**THE
ATOMIC NUCLEUS II** 2023IX10 | a production ·
| Senast uppdaterade version**:**
**2023-12-21** · Universums Historia ♦ **HumanRight**** is a ****knowledge**** domain**

**content** — innehåll
*denna sida* · webbSÖK **ä****MNESORD** *på
denna sida* Ctrl+F · sök ämnesord överallt i indexREGISTER · förteckning över **allUHwebbsites**

PO4 ¦
ATOMIC MASS EQUATION — mATOM = Uu ¦
ATOMIC WEIGHT — U [ »relative atomic mass» ] ¦
ATOMIC MASS UNIT — u [ Dalton] = m[ 6C12 ]/12 ¦
ATOMIC MASS defect
EQUATION ¦
ComparingNUCLEAR
¦NScredit

Atomic masses — AtomicNucleus
— INTRODUCTION, nuclear radii, basic nuclides, comparing
early Weizsäcker solutions ¦ STANDARD UNIVERSAL
— divergence c0 = 2.99792458 T8 M/S is preserved
independent of gravitation.

**TheAtomicNucleus
I** Jun2023 — DeducingTHErZ ¦
**TAN
II** Sep2023 — comparing nuclear physics ¦
**TAN
III** Nov2023 — relating Earth crust isotopic compositions
¦
**TAN
IV** Dec2023 — FusionLimitMass FULIMA

EXPERIMENTALconfirmations: Atomic masses

mDweiz ¦ NSsolutions ¦ CONOR ¦ **NSUunit** ¦ PO4

ATOMIC MASS, ATOMIC WEIGHT, ATOMIC MASS DEFECT, NUCLEAR MASS DEFECT, NUCLEAR BINDING ENERGY, AND THE ATOMIC MASS UNIT

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

**comparing
fundamental atomic-nuclear physics**: related-established

See Different Ways in comparing data between
theory and experimentally measured

**Differences in
atomic mass defect electron masses — per mass number**

MODERN ACADEMY IS OUTCLASSED BY TNED
— related physics and mathematics

NuklidTab4A2023.ods Table4 — Columns KMS

**Left table: The
7 left out Weizsäcker solution posts are far outside the
vertical scale. While the ** **NS-solution have a more tight
experimental connection.**

**The diagram
above is of the same kind as the ***Comparing*** diagram. Only
difference: diagram above is ***Comp/A*** ( yielding ..
»per A-square» .. more tight Show).**

HOP¦WEZ mD = (
1 — [HOP¦WEZ U]/AmN)/me ¦ me
= 0.000548598¦u, mN = 1.0086652¦u, HOP¦WEIZSÄCKER U = element’s atomic mass in Dalton units u = 1.66033
t27 KG, A = mass number

**HOPweizXP.ods Table1** ¦
NuklidTab4A2023.ods
Table4 — HOPtable1967, Weizsäcker
values¦ WEIZSÄCKER
EQUATION DETAILS ¦
ComparingTable
¦ WeizsäckerCALC

1H1-details: IN
GENERAL: THE NEUTRON SQUARE
SOLUTIONS OFFERER SEVERAL 3 WAYS TO CALCULATE
ATOMIC MASSES THROUGH ATOMIC MASS DEFECTS mD. This is an
example:

mD ¦ NeutronSquare
= 6 — (59/56)(1/5)√ 60² — 56² = **1.461075377**,
HOPmD = **1.518021871**, (TNED–HOP)/(A=1) = -0.056946494 basic

mD ¦ NeutronSquare = mD × (ProtonRadius/NeutronRadius
= [√8]/[1+√3]) = **1.512616535**, (TNED–HOP)/(A=1) = -0.005405335 precision

NOTE THAT EXPERIMENTAL VALUES USE SPECTROSCOPIC IONIZATION
TECHNIQUES, [WHERE THE ATOMS ARE ACCELERATED] AND HENCE reflect SLIGHT
DIFFERENT MASSES.

No explicit specific data on these spectroscopic ionization
[»mass affection»] data differences are known here.

**The large 7
first Weizsäcker differences**.
The Element isotopes from 1H1 to 3Li7 are left out in the diagram above as the
Weizsäcker values anyway lie far beyond the vertical scale. TNED
says — very close to experimentally measured values — the reason is because the
idea behind the Weizsäcker solutions — charged liquid drop mathematics — have
no corresponding atomic nuclear connection. Only when the atom grows larger and
heavier, that difference decreases. See further definite proofs [Jun2023] in THE
ATOMIC NUCLEUS.

EXCON: ExpCon

So much credit in present
scientific literature is given to Albert
Einstein (1905) on the formula E = *mc*^{2} —
when in fact it is just a ride on (Max Planck 1900) the *Planck
constant* *h=mcr*: E = *hf = mcr/t = mc*^{2}.
But the form also shows a (*differentials* ¦ *x = yz : x/∞ = x/∞ ^{n}*
=

*d*E = *d*F·*dd =
dma·dd = dm*(*c/t*)*dd = *(*m/∞*)(*c/t*)(*d/∞*)*
= *(*m/∞*)(*c·d/t*)(1*/∞*) = *m*(*c*^{2})(1*/∞*^{2})
= *m*(*c*^{2})(1*/∞*) =* dmc*^{2}: E
= *mc*^{2}.

*d*E = *d*(F*d*)*
= d*(*mad*)* = d*[*m*(*c/t*)*d*]* = d*[*m*(*c·d/t*)]
= *d*(*mc*^{2}); E = *mc*^{2}.
*Or just: E=Fd=mad=m(c/t)d=mc*^{2}. No big deal.

• **light does not connect kinetics** *Solar eclipse expeditions 1919+ —
experimental confirmations*:

*c and v are not additive in
physics — the vic-error — Michelson and Morley experiments *1881+

• Curved light paths does not develop centrifugal — *kinetics*
— properties:

• **light is massless — light is not gravitation — gravitation
is not light — gravitation is NOT a particle**:

• Max Planck was right, Albert Einstein was wrong:

The photoelectric effect reflects
properties of the atoms (THE
PERIODIC SYSTEM — *resonance matrices*) — not properties
of light. Light propagates massless through electromagnetic Planck E=*hf*
quanta named *photons* — also (*inductively* COEI
*conservation of energy by induction*) interacting (*Compton
effect*) with (*±e nuclear structured*) matter
(atomic particles) where the Planck energy E=*hf=mc*^{2} always is
conserved (ENERGY
LAW ¦ POM):

EnergyLaw:
*energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted*. (*±e nuclear
structured*) mass can be destroyed (COEI) *because it cannot be created:*
light is massless. *Particle
proof that energy cannot create mass*.

While the scientific community has the idea in particle physics,
that *energy and mass are substantial equivalents*, related physics (*Planck equivalents*) explains
mass-energy *exchange* properties: the Planck energy E=*hf=mc*^{2}
is always conserved, under all circumstances. *The scientific community
introduced the idea of a spin property on the Einstein’s proposed massive
photon — ”to make the chart complete”. In related physics, no such invention
exist: ***the sum of all spins and moments
in the atom is zero***. When (Star physics) mass is destroyed *E
= (*m*→γ)*c*^{2}*, COEI certifies that the
Planck energy *E=*hf=mc*^{2} *always is conserved*.

**The difference is** *excited* (*±e nuclear structured*)
gravitational mass, while modern corridors claim real steel gravitational mass *creation*
— although also these aces know that mass cannot be created out of no mass.

*The atomic nucleus* compresses all
these aspects in also verifying that all collected (Angeli2004) world data merges with the TNED
deduced atomic and nuclear properties [The (*r*Z)^{2}/*r*
complex] — as verified from the coherent RevisitedHofstadter1956 electron
scattering experiments: it all exposes the general charge-density distribution
characteristics of the atomic nuclei — as so TNED confirmed.

— And so we can return to *The
Neutron Square* — its Planck constant accounted confirmed
deduced nuclear size properties — and their following connection to atomic mass
properties *for comparison on experimentally measured*.

— Shorter: »*we are just
warming up*».

NeutronSquareFundamentals:
THE NEUTRAL ATOM — PROVISIONS

**CosmicMATHrevelation**** ¦ Geometric**

NeutronSquareSOLUTIONS ¦ VerticalELLIPTIC

**For ToroRADIUS,
see the ***Deduction***. Basics from ProtonRADIUS.**

**Neutron Square
atomic nuclear solutions has no physical or experimental foundational reference
at all, not a single point in space — **

**except
beginning from the Planck constant ***h = mcr*:** The Planck Ring:
the fundamental atom: the Neutron **

**(**0°K, *c=c _{0}=2.99792458 T8*
M/S:

**All mD( atomic
mass defect)-values emanate out of the Neutron Square and its deduced,
related and fully explained elliptic-trigonometric (wave)-hyperbolic
(CompCALu2023) mathematics equations — with so
basic geometric solutions to the first basic light atomic masses on their
atomic mass defects, mD. See **FIBAPO

**NOTE: (***ErrorTransferElectronMass***) The 1967 HOP-table uncertainty value for 1H1 in mD electron masses is
specified as 0.02277 ***me*** (0.08 µu **NuklidTab4B2023.ods TableA 4G**) — see graph and diagram in ***ExperimentalErrors***. The Neutron square 1H1 mD value difference on 0.0054 to the HOP-table’s is more
than four times less (***and the HOP error and NS-difference cannot readily be compared***). If appropriate, that is an unprecedented precision in pinpointing an
experimental result.**

**charge does not
connect mass — **Never18**
¦ NSsolutions**

THE PIN POINTING QUESTION — *no
yet found academic answer:*

* *

*— In what way is the Measured
Object’s Electric Charge involved in the object’s Measured mass?*

**Because the
Neutron Square Solution has **

**♦ no explicit nuclear charge (Z) connectivity
to atomic mass:**

*m*D = (1 — U/*Am*N)/*me* *—
no Z*.

THE
ATOMIC NUCLEUS
¦ CompareQm
¦ Discovery

**♦ nuclear charge does not connect atomic
mass, nor nuclear size**
(rZ)²/r**.
No way.**

ALTHOUGH HOWEVER THESE [±e nuclear structure] ARE INTEGRATED IN
THE ATOM

**♦ charge **DIVERGENCE — electric field —** does not
connect mass**
CONVERGENCE Physics756

EXPERIMENTAL nuclear-atomic PHYSICS [±e nuclear structure] CANNOT SEPARATE
THESE: BOTH NEEDED.

*Modern academy educated freely available papers seem
not to get to the chase on relating the quest .. recycling .. NS
.. in the beginning ..*

TNED — **concentric atomic
production**

Related physics and mathematics:

———————————————

NUCLEAR FRAGMENTATION — How The K-cell **Dmax** is regained ¦ Exothermal nuclear reaction law ¦ NUCLEAR REACTION LAW ¦ GeneralCosmicStateLaw ¦ FusionRINGS

Odd and Even Nuclide Groups — **why the core fusion body ends on ****IRON** ¦ CWON from CAP ¦ The IRON CORE ¦ MilkyWay
SolarSystems

REGAINING — *from the
deduction of the exothermal nuclear reaction/fusion
law*

————————————————————————————————————

According to K1+K2–(*m*→γ)=K
the *Nuclear Reaction Law* — related
physics deduction — each composed atom and its nucleus from the point (*light propagation c in space*; *see **Comparing
mathematics between related
physics, Schwarzchild, and Einstein*) and moment where the enveloping
dominant gravitation has reduced divergence to *c=***0**, a reversed situation is born. K+(*m*→γ_{=0})=K1+K2.
If the atom and its nucleus finds *exactly* *the g-mass*
corresponding to the energy emission (*atomic mass defect*) when that atom
was formed, K *apparently decays* back to K1+K2. Further increasing
gravitation pulls the net resulting fundamentally rebuilt Neutron
(*Planck constant h=mcr*) masses into a state of *Dmax* *until*
(COLLECTIVE bounce recoil *when contacting
on a max gravitation*) a following *Detonation* occurs (*The Incompressibility of the atomic
nucleus*). So it is all governed by gravitation. See further details from *CosmoBasics* (*gravitational
redshift, K-cell mathematics*) unless already
familiar (*details in how the expansion and
contraction works by related mathematics and physics — modern academic
confusion »dark energy» on motion and general cosmological gravitational
redshift, no motion: no »dark energy»*).

ComAtNu: Comparing Atomic and Nuclear mass
defect concepts and values — clarifying the terminology

*Comparing Atomic and Nuclear*

CLARIFYING THE TERMINOLOGY —*
by experimentally measured examples*

*Explaining* ¦ EXAMPLIFYING

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR MASS DEFECT

ATOMIC *Am*N – U

**the work** mass-energy WASTE needed to build the
atom [Sw., arbetets massa-till-
energi bortfall: gravitell svinn-massa; g-mass-svinn].

NUCLEAR *Am*N – U – *Zv* ¦ *v = m*N – *m*1H1 =
0.00084*u* ¦ U = *m*ATOM/*u* ¦ *u =* *m*(6C12)/12 = 1
Dalton

**mN** = neutron mass 1.0086652u,
**A**
= mass number = number of FAMQ fundamental atomic mass Quanta mN

that built the atom ¦ **u** = 1.66033 t27 KG ¦ **Z** = atomic number = the atom’s nuclear
electric +charge, same as

the atom’s electron mass electric -charge.

**the work** mass-energy WASTE needed to build the
atom — minus the Zv mass energy work waste:

**v** is the NEUTRONIC n nuclear structural
mass energy WASTE equivalent 0.00084u in

becoming [**electric displacement rearranging work**] the PROTONIC p nuclear structural
property

integrating the fundamental PROTONIC p nuclear
structure with the fundamental NEUTRONIC n nuclear structure into the
fundamental **atomic** NUCLEAR — in related physics NOT the
academic nucleonic — structure.

While the academic idea is that
of »separately inside the nucleus
spinning neutrons and protons», related physics is dealing with a fundamental nuclear
electric displacement ±e structure (Planck fractal structural ring
constant): no inside spinning particles — as verified in the (rZ)²/r complex (The
Atomic Nucleus).

Weizsäcker *nuclear
binding energy form:* (*Am*N – U – *Zv*)

nuclear mass defect.

Weizsäcker *atomic binding
energy form: * (*Am*N – U)

atomic mass defect; Weiz + Zv.

*Related physics — particle and
unity*

AS IT IS WITH MERGING WATERS

———————————————

CREATION
OR DIVISION — nuclear fragments¦ SPIN
SYNCHRONIZATION ¦ The 3Li8 Nuclide ¦ The Water
Surface Spinning GIF water drop ¦ UNIT WITHOUT PARTS — nature illustrates the
principles

EXCON *details*:
While the scientific community (1905+) has adopted the idea in particle
physics, that *energy and mass are substantial equivalents* — *real
physical substantial gravitational particle mass creation* — related physics
(*Planck equivalents*) explains the
Planck constant *h=mcr* energy-mass equivalence E=*hf=mcr/t=mc*^{2}
on a principle of **exchange**
properties: the Planck energy E=*hf=mc*^{2} is always conserved,
under all circumstances. Meaning: When (*±e nuclear structured*) matter
(atomic particles) merge from lighter to heavier atoms/elements — where the
Planck energy E=*hf=mc*^{2} always is conserved — the general RULE
in mathematical physics becomes that the reverse also holds *— however with ***a resulting excited fission product***
(atomic and nuclear mass defect concepts)*. In modern quarters, this energy
split product is — with no exception — always implied as a fully substantial
gravitational spouse. In related
physics that is a grave delusion, and a most honest deep and real steel
fundamental physical impossibility;

ENERGY LAW ¦ POM ¦ EnergyLaw:
*energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted*. (*±e nuclear structured*) mass can be
destroyed (*inductively* COEI
*conservation of energy by induction*) *because it *(*substantial gravitational ±e nuclear structured*)*
cannot be created:* **light is massless** — *Particle
proof that energy cannot create mass*. *When (Star
physics) mass is destroyed *E = (*m*→γ)*c*^{2}*,
COEI certifies that the Planck energy *E=*hf=mc*^{2} *always
is conserved*: light
and heat.

Max Planck was right. Albert Einstein was wrong. No doubt (EXCON):
light *is* massless. No gravitation. No developed centrifugal property in
curved light paths. No way.

— See more *comparing academic
related* details in EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS, unless
already familiar.

The most interesting aspect (*not
explained*):

— The experimental measure of the neutron mass:

— Its *precision*.

*It cannot be directly measured
(yet)*.

*We should not be overly
enthusiastic on raising the experimentally measured atomic masses values to the
heavens, without certifying that the influence of the experimental ”mass-to
charge” complex not significantly affects the actual neutral
atomic mass. How do we know?*

**neutral to
experimental**

We can put it this way — *testing*
how* the *NS* solutions** conform on the
true physical ones*:

— HOW DO WE GET RID OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CHARGE *electric
magnetic* FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS — in REFINING THE WHOLE PICTURE TO
INCLUDE ONLY THE NET *mass* VALUES?

The neutral atom. The NS
— *for comparing purposes*.

*— We can’t (says the present
scientific PhD community as one man, do correct) — unless we have a Gauge — a
preference Index — by which to perform explicit advanced experimental tests*:

— *Telling us what to look for*.
At present, no other is known here than The NS solutions.

” Because atoms are much to small to measure individually and do
not have a charge, there is no convenient way
to accurately measure *absolute* atomic masses.”,

” Scientists can measure *relative* atomic masses very
accurately, however, using an instrument called a *mass spectrometer*.”,

” The technique is conceptually similar to the one Thomson used to determine the mass-to-charge ratio of the electron.”,

” First, electrons are removed from or added to atoms or molecules, thus producing charged particles called ions. When an electric field is applied, the ions are accelerated into a separate chamber where they are deflected from their initial trajectory by a magnetic field, like the electrons in Thomson’s experiment.”,

” The extent of the deflection depends on the mass-to-charge ratio of the ion.”,

CHAPTER
1.6: ISOTOPES AND ATOMIC MASSES, Howard University

*Libre texts — Chemistry — No
date reference ( .. perhaps 1634 .. *they were psychic ..* ),
*

*sampled @Internet 7Sep2023*

THE INTRODUCED ELECTRIC CHARGE ADDS EXTRA MASS SPECTROSCOPIC DEFLECTING POWER

related physics: **mass and charge — **massless electric field: light c
property** — does not connect**

What we know: the experimental
charge dependency cannot be separated from the actual mass spectroscopic
experiment — by no other means than through a (thorough) theoretical insight:
some real steel knowledge of the actual mechanism. To trap it, also
experimentally, a first encouraging insight must exist that IT is missing.

