPLEX) of the already known variations in the general atomic nuclear mass and mass defect chart. As so also already in part stated in Related (at that time not yet fully comprehended) — further overdriven in Pmath, ExplainIra, InTOout, CellMathChart, and partly in NucMassDiff and pAPPLICATION. With these excursions, the subject should be fully and accurately explained.

PREPAMspin: NuclearMASS

MASS — SPIN — CHARGE

PROVING RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

Compilation 2Mar2026

NUCLEAR SPIN DEDUCTION ¦ ExplainSPINmath ¦ NuclearSpinResolution

the deduced connecting mathematics show the simple law of toroid nuclear spin velocity coefficients relative the Planck constant light divergence c = c₀:

cSPIN = 2c/√(A>1) ¦ cSPIN/(A=1) = 1 ¦

r₀ general proton radius 1.37 Fermi for determining general toroid nuclear radii by mass number A

Nuclear toroid radius R(A) = ½(r₀=1)√(A>1)

Note 1: Related physics and mathematics (EXVER): Planck equivalents distinguish between electrophysics and mechanics (Modern academic relativity theory does not): light does not connect kinetics (LILYC): light is NOT gravitation. Light is massless, inductive electromagnetic property. Electromagnetism does not restrain mechanically caused velocity, says Planck equivalents and related physics and mathematics.

Note 2: cSPIN relates to Planck constant h = mcr: the neutron and the proton (hydrogen nucleus) with both (generalized) same gravity circle radius (1.32¦1.37 Fermi): The Neutron and Proton gravity related radii spins are (closely related to) cSPIN = 1c. All other cases A>1: cSPIN = 2c/√(A>1).

Note 3: The toroid center is always associated with a cSPIN = 0: every rotating body have an ideal zero spin velocity at its rotational center.

Consequences

The nuclei gravity circle radius (r¦r₀) related spin (rate) velocity has the simple form

cSPIN = 2c/√(A>1). For the hydrogen nucleus (proton, A=1), cSPIN = 1 = c = c₀.

• When the charged atomic nucleus is accelerated from energy in a closed electromagnetic instrumental system (particle accelerator, EPillustrated), the TNED deduced results (MomentumConservation) states that

• angular momentum preservation demands that SPIN decreases — because the atomic nucleus does not render higher mass number due to the accelerated/inductive mass increase effect on charged particles in closed electric/magnetic instrumental systems.

J = mvr ;

J/r = mv ;

Nuclear radius (r) only changes with mass number (A) — certified by the Theta constant nuclear surface area pressure constant independent of nuclear size:

• r is not affected by particle acceleration.

With a preserved nuclear angular momentum (J=mvr) only mv changes by the inductive energy in a closed accelerating electromagnetic instrumental system:

m₀v₀ = mv ;

v = v₀(m₀/m)

= cSPIN(m₀/m)

= cSPIN√1–(u/c)²

u = c√(1 – 1/[(UQmc²) + 1]²), Q:s voltage (U) accelerated velocity u.

———————————————

EPillustrated — terms and functions explained

The net form becomes

v(nuclearREDUCEDcSPIN) = cSPIN(m₀/m)

NUCLEAR/PARTICLE SPIN DECREASES WITH ELECTROMAGNETICALLY PARTICLE ACCELERATED ENERGY, EXPOSING ELECTROMAGNETICALLY INDUCED INCREASED MASS (EXVER, EPillustrated).

A resting proton (hydrogen atom nucleus) m₀ = 1.672 t27 KG accelerated by 1.61 T16 V (up to practically u=c) experiences a 16 777 216 times electromagnetic inductive mass increase, forcing its nuclear spin gravity circle tangential spinning rotating velocity to reduce from c = c₀ = 2.99792458 T8 M/S to 18 M/S.

” The highest particle accelerator in operation is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN .. 13 TeV ..”, Ai machine answer 2Mar2026.

13 TeV means 13 Tera Volt accelerating power, = 13 T12 V, exposing 1 238.5 times less than the exemplified 1.61 T16 V.

— At 13 TeV accelerating energy surge, the proton’s cSPIN has reduced to 216 176 M/S from its resting spin c = c₀.

EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION: See the Krisch Group experiments 1979-1987.

KrischGroupResults: A maximum of 28 GeV energy was used to study collisions between spin polarized protons. On that level, and the math above, the proton’s normal resting c spin is reduced near 31 times — sufficiently to stress the partly reported sensational results.

— Those results, beginning from May1979, are indeed responsible for the birth of TNED.

See details in TNEDbegin1993.

PREPAMcharge: PREPAMspin

MASS — SPIN — CHARGE — electricity, magnetism, and induction

PROVING RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

Compilation 2Mar2026

— Q. Modern academy: Why, and How, on Earth could you miss that one?

———————————————

DeducingQ — Ai Tutorial Jan2025 ¦ QIappliedPhysics ¦ QIgrade3

There is most certainly an answer to that:

— QI.

Excuse me, no offense:

ILLUSTRATED:

— Retarded. Low educated. Intellectually disabled.

Intelligence is fine. But look at the inducement and the interest in its content. My oh my. The conditions were better year 1311.

All branches of natural science are dead without its proper knowledge. The Quantity Independent (QI). Mathematics, logics, and: rational reasoning. From square one.

— By safe proof:

• recognition. Realization. Apprehension. Not invention. Not consensus: no speculation, no theory. Just consequential mathematics.

The details are overviewed in EXVER. See in explicit the Ai tutorials in

———————————————

QIgrade3 ¦ QIappliedPhysics ¦ DeducingQ ¦

TheQmove — induction and magnetism, the electric field ¦

TheIntegralAnalogy — mechanic and inductive energy

TNED.

NuclearMASSReviewed ¦ SummingRings ¦ PREPAMnuclearMass ¦ PurposeIllustrated2 ¦ NuclearMASS ¦ PREPAMspin ¦ PREPAMcharge

Introduction:

8Jan2026

TESTING A NEWLY DISCOVERED ELLIPSIS METHOD

FOR CALCULATING (mDmath) ATOMIC MASS DEFECTS

28Jan2026

———————————————

DmDEsolutions ¦ SolvingE ¦ SINGLE

for comparing purposes with experimentally measured values

MAKING ADVANCEMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS 2020 MORE DEMANDING ITERATING 3 POINT ELLIPSIS METHOD [ 25Apr2020 ]:

Compare (the 2020) triple ellipsis point iterations — HOW IT IS DONE

Continued in Environmental Provision

TNED — Related physics and mathematics

INTRODUCTION — CALCULATING ATOMIC MASSES

AS ALREADY OBSERVED IN THE FIRST ITERATING ASSESSMENTS FROM 2020:

— the need for the existence of a fusion agent 6C16 realizing the end bottom of the nuclide chart: cannot enough be stressed as paramount important:

NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell9 A1 ¦ hExoterm2020test.

— The above specified data values (AmaxTNED: 317; compare LBL data in Amax300) are derived from the CalCard Exothermal Fusions in hExoterm2020.ods, using the extensive LBL Atomic masses 2003 — Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — Atomic Masses, Audi et. al 2003. We insert the actual first fusion agent nuclide ZxA¦1 (with multiplicity option — as in the TNED deduced FusionRING, beginning from a Dmax) and a second ZxA¦2 to be united with the first. The CalCard (»please press enter») then presents all resulting data — including invalid results (negative values report the need of endothermal energy input to realize the fusion). Here directly copied as above. NOTE: THOSE values are NOT TNED calculated (except for the exothermal fusion law as such, see ExoThermalFusionlaw deduced), but only based on the (LBL/HOP) experimentally measured atomic mass values. EXOTHERMAL fusions are fusions GIVING excess Planck energy E=hf=mc² when uniting. Meaning: spontaneous fusion in a Dmax environment. ENDOTHERMAL: fusions that needs input energy to unite (forced fusion). See also THE NUCLEAR POTENTIAL BARRIER (LightsGravitationalDependency).

As exemplified

CALCULATING TOOL: ExoThermalFusionlaw applied in hExoterm2020.ods — we can check if a certain exothermal fusion is approved of, or not:

From 68Er168, the excessive exothermal energy from the serial fusions decrease.

— The above tabled serial 6C16 fusions beginning from 20Ca40 illustrates the reason behind the urgent need to find a TNED defined mD value for this paramount 6C16 unstable nuclide (half life, some 0.75 seconds).

— How did TNED solve that?

Ex6C16: Agent26Fe56: Introduction

No5 ¦ 26Fe56

A = {3,16,40,56}

As developed:

CARD 1: ...... NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell7 A20 — 6Feb2026

CARD 2: ...... NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell7 A29 — 6Feb2026

CoveredAs

In much the same way as in finding the atomic mass defect mD for the unstable 3Li8, with only difference here that we have found only the rational parametric coefficients (not knowing their related background) as in (1),

it (2) was found from the fusion path a new TNED-NS ellipsis equation-approved 26Fe56 mD value (3).

(1):

E = 0.873 = 873/1000 = 097 × 0.009 = 11 × 8.8 18 18 18 18 .. × 0.009

Aref = 0.762 = 762/1000 = 127 × 6/1000 = 6(1 – E)

K = 3

NF = 6(K/Aref – 1) = 17.6220472441..

——————————————————————————————————————

THESE PARAMETERS CONSOLIDATES A UNIQUE SPECIFIC ELLIPTIC FUSION PATH

(2):

2He3 + 8O17 = 10Ne20, + 10Ne20 = 20Ca40, + 6C16 = 26Fe56

(3):

17.8227303100000, TNED original 2003, adjusted to

17.7832274988082 ;

|OLDmDminusNEWmD| ; CHECKING ConAPS CERTIFICATION:

= 0.0395028112 < 0.05 electron masses ; ConAPS approved

—————————————————————————————————————————

THE 2He3 AND 20Ca40 BELONG TO THE BASIC ALREADY TNED-NS CONSOLIDATED ATOMS.

ACCEPTING the resulting SolvingE mD for the 26Fe56, conserves that atom as also consolidated.

CON-PROOF: the actually 4-term defined not variable rational parametric TNED-NS ellipsis definition:

The mD on 26Fe56 cannot be changed or altered — and as correct, also defines the true physical atom.

— It is defined by a four term rational arithmetic number parametric TNED-NS unique ellipsis arc,

passing through the named fusion agents mD values (y) on their given mass number values (x).

• The SolvingE sets the 26Fe56 selected consolidation entirely by its mass number (A=56), given

the four ellipsis parameters — actually the K A E s terms [ CalK ].

ITERATING THE mD FOR 6C16

Adopting the above given ellipsis solution, taking the experimental 6C16 mD (13.9990020643, from its numeric (atomic weight) U value 16.014701252u),

• we could identify by ITERATION

TheIterationTHEOREM ¦ TheIteratorMechanics ¦

a TNED corresponding 6C16 mD value.

How?

By inserting the experimental 6C16 mD value into the E=0.876 ellipsis fusion path, adding to it a cell subtracter, and iterating a removing number until the already found 20Ca40 and 26Fe56 touched their value markings on the E=0.873 defined ellipsis arc, our TNED 6C16 mD value landed on

13.8325062115.

»four on a row» means excellent fit — says the TNED-NS elliptic equation.

That vindicates the previously mentioned 6C16 + 20Ca40 fusion series — to the very bottom of the nuclear chart — exothermally. No need for energy input in realizing the fusions, provided the nuclides lie inside each others nuclide barriers.

See from

Introduction, Dmax, DmaxREF.

TNED.

Introduction ¦ Ex6C16 ¦ Agent26Fe56

EnviMePro:

TEST FRAME

ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISION

K-cell Heat physics

OUR ATOMIC UNIVERSE ILLUSTRATED: .. a beauty beyond imagination ..

HumanRight ”.. born free .. equal in dignity and rights ..”. A30: No state. No person. No group. And that was exactly what was launched AFTER 1948: The12. TheAdditional26. Authorized Universally Shredded Defense. You were saying .. ?

Related physics and mathematics

HOW DID UNIVERSAL MATTER COME ABOUT?

BEGINNING FROM A Dmax — HOW to Calculate

PLANCK CONSTANT UNIVERSAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM:

the neutron, h = mcr: mass, charge and spin (dormant hydrogen atom):

light’s gravitational dependency (EXVER):

neutrons (and hydrogen nuclei) form all atoms, all matter,

TNED says. Is that so?

———————————————

NolldivergensZonen ¦ Dmax ¦ K-cellens expansion ¦ Galaxbildningen ¦ Solsystemen i Vintergatan ¦ DIAKVADRATEN — nuklidbildningarna

Energilagen ¦

— all exothermal fusions guaranteed — holds for all celestial bodies, TNED says

(see the mathematics in EXOTHERMAL NUCLEAR REACTION LAW), unless already familiar:

— Can anyone disclaim that statement, on rational arguments? Searched for. None yet found. Inquiry continues ..

HOW DID THE CELESTIAL BODY GEOLOGY

AND MATERIALS TheTEN

COME ABOUT?

Available answers:

— From outer says MAC.

— From inner says TNED.

— Don’t forget to update if found faulty.

Basic problem in theoretical science:

— BINDING UP oneself on speculated ideas, established through academic consensus.

— »If we don’t know, we can always dictate, as if».

———————————————

CAP ¦ IronCORE ¦ 3Li8Nuclide ¦ 6C16 ¦

NOTE (mDbackground):

The first 2003 TNED calculated mD chart was partly based (especially the end part Wave equations) on a first set of elementary wave equation provisions. Just pure consequential detailed related mathematics, with absolutely zero atomic disturbances. With that said, we should NOT (neither) expect that the drafting TNED exothermally fusing calculated ellipsis arc equivalent touches the

mD = 6 + (1/5)√[60² – (A – K)/E] ; A applies to the mass numbers set {A1,A2,A3, ..} with a fix given K E ;

the simple general TNED-NeutronSquare (TNED-NS) ellipsis atomic mass defect mD equation

Explain:

Around 2003: Having the mn/me ration 1836.264 electron masses in the neutron mass, it was suggested 1818 + 18 + k, 18 the TNED mD deduced max value.

• Plotting the HOP-table atomic masses values into this this TNED testing suggested mD chart, already familiar with the Planck constant h = mcr featuring the neutron (1.0086652[u=1.66033 t27 KG] × 2.99792458 T8 M/S × NetronGravityCircleRadius[=h/mc = 1.32 Fermi]) = 6.62559 t34 JS, it was soon obvious that:

• the plotted values resembled similarity to ELLIPTIC ARCS in extension from lighter to heavier (illustrated).

Further investigation and (some twenty years of further) mathematical deduction on that testing provision lead us to this present point (Jan2026).

TNED history in a nutshell. See (Dec2025, Jan2026) ClarifiedComparison ¦ EX3. Modern academic nuclear theory outnumbered, the least to say.

