Self Assembling nanites part one.

Top down: grind down a material into its wanted shape but creates waste. 

Bottom up: build slowly the intricate parts. 

A solid method is to create the nanites in a combined fashion. 

You’re building cubli’s. 

Use: pyrolysis carbon casing to be safe incase of failure inside the body and allow available attachments to drugs or operating tools. Cancerous bone is weak. (I believe so you may not need carbide tips to get through if going slowly enough). Sewing systems can join molecularly within the body at attachment points similar to spider web sacks joining together in series and rotated out with a twist to the nearest neighbor to continue the feed until the suture is done. 

Top down to manufacture housing and empty inside shell. A series of holes is drilled at each cross corner so as to not be totally flat, where you’ll later bond conductive material to electro magnetize those sides and corners using dip pen lithography.  

Waste is removed continuously and recycled into pure material once atomic slag is removed if any. 

Bottom-up using recycled innards plus additional materials to build control mechanics. 

Molecular beam epitaxy to lay films of atoms inside the inner workings in specific orders or “shells” until all moving and inert parts are manufactured and in place as warranted. Will have to ask the creators or a computer optimization algorithm to find the best method. Battery cells will have to be dropped into place and connected with dip pen lithography again. 

Build the system on a roll to roll “conveyer system” and you end up with the finished product at the end. 

Test outside body on cancerous white blood cells with users artificial cytokines and antibodies. Or coronaviruses.  Force them to encircle the viruses as artificial kill cells and use the batteries to heat the systems conductive materials with partial RBCs cellular make up on the drug attachment points that the corona wants to bond to and then heat to the viruses destruction point and the virus is eradicated from within with simple nanites. Remove dirty nanites from system. Clean. Repeat. 

Pd300F290 Build. Can I ask for help with the output/ delta Epsilon in the video please.

Sorry for the long video but I didn’t want to alter it or speed it up so that you can see that it’s real.

Pd300F290 by Jordan Townsend. Minimization, and readouts for Energy and delta Epsilon. Done Twice.

So is this useful or something inherently dangerous outside of the basis of electricity being dangerous? Other than the -beta decay from the Pd, but we put it in teeth so I’m unsure if people care. It’s just that it lasts so long and can combine with the F while still obeying the rules. So it seems like a win as long as it shielded properly.

Edit: In response to the reddit posting asking for clarification:

Sorry for the lousy load time, I should have just put it on youtube.

Okay, let me see if I have the parts in order:

It’s minimizing the collection of atoms that I’ve put together into a chemical framework near ideal. By doing that it’s trying to get the proper bond length/atom position that gives an Energy readout within a boundary of if there’s an x-y graph, and delta is on the x axis and there are two points plus/minus delta (though I don’t know the unit—so assuming kJ/mol?) then it should assure that there is that Energy output within the y axis between two points plus/minus Epsilon (same unit). Uses a Universal Force Field (UFF). That’s my understanding for that.

If that’s true and that energy level is possible with those materials (can it be an electrical potential like lithium ion since you can use trace Pd or stable Pd depending on what’s available?), if possible to be built reasonable or for specialty uses, then is it useful as an energy source, or does that mean that it’s just explosive chemically and unsafe.

My software is limited as is my income as I’m on disability so I’ve only been able to find one software that I can afford, and these are the functions that it offers—within the reasonability of my hardware, which is years old at this point.

Did that help at all? I’m trying to research battery alternatives using long lasting element types that are stable if possible. Bill Gates is looking for a stage IV reactor, and so I’m just working towards that getting to the worlds needs one step at a time until I get the (or a range) of potential solutions. Thanks for your patience with the video by the way.

Sorry forgot to add in the numbers if they’re not visible from the video:
6592896 kJ/mole. = 1831.36 kWh
628.95 delta Epsilon.
Mole weight: 37435.54 g/mole. = 37.43554 kg.
This is just for comparison purposes:

Tesla Roadster has 833 kg Battery pack.
Assuming we can fit the same amount of this in the same space, and that they are equally packed. We can fit 833/37.43554= 22.25158 Units in the battery pack.
22.25158 x 1831.36 kWh = 40750.65355 kWh if rounded up.
Their car can go 200 kWh. So we divide 40750.65354/200kWh x 1000 km = range = 203,753.268 km or 126,606.411 miles per charge.

FPd50 from FPd5 crystal to Larger build 5th dimensional geometric chemistry to produce stable balanced larger scale power with a relatively low delta epsilon.

This is the “crystal” I designed using fluoride and palladium. It’s stable other than palladium’s beta decay but if we’re using it in teeth people must not care too much. talking millions of years here for a half life.
This is a larger build that is significantly heavier but much more powerful.

I compare things to Tesla 2020 roadsters battery pacts because it’s the only thing I’ve got to compare to. But here are my numbers after three minimizations:

Rerun on 2/24/2020

Energy: 6575298 kJ/Mole

Delta Epsilon: 282.72

Run again after jolting coordinates: Energy 6573762

Delta Epsilon: 310.07

Run once more: Energy 6571750 kJ/Mole

Delta Epsilon: 178.80

So let’s just say it’s 6570000 kJ/mol with a delta epsilon under 180 ish.