What we do know is that nuclear
charge (Z) and nuclear mass (*m*) frequently is used in established works
on nuclear (rms) *charge* radii determinations: *nuclear mass and
nuclear charge are implied physical cooperators — while (rZ)²/r related physics
(Angeli2004data) proves that the charge dependent idea as such to be more of an
experimental necessity than a true real physical property: nuclear charge has
no volumetric physical reality: Z is a nuclear surface structure extension (NuclearStructure),
and has no connectivity to nuclear size — other than the fact that electric
charge cannot be removed from atomic/nuclear experimental investigation. *

*—»It is included in the
general computer modeling mathematics».*

*— It is taken for granted —
but has no physical correspondence — related physics TNED NeutronSquare
solutions says. *

* So: how is it?*

The tight Neutron Square solutions NSdeDIA1 compared to the experimental values strongly
suggests — still here with no other proofs — that there really is »an
experimental charge issue» in the complex of experimentally measuring atomic
masses. Namely also so: Outside the NS solutions (unknown in modern corridors) nothing reflects even such a
possibility: it lies hidden, dormant. The experimental charge »issue» becomes
apparent first when the NS complex becomes uncovered: mass and charge does not
interact, although intrinsically integrated: the atom, the fundamental form of
gravitation.

*Continue on*

THE UNIVERSAL NATURE OF THE
NEUTRON SQUARE — *how reliable
is it?*

*and*

CosmicMATHrevelation — *proving the real steel essence of nature ..*

NS8Oct2023: NSUunit: **Provisions**¦ NScredit ¦ CAUSE ¦ Normalization

*TheQuest of*

THE ATOMIC MASS UNIT *u*=*m*(6C12)/12
PREFERENCE

— IN THE NEUTRON SQUARE *m*D
Exacting The *A=*12

IS THE NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS COMPLEX VALID
EVERYWHERE, UNDER ALL POSSIBLE CONDITIONS, NO EXCEPTIONS?

QUESTIONING A UNIVERSAL NATURE of THE NS

NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS

__NuklidTab4C2023.ods__ Tabell 2A Col.M ¦ TheActualDifferences

The basic apparently highly experimentally matching NEUTRAL ATOMIC NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS NS solutions ¦ TheActualDifferences has introduced a QUESTIONING
central atomic mass defect equation

*m*D = (1 – U/*Am*N)/*me*. THROUGH
ITS U FORM U = m/u ¦ m = Uu

U = *Am*N(1 – *m*D*me*) ¦*
*THE *neutral atom’s atomic weight* U = *m/u* CAN BE SPECIFIED FROM A UNIVERSAL

*u* = *m*(6C12)/12 = 1 Dalton = 1 cosmological atomic mass
unit. The proof below. Original Swedish deduction 2008.

**Universal atomic
mass unit**

Giving any a universal credit to such a suggested atomic
cosmologically valid m(6C12)/12 mass unit u, its NS suggested atomic mass
defect (total
atomic binding energy)
mD value is exactly 15.6 electron masses. NS solutions
Proof (NScredit ¦ Discovery) :

Only WHERE — and IF — **a single unique**
m/u = U = A exists **will
define a corresponding ** 1 = mN(1—**mD**me), **mN** = 1/(1—**mD**me); mN/me = 1/(me — **mD**me²). Only one, otherwise no solid
preference. **mD** = (1 — 1/**mN**)/me = **Neutron
Square order geometrical mathematics** = 6 + (60—A)(12/60) = 6 + 12 — 12A/60
= 18 — A/5 = 6 + 12(1 — A/60) — 12/60 = 1/5 is a scale
transfer

NuklidTab4C2023.ods Tabell1 A260+ —
exemplifying different me and mN (Wikipedia mNw mew), clarifying the above
validity test for a single U=A.

In modern quarters, no such explicit occurrence is known (CU). And the academic choice of m6C12/12 (1961 ¦ 1993 coined: one Dalton ¦ 2005 IUPAP) therefore appears arbitrary on »a
best fit» (preferred in chemistry) basis (earlier
8O16, first 1H1).

**Normalization** — see end comparing results in **CONOR****
**

*The u-condition —* U = *A* only one — not several, under no
conditions ever — single unique occasion: it defines the proof:

*m*N = 1/(1 – *m*D*me*)

WE ONLY HAVE TO FIND ONE ANY THE
FIRST *m*D SOLUTION — ANY. Just a first. Any — if at all:

GEOMETRIC ¦
NuklidTab4C2023.ods Tabell1 A260+

**The mNw
and mew are the present (Oct2023) Wikipedia reported values for neutron
and electron mass in Dalton units.**

**In calculating mD
=18–12 A/60 all the mD:s for all the mass numbers A, then
calculating/seeking U = AmN(1–mDme) a corresponding
integer U=A will always return the same answer 12 — provided (**CAUSE

mN = 1/(1 — **15.6**me) OR me = (1 — 1/mN)**15.6****. The precision of the me
or mN is insignificant;**

**— A test column
(***above
right***) with an me=0.5 giving an mN=-0.1470588235
still returns a single U=A=12, all other have decimal tails. 6C12 it is. A17,
17Clorine35.**

The
approximated solution:
mN/me = 1836minimum; U = (**1836**/2[**15.6**])(1 — √ 1 — 4(**15.6**)/**1836**) = mN = 1.008644262901; me = mN/1836 =
0.0005493705; **mD** = **15.6** = 18 — A/5 ; **A** = 5(18 — 15.6) = **12**.

FROM THIS RESULT, IT DOES NO
LONGER MATTER WHICH SPECIFIC *m*D *or me* — *institution,
laboratory, region, epoch* — WE USE, BECAUSE THE UNIQUE

*u*-CONNECTION mN = 1/(1 — **15.6**me) OR me = (1 — 1/mN)**15.6** WILL AUTOMATICALLY ALWAYS CORRECT ON THE SAME END STATION RESULT: *m*(6C12)/12=*u*.

BUT THIS *m*D15.6*me* NS PREFERENCE ALSO
BREACHES ON THE ESTABLISHED EXPERIMENTAL *m*N¦*me* PROVISIONS. Type

HOP*m*N 1.0086652*u* from the HOP*me*
0.000548598*u*: 1/(1 – 15.6*me*) = 1.0086320026*u* IS NOT THE SAME AS the HOP*m*N
1.0086652*u*. NS SUGGESTING: *The
experimentally measured masses involves electric and magnetic — not neutral —
provisions, and have — therefore — no exact corresponding experimentally proven
neutral quantities matching the Neutron Square guaranteed neutral atomic mass
defect (atomic binding energy) suggested values.*

WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUOTE *m*N/*me*
THESE DIFFERENCES ARE MINOR (*not directly significant*);

HOP *m*N/*me *= **1838.6235458387**. 1818 + 18 +
2.624.

HOP *m*N’/*me *= **1838.5630326577**.
1818 + 18 + 2.563. *There is a* 0.00329% deviation in the relation. *We
know not here how plausible such is experimentally in measuring m*N.

THESE RESULTS MIGHT ALERT A CHALLENGE. NAMELY IN
COMPARING THE EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED ATOMIC MASSES/WEIGHTS WITH THE
CORRESPONDING NEUTRON SQUARE VALUES, A NORMALIZATION MUST BE MADE ON THE
EXPERIMENTAL [*m*N’ = 1/(1 – 15.6*me*)] TO SECURE THE NS REFERENCE ON
THE UNIVERSAL ATOMIC MASS UNIT *m*(6C12)/12=*u* AS STATED.

Normally — no adjustments — we just would translate the experimental
U values to NS mD values by the given

Uexp → mD = (1 — Uexp/AmN)/me — given the laboratory or institutional
mN and me values.

However in sequring the NS named m(6C12)/12=u
transfer, the translation must respect an atomic mass unit normalization

Uexp → mD = (1 — Uexp/AmN’)/me, = (1 — Uexp/A[1/(1—**15.6**me)])/me, = (1 — (1—**15.6**me)Uexp/A)/me.

THE EXPERIMENTAL U IS FORCED MODIFIED THEN. AND THERE IS
NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT IF AN EXACT NS ATOMIC MASS UNIT REFERENCE
COMPARISON **IS** ON THE TABLE. If it isn’t, the NS values have no true and
fair comparing meaning, and only the experimentally values count.

That is an especially
sensitive task when comparing on the new (WeizCalifornia)
Weizsäcker solution quantities — which we already know is aiming at a
persistent academic chase on the (new popular academic computer modeling)
experimental (NScredit). The NS solution values will
breach that dependence: The Weizsäcker quantities (uniformly charged liquid drop nucleonic
model) have
absolutely no connection to the (TNED toroid Planck constant) NS complex.
No way. The comparing diagrams will underline that position (CONOR
¦ ComNorm).

QUESTIONING A UNIVERSAL NATURE of

THE NS NEUTRON
SQUARE SOLUTIONS

———————————————

Absolute
metrics ¦ The Absolut METRIC ¦ The
ATOMIC NUCLEUS ¦ NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS
¦ NSdeDIA1 ¦ Geometric

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

9Oct2023:

U = *Am*N(1 – *m*D*me*) ; *AtomicMassDefectEquation*

**12** = **12X**(1 – **15.6***me*) ;

**1** = **X**(1 – **15.6***me*) ;

**X** = 1/(1 – **15.6***me*) ;

*me* = 0.000548598 *u* ; Wikipedia Oct2023: 0.0005485**79909065**

**X** = **1.008632002589970** ; »NSexMatchTractor»:

=
*m*XN UNIVERSAL **n****eutron square
Experimental Mass-to-Charge Transfer Corrector**

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

THE NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS EXPLANATION

* Normalized comparison*

NuklidTab4C2023.ods Tabell2A Col.K ¦ M

———————————————

THE DISCOVERY — TNED Universe History

**The original
ideas (2003) leading to the NS
atomic mass defect (mD) chart:**

♦ NuclearSTRUCTURE: (HOP values) mN/me = **1838.6235458387**.

PRIME NUMBERS: 1836 + 2.6235458387 = 1818 + 18 + k (BASICmN):

1818 + 18

———————— = 606 + 6 = 3 × (»±**101**» + »±**1**»)

A prime number certifies a basic
barrier on whole number divisibility (Periodic system matrix basics — it is all about structure: resonances: basic whole
number solutions): ±e **NuclearSTRUCTURE**.

♦ Scrutinizing (2003) the 1967 HOP table on atomic
masses, comparing on a first drafted nuclide chart (TheoryExperiment)
immediately revealed a possible apparent elliptic (Paintbrush, Windows 3.1) morphological
complex — taken on (exothermal) fusion paths (Nuclide/FusionRING ¦ mDmethod
¦ **Geometric**
¦ VerticalElliptic).

♦ Attempting to deduce a connection on elliptic equations (EllipticEquation
¦ Deduction),
immediately gave response:

♦ The Neutron Square discovery (2003) was a fact (Comparing
Experimental/NS).

— Never mentioned in modern quarters.

On Aug2008 this UH UniverseHistory domain was introduced @Internet — on
the NS discovery credit alone (»a new model of the universe»).

———————————————

ProtonRADIUS ¦
NuclearSTRUCTURE
¦ **Atomic Mass Defect** — ATOMIC MASS UNIT — deducing the atomic
mass unit

See also — mass-to-charge dependency
issue:

*The elementary mass-charge
independence (Planck equivalents deductions)*

NOTE the related deduction to the electric charge (Q), not mentioned in modern quarters:

———————————————

No matter the electric and magnetic influence on the
electron mass (e) — independent of any type of experimentation — under all
conditions, no exceptions:

Q is preserved — unless ±e annihilated (COEI
conservation of energy by induction).

The proportionality between affected mass (m) over (space
electric) resistance (R) guarantees that electric (particle) acceleration (Planck equivalents
as deduced)
leaves the electric charge (Q) intact.

Assuming, or implying, any idea of ”mass-to-charge ratio”
without proper specification and definition, will no doubt expose hazard to the
reader.

As we know: Atomic Particle experimentation is dependent on charge
properties. But the academic (Wikipedia Windows) insight into these physical
domains seems less developed than the ambition to present modeling data on
their nature: the atomic nucleus.

See further in

•
the neutral and optimal unaffected conditions under which the Neutron
Square Solution NS neutral atomic mass defect (mD) values can be understood to apply.

— precision (signal) measuring under
significantly different gravitational conditions.

ClarifyingTheUequation:
17Oct2023

It belongs to a common
understanding that the energy needed to complete an assembly is the same energy
reversed to restore the original — ideally »the movie backwards».

See Wikipedia quote in **Not
represented**.

But the present common science set of terms
and concepts apparently exposes some lack of a developed and well related,
explainable and understandable vocabulary. The reader will be the judge on that
in the following.

aMAD: CTU

*Necessary clarifying concepts
from established literature — related, compared and exemplified*

ATOMIC MASS DEFECT AND NUCLEAR MASS DEFECT —
MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSIONS AND CONCEPTS

*The number (A) of Fundamental
Atom Quanta* (FAMQ)* — the neutron mass m*N* —
that made the atom (a), minus the actually (experimentally) measured atomic
mass *U=*m*ATOM/(*u=m*[6C12]/12=1*Dalton*),* defines the
total mass-energy waste Work *MD*a needed to complete (a), taken from the
masses of Am*N *through the Planck mass energy equivalent E = hf = mcr/t =
mc*^{2}.

**atomic mass defect** MD*a =* *Am*N – U ¦ U = *m*ATOM/*u*
¦ *u
= m*(6C12)/6 = 1 Dalton

U = *Am*N – MD*a*

**nuclear mass
defect** MD*n =* *Am*N
– U – *Zv* ¦ *v =*
*nino =* *m*N – (*m*P + *me*) = *m*N – *m*1H1 (=
0.00084*u*)

MD*n *– *Zv* = MD*a* MD*n* = MD*a* + *Zv*.

*v*: the work mass energy waste that built the first atom — 1H1
Hydrogen — from the fundamental atom: The Neutron [ FAMQ ]

SEE ILLUSTRATED FROM EXPERIMENTAL
VALUES IN *Comparing nuclear* AND *AtomDiffNuc*.

— As above: *When there is
vocabulary lack of terms in an established corridor, still attempting to handle
the different domains, inevitable confusions will most certainly arise: we have
to find safe and clear examples in closing out such traps in the descriptions.
Compare Examples.*

NUCELAR mass defect general expression: — WikiWEIZnuclearMass exemplifying by quote

E(MeV)/*A* = (*Am*N *–* U –
*Zv*)
× *uc*_{0}^{2}/(*A* × T6 × *e*) nuclear

T6 = 10^{6} — in UH we use the simplification Tt for 10^± ¦ E =* UQ = mc*^{2} ¦ U(*e*VOLT)
= *mc*^{2}/(*Q=e*) ¦ U(MEGA*e*VOLT) = *mc*^{2}/(T6
*e*)

ATOMIC mass defect general expression:

E(MeV)/*A* = (*Am*N *–* U) × *uc*_{0}^{2}/(*A*
× T6 × *e*)
atomic

COMPARING EQUALITIES — *provided
gravitational masses only* — *me* electron mass

*m*NUC* = *U – *Zme* ¦ related: **nucleus **gravitating mass**
**+**
electrons **gravitating
mass** = atom**
gravitating mass; Rest: **0**.

=
*AmN – MDa*
– *Zme* ; WikiWeizNuclearMASS

— On a RELATED basis — to Check and say:

**There is no way
to express this equality **OTHER
**than **INCLUDING
**these factors**; Rest: **0**:

The *m*NUC **nuclear
mass** comes first *after* the *m*ATOM has been assembled.
So, it relates to U, not to *Am*N;

= *Am*N – (MD*n – Zv*) – *Zme*

= *Am*N – __MD n + Zv__ –

When *n* neutrons decay, lying
inside of each others nuclear barriers (the nuclear delimiting sphere), and so
performs a fast phase of spontaneous fusions, the resulting atom’s binding
energy can not bring these original neutrons back *on their original masses*.*
These were partly wasted by working mass-energy during the fusion phase, the
actual atomic mass defect.*

Compare: the Planck equivalent
mass-energy EXCHANGE term in EXCON: *related physics*.

See also NUCLEAR REACTION LAW.

aMAD ¦ CTU ¦ UnequivocalAmD

CLARIFYING *attempt on* THE
TERMINOLOGY AND ITS RELATED MEANING

MD*a* = *Am*N – U

———————————————————————————————

(1) U = *Am*N – *m*D*me* ¦ simplified —— when we know the meaning
of the parameters:

**U** = atomic mass **m** per atomic mass unit **u** = atomic weight — ”relative atomic
mass”

mN **fundamental
atomic mass quantity **QUANTUM
— the neutron, enveloping the Hydrogen Atom

A **number
of mN that built the A atom**
also called MASS NUMBER — ”number of protons **Z** plus neutrons **n**”

mD IN RELATED PHYSICS:
**atomic mass defect** —

the Planck energy E = hf = mcr/t = mc² working energy wasted
on building the A atom;

me **electron
mass** — __0.000548598 u__
here in UH, = 0.511 MeV:

**♦ atomic mass is the raw A neutron quanta
mass minus the energy building work**

*Related *(1):

**Left side** of the (1) rank is the (U) atomic mass expressed in
Dalton units (*u*).

**Right side** of the rank’s first term *Am*N is the Fundamental
Atomic Mass Quantum (FAMQ) *the neutron* mass (*m*N
= 1.0086652) times the atom’s mass number (*A*) from which the U atom was
built. **The second term** is the per mass
number (*A*) atomic mass defect *m*D (*Planck work hf-energy E=mc²
equivalent*) in number of electron mass units, **times the electron mass** (*me*, 0.000548598) in Dalton units.

