" The Farnsworth Effect"

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Post Reply
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

" The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Starfire »

Where do these fast Neutrons get this great Energy? Can it be that a Quantum point has been created at the centre of the working Farnsworth device and there is an energy exchange or transformation of the fundamental particles to produce new virgin particles, or are the Neutrons influenced by some forces we have not yet detected? If we stick to conventional physics, ( uncharged Neutrons are not susceptible to Electrostatic or Electromagnetic component forces ) then, are the Neutrons on free ride into the point ( on the back of brother ionic protons ) with the injection mass velocity such, that the ejected Neutrons ( now stripped of the protons ) retain the injection mass velocity on egress from the point., either way I like to think of this mechanism as the " Farnsworth Effect"
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Richard Hull »

In conventional hot fusion high energy physics, the neutron energies seen from a fusor,(2.45mev), are observed to occur in D-D fusion processes regardless of the methodolgy used in fusing them. Fusor, accelerator, collider, targeted system, etc., it makes no difference how or where you get the deuterons to fuse, it is regularly observed to produce neutrons of this energy. The neutrons are kinetically accelerated and not electrically accelerated, taking their energy from the violence of the exothermic event. Thus, the Farnsworth effect is no effect at all....in this case....the effect is expected.

Once you start smashing deuterons together at high energy, you are in the hot fusion world. This is a 70 or more year old study and as such, is well observed, well documented, and ostensibly well understood territory. Not much room for new names or effects here.

All the stuff left a' flyin' after any D-D fusion is nasty stuff.... from high energy nuclei to radioactive debris and neutrons. The only stuff that gets out of the reactor vessel in normal operation are the neutrons. These are the items used to prove and gauge fusion external to the device.

Remember in the neutronic reaction you discuss, there is also a fleet footed He3 nucleus hauling freight away from this event too. (About 0.82mev) We tend to lose sight of this in the neutron chauvanism of the event. So, we see that the He3 nucleus and the neutron's kinetic energy total to the sum of the expected fusion energy released....~3.3mev.

Finally, only about half the fusions in any D-D fusion system are He3 + neutron events! The other half of them are T + P events. More grist for the fusion mill.

All of this info is contained in a great nuke fuels posting in the early days, (Jan 18 98), of the old songs board by Scott Stephens and can be looked up and printed out in its entire 7 page glory.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by grrr6 »

I'll give you a chance to go back and explain yourself more as i really have no idea what you are talking about. Where the neutrons get energy from-fusion, isnt that what this thing is all about? Quantum point? whats that?
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Starfire »

Fair enough Richard, But exothermic events usually refer to Chemical/Physical phenomena ( super atomic ) and does classical thermodynamics really apply to sub atomic events? - what is the nature of this ' heat'. - I always think of kinetically accelerated as a kick in the butt - but again what is the nature of the kicking force at this level? - if not electrical

PS. I will go read the board :)
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Starfire »

Greg - the neutrons aqquire energy which they did not have prior to the event - ( mass x accelleration ) I question the source of this, as neutrons are not susposed to be influenced by electrical forces ( being neutral ). Heat in the normal sense (Thermodynamics ) is considered to be molecular vibration, but this concept can not be applied to sub atomics What is heat at sub atomic levels? and what is the nature of the force which is imparted to the Neutrons from such an event as fusion. As Richard says, it is a kinetic force -- but to apply kinetic's { mass x accelleration } requires electrical coupling forces. -- is the atomic binding energy also electrical for Neutrons? the deuteron coupling?
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by grrr6 »

The source of the energy is that when the D and the D fuse to He3 and N, the binding energy of the products is greater than the reactants, so the extra energy shows up as the kinetic energy of the nuclei. The reason the neutron carries most of the energy is that momentum must be conserved, so since its lighter, to have the same momentum as the He3 it must travel much faster, therefore its energy is higher since KE is proportional to velocity squared.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Richard Hull »

The binding force that Greg talks about is the supposed "strong force" within the nucleus. This is a mime of or exact equal of the "mass defect" in atoms. All this assumes you accept the strong force as real and not a close range alteration in electrostatic forces or a sub-quantum (fractional) level nuclear electron orbital as yet un-appreciated. Regardless of what one believes, the binding forces in the nucleus appear to exceed the normal repulsive electrostatic forces attempting to repell the protons.