Have your say. No theory. No speculation. Just consequential mathematics — or not at all. Type:

— »NATURE made an invitation: ”Just follow my lead .. and I’ll show you .. ”». Basic math (QI). Or not at all. (Children’s favorite .. especially from 12 ..).

experimentally measured (TestFRAME) ring center values. Any precise exact basis (also considering a small ±1 pixel tolerance in the over-viewing graphs) is not granted in our first overview. The placing of the ellipse (here: a separate graph drawing program, examples will follow) on the TestFRAME chart (originally in TNED from 2003) rather advises a first lead approximation. That provision is then used for a first ellipsis (drawing graph) evaluation:

— After the 2003 first preliminary chart picture (especially from mass numbers around 60 and up, using a first approximation on the Wave equations), we must, in each specific case, find — prove by elliptic mathematics — that That specific atom has a true TNED related mD value, given the nuclear exothermal fusion ellipsis arc set of mass number provisions. Then, only on that basis, can we start a serious real steel comparing on experimental values on a true and fair rational foundation. Brick by brick.

PrecisionCON: EnviMePro

The end provision must be respected (ConAPS):

— THE PRECISION CONDITION in making any sense to our end result is the following:

— Comparing TNED results with MAC (experimental) results (on one ratio) must never exceed

1.0003849;

better than 4/10 000 (from a worst case in the HOP tabled last 103Lw257: 257.0989400).

— IF our result is that or higher, we might as well just use the rounded tabled U-vales directly for the mass number A values — and any idea of a precision inquiry becomes aborted.

That said: The difference between experimental and mathematical on any »exact» 1.0000000 match must inevitably have some hidden tail decimals (»type ..1.00000000003..»; the experimental atomic ionization, necessary for measuring, »adds a small extra mass». However: we have no available data on these details — unless calculations have been made by the experimentalists to »compensate for the ionizating addition». IF that would be the case, experimental and TNED calculated should match exactly — says TNED).

See further on the DmDEsons and SolvingE details (begin from AtomicMassUnit).

EnviMePro ¦ PrecisionCON

HowToCal: DmaxREF:

UnitedProvisions

Related physics and mathematics 11Jan2026

HOW TO CALCULATE ATOMIC MASSES

Dmax:

During a period over a few months 2009 thousands of photos (some 30 per minute) were taken with a water drop arrangement. Aim: Studying the drop recoils from a water glass surface (See GifEX). Examining the fascinating recurring formations (resonant series), the recoil surge exposes often identical series of pacing drop morphology. Some of the smallest (micro) drops high speed way far high above the water surface. The amazing sequential drop splitting illustrates the TNED related physics picture of an »ideal neutron splashing K-cell detonation» — triggered by a high speed contracting huge neutron gravitating mass occasion (The K-cell Expansion and Contraction). Just ideal math. No theory. No speculation: it is — or not at all. The triggering reason is explained by The Incompressible Atomic Nucleus (The Neutron: Planck’s constant h = mcr). It is already standing on a zero: Gravitation’s most fundamental form: gravitation cannot be compressed. No way (try .. and see what happens). Not even close. It is already »@The Natural Station», unless we missed some vital part of our mother ship. On sensing high pressure, it answers (perfect elasticity, zero viscosity) by pushing out the intruder on the exact same force that suggested to make a change. See the TNED detailed gravitational math deduced expressions in The K-cell Detonation. See also The Solar Systems in The Milky Way — how TNED relates and calculates the explaining mathematics. No theory. No speculation.. Just consequential mathematics (COMA) — provided innate zero flaws — or not at all.

———————————————

Dmax ¦ NoMASSorigin ¦ GalaxyForfmation ¦ MilkyWaySolarSystems ¦ AtmicNUCLEUSincompressibility ¦ The KcellDETONATION ¦ TheKcellEXPANSION ¦ WaterDropInstrumentation

HowToCal

mDMathOverview:

DmDEsons ¦ SolvedE ¦ SINGLE ¦

FIRST DIRECT CALCULATED ATOMIC MASSES FROM THE TNED-NeutronSquare SIMPLE MATHEMATICS

ATOMIC MASS (m) FROM ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD: m = u[U = Amn(1 – mDme)], U the general atomic mass in numerical (Dalton) mass unit units (u=1.66033 t27 KG).

mDmath: mDMathOverview

The Neutron Square on its origin EXPLAINS THE WAVE EQUATIVE PART AND ITS ORIGIN

TestFRAME ¦ CalK ¦ The Neutron Square on its origin — the basic parameters

PROVISIONS — TERMS AND BASIC EXPRESSIONS

MATHEMATICS:

General (2003) TNED-NeutronSquare deduced ELLIPTIC EQUATION,

Atomic Mass defects, mD:

mD = 6 + (1/5)√[60² – (A – K)²/E²] defines mD of the A-series set {A1,A2,A3,A4..}

= 6 + (1/5)√[s² – (s + K – A)²] / E ; CHECKED

• certifying that the given K A E s parameters certifies

• an accurate TNED-NS nuclear exothermal fusion path,

mD units in electron masses (me = 0.000548598u) in u = 1.66033 t27 KG atomic mass unit (Dalton).

Transformation and cross-referring with atomic weight (U number units in u) is made

U = Amn(1 – mDme) ; cross referencing (for real steel checking)

mD = (1 – U/Amn)/me ; with U from mD:

U experimentally, or calculated, tabled atomic weights in U numbers by units u,

A mass number, number of neutron that made that atomic nuclide

mn neutron mass in u, 1.0086652

me electron mass in u, 0.000548598

u atomic mass unit, m(6C12)/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG, (1 Dalton)

K ellipsis left-side offset from the horizontal mD-scale’s level 6;
K is negative if the ellipsis edge lies left side outside the Ascale 0;

K = Aref[1 + NF/6] ; 6(K/Aref – 1) = NF ; original:

K is frequently associated with a base nuclide’s mass number (type 2He3); it generates (multiple) nuclear fusion ranking sequences on different E-values;
THE GENERALIZED K-FORM RELATES THE ELLIPSIS LEFT side A SCALE POSITION (K needs a basic geometric calculation from a selected E Aref);

E The ellipsis eccentricity coefficient (general: smaller axis / larger axis);

E = 1, The Neutron Square basic circle.

E = 1 – (Aref)/6 ; E = 1 on Aref = 0: NeutronSquareCIRCLE ;

Aref = 6(1 – E) ; A=K if E=1;

Aref = 6(1 – E), MassNumberREFERENCE, follows from E; always more left than K;
(»nuclear fusion gradient reference»); Aref often relates to some basic nuclide (type 2He4, Aref = 4) in the actual fusion set,

Aref can be an integer sum of such — or a fragmented more complicated coefficient as Aref relies on the E-value (in cases of decimal);
Aref automatically becomes negative on E>1;

NF 6(K/Aref – 1); [K/Aref – 1 = mD’: if mD’ relates to the neutron,

mD’=0, K=A, and → NF = 0; Only Aref>0 relates to NF; original:
(K – Aref)/Aref = K/Aref – 1; (K – 0)/ ... = 0;

Meaning: NF is unambiguously calculated from E <> 1;
With E=1 (Aref=0), NF (0 = mD’ = K/Aref – 1 ) has no connection.

NuclideREFERENCE (»nuclide fence»); K = Aref(1 + NF/6);

• If Aref = 0 (E=1);

Depending on K/Aref (integers, or other) NF in general associates to (»explicit fusion analysis references») mD values — which can be related to an average mean (mD1 + mD2)/2 or other between several involved fusing nuclei in the actual ellipsis set candidatures (exemplified by the original developments from 2003). Special (of type »complicated») analysis is needed to clarify how NF is related from case to case (solution not always directly possible).

— In the general (iterating) procedures, an integer solution on K or Aref is preferred, (safely) relating the results to the TNED-NeutronSquare complex — certifying some exothermally ranking fusion route connection (specified mass number integers must be related to connect, if rationally concordant. Examples will follow).
NF is negative on |Aref|>0 with K/Aref also negative.

mDMathOverview ¦ mDmath

mDEx:

CALCULATING ATOMIC MASSES IN RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS for comparing purposes with experimental

What this is all about, how it looks, what it contains, and what it pertains ..

A FIRST OVERVIEWING VIGNETTE

CALCULATING ATOMIC MASSES in TNED-NS for comparing with experimentally measured values

———————————————

¦ Deducing the atomic mass defect mD from Deducing the atomic mass unit mC12/12 ¦ NeutronSquareBASIC — its elliptic equations ¦ NetronSquareAppearance — how it was discovered

¦ GENERAL ELLIPSIS GEOMETRY AND ITS EQUATIONS — collected and compiled from author’s works 1981¦ The ELLIPSIS ARTICLES IN UH ¦ Ellipsis CalCards ¦ PREFIXxSIN

AllCollected ¦ CalK

2He6

VIGNETTE — illustration by samples

How the TNED-NeutronSquare ELLIPTIC mathematics works in deducing atomic mass values

for further comparison with experimentally measured. Detailed examples follow.

The6: mDEx

Comparing experimental (HOP-CODATA-BerkelyNational ..):

— Unless our results show pCON lower one-ratio compared values than 1.0004, the comparison has no meaning. We can as well use a directly rounded atomic weight (U) vale instead. Then any precision comparing idea with experimentally measured and tabled is out of the question. Generally, the TNED-NeujtronSquare results show far better results than that — generally exposing that »TNED + Experiment = True». The reader will have to witness that for himself as we go along through the following.

— Explaining the 2He6, see details in 2He6. and here Nuc2He6; Original from 2003 in MPcKärnsynt.wps (Microft banned from 2008: no access).

—

EXAMPLE — 2He³ 3Li⁶ 4Be⁹ 5B¹¹ 7N¹⁴ 7N¹⁵ — from TNED-NS beginning 2003 ¦

2He6 ¦ 8O17 ¦ AtomicMassUnit ¦ AtomicMassDefectEquation ¦ NeutronSquareBasics

FirstBasic: The6

THIRD-FIFTH GRADE first basic physics connected practical MATH TEACHING EXAMPLES for those who are interested

FIRST DIRECT CALCULATED ATOMIC MASSES FROM THE TNED-NeutronSquare SIMPLE MATHEMATICS

ATOMIC MASS (m) FROM ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD: m = u[U = Amn(1 – mDme)], U the general atomic mass in numerical (Dalton) mass unit units (u=1.66033 t27 KG).

Verifying comparing values with experimentally measured — See HOP-CODATA-BerkeleyNational

NSpin2025B.ods — Tablell8

PrecisionCONDITIONS

This is »the simple way» it works. Apparently never attracted or even investigated by »the leading Harvard PhD aces» in Modern academic corridors.

COMPARE:

.. a respectful attitude .. to nature .. when did that Education arrive .. and from where .. ?

— Looting and sacking .. world wide enterprise .. nature-hostile technology ..

— Absolute ownership, absolute deciding authority .. defines: dictatorship.

mDEx ¦ The6 ¦ FirstBasic

LawGeneralSIMPLE:

LagGenerallaENKLA — exemplifying the simplicity of the complex —— in calculating atomic masses. TNED-NS says:

———————————————

A12640 ¦ EXAMPLE — 2He³ 3Li⁶ 4Be⁹ 5B¹¹ 7N¹⁴ 7N¹⁵ , E=1/2, K=3 — from TNED-NS beginning 2003 ¦ 3Li⁶ 6C¹² ¦ TheBerylliumHeel — 4Be⁹ 6C¹³ 8O¹⁶ — exothermal analytical fusion explanation

2He3 — A1234 ¦ NOTES to 4Be9 6C13 8O16 : 2.4(9–4) = 2(9–3) = 2.4· 5 = 2 · 6 = 12.

With E=1/3 (mD=60) 6C12 is validated by 3Li6 — no more valid mD values.

Same 3Li6 also on E=1/2.

A412710: LawGeneralSIMPLE

A12425876 ¦ Li7—No75 ¦

ATOMIC MASS (m) FROM ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD: m = u[U = Amn(1 – mDme)], U the general atomic mass in numerical (Dalton) mass unit units (u=1.66033 t27 KG).

PrecisionCONDITIONS

———————————————

3Li⁷ 5B¹⁰, see also related 25Apr2020 from Nuc8O17 ¦

COMPARE (»basic arithmetic algebraic numeration») the first three (or 4) stable atomic TNED-NeutronSquare mD values (2He4, 6C12, 3Li7, 5B10, ..):

.. recursive resonant arithmetic fractals .. ? .. or .. what is it .. ?

A1234: A412710

These following ranks form the basic numeric-arithmetic body of the TNED deduced Neutron Square geometrical mathematics (TNED-NS). The basic concern is about the stable atoms (from 1H1 to 83Bi209). Specially TNED-NS related provision are given for these unstable nuclides:

1H3 12.26 yr 0.82 S 0.86S 0.747S Wikipedia 2026, List of radioactive nuclides by half life — Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 1976, Fifth Edition, p491-515

— General aim: TESTING AND COMPARING WITH CLAIMED ESTABLISHED — experimentally measured (HOP) as well as theoretically calculated.

ShortCASE: A1234

SHORT CASE HISTORY

Already 1970s well acquainted with the geometry and mathematics of the ellipse (TheEllipse ¦ CalCard), later decades familiarity with the Planck’s constant (h) exposed angular momentum equivalence with the Neutron. However, and apparently, never so recognized in modern corridors (See The Ai Machine’s Neutron confession: ”interesting numerical coincidence”, 22Jan2025 ¦ hN): h = mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS.: mass, spin, gravity circle. A Universal Angular Momentum.

A first simple numerical test (shortly after y2000): exposed: mn/me = 1838.623545838670 = 1818+18+2.623545838670 = 1818+18+k:

— After deducing the fundamental mass physics basics of The Atomic Mass Unit (mC12/12=u), directly leading to The Atomic Mass Defect equation

(mD = [1–U/Amn]/me), the HOP-source table of experimentally measured atomic masses (number U [atomic weight, numerical] in units of u = 1 Dalton = 1.66033 t72 KG) was readily advertising this: The calculated mD:s from the experimentally measured U:s never exceed 18 electron masses (IronTOP @ 17.76).

The author’s already well ellipsis experienced eye (2003) suggested connecting elliptic arcs in this experimentally discovered mD chart. And again: never so mentioned, what we know, in modern quarters. And then, beginning to make direct calculations (after deducing The Basic Elliptic Equations): The elliptic arc connecting routes to the mass number A and mD values successfully confirmed the suggested. And so, here we are Feb2026. See also TNEDbegin.

BasicEquated: ShortCASE

TNED-NS basically simply equated atomic mass mD defects values

FORMALLY:

ALL COLLECTED

mD ¦ me U¦TNED U¦HOP oneRATIO Ua/Ub

1H1 = 6 – (59/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – [6 – 4]/30)]² = 1.4610753768 1.00785671144 1.00782519 1.0000312767

1H2 = 6 – (58/[58])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – [6 – 5]/30)]² = 2.9275417009 2.01409047958 2.01410222 1.0000058291

= 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – (60 – [A=2])² = 2.9275417009

= 6 – √ 60² – [60 – (1/0.7)([A =2] – 0.6)]² = 2.9275417009

4Be9 = 6 + √ 60² – [60 – (1/0.7)([A =9] – 0.6)]² = 13.20000000000000 9.01224861669 9.01218550 1.0000070035

8O18 = 6 + √ 60² – [60 – (1/0.7)([A =18] – 0.6)]² = 15.72621116743150 17.99933533446 17.99916002 1.0000097401

No1 4FCON — E = 0.7, mD¦y=18

1H3 = 6 ± (57/57)(12/60) √ 60² – [60(1 – [6 – 6]/30)]² = 6.0000000000 3.01603526919 3.01604971 1.0000066246

2He3 = 6 ± (57/57)(12/60) √ 60² – [60(1 – [6 – 6]/30)]² = 6.0000000000 3.01603526919 3.01602973 1.0000018366

2He3 = 0 + 12cos30° = 6 ; PREFIXxSIN: see also 2He3 in TheSIX and mD below;

2He4 = 6 + 12cos45° = 14.4852813742 ; 4.00259898 4.00260312 1.00000103457

continue

2He4 ;

₁H³ : special, useful unstable: SEE SPECIAL TNED-NS-DEDUCTION AND COMPARING

The unstable [12.26 yr]1H3 is »rather undefined» in TNED-NS — other than from 1H2 + 0n1; 1H3 is however badly needed in the basic fusion analysis; the unstable 1H3 in this TNED presentation is given same mD as the stable 2He3, = 6.00000000000.