**The complete** left side U value of the whole atomic mass **on the right side** is

(2) U = *Am*N – *m*D*me* × *Am*N

completing the third term also for the whole atomic mass. Hence

(3) U = *Am*N(1 – *m*D*me*), = *Am*N – MD*a*
.

There is no dependency on electric charge in this mutual equality equation.

Through the deduced Neutron Square general elliptic equation

*m*D = 6 +
(1/5)√ 60² — (60 — [ *A–***K**]²)/**E** see NSsolutions

*m*D values are not entirely
dependent on the mass number (*A*).

— The (*EllipticEquation*)
**KE** factors connect FUSION PATHS (*connecting
elliptic arcs*) defining (*VerticalElliptic*)
the end atom — still no charge (Z) dependency.

*Or so automatically integrated
with no direct need for a separate analysis*.

So (*conclusion*):

THE (UnequivocalAmD)
ASSUMPTION IN NS SOLUTIONS THAT ISOBARIC ATOMS (*same A, different *U) IN
PHYSICAL PRACTICE WOULD HAVE A MEAN AVERAGE ATOMIC MASS WILL NOT HOLD — *except
as a simplified violation on the true masses.*

• Atoms with same *m*D can have different U from different *A*.

• Atoms with same *m*D can have different *A*.

• Atoms with same *A* can have different U from different *m*D.

— In NS solutions it is the *m*D
Elliptic equation (**KE**) that secures also different U from same *A*, depending on
how the end atom product becomes assembled on its *A* fusion production path.
There is still no parametric electric (nuclear) charge dependency in these
expressions.

See specific comparing isobars between experimental values and NS in

— there is a suggested (systematic) significant difference.

CosmicMATHrevelation: 25Sep2023 —
Never18 ¦ **Geometric**

**Modern academy teaching system with its
merits and general moral and educative standards, a short review:**

We
do NOT intend to be rude — just fair and just. Have your say. EXAMPLE: A
student who cannot »keep up» with the competition, commits suicide. Real world
situation. Unfortunately, a not very seldom happening inside modern quarters
educational institutions history. There are several examples — through several
disciplines.

—
The AIM of science and knowledge — **HumanRight recognition standards**; decency, respect, honour — was NOT to
kill. It was to teach and educate: to **share**. As life has evolved with cooperating
organs to a single admirable individual. The aim was NOT to **profit**, not to push or stress — individual
care. The natural aim was a respectful cooperation. HumanRight **recognition**. ”.. every individual and every organ
in society ..”. 24/7.

—
And how is it, what’s up? **Not a word**. **Not a spell**. **Not a sound**. Modern academic teaching system
cannot handle that quest. Most certainly not. It is — **appears** — a complete abstract to present
academic thinking. Not existent. No say.

—
2023: Humanity continues to be brought into the biological dark:

GUARANTEED
PRESERVED BIODIVERSITY —— on a never disturbed natural root fungi — TRDWS: **biodiversity
suffocates with the kill of alive trees** — THE WORLD DEMOCRACY CRISIS PHENOMENA. RespondingNature.

HEALTH.

” Människan har
skapat matematiken. Därom är alla lärde överens”,

Vetandets Värld 25Mar1988, Sveriges Radio.

English:

**”Man has created
mathematics. Thereof are all the educated in agreement.”**,

SWEDISH RADIO, the weekly Knowledge World radio program
25Mar1988

— **The Swedish definition of Education**: »you are not welcome here». Very high
IQ. MustBuyBook.

Delar Svenska Vetenskapsakademin ut någon annan behörighet
än den som innefattar kalhyggen, förstörd natur? Det ligger ingen medveten
illasinnad tanke bakom. Men det är vad ögat ser och hjärtat känner.

Naturfientligt utvecklad teknik. Var finns ett deklarerat
bestämt avståndstagande, en **erinran om respekterad
människorätt**?
”.. varje individ och varje organ i samhället ..”.

” **matematik**
Enligt etablerad uppfattning är matematiken läran om tal, om rummet, och
de många generaliseringar av dessa begrepp, som skapats av det mänskliga
intellejtet,”,

MATEMATIKLEXIKON W&W 1991 s278sp2ö

English:

**”mathematics **According to established ideas mathematics is the teaching
of numbers, of space, and the many generalizations of these concepts, having
been created by the human intellect.**”,**

Swedish version of
THE CRESCENT DICTIONARY OF MATHEMATICS (1962), W. Karush

— Test
»formulated» for »created». Then we can talk.

Summing:

By a natural DRIFT of ignorance, not deliberately or by any
such planning: Modern 1800+ academic ideas of our origin is holding mankind in
a mental prison.

— Disclaim that, and we will surrender immediately.

Mankind 1800+ became locked up by [ apparently in many ways
on Natural Destructive ] authoritative merits and ideas about moral and
educational standards. These still prevent the individual from developing a natural insight: **not one word
HumanRight recognition**. The below stuff is part of the proof:
**modern academic thinking is intrinsically ****continuing
to present proofs that works**** against any idea of intelligence other
that itself**.
Again: by Drift.
Not plan. Against nature. Not with her. It holds its own present established
academic teaching system to be a product of type »absolute intelligence» — on a
not seldom favorized foremost example (”nothing lasts forever”, popular
academic entropy study): Our universe was created in the past out of nothing,
and it will die when the stars run out of fuel, and there is nothing any one
can do about that. Cutting out every nerve and tissue out of the human child
mind. Very high IQ stuff. MustBuyBook. — ».. but if there is a deep meaning,
why don’t we see it?». TEST STOP DENYING IT.

COMPARE THE REAL STEEL WORLD OF NATURE, AS EXPERIENCED:

**Man discovers mathematics****:
The paragons from natural observations give us hints in how to develop a
formulating language. Man creates no math at all — except provably
faulty statements. The LIST.
Say.**

**— What was never
created, timeless, perfectly solid, no exception. **

**Shorter: perfect
flawless joy. Say. **

— We are not here to weaken Defense. We
are here to make it stronger, deeper, more fundamental.

THE GUARD OF CIVILIZATION

CosmicMATHrevelation ¦ Resurrection11Sep2023 ¦ AtomicMassDefectEquation

Geometric: **NeutronSquareSolutions** ¦ VerticalELLIPTIC ¦ **NeutronSquareFundamentals** ¦

**neutral to
experimental** ——
U = mATOM/uC12÷12 — traditional Atomic Weight, present as Relative Atomic Mass,
u =
1.66033 t27 KG, 1 Dalton — beginning from the neutron Planck
ring h = mcr

CONCURRENT ATOMIC MASSES: U = *Am*_{N}(1–*m*D*m*_{e})
¦ *m*D = 6 ± *k*(1/5)√ 60²–(60*–A*)² ¦ Never18

*Neutron Square Solutions
— atomic nuclear physics — as testified by experimental results — ***absolute neutral
atom preference**
— NEUTRAL ATOMIC Weights/MASSES

NuklidTab4B2023.ods Table1 Col.AI+ — **The simple amazing astounding coherences** that, apparently, nobody
can deny — never noticed in modern quarters. No way.

The 7 exemplified Neutron Square paragonic
parts below are tabled above in comparing experimentally measured results.

**HOP**, experimentally
measured, **NS**, NeutronSquare solutions — in this
UniverseHistory beginning from 2003+ on a Windows XP machine [with Windows 3.1
Paintbrush] and the HOP table data.

**The
experimental coherence **NSdeDIA1** is no doubt astounding (EXPERIMENTALconfirmations)**.

**Compare modern
academic standard ( Entropy Quote),
**

* *

**These paragon
»matrix formations» apparently have no origin in time: ***time never began — realize
it, read it and weep***. As the Pythagorean Theorem,
it can be forgotten ***but never destroyed*** — and rediscovered, any
amount of times — without changing the least or the smallest, not at all. The
atomic mass defect values from the geometric neutron square solutions have no
physical or experimental foundation — except the Planck constant: the neutron,
the fundamental atom: h=mcr. Testing the experimentally found values on
the basic Planck ring principle, made the neutron square solutions appear
immediately — concurrent in values (2003 in this history).**

**— There is apparently
no way to undo these discovered results — never known, and never asked for, in
modern corridors. Shorter: **

**— Why was the
above never presented from the academic aces — What’sUp — why is it unknown in
there?**

— *Educate us*.

** **

Modern academic cosmological idea is so occupied by
its own supreme standard, that it has forgotten how it came that it locked
humanity into a dark box.

** **

NuklidTab4A2023TableA: NuklidTab4A2023.ods
¦ EC ¦ **BaseGroupMassNumbersEquation**

THE NEUTRON SQUARE ATOMIC MASSES
UPP TO *A*=60 —

*from *MproblemSolved*
the original *MsWORKS 4.0 *that Microsoft suddenly blocked from computer usage
2008 — see*

ExcelOpenOfficeCALCULUSprograms, TheMicrosoftLIST.

**The precision increases with increasing
mass number**:

THE TNED DEDUCED ATOMIC MASS DEFECT mD IN ELECTRON MASSES PER
ORIGINAL NEUTRON same as total mD divided with mass number BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL
AND TNED CALCULATED TAKES A LARGEST VALUE

ON THE HYDROGEN ATOM WITH —0.057 e-MASSES
and a U-ratio 100.00313%. 20**Ca**42 HAS THE LOWEST
DIFFERENCE WITH —0.0001 e-MASSES, and a
U-ratio 100.00021%.

NOTE: _{19}**K**^{40}* *— **not stable** — * Kalium-40 är betaMinusAktiv*

**Mass number 40 for the Potassium
element 19**K**40
has in the HOP table no remark suggesting otherwise than a stable nuclide** — abundance 0.0001181.

**However other contemporary sources **Van Nostrand’s Encyclopedia**
claim beta-activity with a half life of 1.3 billion years. **Not included here as a stable atom.

Masstal
40 för Kaliumindividen 19K40(17.27) har i HOP-källan ingen anmärkning i tabellen som
antyder annat än att nukliden är stabil. Tre sådana anges.

I avdelningen Nuclear Physics i HOP, första kapitlet General Principles of Nuclear Structure (s9-7sp2n) påstås
emellertid att ”For odd Z there
are never more than two stable isotopes”. Man skulle då kunna misstänka att
HOP-tabellen längre fram i verket är felaktig på den punkten, eller att
författaren är fel ute. Emellertid, kontroll i en annan källa, Van Nostrand´s
Scientific Encyclopedia (Ed5 1976 s491-515) anger i en liknande tabell att
Kaliumindividen 19K40 är –betaaktiv med en livslängd på 1.3 miljarder år.

Innan denna detalj uppmärksammades togs
HOP-tabellens specifikationer för givna varför individen 19K40
också finns medtagen i tabellreferenserna här som en icke instabil markerad
isotop. Den är dock inte upptagen i
nedanstående gruppredovisning av alla stabila isotoper upp till masstal 60.
Om vi tittar efter på masstal 40 ser vi den också, tydligt. Den avviker något
från övriga i en liten dipp som därmed avslöjar att ovanstående citerade
referens tycks ha visst fog för sig. Vi får därmed frånräkna individen 19K40
för vidare, men låter den stå kvar i tablåerna som ett exempel på precisionen
för de stabila nuklidernas del.

*Editor*2003VII15

THE
GENERAL COLLECTED NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTION on elliptic and trigonometric-wave
equations — from [2003] the MsWORKS original NuklidTab4.wks ¦
Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista

NuklidTab4A2023.ods TableA
From NuklidTab4.wks 2008 — finally solved
for OpenOffice and Microsoft EXCEL. Explicitly designed for ZERO interrupts: no
errors allowed.

ALL STABLE ISOTOPES UP
TO ATOMIC NUMBER 27 — **max mass number 60** — the NeutronSquare
horizontal square side scale

— From A=60 and up the precision —
elliptic equations — becomes more demanding. See FusionEllipsesCompleteExplanationInTNED.
There is however (CompCALu2023)
a simpler »**general hyperbolic**»
solution for all the 60+ atomic masses (TheWaveFunction
¦ WAFO). In TNED from the NeutronSquare it
exposes a »still excellent fit» to the experimentally measured values. We can
study these for a first rough comparison, and then test the further more
precise determined values. Largest-Smallest mD e-mass per A neutron difference
for this hyperbolic case is +0.00173 -0.00459 — taken for all the (NuklidTab4A2023.ods)
HOP table listed nuclides — including the unstable ones from mass number A=60
to A=257.

The details behind the above
illustrated content is specified in

Geometric ¦ AtomicMassDefectEquation

2003: The NeutronSquare — **nuclear
mass connects definite nuclear size**.

With the advent of the **atomic
mass defect** equation in (TNED) related
physics and mathematics

**mD** in number of electron masses me

**U** atomic weight in Dalton — **u** = 1.66033 t27 KG —
units: **1u = m[6C12]/12**

**A** mass number — number of originally
primary neutrons — conventionally »number of neutrons n and protons p»

**mN** neutron mass in Dalton 1.0086652

**me** electron mass in Dalton 0.000548598

mN/me = 1838.623545838670 = 1818 + **18** + 2.623545838670..

**conventional
atomic weight in UniverseHistory denoted U in u units**

the extensive 1967 available (HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS,McGraw-Hill, ed.
1967) HOP table

on experimentally measured atomic
masses did expose

Uncertainty:
±1 pixel, or ca 1 electron mass (±½) me = 0.000548598u = 0.511 MeV per mass
number A ¦ 1 u = 1 Dalton = mC12/12 = 1.66033 t27 KG

**definite regular
connections** to **elliptic
equations** of the form

explaining the coherences as exposed:

— In this scale [6 pixel colored dots, MAX 18 electron masses Atomic Mass Defect Equation per mass
number A on equation (5)
¦ DiffREF]
no direct difference is visible between the HOP table experimentally measured and
the TNED
atomic mass defect equation wave form (WAFO) and its elliptic
equated values

(see TheActualDifferencesHOP/TNED
¦ ExperimentalErrors):

**Beginning from
The Cosmological Fundamental Neutron 0;0 (***Planck
constant** h = mcr***): **

Left: ** The ordered (***exothermal**, beginning from Dmax***) fusion paths for
the stable nuclide formation according to the TNED discovered Neutron Square
paragonic geometric mathematics. The (dotted) vertical ellipsis arcs point to
(exemplified) a corresponding nuclide’s atomic mass defect for a given mass
number through the neutron square’s special elliptic functions.**

Right:** Uppermost are included the two fundamental mean ellipses along
with their modification in the form of a general ***in explicit connecting and
containing also A
hyperbolic expression (CompCALu2023)
connecting the nuclide chart also to the heavy part of the chart further from
mass number 60*** Wave Equation (WAFO)**

TNEDComparingMAC:
TheoryExperiment

COMPARING TNED RESULTS WITH WEIZSÄCKER VERSION HOP1967¦FM1975

**heavy
differences in established corridors**

See also the comparing modern academic MAC
theory values in Comparing
TNED/MAC:

Black dots:
** Values
from the Weizsäcker equation solution transformed to the **TNED** mD value form
through the general (colored dots) experimental transfer equation **

**— The U value
is the atomic (**”molecular”**) weight value in Dalton units (1Dalton = 1u = 1.66033 t27 KG)
in the different available tables on atomic masses.**

**— The
Weizsäcker solution is the modern academic concept of nuclear physics based on
nuclear — not atomic — mass defect. It uses the idea of the atomic nucleus as a
uniformly charged liquid drop consisting of discrete neutron n and proton p
smaller drops. See the Weizsäcker equation more detailed in **THE WEIZSÄCKER
EQUATION DETAILS**.**

Colored dots:
** The
experimentally measured values. Especially in the first part of the chart, the
Weizsäcker values differ vastly — apparently exposing a direct inaccurate
chosen idea of the atomic nucleus. The ***Neutron
Square*** calculated TNED values in
this scale have no visual difference from the colored dots.**

**— In our era of
experimental physics, the neutron was first discovered 1932
by James Chadwick (***ordinary atomic physics fact book information***).**

**— The above
divulging vast Weizsäcker values show no such divulging visibility if viewed in
comparing U-values, the graph below. And because the mD solution never was
searched for in modern corridors — never represented — also ***what we know*** the above mD divulging chart was lost in modern quarters.**

Uweiz: »the ideal perfect match» — TNEDcomparingMAC

** **

**One way of
viewing the Weizsäcker theoretical comparing experimental (**THE WEIZSÄCKER
EQUATION DETAILS**). Comparing experimental
with theoretical on the Weizsäcker form in U values,
no essential difference is seen, the diagram above. Viewed on the established
term ”nuclear binding energy” the differences exposes more visibility. See for
example TheTakadaDiagram2006.
That figure has the following text, recited here:**

*The above figure is not the Takada reference — see
the actual Takada figure in TheTakadaDiagram2006:*

“ As seen
in the above figure, the Weizsaecker-Bethe mass formula can reproduce well the
experimental data for a wide range of nuclei. We can therefore conclude that the liquid drop model is
enough valid in nuclei.”,

Internet Seminar MICROSCOPIC WORLD –3– The World of
the Atomic Nucleus, Dr. Kenjiro Takada 2006.

**The following
Takada consenting **HOPweizQuote ”good approximation” **certifies the educated established scientific community merits:**

” A number of
fairly good semiempirical binding-energy or mass functions have been
constructed which give a good
approximation to the true masses over the wide range of both stable and
unstable nuclei in terms of relatively few empirical constants. Perhaps the most simplest such formula is
that of Weizsäcker: .. (2.1)”, HOP1967, p.**9**—8.

With no further references — unknown NS solutions — also no objections could be made on the quoted and
established sentences. We just had to conceive them as »provably accurate».

