Electric theory??

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 8:11 pm
Real name:

Electric theory??

Post by ebeuerle » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:54 pm

I came across this on Wired. I read through quite a few articles and thought maybe you all would be interested in it. This is definitely for those who have open minds.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697, ... _tophead_4
http://www.thunderbolts.info/

-Eddie B.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:17 pm

I have always held that charge and gravity are on equal footing and are the stuff of the universe which is all working off potential energy exchanges between the two.

I am looking at the URL's you supplied closely in the Baconian tradition.

For my money, anything that claims to do away with the need for dark energy and dark matter is a step in a right direction. That direction is towards the blade on ockhams razor.

I am stunned that scientists refuse to allow for electric charge on a comet. All such bodies are basically isotropic capacities in the insulating medium of space. They can certainly acquire and hold charge relative to other bodies regardless of their temperature or even shape. Solar wind charging and even dust particle charge transfer are all viable charging systems for maruading balls of anything! The only thing chargeless in the universe is a lone, stationary piece of inert matter that is recently discharged relative to its environs which will not be in motion or have any medium in motion past it. Those are just not found in space. Such objects could remain charged for millenia if un molested in space once charged.

Charging is a bipolar deal and isotropic capacities are charged relative to something at some time.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 8:11 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by ebeuerle » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:34 pm

Richard,
I agree with you-as a amateur scientist this theory definitely has some problems but overall it seems to solve some of the issues in physics that I have had a hard time swallowing.
I would be interested to hear other opinions on it as well as yours once you finish digesting the links:)
-Eddie B.

JosephBlow
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:45 am
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by JosephBlow » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:52 am

Hi Edward,

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/welcome.html

The Hungarian Prof. Dr. Lazlo is certainly farther ahead than anyone I know. He's already indicating that the great star quake is an Electric Universe Event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4278005.stm

Peace.

Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:52 am

I find it curious that the idea of the electric sun mimics the atom, in that the proposal is for a positively charged core wirh negative outer layers.
My theoretical particle physics knowledge is very limited, but I was reading up about fundamental particles recently.
It does seem astonishing that the charge on electron and proton should so precisely balance. This must be to do with the way they were originally formed, and perhaps also why neutrons apparently dissociate to proton and electron.
Why the neutron should be stable in the nucleus but not outside must be an important clue.
Another thing that struck me about the book on particles I was reading, was that much of the early work has come from cloud-chamber observations in "atom smashing" type experiments.
It got me wondering whether some of the exotic particles might actually be formed from the energy involved rather than being shown passively as constituents. It's another form of Heisenberg I suppose.
Could it be that a simpler form of some of the atomic processes is also there for the explaning?
All these complex families of coloured quarks etc. don't seem to tie in with the simplicity of other natural systems.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:25 pm

Andy speaks as I have spoken for years, and much of the electric universe site is devoted to simpliying nature around natural bulk electric goings on.

I have long championed the feeling that even mesons are non-atomic in nature much less quarks, gluons and the rest of the zoo. Amoung the most rediculous concepts is the virtual photon. Which is a dream particle and is right in there with mother goose and the spirit world.

We create conditions in massive accelerators outside those found over the bulk of the current universe and temperatures created in these microscopic events herald the matter involved in them back to a distant time in the universe, where mesons were the only matter to be found and more cataclysmic events in accelerators see back farther still. However, none of these observed particles are part of the matter that we know, but, instead, represent a microscopic instant of time in a microscopic part of space which shows matter as it once was.

Once free of the reaction zone, temps grow far too cold and the matter morphs back within microseconds and picoseconds into any number of stable entities. Most often these are just wisps of energy, protons, or electrons. But only the stuff that is stable now remains within microseconds of these events. We are not seeing the guts of matter, That will never be seen. We are, instead, looking at ancient stable forms of matter in a far less kinder and gentler universe.

Only in the rareset of stellar events can such near creation event energy densitiies be reached OR right here on earth by sucking megawatts of power from the grid and focusing it to a point of atomic dimensions.

We were never looking inside matter, We were looking back in time at what matter was for but an instant of geologic time. There are no real clues to be found here, only long dead corpses resurrected along perfectly natural lines, but fleetingly so. Their moment is past, as nature has no such stock and trade, energy dense sources remaining outside of man's medling hands and inquisitive mind. Only the nearest relative of matter as we know it, mesons, appear now in infrequent events where even nature still has some energy concentrating skills left.

It is pretty much a totally stable, electron, proton, neutron, charge based, gravimetric universe now.

Each successive generation of matter will have longer lifespans as things cool off more. What we see as forces today will disappear one by one as the potential energy is expended with no return. Already submerged are the forces of the strong and weak forces, fading from view. What is next?

Matter may devolve into a pure neutronic soup and charge will slowly subordinate to be as visible as are the strong and weak forces now, leaving only gravity to collect all of the bound and forceless materials of the universe in a cold bleak future.

Evolution is in fact a devolution; a dissapational process. The universe started with nothing but potetnial energy which could interchange and exchange regularly creating what we see as a dynamic universe (always an illusion), but active nonetheless. As the potential energy sources slowly submerge into an exchangless lock down, gravity, the last surviving force in nature will have no job or meaning.