Science knew classic electrostatic forces at normal ranges well. They knew the classic electron orbital radii from quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is not a reality based physical model! It is a mathematical structure based on observed phenomena. It is forced to make absurd assumptions which allow the math to work and not generate too many infinities. The biggest absurdity is it demands a point source electron which is allowed zero extent in physical space but all sorts of other real physical characteristics (spin, magnetic moment, charge, etc.). We know this to not be the case in real life, but the math works out and actually is predictive to a degree, but not totally in that it fails to predict certain characteristics of a few elements. We must remember always that mathematics can be used to describe reality, but it can't give a single clue as to what the reality is in a physicial sense.

So, using what they knew about electrostatics and observed electron orbit radii and the further assumption that in the nucleus, the neutron IS NOT a combination of a proton and an electron in some non-allowed, fractional quantum level orbit, the powers that be DREAMED up a new force, the strong force. It was given just the amount of force needed to equal the "mass defect" in assembled atoms, thereby easily overpowering classical electrostatic forces, but not masking or nulling them out.

The "mass defect" is that mass error found in observed nuclear mass versus the raw particle count summed mass in an atom. If you take an atom, any atom, and sum the masses of the protons and neutrons the total will be less than that of the atom studied.

SO..............here we have a situation where the strong force is a force and has mass at the same time!! Quite a big problem in the physical sense.

When an atom is tortured by high energy mayhem all manner of particles fly out. Still having to balance the equations, the masses of real nuclear particles protons, neutrons and electrons and their kinetic energy never ever equal the equivalent mass-energy of the remnants. Fermi dreamed up the invisible, intrinsically massless and uncharged neutrino in 1934 to account for the loss in the mass defect. Again, convenient physics on demand. The nobel prize for the discovery of the neutrino went in the mid fifties to some one. Yet so sure were we of its existence after the prize was given that to this day we still are looking for them. Ephemeral little suckers, aren't they. They make no tracks in any detector and their momentum has yet to move a particle by direct observation. However the powers that be can point to a few instances amoung countless millions in the super kamikande when two distant observed events among millions are stated to be linked by this little guy.

So we have a lot of dreamed up matter and forces that can't be measured or seen directly (extra-nuclear). Nuclear electrons emitted regularly where the neutron is NOT an orbiting electron and proton in a special case. Free neutrons observed to decay into a proton and an electron and the list goes on and on of magic particles within particles that have just the right stuff to make what we see. Yet no one has really seen these particles in any chamber, only secondary and tertiary reactions supposedly linked by them.

In short, we know absolutely for sure all that we think we know. What we observe can easily be explained by things we can't see or measure based on the need to conserve energy momentum, the advancement of knowledge and the status quo.

I am postive that I have a lot of negativity about what I am told I should believe. I am a physical being, living in a physical world willing to make physical observations. I believe what I see or can be shown to be real. I accept that there are things that are un-knowable, un-measureable and imperceptable. We can discuss them and hypothesize regarding them, but they must never be admitted to the physical understanding regardless of how compelling they appear.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by grrr6 »

Since when is the strong force related to the binding energy of nucleons? The strong force was dreamed up to explain just how the nucleus holds itself together. The weak force is really an entirely seperate entity, but is still nuclear range.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Richard Hull »

OOps! Forgot about the weak force. My error. Just too many dreamed up forces to keep track of, I guess. I wonder what they'll call the force related to the next descrepency they trip over.

Sorry. I couldn't resist the flippancy.

I realize that in the 20's and 30's it was attempted to link electrostatics to nuclear forces, but the classic electrostatic forces would have to alter at short range. Something scientists didn't like. The poor neutron just could not be an electrostatically linked lilliputian hydrogen atom after its discovery in 1932 because the quantum theory was just too well developed to allow sub-quantum levels in electron orbitals. All this in spite of physical observation of neutron decay! This is the true absurdity. Instead force after force was needed in the nuclear theory to hold the nucleus together and make it stick and control its activities. Easier to dream up new forces than to re-examine well crafted theory or let simple observation of neutron decay sway the quantum juggernaut.

The problem of internal nuclear neutron decay led to Fermi's beta decay theory and the neutrino in 1934. The 60's and 70's quark dreamland led to the solution of external neutron decay problem when we discovered the neutron was just a gang o' quarks that upon decay DEVOLVED into a proton and an electron and the neutrino. Neat and slick packaging all wrapped up with a bow. Th' math works and all is self-consistent and a nice place to hang our nuclear hats....for th' moment. It works well of course because it was crafted to work well based on real observation, some new forces of unknown pinpoint origin, and a lot of new particles that were created to plug th' dike. These new particles could, indeed, have fractional charge. Accepted easily....'cause they were new....didn't step on any toes.......But fractional quantum levels?....NOOOOOOOO way man......... far too much scientific inertia and too many trained folks in th' biz.