See further
contextual in FIBAPO ¦ NScredit: an explaining inclusive overview.

mDweiz: EC

**Differences in
atomic mass defect electron masses per mass number**

MODERN ACADEMY IS OUTCLASSED BY TNED
— related physics and mathematics

NuklidTab4A2023.ods Table4 — Columns KMS ¦ 1.00 e-mass = 0.511MeV

**The large first****
**1967¦1975**
Weizsäcker differences**.
The Element isotopes from 1H1 to 4Be9 are left out in the diagram above as the Weizsäcker
values anyway lie far beyond the vertical scale. The reason: The idea behind
the Weizsäcker solutions — charged liquid drop mathematics — have no
corresponding atomic nuclear connection — says TNED on its near and
close contact to the experimentally measured values, directly from the neutron
and up. Only when the atom grows larger and heavier, that difference decreases.
See further definite proofs [Jun2023] in THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS.

The **Weizsäcker value equative calculations** are accounted for in the separate
spread sheet HOPweizXP.ods Table1. Its equative
details are exposed as quoted in The Weizsäcker
details.

Resurrection11Sep2023 ¦ AtomicMassDefectEquation

AtomicMassDefect: Equation

•
mD =
(1 — U/AmN)/me

•
U = AmN(1 — mDme)

THE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT

*Related physics and mathematics: not represented in
the modern academic teaching system.*

**And it can never
be.**

No way.

— IF the reader believes that this production is some kind
of ATTEMPT to be welcomed into modern
quarters, the reader has perfectly lost control of the reading capability. It
will never happen. We could equally hope to have an aquarium at home with gold
fishes in it, on the level of all the Pacific Ocean’s water. It will guaranteed
never happen.

— So what is your aim?

— Live and see. Don’t die.

— That’s easy for you to say, not living in the middle of an
ongoing war; ”don’t die”.

— I hear you. But I’m not talking to the body, only the
mind: it can never die. No way.

*TNED — related physics*

*The atomic mass defect ..*

•
Each atom is built of — weighed (U) on — a (mass) number of A **neutrons**,
each with mass mN = 1.0086652 ¦ u: 1u = 1.66033 t27
KG, the
atomic mass unit;

The TNED related A-Z chart.
White: all stable atoms.

See related deduction from DeducingTheAZ.

•
The atomic weight (U=m/u) of an atom will always be smaller than AmN = A
· mN, because

•
building an atom from lighter units needs work = energy, and

•
it is the atom self that must offer some of its mass for a (an
exothermal, giving out) mass-energy emission during the work.

•
This energy work for building a physical atom never exceeds or even
touches 18 electron masses (Never18);

•
It is (**see further below in The 18e
capital**) the mN/me structure

mN/me= 1818(»Central Massif») + 18(»Work Capital»: TheNeutronSquare that (2003)
revealed the whole story) + (mN/me — 1836 = 2.624 =»lubricant») electron
masses which is responsible for that mathematics;

See further on

AtomicMassDefectEquation: Explaining the U equation

mD ¦ AtomicMassUnit

Deduction:

THE IMPORTANCE OF *relating the*
**mass
defect quantity** *to the fundamental *ATOMIC MASS QUANTITY (FAMQ)

*The Neutron*
mass *m*N:

*Atomic mass defect is the
Planck energy E=hf=mcr/t=mc*^{2}* mass-energy Waste Work needed to
build the atom from its number A mass number neutron masses — as related. *MD*a
= *(*m*[WASTE]*=*E/*c*^{2})/*u in Dalton units: *1*u*=1Dalton
= *m*(6C12)/12, = 1.66033 t27 KG

MDa=mD(u)
= AmN — U, **atomic mass
defect** in U Dalton units, 1u = m(6C12)/12 = 1.66033 t27
KG

mD(AmN) =
(AmN — U)/AmN, atomic mass defect

**per mass number **A** neutron masses **mN

mD(me) =
[(AmN — U)/AmN]/me, atomic mass defect

**in electron mass
units **me**
per mass number **A**
neutron **[
fundamental atomic mass quantum ]** mass** mN

=
AmN[(1 — U/AmN)/meAmN]

mD = (1 — U/AmN)/me, atomic mass
defect

**in electron mass
units **me**
per mass number **A**
neutron masses** mN;
1 me = 0.511 MeV = me·c²/[e=1.602 t19C · T6]

mDATOMIC =
(1 — U/AmN)/Ame, atomic mass defect PER MASS NUMBER ¦ sometimes used in UH for comparison

** **

EXAMPLE:

mD(u¦6C12) = 12·**1.0086652**
— 12.0000000 = 12(1.0086652 — 1 = **0.0086652**)

mD(AmN) =
(0.0086652)/(AmN) = 0.008590759

mD(me) =
(0.0086652)/(meAmN)

mD =
(0.0086652)/(0,000548598·1·1,0086652)

=
**15.659479896** — establishedNominal¦**experimental**HOP

NOTE THAT DIFFERENT PRECISION VALUES ON THE
DIFFERENT CONSTANTS GIVE DIFFERENT END QUANTITIES. AS THERE YET IS NO COMMON
HIGH PRECISION DEFINITION OF NUCLEAR MASSES PER KILO GRAM — STANDARD UNIT KG —
WE ARE STILL FIGHTING A PRECISION BATTLE LOOKING FOR »BETTER CONFIRMATIONS».

=
(1 — U/AmN)/me

•
mD = (1 — U/AmN)/me

•
U = AmN(1 — mDme)

The NeutronSquare gives (directly
trigonometric)

15.6

The NeutronSquare general[‡]
elliptic-Wave (from
__NuklidTab4A2023.ods__
TableA) gives

15.739439592 (__NuklidTab4A2023.ods__ Table5 A6):
NeutronSquare average

(15.739439592 + 15.6)/2 =

**15.669719796**.

**As an average:**

That is a good precision average original
neutron mass defect score for the 6C12 atomic mass relative the experimental

**15.659479896**

The rounded difference in electron
masses: 0.01.

The mD average gives a corresponding
comparing experimental

U = AmN(1 — mDme) =

**11.999932005**.

The atom with the highest building
atomic mass defect work score is represented by Iron (experimentally) 26Fe58
with mD = 17.759142302 electron masses

(1me = 0.000548598u = 9.1085 t31 KG =
0.511 MeV);

18me → max 9.198 MeV.

*Atomic and nuclear mass defect
concept — what modern academy missed: onsetting the deduction to the periodic
system: the (deduction) cube analogy, with further ..*

WHEREAS the neutron in any case is a
compressed or »sequestered» version of the hydrogen atom, so containing the
proton, the hydrogen nucleus, one can relate any atom on a sum of neutrons
alone. That the atom — then — consists of a nucleus detailing electron masses
to the surrounding cover makes nothing to the point in the internal charge
distribution. It is the same. The only difference consists of the mass defect
(beta transfers) associated with the atomic rebuild on its fitness to the
actual atomic harmony. It was precisely this detail (here in UH) which showed
up its importance for the (TNED)
discovery of (the hidden and forgotten) electron resonances in (the
astoundingly simple) deduction of the elements periodic system via the Kepler
momentum. See THE
KEPLER RESONANCES.

*Reason for choice of e-mass
units — atomic mass defect mathematics — related physics*

ATOM DYNAMICS — matter in general (The ATOMIC
CHEMISTRY RANK) — entirely is built on the electron
resonances in the Periodic
System. It is the related, deduced and described resonant
areas 2-8-18-32-50- .. -2n² with the related resolution 2-6-10-14-18-… that are
the featuring Commander DoIt. When the atom switches building, these resonant
conditions must be preserved, if we are talking stable tables. That
preservation apparently involves that the resonances — also, in deep — must be
related to the basic fundamental atomic nucleus. That is: The
neutron — which contains the proton-hydrogen atom — as the
most elementary UNSTABLE
nuclide — with a mass defect **zero**. Shorter:

— The resonant conditions (basic nuclear STRUCTURE) must be — also
dynamically beginning from the neutron — related to the hydrogen atom with its
atomic mass defect (mD) when the neutron decays and becomes stable (THE
NUCLEAR CHARGE BASICS 2).

— If hence the mass defect is uniformly
expressed in e-masses of the neutron mass, one receives directly a quantified
measure on ”distance
to resonant stability” with the neutron-proton-hydrogen atom
as a foundational basic reference. The higher mass defect, the more stable
building, analogously more work to build the construct and thereby harder to
break it up. Consequence, related physics (HIGHESTmD):

— Iron _{26}Fe^{56}
¦ U = 55.9349363 ¦ *m*_{D}
=17.759142 *has the highest
mass defect score in the max18 scale related physics atomic masses*.

— Compare the different modern academic
related highest score elements in (Swedish original) TWO DIFFERENT MASS DEFECT REFERENCES:
And more related, here in English from HIGHESTmD.

— There is no correspondence between
the two different domains. The academic highest (**nuclear mass
defect**) is 28Ni62 with 17.176463 — with the 26Fe56 in a third
place on 17.168214. The term **atomic mass defect**
has no representation in the academic society.

*Decay, fusion and fission — in preserved resonant
orders: basic related nuclear surface n-p-structure.*

** **

**The top
spinning atomic nucleus’ inherent spin cannot be removed or stopped. No way.**

**Any attempt to
do so will promptly result in either a complete ± e structural
annihilation. Or a corresponding (water splash) split on lighter nuclide
elements, of shorter or longer lifetimes.**

**— But
(intelligent) experimentation can divulge (such impossible) inner structural
properties (***Collisions between spin polarized protons*** 1979 ¦ 1987), helping us to pinpoint the essentials. This story has
exactly that type of credit to thank for.**

*Preserved electron resonances
— demands a defined characteristic nuclear n-structure and a characteristic
defined p-structure: nuclear
structure: *

*nuclear surface charge electric
displacement — decays, fusions and fissions *

ON BUILDING ATOMS in preserving the
electron resonances for all the elements nuclides, in accordance with the
ordered deduction of the elements periodic system, the nucleus always must
preserve a definite basic configuration related to the neutron-proton basic
aggregate. Such a condition guarantees that the nucleus always is exacting
distributions of separate n-p-individuals in their preserved properties. As
this, primary through the neutron decay, basic configuration is determined by
the resonant numbers in the corresponding integer electron area numbers
(2-8-18-32-50- .. -2n²), with groups and sub-groups, there is apparently a
definite whole number order by which THE NUCLEAR DYNAMICS adjusts in all possible decays,
fusions and fissions.

*The 18e capital ..*

*The *MAX*m*D = 18*e capital — basic np-structure*

mN/me = 1.0086652/0,000548598 =
1838.623545838670 = **1818** + **18**
+ 2.623545838670..

THE EIGHTEEN BODIES
—— 3 × 606 + 3 × 6 + k = 3 × »±303» + 3 × »±3» + k = 3 × 3 × »± **101**» + 3 × 3 × »± **1**» +
k ¦ prime numbers

WHOLE NUMBER PRESERVED RESONANT SOLUTIONS

mK = 1818, MAXmD = 18 ¦ MPcKärnteorin.doc
28Jun2003 Author’s reference

**Mass is taken
from the atom for rebuilding energy**

The atom’s performance in the
rebuilding work (*m*→γ) of producing other atoms needs an
available marginal working mass-energy expendable waste capital (MAXmD). That
capital secures that no causing havoc happens on the central preserved and
protected nuclear massif (mK) on its inherent status of maintaining a stable
nuclear and atomic dynamic function. The expendable (MAXmD) mass must have the
capability in preserving the basic neutron deduced Planck ring (h=mcr) structural
symmetry. That symmetry optimizes a greatest possible symmetric deadlock, a
safe guard, on the entire ring structure of ±β-charges, certifying the
structure does not collapse (PRIME).

— WHEREAS this deduced Planck ring
structure in TNED is founded on a ±β pairwise
(fractal hollow ring) symmetry (NuclearStructure ¦ NuclearMassprinciple ¦ TheFractal TNEDPlanck RingStructure),
it is obvious that the fix nuclear mass (mK, total mass m minus MAXmD) **must
be whole number based** (PeriodicSYSTEM)
with respect to this pairwise symmetry — if a guaranteed exact balance is to be
certified.

— The expendable mass must be based on
an INTEGER
nuclear ring symmetry.

— By further divisible consequence the
integer part in the fix nuclear mass (mK, so) must be based on an odd integer —
a prime number. A prime number blocks any further split. The prime number
thereby determines the limit for the nuclear symmetry (type 1818 ÷ 18 = 101,
prime number; can only divide by itself for a resulting integer — nuclear
divisions, fragmentation).

The expendable MAXmD mass thereby becomes a function of the named
pairwise ±β electric charge symmetry on the topmost rings structure’s 3-
number (HOW3),
so that one receives MAXmD = x(2[±β]×3)=6x: 6 · N=3 = 18: there never was
not much to chose on.

See also THE simple BASIC
NEUTRON MASS PROVISION MATHEMATICS.

npSTRUCTURE: CAPITAL18e

*Basic related nuclear physics n-p surface charge
structure*

**the neutron and
its decay**

———————————————

TNED
NUCLEAR CHARGE BASICS ¦ TNEDbacisPlanckRingStructure ¦ TNED
nuclear charge basics 2

**The neutron has ***by consequence*** a certain negative nuclear surface prominent electric displacement (***The
Neutron Decay***) which ***by consequential known theory*** through the nuclear top spin gives the neutron a corresponding known
negative magnetic moment. When the neutron undergoes decay the displacement is
changed, ending on the proton characteristic positive electric displacement
with a positive magnetic moment. These moments are well empirical documented,
and mark one of the TNED nuclear toroid morphology’s most important
confirmations (Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics, TNED).**

See more related nuclear structure
details in

TNED RELATED NUCLEAR ATOMIC
PROPERTIES

If a p-nucleus ( ¦ ) grows optional
with enclosing n-masses ( |
) on each p-ring, ideally a Zn-p-Zn nuclide (a »**JumboNeutron**»
.. | |
| ¦ |
| | ..),
we can directly see why the resulting edifice sooner or later must lose its characteristic
original p nuclear type charge property: The neutron masses forces the edifice
to withdraw (»bury») the (±e structural) positive β-displacement.

The same (with slower destructive force) would hold for a »**JumboProton**»
(Z=[A=»n+p+n»]/3) of the form type
Zn-Zp-Zn = .. | ¦ | | ¦
| |
¦ |
| ¦ | ..
= Z(n-p-n): the p-type gradually loses impact over the n-type, and the nuclear
structural balance is again compromised — IF we are talking »overall uniformly
distributed charge». If not, this alternative would apparently suit the best
fit in preserving a given Zp (on still larger nuclei), type nX-Zp-nX.

If the p-nucleus on the other hand grows evenly with a minimum of
enclosing n-mass type (»A=Z»),

n¦..1111111111..¦n .. ideally a n-**Zp**-n
nuclide (a »JumboProton»), we see equally easy that the nuclear surface charge
— n-p-p-p..p-n = n-Zp-n — is forced to grow in magnitude with the integer
number Z>1; The original p-nucleus also here loses its original hydrogen
atom harmonics.

An ideal (Z=[A=»n+p»]/2) p-type
nucleus Zn-Zp = Z(n-p) = .. | ¦ | ¦ | ¦
| .. would be the
theoretically preferred natural choice on building heavier atoms from lighter
atoms for a preserved exact balance — **provided**
the nuclear ring structure did have a »uniformly distributed electric
displacement» all over the nuclear surface.

— **It hasn’t**.

— For the most low atomic nuclear charge
atomic number Z-values, the ideal Z(n-p) type »is The Man». In the empirical
table values, it holds practically up to the stable Calcium 20Ca40. After that,
further on the stable Calcium isotopes, the Z(n-p) type is definitely done; On
the following nearest stable Scandium atom 21Sc45, the threshold has already
been passed: more n:s than p:s. And so the more n:s than p: s continues to grow
with still heavier atoms — **remember we talk Structure here**.
A **balanced** growth on heavier atoms apparently (in
some way) favors the named type
nX-Zp-nX.

The NUCLIDE MAP (AZ) IN TNED

**Nuclide static
average value line** **A=12Z/5**
crosses with good approximation the nuclide field (white in the AZ-map below).
In that region we find the natural element’s stable atoms. While the n-p
structure demands certain structural padding with growing atomic number Z, some
of the atomic elements will expose isotopes. That is, atoms with same Z (same
chemical properties) but different masses (different n-p structural paddings on
their mass number A).

Atoms with same mass number (A) but different atomic numbers (Z) are
called isobars.

**Beta decay
emission mechanism**

The term **beta** relates to both
polarities of the electron mass — the normal negative electron mass and its
positive spouse, the positive electron: the positron

**Jumboneutrons
at right and Jumboprotons at left. The Jumboneutron is to heavy for its atomic
number Z. It strives to get rid of one or several electron in order to
switch down to a more stable position further down in the chart via a higher Z
padding. The Jumboproton is to light for its Z. By burning off +β
rings, or alternatively pull in one (or several) electron, it can reduce its Z
and there by emigrate further up for a more correct balance. The AZ-chart
also includes limits for atoms of a hard (nuclear) instability (their mass
number A changes during the decays — in general from 83Bismut209). The
description of the hard unstable atoms are (what we know) more demanding and
will apart from the short description below on Radioactive mathematical
physics not be mentioned further in this presentation (it needs a whole
document, not to say several — see article links Swedish edition in Radioactive
Decay’s Physics).**

Atoms classified apart from the stable
atoms are unstable atoms. These are either soft or hand unstable. The soft
unstable are classified as beta (Greek b, β) unstable atoms. They become
stable by electron transactions, give or take: their mass number (A) is
preserved. The hard unstable are classified as the alpha unstable atoms (often
emitting a Helium-4 nucleus — and more). They become stable by nuclear decay,
nuclear emission or nuclear split. In the AZ map below only the beta unstable atoms
are addressed.