— Wikipedia (2026: List of radioactive nuclides by half life) has tables of unstable nuclei, and their duration in time (mean half life time window, t in seconds). Our TNED-NS provisions envelop all of these (often in the range of tens or hundreds of milli seconds, mS; our fusion window in »DmaxUnitedProvisions» lasts no more than some t20 S — so we can safely use the unstable nuclei for exothermal tests on the possible fusion limits).

— An iterated 1He3 (advanced) mD TNED-NS solution (4Feb2026) is exposed in

Solving1H3. Z(atomicNumber)X(element)A(massNumber: in TNED-NS the number of fundamental Planck RING h=mcr Neutrons that assembles an atom).

ALL THE ABOVE BASIC mD ATOMIC MASS DEFECT VALUES SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR BUILDING AND DEFINING HEAVIER ATOMS ON LARGER MASS NUMBERS.

Mass numbers 5 and 8 have no stable atom.

2He6 = UNSTABLE, see TNED-NS DEDUCTION AND COMPARISON IN Nuc2H6.

3Li6 → 2He3, 3Li6, 4Be9, 5B11, 7N14, 7N15 :

mD = 6 + (1/5)√ 60² – (60 – [A{3,6,9,11,14,15} – (K=3)]/[E=½])² ¦ The6

3Li7 = equated with 5B10 by separate fusion analysis:

mD = 6 + (1/5)√ 60² – (60 – [A{7,10} – (K=3.7305376)]/[E=½])²

3Li8 = unstable, see SolvingLi8.

ONCE CALCULATED AND RELATED IN TNED-NS, THESE mD VALUES ARE CERTIFIED CONSOLIDATED MASS DEFECT PREFERENCES FOR BUILDING HEAVIER ATOMS.

unstable nuclides used in TNED-NS:

1H3 12.26 yr 0.82 S 0.86S 0.747S Wikipedia 2026, List of radioactive nuclides by half life — Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 1976, Fifth Edition, p491-515

We make continuously comparing tests for certifying that previous calculated A-agents are not violated by later (Higher) A:s.

PrecisionCON gives the meaningful criteria for comparing experimentally measured atomic masses (HOP-CODATA-BerkeleyLBL).

CompFirst:

COMPARING RESULTS

As in the previous peek (TestFRAME ¦ StrongGreen): TNED-NS calculated and experimental (HOP) measured values communicate (excellent). There is not the slightest doubt about that. Comparing the established (black) — Weizsäcker atomic nuclear water drop model (CompCALu2023) — calculated values on the other hand, even the latest revised (California university version 2023) — lie way outside the actual scale. The first, lightest, atoms are positioned type Alaska way outside the scope. As however they grow in mass and size, these huge initial differences decrease and approaches identity towards the chart end. It is apparent, as compared with »TNED-NS + HOP = TRUE», that the academic idea of the atomic nucleus as a spheric entity is a real primitive. It has certain (primitive) features as a first layout in describing approximations on nuclear scales, yes. But the details, it most certainly cannot touch. See also ClarifiedComparison.

LawGeneralSIMPLE ¦ A412710 ¦ ShortCASE ¦ BasicEquated ¦ CompFirst

Solving1H3:

A1234

APPLICATION FOR THE POWERFUL 3 POINT ELLIPSIS SOLUTION — SolvingE:

₁H³

SOLVING THE UNSTABLE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD

Explain — LEFT PART as ILLUSTRATED:

— We (test) substitute our mD unknown unstable 1H3 with our stable 1H1 (mD=1.4610753768) — certifying »the only [ellipsis function: only stable nuclides] available mass number A=1» on the fusion path line. The fusion path can then be written (»examined») as an actual 1H3¦1 –> 2He4 –> 6C12. The defined ellipsis arc captures these three fusion agents — if the ellipsis left side crosses the A scale on A = 1 = K: TNED-NS ellipsis fully captured. That was the way the actual reasoning behind the testing substitution went and worked.

— By adding (iterating) an expanding mD value on our fake 1H1 nuclide, until K = 1 (where the ellipsis crosses the A scale A=1 NeutronSquare center line [mD=6]), a representative mD value on the fake 1H1 — featuring a true but unstable 1H3 on the fusion path — becomes exposed (as was suspected: close to, but not exactly 6):

mD TNED = 5.99999037684378, E = 0.143122923818; The (LBL 2003) Lawrence National Laboratory specifies (TNED ONEratioU; 1.0000047827)

mD LBL = 5.99156143990364 from its U-value 3.01604927767 [mD = (1 – U/Amn)/me]; HOP-table (1967) shows (TNED ONEratioU; 1.0000046394)

mD HOP = 5.99130100879456 from its U-value 3.01604971 (8 decimals only).

— »There you go».

Question arises — RIGHT PART:

— How is The Student (supposed) to PLOT that mD position into the given CHART: A=1 or A=3 .. ?

— »The Ellipsis Janitor Manager in our TNED-NS Basement» would suggest:

• Use 1H3 on A NOW CONSOLIDATED BASIS as a second A=3, on the specified 1H3 mD value, (»stable 2He3 undercover agent»).

— »There you go». Perfect Assembly.

— The True 1H3 2He4 6C12 fusion ellipsis then reads (SolvedE) and captures the three nuclide agents as illustrated above right — says TNED.

— Both 1H3 and 2He3 will expose one and the same ellipsis collecting fusing agents path respectively

1H3¦2He3 → 2He4 → 6C12. Same E and K values (1H1 + 1H3 = 2He4).

Solving 1H3 finished.

Continue on the contracting TNED-NS series in

HeliumREF.

Solving1H3 ¦

HeliumREF:

A1234 ¦ FirstBasic

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – [1 – 1/√2])]² = 14.4852813742 4.00259897905 4.00260312 1.0000010346 ;

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – [6 – 6/√2])/6]² ;

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – [1 – 6/√72])]² ;

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(1 – 1 + 6/√72)]² ;

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(6/√72)]² ;

2He4 = 6 + (56/[56])(12/60)√ 60² – [60(3/√18)]² ;

2He4 = 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – [180/√18]² ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – [10 · 18/√18]² ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – 100[18/√18]² ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – 100[√18]² ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + (12/60)√ 60² – 100 · 18 ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + (1/5)√1800 ; CHECKED

2He4 = 6 + √72 ; CHECKED

As exposed in the Vignette mDExample: The TNED-NeutronSquare basic mD equation gives a complete physics-experimentation independent mD value. As interesting as it is, these values are (here) used for thorough inspection, comparison and evaluation with the already well known (1900s) experimentally measured. These are all tabled and presented publicly in atomic mass values (Uu) in common scientific literature. They will be frequently referred here.

A12640: HeliumREF

A12425876

ATOMIC MASS (m) FROM ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD: m = u[U = Amn(1 – mDme)], U the general atomic mass in numerical (Dalton) mass unit units (u=1.66033 t27 KG).

PrecisionCONDITIONS. See also the basic nuclides in GroundNUCLIDES.

CalK: A12640

We note that all three 1H2, 3Li6 and 20Ca40 lie on the TNED-NS unit circle arc

mD = 6 ± (1/5)√ 60² – (60 – A{2,6,40})² ¦ E= 1

A=2 is positioned on the negative vertical y-part of the NS unit circle:

mD = 6 – ... E=1 ¦ r¦Md = 240pixels = Ascale60: CircleRadius. K can be calculated from a known (E=1)-intersecting AmD as

K = E[(√[(Md = 60)² – (5[mD – 6])²]) – Md ] + A

THE CALCULATING ORDER BUILDS ON A GIVEN BASIC ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD

FROM WHICH FURTHER mD:S CAN BE BUILT — CALCULATING K:S. See mDEX.

As developed 30Jan2026 — K = leftmost ellipsis intersection with the horizontal NeutronSquare A-scaled zero marked x axis. This K-provision was never included in the TNED-NS 2003 original mD mathematics presentation.

REARRANGEMENTS 31Jan2026 (adopts to the original 2003):

IF E = 1: Aref = K, MassNUMBERreference — GENERALLY: a specific ellipsis nuclear fusion base mass number

IF E<>1: Aref = 6(1 – E) ¦ E = 1 – Aref/6 ; limAref=6

All cases:

NF = 6(K/Aref – 1), NuclideREFERENCE — identifies a specific fusion path, relates to mD [ mD’ ]

IF Aref = 0 then E=1:

NF relies only on the (NS) Neutron Square E=1 circle.

(On arbitrary ellipses, »NF just takes a number» as stated).

An Aref is automatically set up whenever there exists a fusion relatated TNED-NS-deducable mD atomic mass defect ellipsis from a given (Aref) mass number (A). The NuclearREFERENCE NK then becomes automatically part of the parametric complex (related by fusion path, or not, whichever).

• That defines all the mD identifying TNED-NS parameters accurately.

— SCANNING this offseted NS-circle along the A¦x horizontal axis will unmask and present genuine TNED mD values.

RELATED SOLUTION:

— If — whereas, as tested — given the DmDE 2 point ellipsis solution: Adding a third ellipsis point (which has to be iterated by iterating the ellipsis eccentricity E coefficient on the two plus one given y-points, the internal x-distances known but not their exact x-coordinates relative the ellipse) then raised this lead:

— Why would it not be possible to find an exact equative solution by adding a third y-point (our general TNED-NS mD values)? All three points y-coordinates known, and only their innate referring x-horizontal distances. No directly known x values in the ellipsis coordinate reference.

— A possible solution .. no .. yes .. ? It is, or it isn’t. Consequential mathematics.

IT APPEARS (».. we HEAR some Music in the Background .. possibly .. ») that the rational answer would be: yes, of course there is a such solution. But how do we find it?

Just taking (»dinner already served») the already deduced DmDE equation on a third additional point (x3y3) — on a subtraction — we could »spot an isolation» of the crucial parameter: the ellipsis eccentricity coefficient E.

— Then, as above, the solution SolvingE landed quickly on our table. As verified: We only need the three y:s and the two innate de. That defines the precise exact ellipsis holding all three points on its arc.

Just in previous to the result (AiMachineQuest), we had to (»urgently needed, just slightly scenting the presence of an opening door .. ») ask an Ai machine (Google web reader) whether any known solution to the three point ellipsis problem already existed. The answer was: Accurately: not (28Jan2026); At present, no directly established known solution exists for finding the exact ellipsis with given three y-coordinate points and only two internal distances between the three unknown x points. The solution must use an iterating procedure. That was the Ai machine answer in conclusion.

However, even now when the answer has been resolved:

— The Ai machine might not always be accurate in a complete covering insight into the vast archives of established mathematics (One example: The Riemann Sphere corresponding ∞ lemniscate point. Discovered through a Wikipedia scanning, then reported to the Ai machine. See that passage in 9Feb2025 QIin). So we will have to let the quest be a pending one: known or unknown established SolvingE solution in modern corridors .. ?

With our now already solved E equation in this presentation, we can always compare if and when other alternatives arrive on our station.

DmDEsons ¦ TripleSolved ¦ SolvingE ¦ EPS3P

Conditions:

AtomicMassUnit ¦ TestFRAME ¦ REGULARnFCONS

ConAPS ¦ CalK ¦ pCON ¦

Short repetition from the original (Nov2007) Swedish deduction

THE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT AND ITS ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS,

see The Atomic Mass Unit.

FCON CONDITIONS FOR CERTIFYING

A TNED-NS NUCLEAR FUSION Dmax AGENT AS

A VALID mD CHART POSITION

EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED values (of expected fix masses) feature a nominal ”exact” value with an additional tolerance or precision specification. TNED-NS calculated, no physical experimentation at all, atomic mass (U) defects [mD = (1 — U/Amn)/me] are based on a set of the lightest of the atoms (A1234) with defined settled mD values. On these are then determined the heavier atoms mD:s. However. Our (yet) known TNED-NS exothermally fusion path routes have not (yet) fully defined corresponding equative solutions (takes weeks so find an equative solution for the heavier atoms ..).

On these occasions. However again, it s sufficient if only a first three (SolvedE ¦ EPStool) AmD:s are known — for collecting other AmD:s on that same elliptic arc. And provided these newly determined mD:s do not (»significantly») deviate from the general (wave equation TNED 2003) specified mD:s. A testing strategy will so rely on a comparison between old (TNED 2003) determined mD:s and, eventually, new determined.

Again, as exposed in TestFRAME, these old 2003 TNED mD:s have (very) close resemblance to the already during the late 1900s (HOP) experimentally measured corresponding mD values. And so any further testing strategy would take advantage of this TNED/HOP difference. The aim, and the examining quest, would be, as the experimentally is already settled:

— Is it possible to enhance the TNED mD values on a still closer to one (1) ratio with the HOP-values, in, at the same time examining the TNED-NS ellipsis (EPStool) connection to the experimental?

The outcome of such an ambitious expedition seems clear before even having started: Either a complete crash — absolutely no communication at all, type strongly divergent explosion, not even close to. Or just that: a complete success. Perfect Assembly. We are trembling on the brink.

• 3 xy points minimum is demanded for asserting

• one single unique ellipse.

In general (with few exceptions: StrategyCON ¦ TestFRAME): given two xy¦AmD points, a third can (almost) always be found in the mD chart, so matching (any arbitrarily) three definite arc points on the resulting ellipse (defining multiple possible exothermal fusion paths).

— Given the two, the third — whichever suits — defines a final fix completely parametric ellipse.

In 2020 (TNEDa0 25Apr2020) extensive ITERATING METHODS were applied to such three point ellipsis solutions. The attempt was to, eventually, find arguments for more precise TNED-NS mD values for our universally given mass number A atoms. At that time however, this Jan2026 discovered EPS3P SolvedE solution was unknown. And so the outcome of these three point demanding time consuming iterating sessions .. just faded (screaming in the silent dark for more juice).

STRATEGY: Conditions

Now (LawGeneralSIMPLE) we have already seen the first basic examples of how a set of xy AmD points have been defined in the TNED-NS chart. Given these, such, a basic few most light atoms consolidated mD agents, we can continue building — relating — heavier atoms from the lighter.

— Our basic test aim is, as already noted, only for comparison purposes, if at all, with experimentally measured (HOP sources):

• Beginning from a few basic, separately defined and well related (unless argued),

• power is given for certifying the heavier atom mD:s.

