Beta Decay!!??

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
servant
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 12:52 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by servant »

Richard

Reading the paper posted by Darius on the Pulsar thread:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/tech ... aper30.pdf

listed on page 3:

1.) the recent analysis of mobility and spectroscopy data of individual electrons in liquid helium which shows direct experimental confirmation that electrons may have fractional principal quantum energy levels [6],

Set me to wondering if Electron "ground state" was only a very stable level on the way to the true ground state which is the Neutron. Maybe the 1/n states are all steps in a condensation that terminates with the electron tunneling into the proton. What if all of the "subatomic particles" are really just "photons" ejected during transitions between the 1/n states?

Your hypothesis:

"I hold that the first fusion is P+E = N" and "Here the electron can approach and have stable locked states with protons right up to the 'rope limit' of cancelization/distruction of charge which the universe resists with ever greater force, the closer the proton and electron stacking. "

raises some intreaguing questions.

Is an electron or a pair involved?

is a second electron an enabler or catalyst?

what happens to a diatomic molecule when one of the partners becomes neutral?

How is electron balance or distribution maintained?

is "hot" fusion just an an inefficient way of accomplishing this


The fact that these spectral lines are actually observed suggests that the states exist in a random distribution of natural energy levels. This may justify attempts to develop the Deuterium crystal generator for the Pulsar.

Phil

ps We live just across the river from Jefferson Lab in Gloucester. A friend of ours is one of the principal researchers at CEBAF, Bryon Anderson from Kent State. Have you run into him?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull »

My Contact at CEBAF retired. He was the great designer/chief engineer that brought the whole rig up from ground zero. He designed the niobium super conducting cavity resonators and brought one to one of our meetings back in the mid ninties.

His name was Jock Fugitt. He was a delightful fellow with a ton of memories of many accelerators that he had assembled world wide. He would come to many of our old Teslathons and bring a mass of images and slides of his long career showing massive stuff we just drooled over. His one hour talks went way over due to a myriad of questions.

Your thoughts on the electron-proton union are all valid and the answers are probably not truly knowable as we have no window into this world. Photonic emissions at sub quantum levels of electron decay ought to be detectable by some means. I'm not poo-pooing the thought, I just have my doubts. The wavelength of such jumps would be ultra-short due to the subatomic distances.

Black light power is Mills operation and his hydrino theory looked good to me, but his work has not brought forth wheelwork which is readily usable or definable. His hypothesis about 1/n quantum states is really appealing, intellectually.

What most folks don't realize is that at subquantum levels, you are going against the anti-electrostatic nature of the universe.

Opposite charges attract and in the simplest state neutralize at normal energies as the hydrogen atom. From this point, energy must be added to the system as you are now fighting for the destruction of charge....LITERALLY! This is a big, universal no-no. Lock points in this battle, if extant, to my way of thinking, should all be naturally unstable. All such lock points would store energy in the form of anti-electrostatic charge cancellation energy of repulsion. This would be far more energy per unit lock point than would be imagined on the simple extension of the quantized orbit ,(1/n), theory of Mills. Mills work is, as I view it, an attempt at a sub-molecular chemistry. It may be valid. I am in no position to do more that weigh and consider, internally, being limited to my level of thought and knowldge.

It just seems naturally apparent that once the H atom is reached, energy must be added to crush the electron orbitals. And, by extension, that if there are lock points, energy is stored in the resultant combination. This is where the orbital theory at 1/n breaks down, for by all orbital theory, one expects that lower orbital falls release energy. This is where Mills claims to be getting energy from by catalyzing such sub-qunatum states.

It is here where I feel mills is wrong. He is looking for free energy in reduced orbitals. I am saying the opposite. Huge amount of energy must be applied to the P-E pair and that such lock points as are found in this effort store huge amounts of energy. So much so that the neutrons in the atoms and the manner in which they are forged and interlinked in larger aggregate nuclei ARE THE SOURCE of all nuclear energy. In all nuclear energy releases THERE ARE NO LOSES AT ANY TIME OF PARTICULATE MATTER OR CHARGES. NO CHARGED MATTER IS EVER CONVERTED TO ENERGY. EVER..... Only stored energy of of anti-charge destruction compression energy is released.

There appears to be two stasis or lock points in the electrostatic domain. At normal temps and pressures up to about a hundred thousand degrees kelvin this would be the neutral hydrogen atom for the proton and electron. At the energy level found in a nucleus the neutral stasis point that is totally stable in a P-E union is the neutron. If the nucleus is the classic plum pudding model of 1910 of only protons and electrons, then there might be far more intense unions of P-E combos within the nucleus based on a very complex stacking. Such a model would relegate the neutron to being a rare but viable neutral nuclear condensate. A form of very long lived neutral meson

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
Post Reply

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