AZchart: NuclideStaticAverage ¦ DeducingTheAZ

THE *related* RADIOACTIVITY
MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS IN TNED

*Short description*

According to TNED all unstable atoms change towards a stable and balanced state and condition is described by the two type ranks below:

(K) – E_{hf18} = K = (K1 + K2 – (*m*→γ) + _{β}**0**_{γm} ) – E_{hf18}
................ beta decay, beta unstable atoms, **beta
nuclides**

(K) – E_{hf1818} = K = (K1 + K2 – (*m*→γ) + _{T}**0**_{γm} ) – E_{hf1818}
............. nuclear decay, nuclear unstable atoms, **radio
nuclides**

*the cryptic are explained further through the link **Radioactive
Decay’s Physics** — these factors explain necessary energy-mass
transactions *

**Is the **E_{hf1818}** neutrino regulated radio component removed out of the nuclear
reaction law, one receives only the expression of a stable
nuclide, which not is the radio case. By that reason we safely know that the
neutrino influences play an important role for the decay of the radio nuclides.
But the related TNED theory — it is extensive — is not found in modern
quarters: TNED
is not welcome there. No way (npStructure).**

**— Each
radionuclide has its own specific neutrino spectrum. And different radio
types therefore does not interfere in their specific decays. Beta decays on the
contrary have mutual influences because the neutrino emissions are of the same
electron-positron type for all beta decaying atoms. Their corresponding
energies can therefore also be generated by electron oscillations. In the radio
nuclide case on the contrary, the neutrino levels are isolated from electron
generating effects (Planck’s structural constant).**

**Understanding
the world we live in: ***We get credit for trying.*

DEDUCING THE ATOMIC A-Z NUCLEAR CHART

**A = n + p **A = mass number — number of original fundamental **neutron** = whole fundamental atomic** masses**

** = n + Z **

**n = A – Z **the actual practically atomic
physical case in any way — Z = the nuclear charge = the atomic electron charge

With the three named nuclear
compositions as delimited by the Jumbo Proton n-Zp-n ¦ »A=Z» nuclide, the ideal
Z(n-p) ¦ Z=A/2 nuclide, and the Jumbo Neutron Z(n-p-n) ¦ Z=A/3 nuclide, the
theoretical region for all possible nuclides is identified by its absolute
limits and borders — with respect to the discussed ring structure in the TNED
toroid nuclear complex:

Theoretical limits of atomic nuclide spectra as related by
nuclear n-p-structure

**The theoretical
limits for all possible atomic nuclei in a general A-Z nuclide chart, related
physics (Deducing the AZ).**

**The diagram
summarizes the extreme limits for the Jumbo Proton (n-Zp-n) left bottom and the
Jumbo Neutron Z(n-p-n) right limit in the theoretical nuclide spectrum, as
related. Z denotes atomic number or nuclear charge, A denotes mass number, n
denotes neutron nuclear surface structure type and p denotes proton nuclear
surface structure type, as explained in related nuclear physics (**TNED** — see **Nuclear
STRUCTURE**).**

DEDUCING THE A-Z CHART

**The connection
for the Nuclide static average value line A=12Z/5
is the average mean of the coefficients for the ideal Z(n-p)
nuclides via k=1/2 with Z=A/2, and the Jumboneutron’s Z(n-p-n) nuclides via
k=1/3 with Z=A/3. The average mean becomes [(1/2)+(1/3)]/2=5/12 with Z=5A/12,
or A=12Z/5.**

Author’sRef: MPcKärnMatIIIa.doc ¦ **MPcKärnMat.doc** ¦ MPcKärnMatII.doc

**And that is also
the stretch where we find the stable atoms and their surrounding unstable.**

TNED BASIC RELATED ATOMIC NUCLEAR PHYSICS
AND ITS MATHEMATICS

THE PLANCK STRUCTURE CONSTANT, THE ATOMIC
MASSES, CAP *and*
CWON

*Building heavier from lighter — *

*basic related atomic nuclear
principles *(Neutrino
Spectrum ¦ *The Plateaus*)

Because electron spectrum is the
same for all atoms (beta decays) but not the neutrino radiation (*the high
frequency radiation associated with the building up of the atomic nuclear
structures by fusions from lighter to heavier, our Sun the nearest source*)
mass equivalent electron energies CAN decompose all atomic nuclei according to
the *qualitative* connection

E = *hf = *(*m*→γ)*c*^{2}
= (*m*←γ)*c*^{2}

The same *quantitatively*
decomposing energies namely

E = *hf = *(*m*→γ)*c*^{2}
≠ (*m*←γ)*c*^{2}

**gravitation, the
atomic nucleus, is not a particle** — BackGROUND
¦ Atomkärnan ¦ CompareQm

**gravitation cannot
be compressed, it is already standing on a zero**

**gravitation is
not light** — ENERGY related physics LAW

**light is not a
particle, **but
its matter generated induction quanta makes it convenient to express as »traveling
photons»:

MAX PLANCK WAS RIGHT, ALBERT EINSTEIN with associated WAS
WRONG

**mass is not
light** — EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATIONS

**mass cannot be
created, only destructed, and has hence quality light energy equivalents**

ENERGY EXCHANGE — NO MASS CREATION. See also The
Particle Proof , Swedish edition.

formed by the fusions guarantee
that the released (*exothermal*) energies in building heavier from lighter
*does not break or destroy* the already built lighter atomic nuclei
structures. The neutrino energies connecting the atomic nuclei buildings, so
constrainedly form different fractal (*Planck structural constant*) levels
(*see from Planck Ring 1*). These so
safely built levels become inwardly secured in that the highest neutrino
frequencies belong to the lightest atomic nuclei, attesting that these in no
way are compromised on credit of the heavier built structures.

*— So in deducing the atomic
masses, we must properly find the different exothermal fusion paths to each
single individual atom and its nucleus, its actual atomic mass defect, and do
the end experimental testing theory mass calculations from there, for any
further heavier building: the Neutron
Square, Neutron Squatre solutions as noted, is
our only reference.*

• The only possible *spontaneously exothermally energetic* way
for the basic fundamental atomic nucleus the neutron to build heavier atoms,
unequivocally must begin from a maximum closed packed neutron nuclei state, a *Dmax* (*certifying the nuclei lie
inside each others nuclear barriers, leading to direct
fusion*): A compact high gravitating neutron mass spherical body. Thereby a
process begins of a gravitational (*light’s gravitational dependency*)
managing *concentric atomic production *(CAP).
The gravitational potential is the least in the center, analogously the local
divergence *c* the highest, and thereby the fastest decaying neutrons: the
atomic building process begins at the centre, ends on the surface (CWON).
It is *fast* and releases humongous amounts of exothermal energy (*Element formation’s two basic nuclide groups*).

See a basic complementary basic description in

WAFO: Neutron Square solutions ¦ BaseGroupMassNumbers

*Neutron Square solutions*

THE MEAN ELLIPTIC WAVE FUNCTION

TNED NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR RELATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS

*Excerpts from the original
Swedish edition (2003 — Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics)*

———————————————

Atomic
Weights ¦ THE NEUTRON SQUARE PARAGONIC BODY ¦ Mean
Ellipsis for Even and Odd ¦
THE
WAVE FUNCTION ¦
The
wave function’s explanation ¦
WaveFunction
Description

*Explain:*

The (EE) neutron square horizontal elliptic basic equation

*y = *0.2[5*x*(120 + 5*x*)]^{½}

has a simple (PREFIX*x*SIN) associated *damped
cosine wave functional form:*

*y = ***cos** 0.2[5*x*(120
+ 5*x*)]^{½}

*A*** = 5x accounts for the graphical scale adoption.**

This PREFIX*x*SIN neutron
square elliptic associated damped cosine wave functional form has the
followingt close *general first provisional* connection to the
experimentally measued atomic masses:

—————————————————————————————————————

*m*ATOM = U*u* ¦ *atomic
weight *U = *m*ATOM/*u, u atomic mass unit* *m*(6C12)/12
named 1 *Dalton *(1.66033 t27 KG)

—————————————————————————————————————

The plateaus: THE ORIGIN
OF THE GENERAL NEUTRON SQUARE WAVE EQUATION 2003

**The open rings
apart from the curved elliptic wave line follow (VerticalElliptic)
specific fusion paths by vertical elliptic arcs with specific mass defect
equations. See further (Sw., ed original) in Wave function’s Explanation.**

*The Plateaus:*

DeducisngTheAZ ¦ PLATÅERNA
— The plateaus¦ NuclearSTRUCTURE ¦ IronTOP
¦ HIGESTmD

Transdlated 22Oct2023 from the original 2003:

**Helium plateau
to Carbon plateau**

From the Helium Reference the nucleus
captivates a stable state (ideal nuclear). We then conceive the nucleus on (the previously described)
nuclear line for the Z(n-p) type — the nuclide chart’s angled space, right
below the static mean value line (12/5-line). As the nucleus grows with
n-p pair nuclear structures, it however approaches the Jumbo Proton — which
gives instability. Already at the Carbon plateau, a phase shift appears where
stable nuclides can form with the addition of one neutron. Then nuclear fusions
can proceed toward stable nuclides with growing mass defect — more atomic
binding energy — in a slower phase where the additional neutron gives a certain
margin ahead.

**Neon plateau to
Silicon plateau**

When further neutrons must be added to fend
off the divergence toward a Jumbo Proton condition, the nucleus enters into the
state phase three, the Neon plateau. From this point — the n-Z(n-p)-n nuclide
type — the mass defects growth can occupy an even larger interval before the
nucleus enters stage phase four, the Silicon-Sulfur plateau. From that point
more nuclear neutron structure addition is demanded to bring (Planck) ring
stability to the nucleus

— the 2n-Z(n-p)-2n type nuclides. And
as earlier, this fill promotes an even longer stage and with even lower mass
defect increase before the nucleus enters the final Calcium plateau.

**Calcium plateau**

From here the nucleus receives a
further neutron dilutive fill in guaranteeing a stable nuclide. We now see the
3n-Z(n-p)-3n nuclide type appear mixed with the 2n-Z(n-p)-2n type from the
previous plateau, and with certain neutron additions. This phase then continues
finally up to the iron top where the 18 limit is reached by the nuclide
individual 26Fe56 (HIGESTmD) — composition 15n-26p-15n,
analogously 2n-26(n-p)-2n. That finalizes the basic nuclear synthesis.

*The heavy nuclide group’s Certification*

**The heavy
nuclide group**

Continuing the atomic production —
exothermal (heat
and light emission of the work mass-energy waste in building heavier from
lighter) — from the basic ideal top mass number 60 highest atomic
mass defect point, demands a presence of specifically neutron rich low mass
beta active nuclides, type:

_{2}He^{6},
_{3}Li^{8} and _{6}C^{16}.

Such exothermal provisions are only
possible in a — TNED deduced (CAP)
— situation where atomic production begins from a maximum dense celestial body
of neutrons. With their decay — fastest where the gravitational potential is
the lowest, that is in the body center — close an tight fusion rings are
asserted to bring out heavier atoms from the lighter. Beginning from a
celestial core with a such iron end atomic produced center (no significant net neutron quote in the
center), heavier atoms beginning from neutron decay need a farther
distance (slower decay) from the center, securing a higher rate of neutron
quote — and thereby a much more diverse possible set of also the most heavy
atomic products. However, the fusions agents into the heavier nuclides
(A>60) depend on momentarily produced beta active atoms of the above suggested
type: neutron structure rich nuclei who can complete the near fusion processes
in building the most heavy possible atoms.

This is readily physically
energetically impossible unless all those atoms — during the very short moment
of time in the celestial body’s fusion phase — far less than a second — are
collected in one and the same massive (primary neutron) body. Sharing the
(enormous) massive energy release during the (short) collective fusion phase,
guarantees that the momentarily (normally fast) decaying beta active nuclides
will WAIT on their decays — momentarily FED by the environmental exothermally
fusion emitting mass-energy equivalents. This high surge energy throughput
delay will provides the necessary standard relatable energy calculable support
in building the heavier atoms. The fusion processes as such, are guaranteed as
long as the involved fusion ring agents are situated inside each others nuclear
potential barriers (meaning:
inside each others circumscribed spheres) — where the close nuclear ±e
structure sucks and takes care of the spontaneous fusions.

See further from

BaseGroupMassNumbers:
EllipticWaveEquation: — up to mass number 60 —
WAFO

THE GENERALIZED WAVE-ELLIPTIC
FORMULA

*The originally 2003 compiled Elliptic-Wave
equation for the light atomic nuclide chart up to mass number 60 — see* NuklidTab4A2023.ods TabellA

THE BASE GROUP MASS NUMBERS NEUTRAL ATOMIC MASS DEFECTS

*— from the original works in MsWorks
¦ which Microsoft suddenly and abruptly denied computer access to after a rude
Microsoft update on a Windows Vista computer (Aug2008) — supported by bought
jurisdiction.*

” .. **the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world**”. World Jurisdiction
Enterprise. Mississippi 1820.

*Unless there are other here
unknown candidates:*

ONLY WAY TO DEDUCE EXPERIMENTALLY
CONCORDANT ATOMIC MASS VALUES IS TO TRACE THE ATOM’S ACTUAL FUSION TRACK FROM
ITS SET OF ORIGINAL NEUTRONS *and the two different nuclear structural types
of ±e electric displacement:*

*the neutron nuclear structural
n type and the proton nuclear structural p type*

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | .. | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ | ¦ ..

*with all their possibly
relatable combinations, see Nuclear
STRUCTURE in related physics *

*— its trace of atomic mass
defects, forming the foundation in building heavier from lighter*

Mintrusion2008: Base

With the Microsoft 2008 intrusion into the pending work,
also followed a blockade of a possible transfer code to other spread sheet
programs (Microsoft EXCEL and its imitating OpenOfficeCalc). The Microsoft
MsWORKS inhibited corresponding **mod/REST** operators had been compromised:
Microsoft EXCEL has other routines. See describing example in EOOK — and some additional ”Microsoft
EXCEL features” in the following text and cell code examples. Through these
”Microsoft modification” the MsWORKS original was blocked. Until the recent
attempts (Aug2023) to find a solution, the work made no progress. This is the
solution.

THE LIGHT atomic NUCLIDES

**FROM A=1 TO A=60¦64**

G0—isoA0 — BaseGroupMassNumbers —
from Z

*Basic Group — the group base
mass number A for the given atomic number Z — valid up to Z=30, light nuclide
chart only (Amax=64):*

**The role of Z
here is only of an organizing manner, according to the basic observations on
the Elliptic
and wave coherences on the HOP experimental values**

* A =
*[2Z*+*Z**mod**2* + *(Z**div**[17*+* 5(1*–*Z**mod**2)])(2×**round**[(Z*–*8*+*Z**mod**2 )/ 2(6*–*Z**mod**2)])]*=A*’

*+ *(1*–*ζ6)(*–*1)Z**mod**2(*A*’*–*Z)**mod**3 [1*–*(Z**mod**3)**div**2]

ζ 6 =
INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**6***–*1] *–* [Z0/**6***–*1])/2]*
................................... *Zζ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,9**1**,8**1**,7**1**,60,50,40,30,20,10,00,–1–1,–2–1,–3–1, ..

OPEN OFFICE CALC SwedishVersion:

=
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/6-1)-(Z/6-1))/2)

*A*’ OPEN
OFFICE CALC SwedishVersion = **R3**:

= 2*Z + REST(Z;2) + (HELTAL(Z/(17
+ 5*(1-REST(Z;2)))))*(2*AVRUNDA((Z-8+REST(Z;2))/(2*(6-REST(Z;2)))))

*+*(1-HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/6-1)-(Z/6-1))/2))(*–*1)^(REST(R2;2))*(REST(**R3** - R2;3) * (1 -
HELTAL(REST(R2;3)/2) ))

ALL IN ONE CELL ONLY:

=
2*Z+REST(Z;2)+(HELTAL(Z/(17+5*(1-REST(Z;2)))))*(2*AVRUNDA((Z-8+REST(Z;2))/(2*(6-REST(Z;2)))))

+((1-HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/7-1)-(Z/7-1))/2)))*(-1)^(REST(Z;2))*(REST((2*Z
+ REST(Z;2)+(HELTAL(Z/(17+5*

(1-REST(Z;2)))))*(2*AVRUNDA((Z-8+REST(Z;2))/(2*(6-REST(Z;2))))))-Z;3)*(1-HELTAL(REST(Z;3)/2)))

**Proof**:

NuklidTab4A2023.ods Table4 —— verified ¦ Author’sREF:
MPcKärnMatIIIa.doc 9Aug2003 —— **algorithm**: just the atomic number
Z plus »integer selector algebra»

APART FROM THE BASE GROUP, THERE ARE FIVE MORE
ISOTOPIC GROUPS:

NuklidTab4A2023.ods TableA

*How it did develop — *

*all based on and from the (2003)
sudden discovery of the Neutron Square apparently universal paragon geometrical
mathematics *

*on comparing atomic masses
from known tables: elliptic equations, simple wave form adoptions — whole
numbers selector algebra*

(*Swedish
original ..*)

**Analysen visar** att bestämningen av en nuklids massdefekt
helt och hållet betingas av dess underliggande sammansättning, dess *fusionsväg*.
Känner man denna och kan återföra nukliden på mera elementära grundnuklider får
man en specifik massdefektsekvation.

..

**Det innebär** att hela nuklidkartan byggs upp som en *händelse* (som en organism
som breder ut sig): varje nytt steg beror av sammansättningarna i föregående
och kan beräknas om man känner nämnda. Av den anledningen, speciellt med tanke
på grundnukliderna upp till Helium (första fasen) finns inte den typ av
”kärnekvation” som den moderna akademin försöker uppställa.

..