— See

TestFRAME details from REGULARnFCONS.

TNEDnsREF: STRATEGY

TNED-NS

TNED NEUTRON SQUARE related mathematics an physics in general

Certified TNED-NeutronSquare nuclear chart extensions

Candidating or settled atomic mass defect mD values in the corresponding (NeutronSquare NS) atomic nuclide TestFRAME chart:

TNED-NeutronSquare (TNED-NS) nuclear chart complex ¦ mDMATH.

We refer related atomic nuclear specified associated connections to TNED by this generally termed TNED-NS acronym.

Conditions ¦ STRATEGY ¦ TNEDnsREF

AtomicMassUnit: Compiled Feb2026 from TNED TestFRAME original works 2003

Related physics and mathematics

HOW u = 1.66033 t27 = 1.66033 t27 KG = mC12/12 defines mD, which defines the mathematical physics for calculating the atomic masses through elliptic equations (SolvedE), and how they match by comparing on experimentally measured (SCOPE).

Hur Atomära massenheten (u = 1.66033 t27 = 1.66033 t27 KG = mC12/12) definierar atomära massdefekten (mD) som definierar atomvikternas bestämning och beräkning genom ellipsens ekvationer (SolvedE).

— The scope on the above mentioned details was never investigated in modern academic quarters, unless hidden and declared so known until this present now (Feb2026). For inspection (SCOPE): atomic masses through elliptic equations.

As we know. The only known academic calculating (theoretical) approach to atomic masses is given by the Weizsäcker water drop model equated form (having developed during the 1900s decades up till today in different versions). Latest 2023 California version. But its lightest atoms values lie way far outside the scaling, proving zero correspondence between calculated and experimentally measured. The elliptic solutions on the other hand (ClarfiedComparison) are free from that type of self excluding parts and certified dead communication. The precision (TestResult) difference quest between the TNED-NS elliptic calculated and the experimentally measured (HOP) is the remaining question to be answered in detail: who belongs to what — on related arguments.

NOTE: THE TERM atomic mass defect IN THIS PRESENTATION HAS NO HERE KNOWN REPRESENTATION IN ESTABLISHED ACADEMY:

— TNED related physics and mathematics are based on the unstable PlanckRING h=mcr=6.62559 t34 JS NEUTRON (dormant H atom) from which multiple mass number A all heavier atoms are built (the TNED atom mass defect has no internal nucleons, as water does not consist of individual free spinning water drops, see GIF Illustration). Meaning: TNED atomic masses have (Z) electron masses already incorporated, as will also be apparent from the following deduction from the concept of the ATOMIC MASS UNIT (u).

From the Swedish original (7Jul2003) Atomära massenheten

A SHORT REPETITION

DEDUCING THE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD

AND ITS ASSOCIATED ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS

— FROM THE ATOMIC MASS UNIT PRINCIPLE

WITH THE NEUTRON SQUARE automatically is associated a thorough definition of the terms

• atomic mass detect (mD)

• atomic mass unit (u = mCARBON12/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG)

STATEMENTS

THE NEUTRON is defined by the Planck constant (Max Planck 1900) universal angular momentum (Kepler area momentum K=vr times mass) h = mn cr = 6.62559 t34 JS.

(Universal angular momentum quantum: mass [gravitation], charge [electric-magnetic; divergence c = c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S], spin [Nuclear gravity circle radius, 1.32 Fermi])

All atoms can form from a number of a mass number A such basic universal fundamental nuclear quanta nuclides or neutron masses (A · mn), mn = 1.0086652 u.

(Trivially: as a bigger drop of water is formed from several smaller: naturally illustrated).

(See GIF Illustration).

See also the Ai machine 22Jan2025 response on ” .. h = Neutron ..” in LEAD.

THE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD per equivalent neutron nuclide for an atom with mass m is hence delivered by (1). It has no here known corresponding established mathematical representation. The single neutron net (max18me) mass defect is then (2). Expressed in electron masses (me = 0.000548598 u), as (3). With the atom’s mass (m) expressed in number U units of u, the atomic mass defect (mD) in electron mass units (me) can be further simplified in writ as (4). Here mn and me are already expressed in atomic mass units (u).

— The U values are the ones given in general tabled atomic mass data in available established text books (HOP). Given an mD value, the corresponding U in u is calculated as (5).

(1) mD = mn – m/A — natural atomic mass defect

— A× mD (TestFRAME) defines the total (Dmax) exothermal (exothermic) energy released from the A neutrons in producing the AmD atom (from neutrons A=1 and their heavier A=>1 stable or unstable atomic nuclei), their electron masses included.

• When atoms are formed, beginning from the neutron, WORK (Planck energy E = hf = mc² ¦ mD) is wasted to realize the end atomic (stable) product.

= mn(1 – m/Amn) ;

(2) (1 – m/Amn) = (mn – m/A)/mn — in me units:

(3) mD = (1 – m/Amn)/me

(4) mD = (1 – U/Amn)/me — The final U form:

(5) U = Amn(1 – mDme) — atomic mass U in Dalton (u) units

THE ELLIPTIC COMPLEX

As is apparent from (5);

• To reach U, mD must be known. But ..

• To reach mD, U must first be known, given meAmn.

• Shorter: mD can not be determined, if U is not known.

— But to know U, mD must first be familiar ..

Two possible solutions exist:

One experimental

(with some elaborative additions .. the atoms must be ionized .. electron ripped .. compensating mathematical [Statistical] adjusting correcting calculations .. see Chinese Physics Quote: direct atomic mass cannot be experimentally measured, what we know).

And one strictly mathematical.

— Apparently never observed or noted, what we know, in modern academic quarters and corridors;

As the experimental (HOP-tables) is already well established in the 1900s scientific literature, our interest will focus on the mathematical alternative.

SOLUTION:

From (5) we receive (6). Its second degree equation is solved as (7).

(6) U = Amn – mDmeAmn

= k(A1) – mDk(A2)

= U(mD/mD)

= (UmD)/mD

= f(A)/mD ; function of A

= K(A)/mD

K(A) = mD(k[A1] – mDk[A2])

= mD(kA1) – mD²k(A2)

= k(A2) × (mDk[A1]/k[A2] – mD²)

K(A)/k(A2) = mDk(A1)/k(A2) – mD²

K = mDk – mD²

–K = mD² – mDk

(7) mD = k/2 ± √(–K=k0) + (k/2)²

= (k/2=k1) ± ½√4k0 + k²

This introduces us to THE CEPH EQUATION (CircelEllipsParabolaHyperbola), never so formulated in established corridors, although its parts are well known (CEPHequation — attested as unknown in modern corridors).

— In its explicit ellipsis form it is written as (8), further refined (NS-basics) as (9)

(8) mD = k1 + E√ 2Rx – x²

(9) mD = k1 + (1/5)E√ 120A – A²

with (EllipsisFunction) the NS (Neutron Square) taken conditional geometric parameters and its specific scalings. See

ShortCASE, TestFRAME, THE GENERALIZED STRUCTURAL MASS DEFECT EQUATION (2003).

KAEs: AtomicMassUnit

THE END GENERAL TNED-NS ATOMIC NUCLEAR CHART (TestFRAME) ELLIPTIC EQUATION FOR ALL CASES, ALL POSSIBLE ELLIPSES, VERTICAL AS HORIZONTAL becomes as deduced:

mD = 6 + (1/5)√[s² – (s + K – A{A1,A2,A3,..})²] / E

• certifying that the given K A E s parameters certifies

• an accurate TNED-NS nuclear exothermal fusion path.

K ellipsis x axis left intersection with the NeutronSquare circle horizontal diagonal

E ellipsis eccentricity (horizontal s ÷ vertical r)

A set of mass numbers;

— The first lightest atoms (A1234) have special Neutron Square features in determining their basic mD values. From these the heavier atom’s mD values can be determined on a general ellipsis arc collecting (consolidating) unique KAEs equation.

EPStool: KAEs

SolvingE ¦ EPS3P

THE ELLIPTIC MORPHOLOGY

STRUCTURAL SOLUTION — REGULARnFCONS ¦ SCOPE ¦ TestResult ¦ Ellipsis

OF THE ATOMIC NUCLIDE CHART

ON ATOMIC MASS DEFECTS mD

NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell3 R1

Defining a unique ellipsis (SolvedE) on given three xy points x(A) and y(mD), the x coordinates not explicitly known, only their inner related distances (d and e; first to second, first to third).

NOTE: This deduced elliptic equation also adopt automatically between vertical and horizontal ellipsis orientations. We never have to bother on those occasions (the ellipsis inner geometrical math has »automatic compensating complex features»).

IF, as suggested from the atomic mass unit (u) and its associated atomic mass defect elliptic equations, our physical universe of atoms, really, are expected to be defined their mD values as so AmD threaded on unique elliptic arcs, also the experimental results, and as fas as truly instrumentally reflected mass measured versions in our physical universe, no math tampering, also should reflect a such an elliptic morphological structural system. No doubt. IF. That is, TNED-NS says: Consequential mathematics. No speculation. No theory. It is, or not at all.

Setting up the testing provisions

As already apparent in the TestFRAME (StrongGreen) the (first 2003) TNED-NS collected mD values have (very, up to A=60) close resembling mD values to the experimentally measured atomic masses (fact book tables during the later half of the 1900s). A first such TNED-NS example is given in TheSIX:

GENERALmD EPStool

mD = 6 + (1/5)√ 60² – (60 – [A{3,6,9,11,14,15} – (K=3)]/[E=½])² ¦ The6

2He3-4Be9-5B11-7N14-7N15

Spontaneous Exothermal fusions under Dmax:

2He3 + 2He6 = 4Be9, + 1H2 = 5B11, + 2He3 = 7N14, + 0n1 = 7N15.

However; A general (not directly by the TestFRAME mD visual scaling) difference between these TNED-NS calculated and the experimentally measured values exist. The pCON condition (Precision condition) states that a meaningful comparing between TNED U = Amn(1 – mDme) and experimentally (HOP) measured U must not exceed a oneRATIO (TNED/HOP) of 1.0003849. It is the worst case taken on the experimentally tabled atomic masses — stating that: relational values above this limit makes the comparing meaningless. Namely, in directly rounding the tabled (atomic weight numeric) U vales in u units to integer values will have the same end result.

— Scanning the (early 2003, all stable atoms: 1H1 to 83Bi209) TNED-NS calculated versus the experimental exposes a largest oneRATIO of 1.0000964657 (HOPweizXP.ods, compiled 31Aug2023): a good margin to the pCON limit. So, the general onset of a further TNED/HOP testing provision is apparently well suited: it can only become closer to 1. Never farther (unless so forced). And again: it will be a test, a resulting table of values for further reference and comparison. Consequential mathematics on given premises. Nothing else. No speculation. No theory. Just a Drive in the landscape.

Strategy ¦ Conditions

With the provision that (with reservation for eventually missed candidates)

• no individual numbers tampering on individual atomic mass defect mD values from given mass number A values,

• only (scan table tool) suggested improved precision candidates,

• whose exposed (short table) changed values, if adopted, will be copied (20 decimals) directly to their old table position, replacing these with the new ones, more rated closer to TNED/HOP = 1.000000000000...,

• and accounted for by comparing Old/New values (in groups of 4) and their improvement, so we can check, recheck, and if necessary, restart and begin fom the beginning, saving all tabled results, if and on related arguments appear.

SampleEX2: GENERALmD

SampleEX

Type like this SampleEX:

— We input three nuclide atomic AmD agent candidates, from lighter already know to heavier, not yet determined. The deduced SolvedE equation guarantees, and certifies, that these three point AmD:s define a unique ellipse. Its 3PAmD cannot be approached by any other ellipse. However, each one of the 3PAmD ca so (generally always) be touched by any other ellipse beginning from a first definite 2PAmD. See explanation in EllipsisProvision, unless already familiar.

SolvedE:

• Not yet determined xy points as candidating agents are added freely as they are marked in the tables, into in the SolvingE equative tool. The SolvingE CalCard then specifies the corresponding full 3 point ellipsis parametric geometry.

• Connecting the SolvedE parameters to the SINGLE tool — it takes the SolvedE ellipsis parameters, and scans in that ellipse (in sets of 5) the atom mass table for valid candidates, as we see them in the experimentally composed in TestFRAME.

— Aim:

• to receive a closer to one ratio TNED/Experimental

• if the number is zero or black,

• otherwise red (meaning the original TNED values will be violated).

Scanning for suggested (black only) precision improvements:

— PARALLEL to these inputs appears (a limited window of 5 near AmD:s, exposing how th new results will appear if adopted) a nearest set of (associated) candidates, and whether they are suited (black) or not (red) for precision improvement.

SINGLEassesment — tableSCAN:

In this case, a minor (»modest») improvement of 0.76 ppm closer to 1 is available.

Summing and conclusion

NUMBER(9) reduces the mathematical alternative to a collection of x(A)¦y(mD) xy points: (mDy) on elliptic arcs. On given mass numbers x(A). See further FCON and Conditions laying out the method and technique of how the elliptic arc collections realizes the task.

EndPoint: SampleEX2

— The end result points out the simple:

• Atomic mass defects (mD) can, as so defined from the basic principally deduced atomic mass unit, pinpoint a complete chart, structural (matrix) tree, of atomic nuclear occurrences. Provided the x(A)¦y(mD) xy points can be defines by a definite unique actual elliptic arc, that will apparently be the end of line of the mathematical part of the story. The conditions for that to happen are detailed in Conditions. The general route says (except for the first lightest atoms, which demand special fusion analysis on defined equations, See NetronSquareBasics): at least 4 distinct xy points is needed to certify one single (4) set of finally chart defined atoms. Beginning from the lightest atoms, the heavier are built, defined, on the lighter’s fixed and certified mD values, advancing from lighter to heavier nuclei.

In the experimental case, there is only instrumental readouts. No (TNED) explicit structural clues are presented on any direct measuring basis.

However:

In the end line: we can always compare Mathematical with Experimental, and see how well they cooperate — if at all. See further from

FCON, mDEx, TestFRAME and REGULARnFCONS.

TestResult: EndPoint

HOW DID THE TEST WORK OUT?

— Like meeting a broken dam.

— »We almost got drowned by the overwhelming flood of suggested hidden explaining insights».

Further accounting details below.

DamBreach: TestResult

The one hundred billion dollar question:

— Is there any

• the slightest, smallest, tiniest proof, argument,

• idea, suggestion, clue or other invoking instance of

• a general universally recognized cogitation

• capable of stating a clear cut obvious

• rejection of TNED calculated ellipses

— in THEIR Experimentally Measured approaching values on atomic masses and their related deduced mathematics for mD atomic mass defects?

— No. Not at the present. Not that has been spotted or observed or suggested. No.

Continue on Lead below.

mDbackground: DamBreach

Background case history info

The situation from around 2003:

THE 2003 TNED GROUPED WAVE EQUATIONS (BaseGroupMassNumbers ¦ 2008+MicrosoftProgamDestructiveEnterpriseEX) had definite uncertainties around the IronTOP (mass numbers around 60). Shifting from the ODD-EVEN provisions »up to around A=60», into the heavier atomic chart and its HYPERBOLIC COSINE (PREFIXxSIN) finalization, there was a marked heel or LIP in the comparing between TNED and HOP experimental. In the vicinity of mass number A=60 this (embarrassing) incongruity is clearly documented.