The logical retort is that we have never observed 1/n levels. (n being the Quantum whole numbers.) Comeback....Was it even considered? AND...How hard did we look? Did we stop at normal, natural hydrogen? Some interesting work might come from a simple look see with an open mind at the neutron. The free neutron is unstable. So, if fractional Q states exist and the neutron is a lilliputian H atom then these sub quantum states are unstable. This, telling why they are not commonly observed in nature in stable systems. If the neutron is a sub quantized H atom, what in the star does this? (neutrons are naturally formed only in stars).

How much thought is given these issues? If given, is the uphill battle against convention so great that no one needing to earn a living in the field dare spend time or energy on this issue? Just how truly FREE is modern scientific thinking? Could you get time on a large tevatron proposing such counterbary ideas? Would you dare ask if in a position to do so? You don't scrabble your way from undergrad to Phd to suddenly fight against the old boys club you just joined. It's one thing to question new stuff done by ones peers, it is quite another to try and pull the building blocks out from under 6 Nobel prizes and the work of two generations of luminaries in the field. You gotta ask yourself would you be throwing yourself on the rocks?

Food for thought.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Starfire »

Wow - I love healthy Scepticism Richard - all valid. - There was me thinking you had an elegant way of saying, " I just don't know! " :) But thank you for the discourse, we will debate this again.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Richard Hull »

Debate, logic, and reason, followed by weighing and consideration is the age old process of natural philosophy which became science when further adjudicated and studied against hard physical evidence, the result of empirical experiment.

In a recent issue of Common Sense Science, I quote a statement of the editors that is just perfect.

********************************

"Validation by the scientific method"

"The Scientific method applies principles and logic and consistent relationships between data and models to validate theory and models. It gives no credence to bias, opinion or endorsement. It is blind to the eloquence, boldness, number of adherents and financial support behind a position. These false criteria cannot establish the truth or credibility of any scientific theory. It matters little to truth whether an endoresement comes from a lay person or a professional with an academic degree.

The real scientific evaluation of a model or theory must depend on consistency with empirical data, from common experiences and laboratory experiments."

**************************************

Question authority not just to be questioning it, but when considered thought about issues authority dictates either doesn't ring true, don't follow common sense or common experience or when you might see another path authority might not have seen.

It really doesn't matter who is correct.....Only what is the final truth, what is physically real, believable and follows the observed facts.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by grrr6 »

As far as I know the weak force was invented to describe quark transformation in some nuclear decays. Now, Richard, since you dont believe in quarks, then the weak force really is even more screwey that the strong force.
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Starfire »

Beautiful ! This deep one, I will treasure
jla
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 11:41 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by jla »

Pardon me folks, but, what's the potential effect of string theory on this? Strong, weak and gravitational forces. Couldn't scale variance in behavior -via additional dementions,of the right size- replace both nuclear forces with...gravity alone?
Brett
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:25 pm
Real name:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Brett »

All we can really demand of theories is that they correctly predict the outcome of experiments. That's something quantum mechanics does pretty well, and no other theory accomplishes. Everything beyond that is convenience and taste.

IMO, we shouldn't expect theories concerning the interior of the atom to be particularly intuitive. They concern matters we have no first hand experience with to form our intuitions.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by Richard Hull »

For John. I have absolutely no doubt that string theory and the choice of dimensions could be made to unify, justify, or do just about anything desired with enough tortuous machinations.

As regard Brett's statement regaring having no reason to expect intuitive processes to extend into the atom or nucleus.... I agree! I can also state that we have absolutely no reason to assume bizarre or non-intuitive processes to be the case either.

Basically if you can't see it, and examine it in detail, theories will forever remain just theories. This is why I like to bring my thoughts or reason and logic regarding the very small to a rather complete stop at protons and electrons. I will allow myself to muse no further than the possible methods of their linking and functioning within the nucleus.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
jlheidecker
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:11 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: " The Farnsworth Effect"

Post by jlheidecker »

I believe the source of neutron energy can be followed back through
conservation of momentum. Reacting particles (D2) has a lot of
momentum at fusion.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”