**Man måste dela in nukliderna i olika grupper**, en huvudgrupp med underliggande
isotopgrupper som följer händelsevägen via växande massdefekt upp till
Järntoppen. Därefter, från Järntoppen mot nuklidkartans slut, följer en annan
typ av analys med avtagande massdefekt. Man måste emellertid också känna
samtliga instabila (betaaktiva) nukliders massdefekter och hur de bildas innan
en fullständig beskrivning kan ges. De betaaktiva nukliderna spelar nämligen en
(delvis) stor roll i bildningen av de tyngre nukliderna.

* Men ingen sådan övergripande (betaaktiv)
analys har ännu utförts i UniversumsHistoria (Okt2023).*

Hela nuklidkartan blir (alltså) en karta
över hela den kosmiska händelsehistorien.

..

*Mass number
A generally for all basic nuclides (from the Helium reference) up to the Iron
group (part of the original draft):*

* *

*A* *=
A*0 * *

*+ A**EvenFromCarboOddFromNitro *

*+ A**correctionBelowCarboNitroPreference*

* *

* A =
*[2Z*+*Z**mod**2* *

+ (Z**div**[17*+* 5(1*–*Z**mod**2)])(2×**round**[(Z*–*8*+*Z**mod**2 )/ 2(6*–*Z**mod**2)])]*=A*’

*+ *(1*–*z 6)(*–*1)Z**mod**2(*A*’*–*Z)**mod**3 [1*–*(Z**mod**3)**div**2]

Author’sRef: MPcKärnMatIIIa.doc ¦ **MPcKärnMat.doc** ¦ MPcKärnMatII.doc

isoGROUP 1

The actual isoA¦1-5 cell equations are written out as follows.

—
What we know (related physics, NS solutions):

—
There is no ”overload version” possibly defining the isotope mass numbers in a
given atom — before, prior, that specific atom base nucleus has been made/specified.

So, when the math to this analyze was first
projected (from 2003), it had to be on »all the tabled stable isotopes
together», in order for the author to have any the smallest chance in »luring
out the hidden matrix». That is: all based on already existent atomic mass
tables. Below is an illustrating extract of the actual providing data needed
(the neutron square content) in order to succeed on the exercising quest.

G1— isoA

*A* *=
isoA*J* *

* + isoA*U* *

* +** iso**A**neon*

:

*A*_{isoA1} *=
iso*J1* *

* + iso*U1* *

* +** iso**Aneon*

*iso*J1 * =* (*A+*2)g10(1*–*Z0**mod**2)

*iso*U1 * =*
*A*(Z**mod**2)* –* *b*[**round**([(Z*–*7)/2]**mod**8/8)* – *1]

*iso**Aneon** = *ζ1(1*– *γ10)(**Φ**[(1*+*λ)Z* + *λ(1*–A***mod**2)]* + *(1*–*λ))

*b = *(Z**mod**2)*nollarViaJämna*(**round**[(*n*He*+*1)/4]* –* 1)**mod**2 (INT[(*n*He**mod**7)/7*+*7/8])

*n*HE =
(Z – 6 – Z0**mod**2)/2

**Φ** = INT[1*–*(|*a*2*–***1**| *–*
[*a*2*–***1**])/2]*
......................................................... A|***Φ***=* 11,41,61,9**0**,101,121,151,161,19**0**

*a*2* =
*(*A***mod**9)(Z**mod**9)*
......................................................................... A|a*2*=* 11,48,618,9**0**,105,1218,1542,1656,19**0**

λ =
INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**03***–*1] *–* [Z0/**03***–*1])/2]*
........................................ *Zλ *= .. *,5**1**,4**1**,3**1**,20,10,00,–10,–20, ..

ζ1 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**01***–*1] *–* [Z0/**01***–*1])/2]*
........................................ *Zζ *= .. *,5**1**,4**1**,3**1**,2**1**,1**1**,00,–10,–20, ..

γ10 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**10***–*1] *–* [Z0/**10***–*1])/2]* ......................................... *Zγ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,90,80, .. ,20,10,00,
..

OpenOfficeCalc:

*iso*J1 = (**A**+2)*Gma10*(1-REST(Z0;2))

*iso*U1
= (**A***REST(Z0;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**+0*REST((AVRUNDA((nHe+1)/4;0)-1);2))*HELTAL(OM(nHe<0;nHe;REST(nHe;7))/7+7/8))*(Z0-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**+0*REST((AVRUNDA((nHe+1)/4;0)-1);2))*HELTAL(OM(nHe<0;nHe;REST(nHe;7))/7+7/8))

N24 = OM(N25<0;N25; REST(N25;2)) ¦ **the
tricky MicrosoftEXCEL-OpenOffice cell code removal of the original MsMORKS **mod** operator
consequence**

N25 = (AVRUNDA((nHe+1)/4;0)-1)

= (AVRUNDA((((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2)+1)/4;0)-1)

IT MEANS THAT VERY WELL IN MsWORKS 4.0 — BLOCKED FOR FURTHER
WINDOWS USE BY MICROSOFT 2008 IN WINDOWS VISTA — WE CAN CALCULATE THE G1
A-VALUES from the Z inputs IF WE STILL HAVE A TYPE WINDOWS XP COMPUTER ALIVE
accepting MsWORKS. — BUT HOWEVER NO SO DIRECTLY in Microsoft Excel and
OpenOffice — »the Excel imitator». To do so also in these latter programs, we
need to add the above N25 and N24 in two demanding separate cell rows. See the
complete — but very lengthy — solution in last rank 5 below. See NuklidTab4A2023.ods
Table4, Rows 2 and 3.

*iso**Aneon*
= Theta1*(1-Gma10)*(**L10***((1+Lda)*Z0+Lda*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-Lda)

L10 = HELTAL(1-(ABS(K10-1)-(K10-1))/2)

K10 =
REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)

*iso**Aneon*
= Theta1*(1-Gma10)*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1))/2)***((1+Lda)*Z0+Lda*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-Lda)

= (HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/01-1)-(Z/01-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/10-1)-(Z/10-1))/2)))*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1))/2)***((1+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2)))*Z0+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2))*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2)))

*b* = 6-A

*n*HE = (Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2

**Φ**Fi =
HELTAL(1-(ABS((REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9))-1)-((REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9))-1))/2)

λ*Lda* =
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2)

ζ_{1} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**01**-1)-(Z/**01**-1))/2) ¦ Theta1, i.e., Tzeta (ϑ not explicitly available 2003 in this production)

γ_{10} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**10**-1)-(Z/**10**-1))/2) ¦ Gma10

OpenOfficeCalc
¦ Tabell4 G1:

G1.1:

(**A**+2)*Gma10*(1-REST(Z0;2))+

(**A***REST(Z0;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(nHe<0;nHe;REST(nHe;7))/7+7/8))*(Z0-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(nHe<0;nHe;REST(nHe;7))/7+7/8))+

Theta1*(1-Gma10)*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1))/2)***((1+Lda)*Z0+Lda*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-Lda)

G1.2:

(**A**+2)*(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/10-1)-(Z/10-1))/2))*(1-REST(Z0;2))+

(**A***REST(Z0;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2)<0;((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2);REST(((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))*(Z0-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(Z0;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2)<0;((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2);REST(((Z0-6-REST(Z0;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))+

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/01-1)-(Z/01-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/10-1)-(Z/10-1))/2)))*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z0;9)**-1))/2)***((1+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2)))*Z0+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2))*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z0/3-1)-(Z0/3-1))/2)))

G1.3:

(**A**+2)*(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/10-1)-(Z/10-1))/2))*(1-REST(Z;2))+

(**A***REST(Z;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(Z;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2)<0;((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2);REST(((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))*(Z-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(Z;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2)<0;((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2);REST(((Z-6-REST(Z;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))+

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/01-1)-(Z/01-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/10-1)-(Z/10-1))/2)))*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(Z;9)**-1))/2)***((1+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/3-1)-(Z/3-1))/2)))*Z+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/3-1)-(Z/3-1))/2))*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/3-1)-(Z/3-1))/2)))

G1.4:

(**A**+2)*(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/10-1)-(B5/10-1))/2))*(1-REST(B5;2))+

(**A***REST(B5;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(B5;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2)<0;((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);REST(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))*(B5-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(B5;2)*(**N24**)*HELTAL(OM(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2)<0;((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);REST(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))+

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/01-1)-(B5/01-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/10-1)-(B5/10-1))/2)))*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(B5;9)**-1)-(**REST(**A**;9)*REST(B5;9)**-1))/2)***((1+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2)))*B5+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2))*(1-REST(**A**;2)))+1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2)))

G1.5: only variables: B5=Z and B2

(**B4**+2)*(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/10-1)-(B5/10-1))/2))*(1-REST(B5;2))+

(**B4***REST(B5;2)-AVRUNDA(REST(((REST(B5;2)*(**B2**)*HELTAL(OM(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2)<0;((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);REST(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))*(B5-7)/2);8)/8;0)-1)*(REST(B5;2)*(**B2**)*HELTAL(OM(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2)<0;((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);REST(((B5-6-REST(B5;2))/2);7))/7+7/8))+

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/01-1)-(B5/01-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/10-1)-(B5/10-1))/2)))*(**HELTAL(1-(ABS(**REST(**B4**;9)*REST(B5;9)**-1)-(**REST(**B4**;9)*REST(B5;9)**-1))/2)***((1+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2)))*B5+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2))*(1-REST(**B4**;2)))+1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/3-1)-(B5/3-1))/2)))

**It works. **

ALL THE ABOVE IN THE FIRST ATOMIC NUMBER CELL. THEN COPIED
FOR EACH NEW CELL WITH EXTENDING COLUMN PREFERENCE UP TO Z=28, MASS NUMBER 60.

— It is amazing that OpenOffice can handle this — because
OpenOffice in other tracks is sometimes readily horrible. .. cannot write in
capitals .. program insists on converting to literals, or vice versa, in
forming constant names .. suggests .. cannot leave the user alone STOP
SURVEILLING SPYING AND MAKING CHANGES TO MY WRIT .. shut the fuck up .. .. we are trembling on the brink .. cannot
select last color .. cannot read bookmarks backwards .. looses text caret
position in text documents .. why was I born .. COPYING an OpenOfficeCalc to a
new document it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of the Original’s 178 Constants by
erasing That Table, these must be erased manually, one by one, through repeated
several button clickings .. why not let us die directly .. and when pressing Ctrl+F3 in finding out
what Constants are there, no key shortcut exists to get into the actual Box:
must Click to get there .. no single keyboard operations, no sir .. but the
Design is OK .. don’t touch me .. so in time we learn how to escape the
OpenOffice Orcs .. taking care not to be too creative ..

**— On the other
hand**:

THE OpenOffice FREEWARE AT PRESENT 2023 IS APPARENTLY THE
BEST HUMANITY CAN OFFER.

Yes, we CAN get things done .. but OpenOfficeProgram Man ..
you’ve got to fix the engine .. jises ..

The other 4 groups
are somewhat simpler.

The70: BGMN

70 stable isotopes

NuklidTab4A2023.ods Table4 —— verified **mapping** ¦ the five atomic group
finalized with their corresponding atomic and mass numbers

OPEN OFFICE HAS NO HERE KNOWN FUNCTION
BY WHICH TO LEAVE A CELL BLANK IF ITS RESULT IS IRRELEVANT to the author: OPEN
OFFICE DEMANDS A VALUE 0. SO TO SHOW THE RESULTS IN ONLY VALID POSITIONS, NO
OTHER WRITS, WE MUST MAKE A NEW TABLE USING THE CELL CODE FOR EACH POSITION: **if B2 = 0 then ShowNothing: **Sw.:
Om(B2=0;””).

AND THE MOST STRANGE OF ALL IN OPEN OFFICE: IF ANOTHER OPEN
OFFICE DOCUMENTS IS OPENED with the first showing its cell code in the inbox
THAT TEXT DISAPPEARS ON OPENING THE NEW OPEN OFFICE DOCUMENT.

It just proves on the many examples in OpenOffice, that IT
is a more or less MicrosoftOffice2000 Imitation — with SOMETIMES extremely
careless and left out functionality. Microsoft Office (2000) has no such.

— The OpenOffice case: Most likely poor partial
functionality because the programming personnel cannot solve the programming
functions: If they could, there would be no problems. Meaning: it is the
programming language — or the programming person not understanding what a
computer is for: **the functionality is anyway incomplete**. Say I’m wrong.

— But the design is OK.

*A* *=
iso*J1* *

* + iso*U1* *

* +** iso**Aneon*

*A*_{isoA1} = (*A+*2)γ10(1*–*Z0**mod**2)

+ *A*(Z**mod**2)* –* *b*[**round**([(Z*–*7)/2]**mod**8/8)* – *1]

+ ζ1(1*– *γ10)(**F**[(1*+*λ)Z* + *λ(1*–A***mod**2)]* + *(1*–*λ)) ¦ *A = mass number in group isoA0, the base group —
the structure extends from there:*

NuklidTab4A2023.ods TableA

isoGROUP 2

*A* *=
iso*J2* *

* + iso*U2* *

* +** iso*N2

— IT
LOOKS LIKE A RAIL YARD WITH SETS, CARTS, SWITCHES, longer or shorter trails,
SIMPLE WHOLE NUMBER ORGANIZATIONS ..

*iso*J2 =
γ16(1 – γ27)(1 *– *Z0**mod**2)(2Z0 + **round**[(2Z0 + 1)/10] – **abs**(1
– 2Z0**mod**32) + [1 – 2Z0**mod**32])

*iso*U2 =
Z0(**18/8**)ζ8(1 – ζ9)

*iso*N2 =
ζ10(1 – ζ15)(1 – Z0**mod**2)(2Z0 + 1)

γ16 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**16***–*1] *–* [Z0/**16***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,19**1**,18**1**,17**1**,16**1**,150,140, .. ,20,10,00,
..

γ27 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**27***–*1] *–* [Z0/**27***–*1])/2]*
................................... *Zζ = .. ,29**1**,28**1**,27**1**,260,250,240, .. ,20,10,00, ..

ζ 8 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**08***–*1] *–* [Z0/**08***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,9**1**,8**1**,70,60,50,40,30,20,10,00,
..

ζ 9 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**09***–*1] *–* [Z0/**09***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,9**1**,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10,00, ..

ζ 10 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**10***–*1] *–* [Z0/**10***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,90,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10,00, ..

ζ 15 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**15***–*1] *–* [Z0/**15***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,17**1**,16**1**,15**1**,140,130,120, .. ,20,10,00, ..

OpenOfficeCalc:

*iso*J2 =
Gma16*(1-Gma27)*(1-REST(Z;2))*(2*Z
+ AVRUNDA((2*Z+1)/10;0)-(ABS(1-REST(2*Z;32))+(1-REST(2*Z;32))))

*iso*U2 =
Z0*(18/8)*(Theta8*(1-Theta9))

*iso*N2 =
Theta10*(1-Theta15)*(1-REST(Z;2))*(2*Z+1)

γ_{16} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**16**-1)-(Z/**16**-1))/2)

γ_{27} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**27**-1)-(Z/**27**-1))/2)

ζ8 =
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**08**-1)-(Z/**08**-1))/2) ¦ Theta8, i.e., Tzeta (ϑ not explicitly available 2003 in this production)

ζ9 =
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**09**-1)-(Z/**09**-1))/2)

ζ10 =
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**10**-1)-(Z/**10**-1))/2)

ζ15 =
HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**15**-1)-(Z/**15**-1))/2)

OpenOfficeCalc
¦ Tabell4 G2:

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/16-1)-(B5/16-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/27-1)-(B5/27-1))/2)))*(1-REST(B5;2))*(2*B5
+ AVRUNDA((2*B5+1)/10;0)-(ABS(1-REST(2*B5;32))+(1-REST(2*B5;32))))+B5*(18/8)*((HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/8-1)-(B5/8-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/9-1)-(B5/9-1))/2))))+(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/10-1)-(B5/10-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/15-1)-(B5/15-1))/2)))*(1-REST(B5;2))*(2*B5+1)

isoGROUP 3

*A* *=
iso*J3* *

*iso*J3 =
g16(1 – g27)(**round**([Z0**mod**2]/4)(2Z0 + **abs**[**round**(2Z0/10)
– 7])(1 – Z0**mod**2)

γ16 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**16***–*1] *–* [Z0/**16***–*1])/2]*
............................. *Zγ
*= *,19**1**,18**1**,17**1**,16**1**,150, .. ,50,40,30,20,10,00 ..

γ27 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**27***–*1] *–* [Z0/**27***–*1])/2]*
............................. *Zγ
*= *,29**1**,28**1**,27**1**,260,250, .. ,50,40,30,20,10,00 ..

OpenOfficeCalc:

*iso*J3 =
Gma16*(1-Gma27)*(AVRUNDA(REST(Z;6)/4;0)*(2*Z+ABS(AVRUNDA(2*Z/10;0)-7)))*(1-REST(Z;2))

γ_{16} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**16**-1)-(Z/**16**-1))/2)

γ_{27} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**27**-1)-(Z/**27**-1))/2)

OpenOfficeCalc
¦ Tabell4 G3:

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/16-1)-(B5/16-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/27-1)-(B5/27-1)/2)))*(AVRUNDA(REST(B5;6)/4;0)*(2*B5+ABS(AVRUNDA(2*B5/10;0)-7)))*(1-REST(B5;2))

isoGROUP 4

*A* *=
iso*J4

*iso*J4 =
g20(1 – g25)(1 – Z0/2**mod**2)(2Z0 +
6)(1 – Z0**mod**2)

γ20 =
INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**20***–*1] *–* [Z0/**20***–*1])/2]*
................................... *Zζ = .. ,23**1**,22**1**,21**1**,20**1**,190,180, .. ,20,10,00, ..

γ25 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**25***–*1] *–* [Z0/**25***–*1])/2]* ................................... *Zζ = .. ,28**1**,27**1**,26**1**,25**1**,240,230, .. ,20,10,00,
..