— With a more, (KAEs, SolvingE) refined all chart through consequential original ellipsis equative solution, the incongruities were removed in a glance.

See also COMPARING RESULTING IRON TOP ATOMS — 4 Highest mD scores.

LEAD: mDbackground

Lead:

THAT TNED has a fundamental great interest in communicating on experimentally measured values, that is indeed a paramount part of TNED — as TNED, TNED says — IS the foundation of our universe and its atomic physics through (year 1900, Max Planck) the Planck constant

h = mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS. That is: TNED stresses the TNED identified Universal Angular Momentum Device, Planck constant, as The Neutron (mass,charge, spin). However not so observed in modern academic corridors:

— The Neutron (ThePlanckRING). See The Ai Machine’s Neutron confession:

— ”interesting numerical coincidence”, 22Jan2025 ¦ hN.

Because we cannot come here and state that type ”TNED math:s ellipsis solutions are impossible to unite with experimentally measured values” unless we have solid mathematical-physical-structural proof of that so would be the case. In this present situation, namely, an INVERSE aspect has seen some light: We cannot come here and state that type EXPERIMENTAL REJECTS TNED when, TestResult, it is apparently obviously (44 ellipses on 207 atoms — with »auto-enhanced» oneRATIO values) provably so: EXPERIMENTAL, certainly, INVITES TNED ELLIPSIS MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS by duly collecting atomic mD:s over defined ellipsis equations.

— You were saying .. ? Take your time. Find the rational arguments against.

Inversion:

EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES contra TNED-NS calculated ellipsis values need to pace the atoms through electric/magnetic fields (mass spectroscopy techniques).

” Nowadays several measurements are conducted with fully or almost fully ionized

atoms. In such cases, a correction must be made for the total binding energy of all the

removed electrons Be(Z)”,.

The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation

CHINESE PHYSICS C Vol. 41, No. 3 (2017) 030003

Ionization: LEAD

IONIZATION realizes the pacing. The atom is (partly or wholly) ripped its normally surrounding electron mass, making the atom repulsive, gaining speed. The repulsive atom passes through electric/magnetic instrumentally arranged fields. More gravitating mass develops more centrifugation in curved paths. And so (mass spectroscopy) the atom’s mass can be determined by observing the atom’s (nucleus’) deviation from a straight line (infinite mass) — provided accurate (mathematical physics) knowledge of the atomic and electric/magnetic field parameters.

MassIssues: Ionization

HOWEVER

(EXVER ¦ LILYC ¦ EPillustrated — Planck equivalents outclasses Einstein’s theory of relativity, by already proved experimental results, as accounted for in revisited revisions: same math, different ideas of physics: only one can explain the other as a primitive: light does not connect kinetics: light is not gravitation: light paths does not develop centrifugation; Planck equivalents sense the fundamental difference between mechanics and electrophysics, explicitly explaining the details of the latter: Einsteins theory of relativity was built to remove that difference);

When electrically charged masses are accelerated (Einstein versus Planck) through the Planck energy E = hf = mc² of a closed system’s electromagnetic field, the mass aspect of the paced (inductive responding) charged object exposes a change.

This additive change (»although small») has no representation in our TNED-NS calculated scope: Ellipsis arc point collecting atomic mass defect mD values have exact resting neutral masses — which must be affected, disturbed, when atoms become paced by ionization:

• So: Ideal experimental results DISTURB TNED-NS ideal math results.

— But to what an extent this disturbance extends we have here absolutely no idea of.

And so, it becomes already apparent that

• experimentally measured atomic masses can in no way be EXACTED as TNED-NS calculated.

• Some difference between the two must exist:

• And, as stated, we have, here, absolutely no clue at all how these experimentally measures, compensated (statistics) mass changing features relate to the actual not affected perfectly resting ideal TNED-NS calculated naturally unaffected atom.

— That is our TNED/HOP mathematical/experimental precision dilemma.

mDResolution: MassIssues

HOWEVER, AGAIN:

• The fact that (TestResult) »the scanning SolvedE» evaluation process, as accounted for in this presentation, has proven CONVERGENCE from TNED to HOP experimental WITH an additional enhanced oneRATIO-featuring-values approaching 1, is, or strongly suggests for further, »a MARKER»,

• unless mistaken for idealistic favoring, clouding the scope of scientific knowledge,

PROVING A POSSIBLE FURTHER MORE REFINING CONNECTION — unless so disclaimed.

That was (DamBreach) the broken dam power we met on presenting this result.

— »We almost got drowned by the overwhelming flood of suggested hidden explaining insights».

We dive further. It has become a passion — always with the risk of discovering fatal flaws, hidden under specifically short sighted conclusions. That is how our admiration for scientific knowledge grows. Perfect Assembly.

Continue on accounted TestResults in

SCOPE.

AtomicMassUnit ¦ KAEs ¦ EPStool ¦ GENERALmD ¦ SampleEX2 ¦ EndPoint ¦ DamBreach ¦ mDbackground ¦ LEAD ¦ Ionization ¦ MassIssues ¦ mDResolution

SCOPE: ConSER: Consolidating series ¦ SpecialCon: CoveredAs: AllCollected:

COVERED ATOMIC (A) MASS NUMBERS

Continue from EPStool — Atomic mass unit

SCOPE — GATHERING IN THE HARVEST

48 ellipses collecting 207 stable A atom mD:s from 1H1 to 83Bi209 — TestResult — on an enhanced precision in comparing experimentally measured values

— What we know: nothing that anybody else has seen before in or time of history. THE UNIVERSAL CHART OF ATOMIC NUCLEI — from Planck’s constant h = mcr = 6.62559 t34 JS = Universal Anglular Momentum Quantum = The NEUTRON.

— The Neutron (ThePlanckRING). See The Ai Machine’s Neutron confession:

— ”interesting numerical coincidence”, 22Jan2025 ¦ hN.

WHAT MADE THE BREAK THROUGH DIFFERENCE? SolvingE. Before that: endless, time consuming, demanding, tiring ITERATIONS .. looking for answers .. why was I born .. I can’t deal with this .. this is hopeless .. shut the fuck up .. leave me ..

— We were surprised. With the basic example in The6, it was expected some at most 4 to 7 collecting AmD points on a single unique ellipsis.

— This is what we found (several accounting alternatives will be presented in the following).

SCOPE —

REGULARnFCONS:

All stable 207 atoms from 1H1 to 83Bi209, single mass numbers only:

all on a closer to 1 ratio comparing enhanced precision (except No6 and No51: could be a motivated reverse ..):

Tagged: SCOPE

TAG nEPS n mD:s all selected also enhanced mD:s on given mass numbers A:

15 0 3 8,16,36

10 1 4 8,10,11,13

3 2 6 3,6,9,11,14,15

14 3 4 8,19,22,24

34 4 4 6,24,26,27

44 5 4 11,23,31,32

444 6 4 11,28,30,33

29 7 4 15,24,29,38

6 8 4 4,12,37,39

77 9 4 6,16,41,44

4 10 4 11,21,34,45

49 11 4 4,41,47,49

43 12 4 12,43,46,50

1 13 4 2,9,18,53

5 14 4 3,16,40,56

35 15 5 4,12,55,57,59

50 16 4 16,24,52,60

17 17 4 8,16,38,62

7 18 4 4,20,64,67

52 19 4 16,63,66,68

51 20 4 16,58,61,69

70 21 4 12,40,70,71

72 22 4 11,46,51,72

67 23 4 4,77,79,80

32 24 4 4,42,56,84

48 25 4 4,48,54,87

68 26 6 4,78,83,85,86,88

25 27 4 12,25,35,90

69 28 5 4,17,89,91,92

73 29 5 12,73,74,75,96

40 30 11 14,81,88,93,94,95,97,98,99,101,102

41 31 9 12,100,103,104,105,106,107,109,110

2 32 4 4,28,114,115

22 33 11 12,108,111-114,116-119

47 34 4 2,122,125,130

74 35 4 12,76,77,82

75 36 4 7,16,42,131

74 37 4 7,16,42,131

53 38 4 26,27,130,136

23 39 7 30,43,45,47,148,149,150 ¦ added 24Feb2026, not earlier included although already prepared

42 40 27 30,40,108,120-124,126-129,132-135,137-143,151-154

8 41 4 6,9,16,144

54 42 4 12,130,146,155

55 43 23 11,155-159,161-177

56 44 5 16,160,178,179,180

57 45 10 16,160,181-189

58 46 13 21,178,184,188,190-198

59 47 11 6,188,199-208

60 48 4 6,188,208,209

—————————————————————————————————————————————

DENOTATIONS:

nEPS, numerical order of ellipses

n mD:s, number of elliptic arc collected individual A¦mD in each

Explicit table checking certifies that:

• same unique ellipsis has no duplicate

• the last determined mD atom in a previous ellipse never repeats in the chart

except for the first two already determined in building a new ellipse,

which always are legit in determining heavier atoms mD:s.

No6 and No51:

19K39 + (9F22 =3Li6 + 6C16) = 28Ni61:

19K39 and 28Ni61 can be isolated on a single definite 3PEPS: a finally determined separate mD set

— along with practically any lower A atom than K39. Type

2He3-19K39-28Ni61, where the two latter are reset to their nominal ± 0 ppm values.

MULTI OCCASIONAL A:s

See in explicit StudentsAQuest on the single A occasions (TNED deals only with atomic mass defects: the electrons are already integrated: »The Z aspect is included»).

————————

Editor 24Feb2026

iTOPcomp: Tagged

THE IRON TOP — HIGHEST CHART’S mD SCORE

TNED-SAME order AS in EXPERIMENTAL mD:s (TestFRAME), except (2¦3) Ni60¦62 swapped:

(NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell8 A68-75)

———————————————

HighestATOMICmD — CAT2025D ¦ See also on multiple A:s in different Z:s in StudentAQuest, unless already familiar.

AtomicMassUnit ¦ Tagged ¦ ConSER ¦ SpecialCon ¦ CoveredAs ¦ iTOPcomp

FCON:

What is .. means ..

A TNED FCON solution — Conditions

THREE x¦A y¦mD points, »a 3FCON», at least a three-fold consolidation (»hard, real-steel-mechanic»), on one and the same ellipsis arc is the minimum condition for giving final mD values to given atoms specified mass number A values. We name such a determined mD, here, a consolidating (solidified part in a chart) atomic mass defect (mD). An absolutely and finally sealed fully defined set of atomic agents in the general TNED-NS atomic elements matrix chart (TestFRAME ¦ PeriodicSystem). It is to be compared with experimentally measured atomic masses (U) through the TNED-NS deduced transfer equation U = Amn(1 – mDme).

Tools: DUALmDsolutions ¦ SolvedE ¦ SINGLE ¦ TNED-NS ¦ mD math

— tables (HOP) on atomic masses (atomic weights: numeric U vales in u = Dalton units: 1u = mC12/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG, atomic mass unit), a free spread sheet program (OpenOffice), basic familiarity with the geometry and mathematics of the ellipse (EllipticEquations ¦ CalCards)

STRATEGY, METHOD AND TECHNIQUE:

How 3 (or more) xy¦AmD points are collected on one and the same ellipsis arc — for a further testing of the TNED definition of atomic masses

— It was early (2003) discovered in TNED that

• experimentally (HOP) measured values on atomic masses

• reflects structural elliptic collecting routes, exothermal fusion paths,

• in limited sequences, sets and groups.

— This is the continued more advanced version (Feb2026) of that inquiry.

Ellipsis: FCON

AtomicMassUnit

TestFRAME ¦

THE ELLIPTIC COMPLEX IN THE CHART OF NUCLEAR ATOMIC MASS DEFECTS AND THEIR ATOMIC MASSES

StrategyCON: Convergence: Ellipsis

AIMING AT VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS ARCS

Aiming at collecting — defining — at least three elliptic 2D xy points on the arc of an ellipse, settling final fixed values of x(mass number A) and y(atomic mass defect mD), we use the TestFRAME for a first overview.

— TestFRAME is the TNED collected, experimentally (HOP) measured atomic masses (U), transferred to corresponding atomic mass defects mD by mD = (1 – U/Amn)/me. These then become the TNED corresponding experimentally measured mD values. No speculation. No theory.

— TNED-NS mD values are directly calculated — and so (StrongGreen) we have an excellent opportunity in comparing TNED with Experimental. The similarity (StrongGreen) is already apparent. So: how does the experimental apply to the calculated TNED?

See also ClarifiedComparison.

Two xy points can collect practically any (freely sizable) elliptic arc. But three specific xy points are needed to define — set — a specific ellipse; eccentricity: positioning, size of major and minor axis, the final actual xy coordinates.

— We (now, Jan2026) know that from the SolvedE deduction.

— Prior to the discovery of the solution we asked the Ai machine ‡28Jan2026 if a solution was known. It answered accurately: no. Not at the present. A solution must use iterative methods. No established direct equative solution to the ellipsis three point problem is known (at that present).

SampleEX: ConEX: StrategyCON

This is how it works — or not at all:

SolvedE:

— Aim:

• to receive a closer to one ratio TNED/Experimental

• if the number is zero or black,

• otherwise red (meaning the original TNED values will be violated).

SINGLEassesment — tableSCAN:

Simply said: that’s it.

— All black numbers are new valid candidating agents for enhancing the oneRATIO comparing result between TNED and experimentally measured (exposed in units of parts per million, ppm).

If adopted — and all are in our first assessment for comparing further — the first three given agents are moved into the general DUALmDsolutions tool,

• along with the accepted enhanced precision candidate, where its new more to 1 precision ratio compared mD value is displayed;

• and which mD value is the replacing the old one in the new test table.

We can always abort the operation, and restart the whole testing machinery from square one — if something goes wrong, or won’t work at all. Collecting different sets of tables and their results promotes further comparison. The old TNED original (2003) mD values are always and anyway preserved.

Example — an extreme one: 27 xy points collected, all with enhanced precision:

See

No42.

FCON ¦ Ellipsis ¦ StrategyCON ¦ Convergence ¦ SampleEX ¦ ConEX

Detailed: Compiled 25Feb2026

CALCULATING ATOMIC MASSES for comparing on experimentally measured

SELECTING A FIRST ELLIPSE

DUALmDEllipsisSolutions ¦ SolvedE ¦ SINGLE

TestFRAME details:

THE 2D xy ONSET ORIENTATION OF AN EXAMINING y¦mD TestFRAME (HOP tabled experimental values in mD) COLLECTING ELLIPSE on given mass numbers x¦A is roughly divided into two regions:

• mass numbers 1 to 60, the light atomic group

— basically vertical ellipses ¦ (low <1E=eccentricity numbers).

• mass numbers from 60 to chart end, the heavy group (last 83Bi209 on the stable atomic list)

— generally horizontal ellipses — (high >1E=eccentricity numbers).

Procedure:

ExplainedProcedure : Detailed

1. The first three suggested exothermally fusing atomic nuclei agents are collected as calculated on their SolvedE ellipsis. This separate TestFRAME check, certifies valid candidates (just a visual basic check: with training, this check can be omitted).