The gravitational and electric exchanges will go on for countless billions of years more, to be sure, but the end is the same. Nuclear reactions in gravity driven systems giving way to nothing more than chemical reactions with the ever weakly bound electrons. A final gravity crush of matter to neutrons as their formation absorbs the last little bit of charge energy in the universe to interact with gravity. The neutron itself may devolve into a totally stable, inseperable, truly forever, neutral particle with no components possible or observable. Gravity proof matter.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Goldenspark
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:20 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:13 pm

What is exciting for the fusion side of this is that there seem to be clues emerging that suggest the standard model is plain wrong. All the experiments that prove nuclear transmutations are occuring in high atomic number nucleii just don't match the mainstream model, yet they happen (according to numerous verified claims).
We have pointers like renewed cold fusion results, plasma discharges etc. Fusors just do the fusion in the more traditional way, but we must be missing something.
It seems a bit like the caveman freezing in his cave because he hasn't yet learned how to ignite a fire.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:56 pm

There is plenty of new science out there. Most of it, I fear was just side stepped in a modern era rush to develop the easy to see stuff. Unusual reports of paladium anomolies and reactions after taking up hydrogen go back to the 1910-1920 era. Pons and Fleishman quote several papers from the period.

We took some wrong turns, It think, in the 20's and 30's and the stuff is now so codified and woven into the fabric of daily science, it will be hard as hell to backstep, though it will certainly have to be done in time. Science is very flexible if beat over the head long enough with empirical evidence. They do like for it to be easy to replicate and observe like the discovery of x-rays or radioactivity. Most of the easy stuff has already been swept out of the carpet though and all we know and believe derived from it.

Interestingly, and in keeping with my thoughts in my post immediately prior to this, we could be seeing a disappearing fusion process or a new one coming onto the scene! With CF's wishy-washy nature, we may be seeing a distant dawn of a new process or the last whimpers of an old one fading out. We may exist in too small a time slice in the grand scheme of things to make use of it one way or another. CF could be an intriguing spoiler. (Just musing on fusion's doorstep)

There might be indicators which direction the process is moving. If my brain were to hazard a guess I would say it is birthing as a new method of locking down charged matter and ending the existence and reign of the strong and weak forces as a ponderable entity. (devolution by evolution) Still, we gotta' be talking billions of years here. In our time slice it will certainly be little more than a bizarre amusement.....a condradictory spoiler.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

JosephBlow
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:45 am
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by JosephBlow » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:27 pm

I've been fascinated by the extraordinary and how physics might explain it. Here's another old observation that requires a different model - sonoluminescence
------------------------------------------
http://www.acoustics.org/press/140th/camara.htm

Cavitation--the formation of bubbles in a liquid and
their motion--is one of the most striking examples of
energy focusing in nature. When the pressure in a
liquid is quickly lowered, small gas bubbles will
spontaneously form and oscillate wildly. Such an
abrupt pressure reduction can be generated by the
Bernoulli effect--in which an increase of velocity in
a fluid particle reduces the pressure on it. This can
happen, for example, when water races around a ship.
The resulting cavitation--that is, the resulting
motion of the gas bubbles inside the liquid--can often
damage the mechanical parts, such as the ship's
propellers. If the low pressure is achieved with
sufficient strength the bubbles are known to emit
short bursts of ultraviolet light. When triggered by
sound waves the phenomena is known as sonoluminescence
(or "SL").

Sonoluminescence is the conversion of sound into
light. Aiming sound waves at a water tank can create
bubbles which implode to create bursts of light. These
flashes of light represent as much as a trillion-fold
concentration of the initial sound energy. As we will
see, sonoluminescence can also be generated with
medical ultrasound devices. Such as the ones used for
ultrasound-based liposuction in which an ultrasound
probe liquefies fat cells. Therefore, sonoluminescence
can provide insights into how this form of liposuction
works, and potentially be exploited to improve this
surgical technique and/or lead to new medical
applications.


We have observed the motion of clouds of cavitating
bubbles generated in water by imposing sound fields at
27 kHz, 1 megahertz (MHz) and 11 MHz. Bubbles are
generated in much the same way as in the discovery of
SL in the 1930's, that is with mechanical devices
pumping their energy right into the water. To probe
the bubbles a very short but intense flash of laser
light is used to strobe the cloud. The transmitted
light is viewed through a microscope. By repeatedly
strobing the bubbles we can see how their size
distributions change in time.

We have found that the size of the hot spot from which
the light is emitted ranges from less than a micron
(millionth of a meter) at 27 kHz, to under about 10
nanometers (billionths of a meter) at 11MHz. While the
27-kHz sound waves produce flashes lasting under about
100 picoseconds (trillionths of a second), we have
been unable to measure the flash duration at 11 MHz,
but we suspect that it will be significantly shorter;
perhaps sonoluminescence with very high-frequency
sound waves will be an alternate route to producing
ultrafast physical phenomena. We find it exciting that
SL can be seen in regions with the nanometer size
scale which approaches atomic dimensions.

Perhaps SL will provide a new angle on atomic physics,
a domain where quantum theory is thought to be
dominant. Bubbles respond to the sound by performing
strongly "nonlinear" oscillations, in which the
frequency of oscillations is not necessarily
proportional to the sound frequencies used to generate
those oscillations. During each cycle of sound they
first undergo a slow steady growth, increasing in
volume by at least 1000 times. This expansion sets the
bubble up to undergo a runaway implosion where its
volume can shrink around a factor of a million.

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1655
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:08 am

A neutron can not be a proton and an electron. The Uncertainty Principle says that if you were to confine an electron to a distance equal to the diameter of a neutron, the energy would be higher than the rest mass of the neutron so it can not be so. There are also a couple other reasons that a neutron can not be an electron and a proton but you get the idea! Anyways,

Neutrons have no charge.

Neutron stars are made up of neutrons.

Neutron stars have strong magnetic fields.

Neutron stars rotate rapidly and emit radio waves.

Radio waves are produced by acellerating charges.

Magnetic fields are produced from moving charges.

Neutron stars are made up of neutrons. Where do the charges come from if only neutrons are present and there are no electrons or protons inside of a neutron?

I make this post only to show how little is really known about things smaller than a bread box.

Frank S.

Post Reply