OpenOfficeCalc:

*iso*J4 =
Gma20*(1-Gma25)*((1-REST(Z/2;2))*(2*Z+6))*(1-REST(Z;2))

γ_{20} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**20**-1)-(Z/**20**-1))/2)

γ_{25} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**25**-1)-(Z/**25**-1))/2)

OpenOfficeCalc
¦ Tabell4 G4:

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/20-1)-(Z/20-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/25-1)-(Z/25-1))/2)))*((1-REST(Z/2;2))*(2*Z+6))*(1-REST(Z;2))

isoGROUP 5

*A* *=
iso*J5* *

*iso*J5 =
g20(1 – g29)**round**(INT[(Z0**mod**12)/4]/2)(2B50 + 2[1 + **abs**(HELTAL[2Z0/7] – 8)])(1 – Z0**mod**2)

γ20 =
INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**20***–*1] *–* [Z0/**20***–*1])/2]*
................................... *Zζ = .. ,23**1**,22**1**,21**1**,20**1**,190,180, .. ,20,10,00, ..

γ29 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**29***–*1] *–* [Z0/**29***–*1])/2]*
................................... *Zζ = .. ,32**1**,31**1**,30**1**,29**1**,280,270, .. ,20,10,00, ..

OpenOfficeCalc:

*iso*J5 =
Gma20*(1-Gma29)*AVRUNDA(HELTAL(REST(Z;12)/4)/2;0)*(2*Z +
(2*(1+ABS(HELTAL(2*Z/7)-8))))*(1-REST(Z;2))

γ_{20} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**20**-1)-(Z/**20**-1))/2)

γ_{29} = HELTAL(1-(ABS(Z/**29**-1)-(Z/**29**-1))/2)

OpenOfficeCalc
¦ Tabell4 G5:

(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/20-1)-(B5/20-1))/2))*(1-(HELTAL(1-(ABS(B5/29-1)-(B5/29-1))/2)))*AVRUNDA(HELTAL(REST(B5;12)/4)/2;0)*(2*B5 + (2*(1+ABS(HELTAL(2*B5/7)-8))))*(1-REST(B5;2))

THE MICROSOFT INTRUSION
(Aug2008) led to so much (sad and weary) trouble. And it was such a release
when (at last Aug2023) the light came through,. The solution here deserves all
thorough attention on that dramatic history’s compressed content:

— »Fuck
you Microsoft2008», the galactic leading prohibiter of a perfectly functioning
MsWorks spread sheet program Aug2008 on Windows Vista: Microsoft2008, destroyer
of MsWORKS **mod operator**, vandalized in Microsoft EXCEL and so apparently imitated
equally by the free OpenOfficeCalc.

— As it so seems,
the aim was and is to promote a deeper insight into the world business
inducement of appearing to be the best of the best in the world of computer
programming science:

REST(-A;B) ¦ -A **mod** B

MsWORKS ¦ Division algorithm ¦ Windows Calculator
latest W7 ¦ Borland’s Pascal:

**–A**

Microsoft (prohibiting further Windows
use of MsWORKS from 2008)EXCEL¦OpenOfficeCalc:

**+A**

----------------------------------------------

HELTAL(-0.99)

MsWORKS ¦ Division algorithm ¦ Windows
Calculator latest W7 ¦ Borland’s Pascal

**–****0**

Microsoft (prohibiting further Windows
use of MsWORKS from 2008)EXCEL¦OpenOfficeCalc:

**–1**

----------------------------------------------

**Microsoft
Enterprise**:

— If you cannot handle mathematics on
the computer level:

— What can you handle?

”Restart your computer or we will do it
for you”.

•
**Where is world jurisdiction**

— allowing such raging human right
intrusion partying and feasting?

**Not
one word human right recognition**.

TNED.

WE, the customers, bough the Windows
HUMANITY DEVELOPING products during a period of several decades, BROUGHT the company
UP, buying merchandise for tens of thousands of dollars PER PERSON. How were we
met? A spit in the face, a foot in the back, vandalized text, dictating,
overriding, private computer settings, a controlling and demanding authority of
We-Own-You attitudes — and We have the Deciding power over your computer.

”Pick a time”.

”Fuck you asshole”.

Muzzled. Handcuffed. Bandaged.

”Let’s kick off ..”.

”Was this helpful?”.

”Like us”.

Toying humanity. Openly. Freely.

Muzzled. Handcuffed. Bandaged.

Tagged Cattle.

— Why, and how, in the world do humans
take such shit?

— Or.. They don’t. But no one is
allowed — deeply afraid — to say it.

.. **the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world**

— Where is world jurisdiction — **other**
than bought bitches to serve Microsoft Enterprise human right intrusions?

**Not
one word human right recognition**.

Talk about lawlessness and anarchy. It
is gushing.

Microsoft:

— Offer fully freeware Microsoft OFFICE
fully detailed to every single born human being on Earth, from here to
eternity, **at no cost**,

**to be used
freely** as Pen, Rubber and Paper. Remove the brakes, and let
humanity DEVELOP on humanity’s provisions and conditions, not Microsoft’s.

**Stop killing
humanity.**

**Stop Human
Trafficking.**

IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE HUMANITY FOR PROFITING
PURPOSES, NOT BY BODY, NOT BY MIND, INTENTIONALLY OR NOT, NOT AT ALL. ALL FORMS
AND TYPES OF SLAVERY SHALL BE FORBIDDEN.

Where is world jurisdiction? Where is United Nations?

United Nations explicit formulation in UDHR10Dec1948 — and
present Trafficking.

Slavery (Swedish classic encyclopedic)
definition, five words:

— A state of personal noFree.

(Sw., ett tillstånd av personlig
ofrihet).

**Human right recognition**.
Microsoft. GOOGLE. Police. Prosecutor. Court. World Business Enterprise. **Not
one word. Not a sound. Not a hint**.

**Where not heard**:
violence is gushing.

.. **the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world**

Regaining the **mod and Rest** operators in Microsoft’s New EXCEL and
— the imitating — Open Office Calc

—
NOTE: MICROSOFT Windows Calculator still existed on Windows 7 y2015, same as
the old MsWORKS mathematical division algorithm **mod**
operator:

— Not
in Windows 10 — several reports on failed calculator in W10 — many cookies
blocking web sites inhibits further free information on the W10 calculator
subject: Still not one word **human right recognition**. No mentioning. Not a sound. Not a hint. Just
interrupting. Blocking. Demanding cookies consent.

AFTER THE 2008 MICROSOFT REMOVAL/banning OF FURTHER
WINDOWS COMPUTER USE OF MsWORKS

CRUSHING THE CONTINUED COMPILATION WORKS ON THE NEUTRON SQUARE SOLUTIONS RESULTS IN ATOMIC MASSES DETERMINATION

2003—10Sep2023 REVISITING THE
NEUTRON SQUARE MATHEMATICS * *

*The deuced mathematics to the
Light Nuclide Group — up to mass number 60*

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

This *following* was the
simple spread sheet calculus code we failed (TNEDa0EOOK)
to create a corresponding transfer expression for in OpenOfficeCalc (and
MicrosoftEXCEL):

The original (2008) in MsWORKS NuklidTab4.wps:

Rest(A;B)

BORLAND’S DELPHI PASCAL: A **mod** B

*for the case of A less than zero* (**nHe**)

Rest(-1;2)

**IN MsWORKS
(blocked 2008+ by Microsoft Windows Vista from further computer use)**

— AND IN BORLAND’S PASCAL DELPHI
CODE, the mod operator

as derived in basic mathematics
from the DIVISION
ALGORITHM

**it reads**

= -1

**In OPEN OFFICE
and MICROSOFT EXCEL it presents the
result:**

= 1

— Why?. Because in Microsoft’s standard Windows Calculator —
latest Windows 7 — the **mod** operator has the same status as the above mentioned MsWORKS,
Borland Pascal, General Mathematics, basic deduced division algorithm.

AND WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO
UNDERLINE FURTHER IN OPEN OFFICE Swedish Version Here THE STRANGEST OF ALL **mathematics** CALCULUS PROGRAMMING FEATURE:

OPEN OFFICE ¦ MICROSOFT EXCEL:

Heltal( 0.99) ¦
= 0 INT( 0.99) =
0 ¦ **correct**

Heltal(-0.99) ¦ = -1 INT(-0.99)
= -1 ¦ **incorrect**

ONLY PERSONNEL THAT
is occupied by DO NOT CARE MUCH
ABOUT ELSE THAN PROFIT CAN DO THAT. Say. Do correct. No serious scientific.
Intelligence is still OK. Problem is: **low on moral**.

— » Please Refill. Follow Instructions .. ».

No PHYSICS — AND MATHEMATICS — DEVELOPS
ON SUCH PROGRAMMING SKILLS- RESULTS.

(It smells rotting brains all over the
place ..).

The reason why Microsoft — apparently after MsWORKS ¦ after
Windows 95 — did lose its nerve and fell into other inducements, is not known
here, except for the apparent possibility of leaving the company to less
educated.

**correctly
related mathematics**
— for developing physics purposes in explicit:

Heltal(±0.99) ¦ = 0 INT(±0.99)
= 0

The **INT** integer operator takes the integer part of the argument

— an: **makes no operation or modification on
the argument, **

**♦ independent of sign = direction**.

IN 2008 MICROSOFT EXCLUDED ALL USE OF MsWORKS — WINDOWS
VISTA — AFTER AN UNANNOUNCED UPDATE, WHICH THE COMPANY REFUSED TO HELP REMOVE
SO THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO USE MsWORKS SPREAD SHEET PROGRAM.

Microsoft blocked further use. An abrupt interference in and
a direct attack on our work.

— See also **The Microsoft LIST**. The great interest 2008+ from
Microsoft to educate humanity.

NuklidTab4A2023.ods TableA From NuklidTab4.wks 2008 — finally solved for OpenOffice and Microsoft EXCEL

**So .. what has
all this to do with presenting details in nuclear physics? Explain.**

THIS WAS THE BOTTLENECK WE COULD NOT SOLVE BEFORE — in
translating the excellent MsWORKS NuklidTab4.wks to a corresponding OpenOffice
— and Microsoft Excel — spread sheet code:

**The MsWORKScalc
original — during the actual work around 2008:**

SwedishVersion

REST((AVRUNDA((nHe+1)/4;0)-1);2)

English:

REST((ROUND ((nHe+1)/4;0)-1);2)

Namely for the case where nHe becomes = –2;

See BaseGroupMassNumbers:

**— if not
properly handled according to the deduced mathematics**

the division algorithm **—1mod2 = —1** which Microsoft removed from use
2008 and replaced as exemplified above with a +**1**, then also apparently adopted by other
(OpenOffice) impressed programmers —

**the overall
result crashes (like the ”Error41” in the movie PayCheck, Ben Affleck 2003:
perfect machine — blocked from use).**

*The solution .. finally:*

SOLUTION IN OPEN OFFICE (English)
— *as tested and verified*:

IF(nHe<0 ; nHe ; Rest(nHe;2))

.. a separate context breaching type of explaing atomic
physics language ..

*Explain ..*

PART OF the WHOLE INTENTION BEHIND THE DEDUCED
NUCLEAR/ATOMIC PHYSICS WAS TO USE ONLY WHOLE NUMBERS — PROVING THAT ATOMIC
MASSES THROUGH THE NEUTRON SQUARE INDEED CAN BE DEDUCED LIKE A RAIL YARD WITH
POINTS AND SWITCHES DELIMITING NUMBERS OF ALLOWED CARTS, VACANCIES, WHEN AND
HOW TO SWITCH FROM ONE PART TO ANOTHER, BASED ON THE ADVISED NEUTRON SQUARE
BASIC GEOMETRY AND ITS INHERITED ELLIPTIC/wave EQUATIONS.

Now detailed in BaseGroupMassNumbers.

Type (the *Division
Algorithm* deduced *mod*
operator: A mod B = subtract
B from A until **rest** is <B:

— **if A<0 and B>0 the operation is
locked on rest = A<0**)

Rest(-A;2) = -A

-A **mod**
2 = -A

THE APPENDING WINDOWS 7 OPERATING SYSTEM CALCULATOR HAS A **mod** OPERATOR:

• it works
perfectly the same as the concordant division algorithm,

• but not in
Microsoft EXCEL —

• and not its
imitating OpenOfficeCalc.

**a STRICT
NUMERICAL solution in OpenOfficeCalc looks like this (**detailed
ex: MproblemSolved**):**

INT(√1+nHe/|nHe|) → +nHe = **0** ¦ –nHe = **1**

THE SQUARE ROOT OPERATOR ALWAYS TAKES THE SQUARE DIAGONAL,

AND THE INTEGER OF THE SQUARE DIAGONAL IS ALWAYS THE SQUARE SIDE
1

INTEGER(ROOT(1+nHe/ABS(nHe))

[HELTAL (ROT
(1+nHe/ABS(nHe))]
→ +nHe = **0**
¦ –nHe = **1**

(1 –
[HELTAL (ROT
(1+nHe/ABS(nHe))])
→ +nHe = **1**
¦ –nHe = **0**

MsWORKS — Borland’sDelphi

Rest(nHe;2)

=

continue ..

SWEDISH REFLECTED — steady growing
interest in preserving biodiversity and caring for universal animal rights: It
is such a joy;

**Tala om att
stänga vägen för mänsklighetens naturliga naturvetenskapliga utveckling: **

**• För ändamålet och tillfället: **Att få
bedriva affärer** ****— som tillvarons
allra högsta ***enda***
mål **

**• av DRIFT. Inte plan. Inte avsiktligt. **

— Enbart genom ett girighetsfall. Egobegär. Dess euforiska
domäner leder sinnet in på vägar som täcker för allt annat.

**Mänskligheten
får inte tillgång till Resurserna — copyrightägda juridiskt köpta kärringar
skyddar hela verksamheten: lag. Den mänskliga historiens i särklass värsta
huggsexa.**

— H. Ugga:

**— Vad har du för
utbildning?**

**— The foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.**

— DE BLIR SKITFÖRBANNADE. **NÄR** DERAS VÄRDERINGSLUSTA AVTÄCKS
FÖR DEN SKITIGA AVGRUND DEN ÄR, UPPRESER SIG PÖBELN OCH KRÄVER KORSFÄSTELSE.

**— I sinnlig bemärkelse.** Inte ett enda vettigt ord. **Inget människorättsligt
igenkännande**. Inte ett pip. Tvärt om. Hugg och slag, lydnad
och bestraffning. Ingen utbildning.

— OCH MAN UNDRAR: VILKEN
SKITAKTIGHET ÄR DET EGENTLIGEN SOM STÅR ALLRA HÖGST?

— Är det att avliva en obekväm, rent fysiskt? Eller är det att
häva ur sig sådana elakheter mot offret, rent verbalt, att offret begår
självmord —— enbart för att slippa vidare se utseendet på kräket?

**Inte ett ord MänniskoRätt. Inte ett pip.** ”.. varje individ och varje organ i samhället ..”.
Befolkningen undanhålls kunskaperna.

Det är inget fel på intelligensen. Problemet: låg moralisk
nivå: Lydnad och bestraffning. Ingen utbildning. Ingen undervisning.

Urlåg ordning — allt avgörs genom flest
gillapoäng. Ingen resonerande, relaterande, beskrivande och förklarande
förmåga. Lydnad och bestraffning.

[HELTAL(ROT
(1+nHe/ABS(nHe))] *nHe + (1 – [HELTAL(ROT
(1+nHe/ABS(nHe))])*Rest(nHe;2)

MicrosoftEXCEL — OpenOfficeCALC.

IF(nHe<0 ; nHe ; Rest(nHe;2))

MicrosoftEXCEL — OpenOfficeCALC.

— Microsoft — after MsWORKS 2008 — is definitely not
mathematically educated. No way. But, please: do disclaim: show examples.

— Breaking, Hacking, Chopping.

— ”Restart your computer, or we will do it for you”. Free
open jurisdictional certified experimentation enterprise on humanity mind
manipulation and decision.

NuklidTab4A2023.ods TableA From NuklidTab4.wks 2008 — finally solved for OpenOffice and Microsoft EXCEL

ALL STABLE ISOTOPES UP TO ATOMIC NUMBER 27 — **max
mass number 60** —
the NeutronSquare horizontal square side
scale

The population is stranded on a culture where it is only
allowed to use 1% of the brains capacity ..

**Microsoft
Enterprise alternative **(C++)**
HighIQ solutions?**

Who in this universe would understand a
STRUCTURE of

IF A>B AND C .. while K AND **not**
D in .. where IF L=E AND ..

**instead of**
THE MUCH MORE VIEWABLE AND GRASPABLE TYPE

λ =
INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**03***–*1] *–* [Z0/**03***–*1])/2]*
........................................ *Zλ *= .. *,5**1**,4**1**,3**1**,20,10,00,–10,–20, ..

*–*(**abs**[Z0/**01***–*1] *–* [Z0/**01***–*1])/2]*
........................................ *Zζ *= .. *,5**1**,4**1**,3**1**,2**1**,1**1**,00,–10,–20, ..

γ10 = INT[1*–*(**abs**[Z0/**10***–*1] *–* [Z0/**10***–*1])/2]* ......................................... *Zγ = .. ,11**1**,10**1**,90,80, .. ,20,10,00,
..

Meaning:

— A regular rail-yard system with (many
trains, ranks, of) whole numbers and defined flipping and flopping relays has
(supreme) a more explaining overviewing power than any other (here) known
method.

See all the details in

*Related physics meets
established physics on atomic nuclear presentations*

HIGHEST SCORED MASS DEFECT CONTEST

THE PREFERENCES ARE SWITCHED *true*
**1432*** against untrue* **3241** unless a more thorough explanation exists:

— What we know: atomic mass and its properties cannot be
described solely from the point of view of nuclear properties. The electron
mass must be included.