2. The SINGLE CalCard tool imports the SolvedE eccentricity (E) value and its corresponding ellipsis vertical axis length. SINGLE gives scans (here 5 at a time) on the underlying present (original 2003) TNED calculated mD values and their corresponding (HOP) experimentally comparing atomic U values (mDmath). If SINGLE senses negative gain values, these are displayed in red, otherwise in black. The agents behind these black displays are now the valid ones for enhanced oneRATIO precision modification, closing the difference between TNED original and experimental towards 1 (in units of parts per million, ppm).

3. Adopting the SINGLE suggested enhanced precision candidates to the basic (InCOME) DUALmDsolution equation — adding xy¦AmD:s to a given specified ellipse — the new candidate becomes adopted when added its new mD value to the TNED column av mD values in the general atomic chart table, for further comparison.

The right part of the 3:rd InCOME CalCard above then displays the new adjusted oneRATIO 1 on the bottom added candidate, here 40Zr91.

See the (Feb2026) final TestResult in comparing (mDbackground) previous (TNED 2003) with present on the entire TestFRAME.

See also (No42) the extreme example on the 27 collected such automatically enhanced oneRATIO precision atomic candidates. Below collected as found by screen dumps:

RED: increases the oneRATIO comparing fraction between TNED-NS calculated and HOP-experimental.

Black: valid candidates for testing an improved higher precision towards a 1 rated quote between TNED and experimental.

The SINGLE suggested enhanced precision is all based on elliptic SolvedE equations. These are collecting atomic mass defect values mD on given mass numbers A on elliptic arcs xy¦AmD points. Atomic mass is then calculated from mD to U in u units as

U = Amn(1 – mDme) ¦ Deduced from AtomicMassUnit (u = 1 Dalton = mC12/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG).

All collected ellipsis accounted for in

REGULARnFCONS.

Detailed ¦ ExplainedProcedure

Purpose:

Introduction

ENHANCING THE TNED-NS mD VALUES

PurposeIllustrated: Purpose

— Don’t forget the origin .. It is called: respect. Don’t forget to update.

CoveredAs

TestFRAME

The experimental values in our TestFRAME have TNED as the underlying physical reality — says TNED. That is, what we know, the only reason behind The Why the first (2003 less precise) TNED-NS values converge (TestResult) when scrutinized for sharper precision; We are looking for a Disclaimer for that type of statement. Because if we find one, TNED goes bye-bye; Our main interest is not TNED, but knowledge and understanding of our atomic universe.

Purpose ¦ PurposeIllustrated

SINGLEtool:

THE SINGLE ellipsis TOOL

Cooperating with SolvedE

NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell7 A9

Function: SolvedE exports its first AmD¦KAEs atom (3Li6) to the SINGLE tool. The SINGLE tool then draws up that ellipse, and takes samples from the atomic mass table for suggesting improvements. The ppm GAIN numbers in red exposes rejective negative contributions, black positive candidates. Using the TestFRAME along with (a trained eye on) estimated ellipsis onsets, a final list of acceptable candidates and their new mD values can be imported to a new, enhanced, TNED-NS calculated mD table. See further detailed examples in Detailed and SampleEX.

SINGLEtool

SEinAction:

StrategyCON

THE POWERFUL THREE POINT ELLIPSIS SOLVING TOOL

SolvingE IN ACTION:

E² = (e – d)/[(y1² – y3²)/e – (y1² – y2²)/d]

NSpin2025B.ods — Tabell7 A20

Function: Given 3 mD vertical (y) values and their specific mass numbers (x¦A), their innate distances:

• a first to the second (d) and

• a first to the third (e).

— The SolvingE equation gives the entire ellipsis parameters from there:

• The specific x-values relative the elliptic central axis position, and its left (K) intersection with the mD=6 NeutronSquare horizontal x axis.

— The complementary SINGLE tool then projects and exposes nuclide candidates on minimum deviations data.

From that overview, validating on the TestFRAME, valid candidates can be tested and inspected further — if appropriate to add into the TNED-NS chart. See further in Conditions.

SEinAction

StudAQuest:

Different mD:s on same A:s .. ?

Student’s A-QUESTION:

— Can TNED-NS prove same mD values for different A:s, as well as different mD values for same A:s — A mass number, mD atomic mass defect in number of electron masses (me) per neutron of the A neutrons built atom, mD max 18 — ?

TNED-NS-answer:

— Yes. Indeed

— but ONLY with separate stable and unstable on different mD with same A.

TNED IN GENERAL HANDLES ONLY STABLE ATOMS

BUT CAN DETERMINE UNSTABLE NUCLIDE mD:s — provided valid SPECIFIC METHODS

— Otherwise the TNED-NS fusing line arcs crashes: The ellipsis A-set {A1,A2,A3,..} with same A¦mD for several possible exothermal fusion ellipsis, most certainly, cannot seriously be used unless one single clear cut mD holds for all — every single specific, if several over different Z — stable A:s:

SAME mD WITH DIFFERENT A:s IS though NO PROBLEM:

First occasions:

16S36, 18Ar36

mD = 6 + (1/5)√[60² – (A – K)/E] ; The General TNED-NeutronSquare Ellipsis Equation

mD = (1 – U/Amn)/me ; experimental — we know not all parameters here

U = Amn(1 – mDme) ; calculated: from mD; one U for each A with one mD

THE GENERAL ELLIPTIC EQUATION WITH GIVEN K E OFFERS SEVERAL SETS { .. } OF MASS NUMBER EXTENSIONS {A1,A2,A3 ..} THROUGH ONE CENTRAL A, UNITING SEVERAL POSSIBLE EXOTHERMAL FUSION ROUTS (example: LawGeneralSIMPLE) FOR DIFFERENT A:S — ON EACH GIVEN A WITH A SINGLE DEFINED ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD. UNLESS THIS CONDITION IS MET FOR ALL THE STABLE ATOMIC NUCLEI, THIS TNED-NS ELLIPTIC EQUATION BECOMES USELESS.

— In other words:

Explain:

AtomLAW: StudAQuest

What we know and can relate:

• TNED predicts, or demands, that all end STABLE atoms exothermally built by fusions from A neutrons (dormant hydrogen atom, all electron masses included), independent of fusion combination paths or routes, will have one and the same end produced atomic mass defect mD: one U for one A with one mD. Stable.

• Same A:s on different Z:s so by consequence receive same mD (that is not the case in the experimentally tabled values where same stable A:s appear on different Z:s values: a small difference exists (OneRatioU type 1.00001263.., A36. That is roughly on the same ratio scale that TNED relates to experimental). Also so in the first TNED mD charts — depending on different provisions through the differently classified atomic groups. See The2003Equation, further detailed in BaseGroupNumbers).

THE PERIODIC SYSTEM OF THE ELEMENTS [‡]

the way our atomic universe is and remains our atomic universe: a strict bound order of law reigns the basics — type .. »have a nice day» .. don’t fuck we me ..

CANNOT BE CHANGED

Explain more:

Consequential mathematics:

• one single A on one singe U with one single Atomic Mass Defect mD:

• U = Amn(1 – mDme) — calculated: from mD; one U for each A with one mD

The A-Z CHART ¦ A-e CHART

The Universal Atomic Building cannot be modified

EXAMPLE: The unstable type 6C16 (stable 6C13 fusing with 2 + 1 neutrons:

[0n1+6C13+0n1 = 6C15, + 0n1 = 6C16, or two unstable 3Li8 directly to 6C16]),

a prominent ”JumboNeutron”, will decay to a stable 8O16 (within a second). See the AZ-chart.

TNED related physics and mathematics — note: not known in modern quarters

ALL ATOMS ARE NATURALLY BUILT according to a strict MATRIX SYSTEM (Periodic System: Kepler Area Momentum mathematics, as deduced in related physics and mathematics: the periodic system of the elements: nuclear matrix algorithm). No matter how atomic nuclei fuse or defuse (fusion and fission), the stable atomic end product is always orderly positioned in (that) its matrix system. That is: exceptionally well defined stable atoms with a specific Z (atomic number: atom’s nuclear positive electron charge and quanta balanced by the atom’s negative electron charge quanta) on a limited range on isotopes: same Z with a limited number of increasing A:s.

In the 1900s+ established corridors the concept of atomic mass defect is, what we know, unknown. Instead an idea of a NUCLEAR mass defect reigns the present academic PhD quarters. And .. its specific terminology and mathematics is not at all compatible with the atomic mass defect mathematics in TNED. See comparing examples in HighestATOMICmD, here also in the latest TNED revision iTOPcomp.

— So .. on the StudentAQuest .. the bottom line on our TNED testing exothermal enterprise fusion building heavier atoms from lighter becomes:

— Disregarded how the assembling work is done, the number A of basic neutrons building that atom will always have one and the same atomic mass — even if there are different Z with same A. In TNED that is explained by the fact that the neutron is unstable and has inside of it the dormant basic principle ATOM (Hydrogen). Meaning. All specific Z aspects are already integrated and included in the building mathematics — says TNED-NS and its atomic mass defect mD mathematics.

Atomic nuclei ”pumped” by adding neutrons, will self-regulate by spontaneous decay, until that nucleus finds its own inner appropriate place in the nuclear matrix chart. There are no ”random” occasions.

Unless exclusively (heavy) radioactive, the jumbo neutron conserves its mass number A, adopting to higher Z by emitting electron mass quanta (pushing higher Z until exact nuclear matrix balance, see Periodic System and AZ-chart).

These details are already very well familiar in the 1900s literature on experimental nuclear and particle physics.

In modern corridors, the theoretical idea of the atomic nucleus has put up fences to the above TNED oriented orders. And so, we have no common ground in these aspects to rely on, other than the actual experimental observations — and the actual TNED deduced mathematics and its resulting values.

Shorter, TNED says: one U for one stable A (also meaning one mD), independent of Z.

Of several same stable A nuclei in different Z:s, »the TNED rule» would be to select the first (fusion line related) occurring A in the Z line: lowest Z, first multi A (least mass defect on lowest A, or on the most prominent explained fusion path). And then let the A:s on higher/other Z adopt that same mD for all other same A:s.

TNED has, what we know, no explicit separating mathematics between Z and A (because Z already exists in A, the basic neutron, the dormant atom).

Same mD with different A on different KE. EXAMPLE: 6C12, 7N15, same mD 15.6;

6C12 mD = 15.6 U TNED = 12.00039495963 U HOP = 12.00000000

7N15 mD = 15.6 U TNED = 15.00049369953 U HOP = 15.00010770

Same A with different mD is given with differently given KE.

STABLE ATOMS:

First same A on different Z is given from

16S36, 18Ar36. Preliminary

Then comes

18Ar40, 20Ca40,

20Ca46, 22Ti46, oneRATIO U HOP = 1.0000126366; differences in atomic masses are small;

— That is less than the general differences between TNED and experimentally (HOP) measured:

— Mean (16Jan2026, working on enhanced precision ..) over 282 stable atoms: 1.0000222376,

further,

22Ti50, 23V50, 24Cr50,

24Cr54, 26Fe54,

28Ni64, 30Zn64,

UNSTABLE ATOMS:

TNED can calculate unstable nuclide atomic mass defects as exposed in the main examples

1H3 12.26 yr 0.82 S 0.86S 0.747S Wikipedia 2026, List of radioactive nuclides by half life

— Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 1976, Fifth Edition, p491-515.

COMPARE:

6C16 mD = 13.8325062115 U TNED = 16.0161753442 U HOP = 16.014701252

8O16 mD = 16.249995122 U TNED = 15.99477179823 U HOP = 15.994915020

Illustrated

DIFFERENT ELLIPSIS ARC THROUGH ONE AND THE SAME stable 3Li6 in

LawGeneralSIMPLE.

TNED-NS on one A with different mD

Until eventual further TNED investigations (StudentAQuest):

As already stated:

The ellipsis atomic mass defect mD equation already incorporates the atomic numbers Z in the atom’s mass number A property. EXCEPT FOR DEDUCING THE PERIODIC SYSTEM: TNED has no available mathematics for separating Z out of/from A. These Z-A work integrated, as in the fundamental neutron (»dormant hydrogen atom»). See also The two TNED atomic king’s equations (Nuclear angular momentum, the impulse equation, and the electric-magnetic atomic-chemical force equation: all electron sharing combinations already integrated).

This presentation on calculating atomic masses for comparing on experimentally measured hence becomes simplified by finding the first (lowest Z) occurrence of a specific mass number A — with a related line of exothermal fusions from lighter to heavier atomic nuclei.

If other A:s appear in successively higher Z, which they frequently do from A around 60 and up, the (lowest Z) given AmD is assigned to the A:s of the higher Z (unless otherwise specified).

As the general TNED-NS values differ (1.00002..) in ratio with experimentally measured values approximately and roughly on the same scale as Experimentally different A:s have internal different (U) atomic masses, it makes (until the entire TNED-NS chart has been worked through .. with further possible inquiry) — little sense to pay further attention to these TNED different AmD values in comparison with experimentally measured (HOP), obtained and tabled values.

All such different A inspections are here ignored (unless otherwise specified).

As convenient as it may seem:

WHEREAS the elliptic atomic mass defect mD equation legalizes any possible atomic nucleus on its defined line arc of possible end atomic products, we only have to find at least two first (basic, lightest K1, K2) fix exothermal fusing nuclides in order to also include, by principle, a third (or more) heavier — and as far as the actual elliptic arc covers its position.

K1 + K2 + K3 + .. – (m→γ) = K ; general (exothermal) nuclear reaction law

EXOTHERMAL NUCLEAR REACTION LAW as so deduced

THE ELLIPTIC mD EQUATION VINDICATES A CERTIFIED

ATTESTED EXOTHERMAL FUSION PATH

StudAQuest ¦ AtomLAW

MsWORKS2003:

MsWORKS 2003 ARKIVEN MED GRUNDANALYSEN TILL TNED NEUTRONKVADRATENS MATEMATISKA FYSIK

Återvunnet från föregående delvis Microsoft korrumperade arkiv — Microsoft’s bannlysning av MsWORKS från 2008

BerylliumKlacken: MsWORKS2003

BerylliumKlacken

Med dessa vägar givna är så Heliumreferensen etablerad — nästan.

Utan (visuellt) stöd av de grafiska funktionskurvorna blir följande framställning mindre ljuvlig.

Det finns (nämligen) en ytterligare (intressant) — central — fusionsbyggnad som sammankopplar Helium-4, alltså jämna-delen, med udda-delen. Nämligen via den till synes ”svårfattliga” och kortvariga, högeligen instabila Berylliumindividen ₄Be⁸.

Denna skulle ”normalt sett” ha ingått i jämna-vägen, men gör det inte av särskilt ”taskiga skäl”.

Genom en (synnerligen) avancerad transaktion, som vi ska se, kommer dess plats på nuklidskalan att likväl tillhöra udda-banan (!) upp mot järntoppen. Nämligen i koppling till den stabila 4Be9 — som redan definierats av huvudvägen ovan från Helium-3-syntesen, under Heliumreferensen. Se vidare BerylliumKlacken i ANOMALIERNA nedan.