6570000kJ= 1825kWh
1 unit = 37.54953 kg

833/ 37.54953= 22.18403 units per weight replacement.

(22.18403×1825 kWh) / 200 kWh x 1000 km = 202,429.274 kilometers or 125,783.719 miles.

So if it’s feasible to build these, which I think I have a way of doing, wouldn’t they be better than lithium ion? I think them getting wet is an issue in that they would expand but shielding can be put into place.

Sorry for the blurry photo. Watch the videos for more information.

Much pleasure,

-J.

Monopoles and their descriptions/combination at certain eV’s By Jordan Townsend, February 18th, 2020.

+/- electrons from valence shells. This may be what makes them hard to make. Though it takes 297. kJ/mol to force the electron off of the atom maximum of hydrogen, so it’s a matter of finding the right electrical output to force these conditions. It may be a constant feed to get it to work too.

First iteration:

Made up of 15 atoms:

4^+4 Silicon Prism

Connected to a ruthenium core.
On either side are 3 Na atoms, One side being +1 each, the other Side being -1 each.

4^+4 carbon Prism.

At molecular orbital -1.39 eV 2e- you get this Positive Monopole: at the +4 carbon prism with Na assistance.

At -.99 eV 2e- you get this:

At the +4 silicon prism without Na assistance.

But if electrostatic potential is taken you get this:

The opposing negative force along it’s entirety. This is what is worrying me. That the system is malfunctioning and showing the wrong information.

If the carbons are 4^-4 you get the same build. Photos can be added to show you but they’re the same.

So let’s move on to the Negative build:


Now if you change the materials to Si prisms you get a different build.


At -1.17 eV 2e- you get with one -1 Na assistance.

At -.99 eV 2e- you get a pure Si prism.

with a weaker electrostatic potential. Still of the opposite type.

If you change one of the prisms to 4^-4 charge then the build remains the same for the same eV

If a combination of 4^-4, and 4^+4 prisms using just carbons at -1.39 eV 2e- are used you get Negative:

over the 4^+4 prism and at -1.12 eV 2e- you get this:

And with it’s electrostatic potential you get:

So that would be a dipole magnet and not of use to our builds. So my thoughts are there are combinations with the inert atom Ruthenium that works as a blocking agent of the magnetic pole to only allow one spin per one side while denying the spin of the other side depending on flow of electrons.

Knowing that they’re negative. It’ll likely flow towards the silicon since it can do both monopole types.

#but how does it over come the inert nature of the ruthenium. I would think quantum tunneling of a single atom given enough force would allow the receptive atoms to attain their electrons needed for the monopole to work.

Down below is a 10 atom version of a monopole: F5Pd5 100% Stable.

From all points forward it will be the upper bound of the eV that is used as highlighted here.

If you exchange for chlorine you get a nearly fully circular monopole.

Electrostatic potential is also positive. An improvement there.

Using Br.

Using I.

F and I between Pd gives a negative monopole, but if we add a Pd atom to the right side Pd atom we get the same shape of molecular orbital but it’s a reversed monopole.

The problem I have is that I don’t know for sure whether the Electrostatic Potential over rides the Molecular Orbital or if the Orbital can be of use if pressed in deeply enough or counteracted in some way as with the Iodine’s shape. But this is what I’ve come up with so far.

Much pleasure,
-J.

F5Pd5 to F30Pd30 Battery Design Using 5th Dimensional Chemistry (altered by bond order) by Jordan Townsend. Monday, February 17th, 2020.

After messing about with Ru and finding that it wasn’t what I wanted I tried this instead and got some interesting results. Warning shaky cam.
Palladium and Fluoride make an interesting battery setup. Stable. Long lasting. Extremely efficient and considerably light weight. Let’s compare it to the current Tesla Roadster Battery of 200 kWh = 1000 km. (I think they’re considered the standard at the moment, so why not.)

Sorry about the shaky cam. (Cerebral Palsy will do that to you).

Go to Lenntech for the Molecular Weight.

The weight in kgs.

Roadster is 833kgs battery/3.76255kg= 221.39240 units.

221 x (670933kJ/unit = 186.370278kWh/unit = 41187.83143 kWh

200 kWh = 1000 km.

41187.83143 kWh / 200 KwH x 1000 km = 205939.15715 km per charge or 127,964.66 miles

This beats the other designs as it’s a two atom build, and will last for ages and drive cars for 100,000’s of miles over multiple charges with a very low DeltaEpsilon.

This is currently my favourite battery build to use with stuff. Though if it gets wet I believe it swells up, so a waterproofing layer may need to be surrounding it, but that may be it for now.

985 JHA White Tesla from last night. Don’t be a dope. I’m trying to do more with less not to mention help, you sod. At least you’ve got server racks to compute and analyze your builds. All I have is a single CPU/GPU and they’re not that powerful for my needs. But this has been fun though. Great thought experiments.

Much Pleasure,
-J.