HIGHEST SCORED MASS DEFECT — COMPARING ATOMIC WITH NUCLEAR: ATOMIC IS THE CLEAR WINNER

— The Table1 exerpt below
compares mass defect values in electron masses (1*me =* 0.511 MeV) between

*atomic mass defect
m*D(*atomic*) = (1 – U/*Am _{n}*)/

*nuclear mass** **defect m*D(*nuclear*) = (*Am _{n}* –

U = *m*(ATOM*experimentallyMeasured*)/*u*(*m*[6C12/12]=1.66033 t27
KG) ¦ HOP1967 ¦ BerkeleyNational 2003 ¦ Nist/Codata 2005

*A* mass number

Z atomic number — nuclear charge, atom’s electron mass charge

*m _{n}* = 1.0086652000

*m _{e}* = 0.0005485982

*v* = *m _{n}* –

*m*D(*atomic*) = (1 – U/*Am** _{n}*)/

**apparently **COMPARING NUCLEAR**
completely unknown in modern corridors**

Never18: HIGHESTmD

Never @18

**Highest mass
defect atoms — **COMPARING
ESTABLISHED AND RELATED ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS

18Sep2023 — enhanced and more detailed version from Nov2007
— exact values depends on chosen constants

NuklidTab4B2023.ods Table1

**The difference:
Nuclear mass defect **(*Am _{n}*
–

THE ATOMIC MASS DEFECT SOLUTION
IN NEUTRON SQUARE HAS ONLY ONE BASIC EllipticTrigonometricHyperbolic
form: *m*D = 6 + (1/5)√
60² — (60 — [ *A–***K**]²)/**E** see NSsolutions

*Compare The rZ
results from Atomic Nucleus in related physics: *

♦ *atomic/nuclear
mass and nuclear radius have no space metric connection to nuclear charge — *

*neutron basics: the neutron decays to an atom; the
neutron has no (significant) nuclear charge. *

♦ **mass** — gravitation — **and charge **— heat and light, electricity and magnetism —** does not connect**.

COMPARE The Related Physics Deduction of The Electric Charge Q
—— no direct mass connection: Q² =
(m/R)(A/dT); Q²/m = A/RdT; **m** = Q²RdT/A = mA/RdT × RdT/A = **m**. No light E=hf connection.

**♦ light does not connect
kinetics** [Light’s
Liberty Clause].

*See explaining details in Proton Radius and Atomic
Nucleus.*

**U** = *m*(*atom — from
mass spectroscopic experimental measures*)/*u — *

*older (1960+) ”***atomic weight***”, present (2023) ”***relative
atomic mass***”.
*

In UniverseHistory: just **U** you [ = Real **Weighable** Mass/**u**].

*u* = 1.66033
t27 KG (*the Dalton unit*), = *m*(**6C12**)/12
— *different sources in different epochs have different u.*

COMPARE WIKIPEDIA, (Atomic mass):

” At the peak of binding energy, nickel-62 is the most tightly bound nucleus (per nucleon), followed by iron-58 and iron-56.[19]”,

WIKIPEDIA
*Nuclear binding energy curve* (19Sep2023)

The present science community is not aware of any other
preference than the already present established:

— ”*Atomic* mass defect” is
not a scientific community established term — no such article in Wikipedia.

———————————————

ORIGINAL Nov2007: IronTOP ¦ ComparingMAC ¦ Formula ¦ Atomic
Nucleus — Jul2023¦ ProtonRADIUS

CompHmD: HIGHESTmD

*Further comparing examples and
sections*

COMPARE *again *THE
CONCEPTUAL DESCRIPTION on *atomic* mass defect, the table above:

IRON **26Fe56**_{17.759} is the strongest built atom that needed the
highest working energy waste to build, correspondingly the hardest most
energetically demanding atom to restore on its original bricks, followed by
Nickel **28Ni62**_{17.748}, **28Ni60**_{17.744} and again Iron **26Fe58**_{17.738}.

The population is apparently a
related victim of a too meager developed terminology in atomic and nuclear
physics. We
find the exact same order of business in comparing from the more regular
equations

**atomic** (*Am*N – U)/*A*

**nuclear** (*Am*N – U – *Zv*)/*A*

NuklidTab4C2023.ods TabellB A1+

Introducing ”*Z*” transfers
values to *nuclear* mass defects — A LOWER ORDER OF STRONGEST *most
wasted mass energy work on its building* BINDING ATOMIC ENERGY.

Iron it is.

See also (Sw) the *Odd and Even Nuclide Groups* —
ending on IRON (from zero *neutron
quote*, related), the (CAP) reason why all primary celestial bodies develop
an iron core center.

See also further in

FAMQ ¦ FIBAPO ¦ DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR ¦ Clarifying the U equation

unless already familiar — related.

:

Introducing ”*Z*” in the calculations only
decreases the maximum *atomic* strength.

— »Well .. I give a shit about atomic. I’m just interested in nuclear».

*Further exemplifying the
different concepts*

THE COMPARING NUCLEAR
— DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR

The comparing nuclear diagrams
examples (internally calculated comparing
values from experimentally measured atomic masses) further underlines
the hazard and adventure in — *generalizing and favoring* — the idea and
concept of ”*nuclear binding energy*”:

(FIBAPO): Unaware of the Neutron
Square solutions,
it was impossible to foresee any a coming conflict. Humanity was so involved in
the industrial progress from the technical revolution. And it just evolved and
grew. The wealth of the world ..

As developed during the 1900s,
present (2023) academic quarters still uses a concept of type ”binding energy
potential to the number of nucleons” (HOPweizQuote1967 below) as connected to
our complex describing ”**a good approximation to the true masses**”.

**’good
approximation to true masses’**

That is the whole story point in this presentation:
the accurateness in presenting the (2003) discovered NS natural neutral atomic
mass quantities. And the tools, the theories and their difficulties (compared) involved
to reach a related explanation.

*The present scientific
community*

The ’binding energy per nucleon’
concept relates to the classic modern academic idea of the atomic nucleus as
enveloping freely inner (spinning) existent neutrons and protons. As commonly
termed *nucleons*, these relates to a The present established explanation
of the atomic nucleus and its physics.

The terminology ”Binding energy per nucleon” (*Wikipedia,
Atomic mass¦Nuclear binding energy¦Nuclear binding energy curve*, Sep2023) is
also the present (2023) only apparent (*freely available*) concept in our
highly beloved Earth science community when discussing and presenting
associated *atomic* mass subjects on a theoretical (calculable) basis.

*In the atomic mass defect preference, table above *HIGHEST*m*D,

” At the peak of binding energy, nickel-62 is the most tightly bound nucleus (per nucleon), followed by iron-58 and iron-56.[19]”,

WIKIPEDIA *Nuclear binding
energy curve* (19Sep2023)

— The present science community is not aware of any other
preference than the already present established.

— You know, the one type »We know everything»-standard. MustBuyBook.

”.. most tightly bound nucleus ..”

— »When we have removed all the *Zv*
electrons from the atom, the most tight bound atomic nucleus is ..».

— There is no atomic nuclear physics understandable relatable reason in the statement.

Never18 IN RELATED ATOMIC NUCLEAR PHYSICS:

the leading maximum atomic tight
binding energy top is reserved for iron-56 followed by
nickel-62 and nickel-60: In concern of a general presentation of an
Atomic species and its property, other preferences than an Atomic one will
cause confusion. Nuclear binding energy always exposes a lower quantitative
value.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR
¦ Clarifying the U equation

— THE »Take» in modern corridors is
understandable — **other** top rated atomic individuals — WHERE academic theory
lacks terminology:

” The page ”**Atomic mass defect**” does not exist”.

Wikipedia 9Oct2023.

A search on ”mass defect” on the other hand is redirected in
Wikipedia to the article on

**Nuclear binding energy**.

nuclear mass defect

**atomic mass defect** MD*a =* *Am*N – U ¦ U = *m*ATOM/*u*
¦ *u = m*(6C12)/6 = 1 Dalton

**nuclear mass
defect** MD*n =* *Am*N
– U – *Zv* ¦ *v =*
*nino =* *m*N – (*m*P + *me*) = *m*N – *m*1H1 (=
0.00084*u*)

MD*n *– *Zv* = MD*a* MD*n* = MD*a* + *Zv*.

*v*: the work mass energy waste that built
the first atom — 1H1 Hydrogen — from the fundamental atom: The Neutron [ FAMQ
]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR (binding energy, mass defect) can
apparently not be clearly explained and related without understanding the
concept of atomic mass defect (Clarifying the U
equation):

The choice of »explaining everything by
**nuclear** preferences» is the only one available
in established corridors. With the introduction of the Neutron Square paragon solutions (NSsolutions) in related
physics (TNED),
the present scientific idea is (partly, or perhaps completely) overrun: no direct
comparing is possible (other than: two different property domains).

———————————————

HIGHESTmD ¦ Comp ¦ ComparingNuclear

ComparingNuclear: **Comp** — Compiled 9Oct2023 ¦ **Difference
between atomic and nuclear** — illustrated on experimentally measured
values

In modern standard academic quarters — atomic and nuclear
physics — there is only one single basic preference: experimentation.

Neutron Square Solutions has no such. It is a PLATE: neutral atomic mass defect
values for comparison. No electric or magnetic experimentation details or other
involved — other than the computer (Windows 3.1, Paintbrush) on which the
discovery was made (2003) in studying the (HOP1967) atomic mass tables.
The reader might himself lure out the rest, as also this author is an equal
standard tourist on the page.

PURPOSE (NSsolutions):

COMPARING ATOMIC MASS DETERMINATION

*Main Weizäcker liquid drop
model equation — nuclear mass defect type*

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 15.75*A*
– 0.711000*Z*^{2}*A*^{–1/3} – 17.8*A*^{2/3}
– 23.7(*A* – 2*Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 11.18*A*^{–1/2} + *Zv* ¦ WeizCalifornia 2023 NSdeDIA13

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14.00*A*
– 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3} – 14.0*A*^{2/3}
– 84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} adjust. ¦ HOP1967
NSdeDIA10

*General attitude:*

ANY COMPARING CONTEST

between **nuclear** mass defect and atomic mass defect
on any quest of precise ATOMIC masses

WILL BE OUT OF THE QUESTION

*Statement:*

*On observation of established
claims connecting atomic mass to nuclear binding energy*

———————————————————————————————————

There is no available cosmic way,
path, or other known universal opening to calculate a *precision* atomic
mass from *nuclear* mass defect — No way.

Oct2023:

But it seems like the scientific community is claiming exactly that, unless we here in UH are victims of even worse misunderstandings.

*— This author would be happy
if that also had been explained from the beginning*.

—
Well then, *NeutronSquare Solutions* suggests —
in clarifying the issue:

♦ Let us compare: Weiz1:1967¦1975 — Weiz2: WeizCalifornia2023
— Weiz3 *u=m(6C12)/12*
¦ CONOR.

NSdeDIA5: CoNu ¦ DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR

INTERNAL EXPERIMENTAL MEASURED VALUES WITH
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATOMIC AND NUCLEAR

NuklidTab4C2023.ods Tabell1 Col. V W X BM

*Proof:*

WEIZSÄCKER EQUATION DETAILS AND
PARAMETRIC CONSTANTS SOURCES:

HOP 1967
— HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U.
Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967, section 9, p.9—8
— HOPweizQuote

The Swedish FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 s125sp2n

GENERAL ATOMIC MASSES DATA — concurrent [ except marginal on
last decimals on later measures ]

HOP1967 BerkeleyNATIONAL2003 NIST/CoDATA2005+

NSdeDIA8: — THE 1967 ¦ 1975 COMPARING WEIZSÄCKER VERSION — NSde5

— See the present Wikipedia ¦ California University Weizsäcker
versions in WeCALu

*Revisting*

FIRST (2003+) OBSERVED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
EXPERIMENTAL AND TNED-ACADEMIC(MAC)

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1 Col. F G O

———————————————

Neutron Square Solutions — NSsolutions ¦ **The
Atomic Nucleus** ¦ THE DIAGRAM DIFFERENCES — NSdeDIA9 ¦ THE here used WEIZÄCKER EQUATION
PROGRAM — WeizPRO

1. The *precision* aspect (N) is already occupied by *Neutron Square solutions*
— directly beginning from the neutron (Neutron Square
Fundamentals — BasicCHART ¦ FIBAPO).

2. The established claims *connecting atomic mass with nuclear binding energy*
uses the (foremost) so called *semi-empirical mass formula* (WIKIPEDIA,
15Oct2023 — WikiWEIZ) — most known as the
Weizsäcker liquid drop model atomic nuclear equation. As so recognized
(WikiWEIZ quote):

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A* – 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3}
– 14*A*^{2/3}
– 84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} ¦ HOP1967 *example*

” The semi-empirical mass formula therefore provides a good fit to heavier nuclei, and a poor fit to very
light nuclei, especially ^{4}He.”,

WIKIPEDIA,
Semi-empirical mass formula (as quoted 15Oct2023).

*The poor part is visually obvious
as further clarified below in* NSdeDIA9.
But the ”good fit” part — where is it *except on the intersecting regions *@6Carbon12
*and *@10Neon20¦21¦22? Wikipedia (15Oct2023) gives no quantitative
example.

*However further ahead here, we
will come back to that*.

NSdeDIA9: The NSdeDIA8 comparing DIFFERENCES: — THE 1967 ¦ 1975 COMPARING WEIZSÄCKER VERSION

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1 Col. AO AP AQ

A possible lead (»* .. they
don’t know it ..*»):

See Wikipedia quote in **Not
represented** — **Clarifying the U
equation****.**

— They *the general scientific
community apparently* don’t know It.

Say it: THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG — Further [» .. they don’t
know it .. »] Clarifying Examples will follow.

NSdeDIA10: **The
Weizäcker PROGRAM** — THE 1967 ¦ 1975 COMPARING WEIZSÄCKER VERSION

the parameters — different sources — vary depending on application
— and epoch —

here assumed [ as proven ] not really deviating much from the
presented:

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = *Zv+* 14*A* – 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3} – 14*A*^{2/3} – 84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} ¦ HOP1967

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1 Col.O

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A* – 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3}
– 14*A*^{2/3}
– 84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} ¦ HOP1967

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A*
– 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3} – 14*A*^{2/3} –
84.2(*A* – 2*Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 33.5*A*^{–3/4} ¦ FM 1975 ¦ *N–Z=A–Z–Z=A–2Z*

MeV → *m*(ATOM): *e*(MeV)T6/*c*_{0}^{2}
;

MeV → U = *m*ATOM/*u*(Dalton):

MeV → U: *e*(MeV)T6/*c*_{0}^{2}*u*
¦ U = *m*ATOM/*u* ¦ 1*u* = *m*(6C12)/12 = 1.66033 t27
KG

———————————————

HOPweizQuote1967 ¦ WeizsäckerCALC ¦ WeizsäckerEquationDETAILS ¦ WeizäckerEVENoddCriteria — the Q15 solution

WhatZv: **Zv**

What’sUp?

— The thing is this:

**atomic****
mass defect** MD*a =* *Am*N – U ¦ U = *m*ATOM/*u*
¦ *u = m*(6C12)/6 = 1 Dalton

**nuclear****
mass defect** MD*n =* *Am*N
– U – *Zv* ¦ *v =*
*nino =* *m*N – (*m*P + *me*) = *m*N – *m*1H1 (=
0.00084*u*)

The (HOP1967) Weizsäcker »*nuclear
binding enery»*

”binding energy potential to the number of nucleons” equation

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A* – 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3}
– 14*A*^{2/3}
– 84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} ¦ HOP1967

is apparently — related — of the
type *nuclear mass defect* (nuclear binding energy).

♦ But NSdeDIA10 lower right of the illustration

• the Weizsäcker equation formula as such has no inside referring
»–*Zv*»

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1 Col.O — Weizsäcker ATOMIC-mD HasA+Nino=Zv ¦ Col. AN — Weizsäcker NUCLEAR-mD HasNoNino=Zv

so that the end station exhibits this building:

**the experimental
nuclear matches the Weizsäcker atomic on its **+ **1**Zv

or/and

**the experimental
atomic matches the Weizsäcker atomic on its
**+ **2**Zv

*right below*:

♦ The HOP1967 ¦ FM1975 Weizsäcker equation formula as such has no
inside referring **term** »–*Zv* **I am A Nuclear concept**» or
factor:explicitly declaring it is a *nuclear mass defect* expression.: it
lies *below* the experimental nuclear MD*a =* *Am*N – U.

**For it to reach
the experimental nuclear for comparison, an extra additional **+Zv**
must be added:**

NSdeDIA11: NSdeDIA10

** Comparing results on** THE 1967 ¦ 1975 COMPARING WEIZSÄCKER VERSION

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A*
– 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3} – 14*A*^{2/3} –
84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} + 1Z*v*
¦ nuclear-atomic
HOP1967

So: In »fixing a most close
match» between the two agents, the Weizsäcker form must either add one *Zv* to its original to reach
the experimental NUCLEAR level — right part above:

— »*ExperimentalNuclearMatchesWeizsäckerAtomic*»;

Or add *one extra* *Zv*, in all 2*Zv*, to reach the fairly
good matching experimental ATOMIC level:

— »*ExperimentalAtomicMatchesWeizsäckerDoubleNuclear*»,
right below:

NSdeDIA12: NSdeDIA11

** **

** Comparing results on** THE 1967 ¦ 1975 COMPARING WEIZSÄCKER VERSION

HOPweizXP.ods Tabell1

B(*Z,N *¦ MeV) = 14*A*
– 0.61*Z*(*Z–*1)*A*^{–1/3} – 14*A*^{2/3} –
84.2(*A*/2 – *Z*)^{2}/*A* ±¦0: 34.0*A*^{–3/4} + 2Z*v*
¦ atomic-DoubleNuclear

Besides these minor points:

♦ The Weizsäcker general solution is a horrible nightmare for the first light atoms — always outside the vertical scale.

*• The basic idea (charged liquid drop model) apparently does not
apply at all to the atomic nucleus as a corresponding fair model. Not even
close to* (FIBAPO).

Or as already stated (*ComparingNuclear*
— proof continued):

There is no available cosmic way, path, or other
known universal opening to calculate *precision* atomic mass from *nuclear*
mass defect — No way.