Anomalierna: BerylliumKlacken

ANOMALIERNA

2003-06-24

Anomalierna — En möjlig beskrivning

Anomalierna för ₆C¹³ och ₈O¹⁶

BERYLLIUMKLACKEN

Om vi betraktar samlingen, ser vi strax (främst) att det ser ut som om individerna Kol ₆C¹³ och Syre ₈O¹⁶ ”hänger löst utanför” ordningen.

Det beror på att det — tydligen enligt Neutronkvadraten — finns en separat fusionsväg som sammanbinder dessa individer och ger deras massdefekter explicit.

Observationen leder till en (grundlig) studie av en känslig knutpunkt i hela nuklidskalan med centrum i den instabila Beryllium-8-individen. Vi studerar denna.

Orsaken till inverterade E-värdet på 2.4 är fortfarande en olöst fråga*. Berylliumindividen kan erhållas ekvivalent på en annan fusionsväg som kan härledas, vilket styrker ovanstående. 2.4-värdet antyder en [viktig] A-individ med massdefekten 3.5. Någon sådan är emellertid inte känd [här, är det bäst att tillägga]. Neutronkvadraten kan emellertid innehålla långt fler möjligheter än vad som här har uppmärksammats. Se vidare anteckningar i saken i MPcKärnfys1.wps.

* Förklaringen ges i Kärnteorin (Se Tvärellipsens dynamik i atomkärnan — Medelvärdesgradienten).

Extracted 14Jan2026:

2.4 × (9–4) = 2 × (9–3) = 2.4 × 5 = 2 × 6 = 12 = 1.2 × 2 × 5 ;

mD = 6 + (1/5)√[60² – (60 – 2[9–3])²]

= 13.2

= 6 + (1/5)√[60² – (60 – 2.4[9–6])²]

Different coefficient equations on same mD value

It is apparently all about MASS REFERENCE (Aref) AND NUCLIDE REFERENCE (NF) transactions.

TNED.

Om vi känner 18-villkoret och massdefekten för Helium-4, kan vi huvudräkna (obs, den regressiva, beskrivs vidare nedan) approximativa massdefekten direkt på den komplicerade Helium-Neutron-Helium-fusionen; om den lyckas resulterar den i den stabila nukliden Beryllium-9. FusionsKopplingen utpekar (eller möjligen »föreslår») att ”nätverket” Helium-Beryllium-komplexet sammanbinder jämna och udda-ellipserna. Se vidare beskrivning nedan.

Den mera exakta balansräkningen — mD = D – (18 – D – 2.25) = 13.20, D = 14.475 — kräver att kompositen ₄Be⁸ har

mD =14.475, dvs. marginellt lägre än ₂He⁴.

Extracted 14Jan2026:

D–(18–D–2.25) = 13.20 ;

D–18+D+2.25 = 2D – 18 + 2.25 ;

= 13.2 ;

2D = 13.2 + 18 – 2,25

= 28.95 ;

D = 28.95/2

= 14.475 ; mD ₄Be⁸

Looking up the (hExoterm2020.ods — Tabell2 A31) Berkeley-National U/mD value for ₄Be⁸, it reads: 8.0053051/14.4610778 attesting the raw 2003 TNED assessing reckoning is preliminary valid

HOWEVER, taking the exact Neutron square value for mD(₂He⁴) 14.4852813742, just returns the same.

So the net assessment result is still in question.

Rent ”barnsligt” sett: Eftersom Helium-4 ombesörjer själva kärnan i bägge tillväxterna, jämna som udda, bör det också finnas någon form av Relaterad Dynamisk koppling mellan de bägge. Det är tydligt att ovanstående Komplex har ett och annat att upplysa om på den punkten.

TransverseEllipse: ANOMALIERNA

Tvärellipsens dynamik — Kärnteorin.wps 2003

Tvärellipsens dynamik i atomkärnan — Medelvärdesgradienten 2003-07-12

Genom fusionsanalyserna visar sig (främst) två masstalsreferenser A_ref = {3_HELIUM3,4_HELIUM4}. De innebär (tydligen) att den resulterande kärnan via deras sammansättning kan återföras på en ”strukturblandare” (strukturbindningskoefficient) eller referensgradient m_D3/A_ref ={2/1;3/2} med masstalsexcentriciteten

E^–1={2;3}. Alla fusioner som kan återföras på dessa A_ref karaktäriseras alltså av just aktuell ”blandningsmagnitud”. Det är (alltså) tydligt att E har en rent kärndynamisk grundläggande strukturbestämmande innebörd.

Därmed synes i varje fall rent tekniskt teoretiskt finnas den möjligheten att atomkärnan också accepterar de bägge grundmagnituderna från m_D3/A_ref={2/1;3/2} enligt en medelvärdesform — tagen över hela kärnans enorma väv av parladdningar — (E_HELIUM3+E_HELIUM4)/2=E_H(3+4)/2. Detta skulle ge E_H34=5/12 med A_refH34=7/2.

Det oerhörda infinner sig också.

Det visar sig att den tidigare upptäckta men oförklarliga magnituden på E^–1=2.4 och A_ref=3.5 stämmer med ovanstående kvantiteter (se BerylliumKlacken i Kärnsyntesen). Offsetfaktorn (se nedan) blir då beroende av dessa ”virtuella nuklidblandare” genom en likaledes virtuell nuklidreferens.

Med dessa klarlägganden är det tydligt att Neutronkvadraten är en verklig läromästare i kategorin kärnfysik.

Offsetfaktorn K

Om vi, med stöd i ovanstående relationer och referenser, söker ett förhållande som på liknande sätt som i fallet för E avgränsar en maximal gradient för massdefektsändringen, kan vi skriva

(K – A_ref)/A_ref = m_Dmax=18/m_D3=6=3

Med en NUKLIDREFERENS-massdefekt för en tilläggsindivid i fusionssyntesen för en viss fusionsväg, en typ m_D’, får man

(K – A_ref)/A_ref = K/A_ref – 1 = m_D’/6 ;

K = A_ref(1 + m_D’/6) ............................ tvärellipsens offsetfaktor

Om m_D’ kan återföras på Neutronen, m_D’= 0, får man K = A.

Dessa relationer framgår explicit ur fusionssynteserna till respektive föregående beskrivna led i Kärnsyntesen.

(Kärnsyntesen.wps 2003; Berylliumklacken, Helium-3 syntesen).

Vad vi vet kan Nuklidreferensen vara sammansatt av flera olika individer, inkluderat en e-massa totalt större än 18.

Helium3Synthesis: TransverseEllipse

Extracted from THE SWEDISH M PcKärnsynt.wps ORIGINAL 2003

TNED early developing details

HELIUM-3 SYNTESEN

The Helium-3 synthesis

2008: The excellent 1994+ MsWORKS 4.0 word processor and its spread sheet program — from which all the TNED basic productions were made, beginning from Windows 3.1 (1994) — was suddenly shut down. Banned, excluded, not allowed. After an update, New Microsoft just shut it out: ”error”. In a glimpse of a sudden second 2008 (Windows Vista) we realized that Microsoft is »not interested in further cooperation». Any our further work became blocked. Especially the very useful MsWORKS calculus program, indispensable for developing the TNED details, became »Windows denied». The sudden outrageous attacking Microsoft MsWORKS Kill was advertised in a glance after an update occasion. A small pop-up window informed of an ”error” in attempting to use the MsWORKS 4.0: no more access: »We OWN you; shut the fuck up». A slap in the face. That was a cold shower — in the middle of our basic works (I had to calm down and take a brake and see the 1968 Clint Eastwood movie, Hang’em High). Intrusion. Attack. After a successful highly interesting first 14 years of dedicated research (1994-2008), Microsoft killed further connection. That was our first deep experience of the ugly face of (Microsoft) Business Enterprise. Our rescue was Windows XP (from a stationary 2002 Packard Bell Windows XP Computer — which motherboard died also 2008). We consulted a Swedish Computer company, helping to recover the old (expiring) Windows XP-version, building a brad new stationary costumed XP-computer — on its old operating system versions 1 and 2. With it, we could (thank you very much for that) continue using the excellent MsWORKS 4.0. And the TNED-NeutronSquare developments could continue prospering — off line. No Internet on THAT computer. Thank you very much .. Hello Microsoft .. we can’t hear you .. you have no power here anymore .. you were saying .. what did you say .. we can’t hear you .. hello .. ? However .. The XP computer also finally died in 2022, after another crazy excellent 14 years of a magnificent Windows XP experience: The best (off-line), and fastest ever Windows operating system. Thank you very much. We dearly miss you. We lived, and we died, together. With it, all further access to the MsWORKS TNED developing archives also died. No further access.

Microsoft, unproclaimed, exposes an associate to the famous historical organization that kills the old archives in order to frame the new ones. No responsibility for scientific progress.

Provably by influential DRIFT, no deliberate evil: greed for power. Trafficking. A fucked up world jurisdiction, owned and payed by these wealthy fine upstanding trafficking assholes. Oblivion on HumanRight details: concept unknown.

He3SyntILL: Helium3Synthesis

(*) Regression, massdefekten reduceras i försorg av e-massor som tas från neutronen.

Att åstadkomma denna nuklidfusion torde inte höra till de allra enklaste laboratorieförsöken; en neutron i mitten måste precis ”träffas” av två motsatt kolliderande heliumkärnor. Se vidare beskrivning i BerylliumKlacken.

SWEDISH ORIGINAL TEXT FROM MsWORKS 4.0 (Beginning from [1994] Windows 3.1 — the best of the best).

— Beginning from 1994 with Windows 3.1. One word: freedom. THE PUBLIC COMMERCIAL COMPUTER ERA started as a highly promising new era for humanity to develop and communicate — from 100% personal provisions: no outer intrusion. And ended (most prominent from around 2015+) on a New World Internet Business Dictating Unproclaimed electronic surveilled slavery with zero possibility of retaining ones own right to a personal choice: a complete disrespectful conduct on the uprising from world business enterprise — especially from Microsoft and GOOGLE: hacking privacy, denying privacy access, dictating privacy privacy, as a new world standard — conning »we are your new best pals, shut the fuck up, and we give a rats ass of your own opinion». Trafficking. By DRIFT (greed for power and influence), not by purpose. Allow us to repay the respect. Please.

Den primära syntesen

DEN PRIMÄRA KÄRNSYNTESEN UPP TILL JÄRNTOPPEN enligt Neutronkvadraten, indelas likaledes i två allmänna delar

· under Heliumreferensen

· över Heliumreferensen

Anledningen är den unika kopplingen mellan rotationsradierna för Heliumkärnan och Protonen-Neutronen som med kärnans ringsymmetri därmed bildar en övre massdefektspreferens (mera utförligt i Kärnteorin). Från Heliumreferensen uppåt kommer massdefekten upp till järntoppen därför att tillväxa mycket långsammare jämfört med nuklidbildningarna under Heliumreferensen. I denna undre region är (nämligen) skillnaden mellan de olika nuklidformerna som störst.

Kärnsyntesen enligt Neutronkvadraten under Heliumreferensen följer också den i stort två vägar

· uppbyggnaden av Heliumreferensen — för vidare syntes på jämna (Z) nuklider över Heliumreferensen

· uppbyggnaden av Heliumreferensen — för vidare syntes på udda (Z) nuklider över Heliumreferensen

He3SyntILL

Kärnsyntesen under Heliumreferensen

Jämna-vägen under Helium. Den första vägen följer (här veterligt) ingen (enkelt uttryckbar) matematisk-grafisk funktionskurva.

Fusionerna upp till HeliumJämna-referensen består (idealt teoretiskt) av endast fyra steg:

(Neutron)—Väteatom—Deuterium—Tritium/Helium-3—Helium-4

Massdefekterna har här helt unika, särskilda kvantiteter via Neutronkvadraten och vilka delar sedan alla övriga nuklider kommer att bestå av.

Referensen för HeliumJämna är alltså (tydligen) fundamental för hela kärnsyntesen.

Sammanbindningslinjen mellan massdefekterna i de fyra fusionsstegen är olik alla andra vägar och liknar en ordinär exponentiell, mycket brant stigningsgraf.

Udda-vägen under Helium. Den andra vägen utgår från Helium-3-nukliden och omspänner totalt en fusionsbildning av fem grundämnen. Neutronkvadraten utpekar den via en reguljär ellipsbana

6 + (1/5)[60² – (60 – 2[A–3])2]^0.5, A={6,9,11,14,15}

(ellipsfunktionen beskrivs och härleds särskilt i Massdefekterna i Kärnteorin). Av dessa ligger dock de två sista, Kväveparet, över Heliumreferensen. De är (tydligen) ”inskjutningar” från bottendelen som på detta speciella sätt ”kommer in i fil” på den övre udda-vägen som leder till järntoppen.

Denna undre ”filväg” har egentligen en ”finstruktur” med bildningen av ett par ytterligare grundämnesnuklider (Litium-7 och Bor-10), men de kommer aldrig upp till Heliumnivån. Neutronkvadraten ger dessa bägge en egen, kortare, funktionsväg som något skiljer sig från föregående.

Fusionsleden till ovanstående beskrivs särskilt nedan i Helium-3-syntesen.

He3SyntILL

Kommentar

Litium-7–Beryllium-10-bildningarna kan återföras på ₂He³-ellipsen med ett offsettillägg som bestäms av massdefekten för ₁H¹.

₂He⁶ kan återföras på 2(₁H¹+2₀N¹=₁H³)=₂He⁴+2₀N¹. Eftersom ₂He⁴=₁H³+₁H¹ med ekvivalenta massdefekter för A=3, kan bildningen av ₂He⁶ (möjligen) återföras på (₁H³-₂He³)-ellipsen med ett offsettillägg i två steg som bestäms av massdefekten för ₁H¹.

Om dessa transaktioner verkligen också har en solid fysikalisk förankring, är det tydligt att det krävs en rejäl överläggningsteknik för att luska ut ellipsvägarna.

END OF Swedish original 2003 QUOTE.

MsWORKS2003 ¦ BerylliumKlacken ¦ ANOMALIERNA ¦ TransverseEllipse ¦ Helium3Synthesis ¦ He3SyntILL

CalCard: Kalkylkort: — NOTE. OpenOffice SpreadSheet. Swedish EditionOnly

PART OF THE AIM behind these open available CalCards is of course

• first the availability of the proving mathematics on exact basics

• with the possibility for any interested reader to make own tests, or further, whatever

• offering a complete open access index to the complete work behind the main text :

• we leave no one behind in related physics and mathematics, as far as we can.

—————————————————————————————————————

THIS SWEDISH OPEN OFFICE CELL CODED VERSION —

we do not know how the cell code looks if opened in an English version — if at all ;

— We should have thought about that from the start [ 2008 ] — which we didn’t.

—————————————————————————————————————

PARTLY UPDATED

NSpin2025A.ods

kalkylkorten nedan DIREKT FRÅN DEN HÄR WEBBLÄSAREN NSpin2025A.ods — se öppningsmanual om ej redan bekant — eller kopiera URL:en nedan till valfri webbläsare (vilket som fungerar — förutsatt att SVENSKA VERSIONEN av gratisprogramvaran OPEN OFFICE finns installerad på datorn)

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AaKort/NSpin2025A.ods

— it was later superseded by the one below (copied A, then imroved to B), which will be the main reference in this production:

NSpin2025B.ods

kalkylkorten nedan DIREKT FRÅN DEN HÄR WEBBLÄSAREN NSpin2025B.ods — se öppningsmanual om ej redan bekant — eller kopiera URL:en nedan till valfri webbläsare (vilket som fungerar — förutsatt att SVENSKA VERSIONEN av gratisprogramvaran OPEN OFFICE finns installerad på datorn)

http://www.universumshistoria.se/AaKort/NSpin2025B.ods

CalculusCards OpenOffice SpreadSheet. Swedish EditionOnly

Tabell1 nuclear and atomic physical constants

Tabell2 comparing nuclear spin results

Tabell3 comparing nuclear properties results — Proving calculated values for SolvingE;

Tabell4 Toroid properties, Mod0 and Mod1; draft for Tabell5:

Tabell5 Mod0¦1 with HOP-table atomic masses, all stable nuclides, extensive nuclear toroid assessments and comparisons

Tabell6 further comparing drafting as above, with tabled columns for diagrammatic purposes

Tabell7 Ellipsis ITERATIONS from 6Jan2026 — enhanced method for TNED mD determinations: SolvingE.

Tabell8 Integrated HOP-table for Tabell7 and its new TNED mD method determinations

Tabell9 Exothermal energy VALUES BASED ON LBL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Atomic Masses, Audi et al 2003: 0n1 to 118 Ui 293: 3 179 nuclides:

Successive exothermal fusions from 20Ca40 + 6C16 up to chart end, see INTRODUCTION.

CalCard ¦

Allmänna samband

END.

CAT2025E — 26Feb2026

innehåll: SÖK äMNESORD på denna sida Ctrl+F · sök ämnesord överallt i SAKREGISTER

Allmänna samband

ämnesrubriker

innehåll

CAT2025E — 14Jan-26Feb2026

14Jan-26Feb2026: ATOMICuniverse:Compiled 26Feb2026

NuclearMASSReviewed ¦ SummingRings ¦ PREPAMnuclearMass ¦ PurposeIllustrated2 ¦ NuclearMASS ¦ PREPAMspin ¦ PREPAMcharge — Compiled 3Mar2026

Introduction ¦ Ex6C16 ¦ Agent26Fe56 ¦ EnviMePro ¦ PrecisionCON ¦ HowToCal ¦ DmaxREF ¦ mDMathOverview ¦ mDmath ¦ mDEx ¦ The6 ¦ FirstBasic ¦ LawGeneralSIMPLE ¦

A412710 ¦ ShortCASE ¦ BasicEquated ¦ ConSER ¦ CompFirst ¦ SpecialCon ¦ Solving1H3 ¦ HeliumREF ¦ A12640 ¦ CalK ¦ ConAPS ¦ TestFRAME ¦ StrongGreen ¦ StudentCritical ¦ UnitedProvisions ¦ NucCHECK

AdvancedEX1 ¦ Na23 ¦ The23_24solution ¦ The27_28solution ¦ NOTE2003 ¦

REGULARnFCONS ¦ Nuc2He6 ¦ Nuc3Li8 ¦ Be8HeelIllustrated ¦ eqLi8 ¦ Beryllium4Be8HEEL ¦ HowFCONworks ¦

Advanced ¦ DmDEsons ¦ TripleSolved ¦ SolvingE ¦ EPS3P ¦ Conditions ¦ STRATEGY ¦

AtomicMassUnit ¦ KAEs ¦ EPStool ¦ GENERALmD ¦ SampleEX2 ¦ EndPoint ¦ TestResult ¦ DamBreach ¦ mDbackground ¦ LEAD ¦ Ionization ¦ MassIssues ¦ mDResolution ¦

SCOPE ¦ Tagged ¦ iTOPcomp ¦ FCON ¦ Ellipsis ¦ StrategyCON ¦ Convergence ¦ SampleEX ¦ ConEX ¦ Detailed ¦ ExplainedProcedure ¦

CoveredAs ¦ AllCollected ¦

Purpose ¦ SINGLEtool ¦ SEinAction ¦ StudAQuest ¦ MsWORKS2003 ¦ BerylliumKlacken ¦ ANOMALIERNA ¦ TransverseEllipse ¦ Helium3Synthesis ¦ He3SyntILL ¦ EndPoint ¦ EndPoint ¦ EndPoint ¦

CAT2025A ¦ CAPACITIVE TRANSMISSION — electric discharge through thin aluminium foil, ConclusionSep2025 ¦ LAWconcept ¦ OldTestamentOrigin ¦ AiMachine confirms.

CAT2025B ¦ GENERAL DISCUSSIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS WITH The Microsoft Edge Ai CoPilot beginning from Jan2025 — CAT2025A connected.

CAT2025C ¦ Extended AiResonses — a breakthrough from Flinders Petrie’s measures on the Cheops Pyramid 1881-83, CompiledResults.

CAT2025D ¦ THETA — TNED nuclear spin math — nucleus deduction — paving a path for proving a connection between TNED Calulated and Experimentally measured atomic masses (CAT).

CAT2025CheopsPetrie ¦ Full Text And Numbers Searchable Flinders Petrie Cheops Pyramid Book (1881-83) up to Chapter 7, page 95 — Cheops Pyramid details only.

CAT2025ChPetrieApix ¦ APPENDIX associated to the above — some clarifying separate illustrations and explanations.

CAT2025E ¦ THE ACTUAL PROOF of a connection between TNED Calulated and Experimentally measured atomic masses (CAT), TestResult.

Senast uppdaterade version: 2026-03-03

*END.

Stavningskontrollerat 7Nov2025 ¦ 9Nov2025 ¦ 27Feb2029

rester

referenser

[HOP]. HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967

Atomviktstabellen i HOP allmän referens i denna presentation, Table 2.1 MASS TABLE ¦ s9–65—9–86 ¦

concurrent — with such minor end decimal differences with Berkeley National 2003 and Nist/Codata 2005 — having no significance in this presentation

Comparing CODATA2005-HOP1967 ¦

m_n = 1.0086652u ...................... neutronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 2.1 s9–65] — neutron mass

m_e = 0.000548598u .................. elektronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 10.3 s7–155 för m_e , Table 1.4 s7–27 för u]

m(1H1) = 1.007825200u .................... neutronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 2.1 s9–65]

u = 1.66043 t27 KG .............. atomära massenheten [HOP Table 1.4 s7–27, 1967]

u = 1.66033 t27 KG .............. atomära massenheten [ENCARTA 99 Molecular Weight]

u = 1.66041 t27 KG ............... atomära massenheten [FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 s124sp1mn]

u = 1.66053886 t27 KG ........ atomära massenheten [teknisk kalkylator, lista med konstanter SHARP EL-506W (2005)]

u = 1.6605402 t27 KG .......... atomära massenheten [@INTERNET (2007) sv. Wikipedia]

u = 1.66053906660 t27 KG .... atomära massenheten [@INTERNET (2023) en. Wikipedia, Atomic mass]

u = 1.660538782 t27 KG ...... atomära massenheten [från www.sizes.com],

CODATA rekommendation från 2006 med toleransen ±0,000 000 083 t27 KG (Committe on Data for Science and Technology)]

c₀ = 2.99792458 T8 M/S ......... ljushastigheten i vakuum [ENCARTA 99 Light, Velocity, (uppmättes i början på 1970-talet)]

h = 6.62559 t34 JS ................. Plancks konstant [HOP s7–155]

e = 1.602 · t19 C ...................... FOCUS MATERIEN 1975s666

G = 6.670 · t11 JM/(KG)² ........ FOCUS MATERIEN 1975s666 (6,67 · 10^–11 Nm²kg^–1)

[BA]. BONNIERS ASTRONOMI 1978

— Det internationella standardverket om universum sammanställt vid universitetet i Cambridge, The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, London 1977.

[FM]. FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 — Fysikens, kemins och astronomins historia. Allt från atomen till universum — fysik, kemi, jordvetenskap och astronomi

[BKL]. BONNIERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON, 12 band A(1922)-Ö(1928) med SUPPLEMENT A-Ö(1929)

t för 10^–, T för 10⁺, förenklade exponentbeteckningar

PREFIXEN FÖR bråkdelar och potenser av FYSIKALISKA STORHETER

Här används genomgående och konsekvent beteckningarna

förkortning för förenklad potensbeteckning

d deci t1

c centi t2

m milli t3

µ mikro t6

n nano t9

p pico t12

f femto t15

Alla Enheter anges här i MKSA-systemet (M meter, KG kilo[gram], S sekund, A ampere), alla med stor bokstav, liksom följande successiva tusenprefix:

K kilo T3

M mega T6

G giga T9

T tera T12

Exempel: Medan många skriver cm för centimeter skrivs här konsekvent cM (centiMeter).

MAC, här ofta använd förkortning för Modern ACademy (»Modern Academic Corridors») — etablerad vetenskap sedan början av 1800-talet

In UH often used abbreviation for modern academy — explicitly from the beginning of the 1800s

MAC — often used abbreviation in TNED for Modern ACademy

TNED — Related PHYSICS And MATHEMATICS — Se särskild djupbeskrivning av innebörden i begreppet relaterad framställning.

Toroid Nukleära Elektro MEKANISKA Dynamiken —— Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics

The Atomic Nucleus -- 1 - 4 ¦ TAN 1 ¦ TAN 2 ¦ TAN 3 ¦ TAN 4 ¦ AllKeplerMath ¦ AllKeplerMath+

ArithmeticResonanses:

FOR THE UNINITIATED READER (Sep2024):

On the 10Jan2024 the below (217) specified bPETRIE (1881-1883) finally proving resolution was discovered — after some research on eventually matching integer numbers. The 217 match certifies, as we see (from The rJCIRCLE complex ¦ rJCIRCLEref) the bPETRIE 4534.40 inch specified measure with a 99.9999832% precision. It is well enough to certify the accurateness on Petrie’s Cheops Pyramid measurements. That also consolidates the rJCIRCLE investigations on the subject;

— Taking present (mJ) EarthMass on the Planck constant h=mcr deduced Neutron density Dmax gives a spherical radius of (all natural constants, plus mJ) rJ = (h/c0)(3mJ/π·m⁴)^1/3.

The center of that sphere is precisely positioned in the sectional view of the Flinders Petrie group (1881-83) measures so called Queens Chamber in the Cheops Pyramid.

The GOLDEN SECTION complex from the simple form of Cheops Rectangle bd=h² proves

(CALTEP ¦ CaseHistory) the coherences in the Petrie measured Cheops Pyramid construct. The square corners enveloping that type defined Pyramid, passes precisely on the edge of the calculated rJ sphere’s surface. That was the initial discovery on the 1Nov2017. Really.

SOON ENOUGH — after a cup of Tea, relaxing on the new discovery, the 10Jan2024 — it was realized that the number 217 also connects to another Universal domain: UDHR10Dec1948. The Resolution 217(A) universal HumanRight declaration. It is also the absolute foundation (special case history) for this production in UniverseHistory (TNEDbegin1991).

We have two Resolution 217 in our known history — detailed to the last universal atom;

IN ORDER OF DISCOVERY-RECOGNITION — Resolution 217Short:

• Resolution 217(A) UDHR10Dec1948 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 8 introducing paragraphs P1-8,

30 following articles A1-30 — study them and try to learn them from within (test-question-analyze, 24/7).

— Here in UH referred to as Humanright, the only (reminded) known universal Humanright knowledge domain:

gravitation, electricity: light, heat, magnetism — LIFE: The Periodic System of The Elements (KeplerResonances).

— The Atoms’ Spontaneous assembly — no decision, no voting — to you and me (and all the other fuckups).

P1: ” Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and ..”. Guaranteed Eternal Protection. 24/7. No breaks.

• Resolution 217 (10Jan2024) — the TNED deduced rJCIRCLE-CheopsPyramidEnvelopingSphereRadius (rJ) number

defines the actual Flinders Petrie 1883 measured Cheops Pyramid (half) base (b) — in to a precision of

99.9999832%. It verifies the (ContractedConstruct) TNED/Petrie investigated Cheops Building Plan: All Petrie’s measured values verified (BpointDetermination). The Complex (also, apparently: not much else left to chose on) connects to The Origin of Script. See TheCLAIM — questioning the already long ago 2000y questioned idea of a UNsanctioned Geographic Israel: (GUARD!) the splitting of humanity — and the Quest of its reunion.

(Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics), eller Toroidnukleära Elektromekaniska Dynamiken är den dynamiskt ekvivalenta resultatbeskrivning som följer av härledningarna i Planckringen h=m_nc₀r_n, analogt Atomkärnans Härledning. Beskrivningen enligt TNED är relaterad, vilket innebär: alla, samtliga, detaljer gör anspråk på att vara fullständigt logiskt förklarbara och begripliga, eller så inte alls. Med TNED förstås (således) också

RELATERAD FYSIK OCH MATEMATIK. Se även uppkomsten av termen TNED i Atomkärnans Härledning.

SHORT ENGLISH — TNED in general is not found @INTERNET except under this domain

(Universe[s]History, introduced @INTERNET 2008VII3).

TNED or Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics is the dynamically equivalent resulting description following the deductions in THE PLANCK RING, analogous AtomNucleus’ Deduction. The description according to TNED is related, meaning: all, each, details claim to be fully logically explainable and understandable, or not at all. With TNED is (hence) also understood RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. See also the emergence of the term TNED in AtomNucleus’ Deduction.

KALKYLKORTEN från Microsofts ordbehandlingsprogram (MsWORKS 4.0 | Från WINDOWS 95-eran) fungerar tyvärr inte utan vidare i webbformer (htm/html-filer). I denna presentation visas enbart kalkylkortets bild.

UTVECKLAT (Apr2010):

Samtliga kalkylkort med original från MsWors 4.0 finns nu i UNIVERSUMS HISTORIA. Se särskild beskrivning med förteckning i MANUAL.

Unicode (infört separat 23Jun2025):

≠ ≈ ∫ ∫ Δ √ Δ ≠ → ∞ γ √ ω ≈ π τ ε ħ UNICODE — ofta använda tecken i matematiska-tekniska-naturvetenskapliga beskrivningar

— Ctrl+Shift+Q i Microsoft WORD direkt till SYMBOL

σ ρ ν ν υ π τ γ λ η √ ħ ω →∞ →γ ≡ ¦ Alt+ 1..9 ☺☻♥☺♦♣♠•◘○ υ Ψ

Ω Φ Ψ Σ Π Ξ Λ Θ Δ ≈

α β γ δ ε λ θ κ π ρ τ φ ϕ σ ω ϖ ∏ √ ∑ ∂ ∆ ∫ ≤ ≈ ≥ ˂ ˃ ← ↑ → ∞ ↓ ↨Alt+23

ϑ ζ γ λ ξ

Pilsymboler, direkt via tangentbordet:

Alt+24 ↑; Alt+25 ↓; Alt+26 →; Alt+27 ←; Alt+22 ▬

Alt+23 ↨ — även Alt+18 ↕; Alt+29 ↔

åter till portalsidan · portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se

PNG-justerad 2011-07-24

åter till portalsidan · portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se