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".
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet » Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:50 am

Richard, that kind of gets back to the question of entropy. Exothermic fusion happens because the products of the fusion reaction require less energy to contain themselves than the origional matter. Of course you need to get nuclei close enough for them to realize they can rearange themselve. But, if the universe was once a single point then why didn't it just rearange itself in the lowest energy scheme to begin with and get it over with? If it had, the universe would have been still born, and we wouldn't even need to discuss the second law of thermodynamics.

Carter

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12513
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:25 pm

Frank did a great job of showing how little is known about the neutron and about matter in general.

In all fusions only the neutron has more mass that its constituent parts. This is most interesting.

In all other atomic systems, the fusional resultant mass is always less and is forced to contain neutrons. Also interesting.

next issue

I do not believe the universe formed from or within a point.

There was only potetial energy at the outset. No light, no heat and no magnetism.(all secondary effects and not primordial).

The point that all original energy was potential is easily understood. What often elludes the causual observer is that it was in a few different forms, all mutually exclusive, and not co-interactive or derived of the same source or linkable to a primal source. These characteristics caused the great, apparent, but illusive, dynamicism we observe in the universe.

Each whacko, cross purpose potential energy system attempts to neutralize itself to the lowest potential energy (axiomatic).

Fotunately for the universe, in each form of potential energy's attempt to neutralize and hide out forever, another non-interactive potential energy is constantly being dragged out of retirement on its path to neutrality and lowest potential energy. The bulk of that which we commonly observe now is the battle between coulombic potential energy and gravitational potential energy. This gives us all the light, magnetism, electromagnetism, heat and motion seen in the universe today. All of this activity can be traced to some stupid ole potential energy system trying to neutralize itself. I have posted ad nauseum on this over these many years and posts.

Nature is a lot better designed than we would think and it is all just potential energy doing dynamic things. There is no form of true dynamic energy inherent anywhere in the entire universe. All dynamicism is cross purposed, potential energy exchange related.

I have posted on the horrors and delights of this situation.

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.

longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:59 pm

I'd like to know how you know all that. I can think of initial conditions where there is only potential energy in various forms and nothing happens at all. Maybe the quantum wierdness saves all equilibrium scenarios; I don't know. But, how the universe got to be dynamic, and how that dynamisism evolves over time, is still a huge question.

Carter

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12513
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:33 pm

I have posted on all this over the last year or two. It is all pretty straight forward.

No one can show me a source of natural dynamicism that can't be traced to a potential energy source trying to neutralize or snuff itself out. Likewise, no one can point to a potential energy source that has a dynamic origin which can be shown in real life and time.

The material (matter based) potential energies are the givens and the dynamicisms are the resultants of potential energy exchanges. Again, no chicken or the egg here. Light, photons magnetism, and pondermotive action are all secondary effects evloved from potential energy exchanges. None of them create or seed potential energies beyond the natural transfer of their own energies to matter (pondermotive). All of them add to the dynamic mix however and this all makes what we see move about and illuminate.

We do not see light, magnetism, or motion, creating NET charge increase or gravity. We only see charged matter in motion via coulombic reactions creating light and magnetism and matter exhuding its natural potential energy, gravity.

The whole system is a vast harmonic oscillator that itself throws out new dynamic energy forms to keep the mechasnism form damping out quickly. All these secondary forms are doomed to be re-absorbed, but have the advantage, especially in the case of pondermotive actions and light of transvering and transmitting these potential energies released at one location where the potential exchanges occur, over vast regions stirring stagnant, dead matter to roam about to become entangled in gravitational fields or be riped appart electrostatically in stellar furnaces starting the potential energy cycle anew for that one piece of matter and those sets of forces. All of this dynamicism was due to some long forgotten potential energy neutralization process all the way across the galaxy or universe.

Now, nearly buried are the nuclear potential energies, barely poking their heads up in only the most fearsome DYNAMIC reactions of the universe.

**note** I consider the nuclear potential energies, (strong force and weak forces), as seconadry form of potential energy much like magnetism, having been fabricated solely in fusion reactions. If one accepts a hydrogen or proton-electron creation universe as a given then there were no strong or weak forces.....They were yet to be created.

Only gravity and the coulombic forces remain active on our scale today and are readily usable. In the case of nuclear forces we have to spend a little extra to get a lot in the form of fission energy release which is the ideal release of nuclear potential energies, having had a star do all the hard work, orginially.

Fusion is a "makers art". It takes a lot of seed energy to get a modrate to decent amount of extra energy back.

Fission fuel is rare in the universe. Thus, fission is easy as the bloated matter is ripe for dismantling with the release of hundreds of times the energy produced per unit reaction in fusion. We don't observe fission reactions anywhere in the astrophysical universe, though they surely are happening. Fission, throughout the universe, in spite of its hundred fold gain over fission, is as easy to detect as a mouse farting in downtown Manhattan during rush hour.

Fusion fuel makes up the bulk of the observable universe and is nearly impossible to do by the hand of man to his advantage. Only gravity seems to make it really kick off provided it can sequester several hundred quadrillion quintillion tons of fuel. Even then, the reaction is crappy and more akin to a putt-putt boat in a bath tube on a volumetric basis. Good thing too, or it would all be over in a flash. We see only fusion energy in the active universe.

The beauty of stars is not in fusion itself, or the assembly of bulk, complex matter, but in the re-animation of the coulombic processes by separating and expelling naked charged matter back out into the cosmos. It is more akin to a refinery breaking up complexes and spiting out pure product.

Then there is all that light and magnetism produced at such a prodigious rate. Even so, the universe is intrinsically pitch dark over the entire photonic spectrum. Still, with billions of galaxies and quintillions of stars, charged, reanimated, columbically active matter moves throughout the universe. When viewed in the LOCAL volumetric sense, their net gravity is zero. They are merely naked free charges ready to do coulombic things again.

Our perception is that of a dynamic universe, but it is all potential energy driven. This is a stunning revelation and makes the whole thing more imaginative, stunning and amazing.

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.

User avatar
Paul_Schatzkin
Site Admin
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 4:49 pm
Real name: aka The Perfesser
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Paul_Schatzkin » Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:24 pm

Andy Goldney writes: "It does seem astonishing that the charge on electron and proton should so precisely balance. "

Do they really? What source of evidence can you site to support that assertion?

I ask because, as many of you know, I've been researching the work of Townsend Brown, and the essence of the (so-called) Biefeld-Brown Effect is that there is in fact a disaparity in postive and negative charges. In Brown's experiments -- even if it's NOT an "electro-gravitic" effect -- the negative moves toward the positive more than the positive moves toward the negative.

Seems to me that the relative mass of protons -v- electrons also needs to be taken into account. Protons have a lot more mass than electrons, no? So, does it not seem curious at least that their charge would be equal, or nearly so?

I hope I'm not revealing my ignorance asking such a questions, but this is the all part and parcel of what I've been trying to understand lately.

Thanks,

--PS
Paul Schatzkin, aka "The Perfesser" – Founder and Host of Fusor.net
Author of The Boy Who Invented Television - http://farnovision.com/book.html
"Fusion is not 20 years in the future; it is 50 years in the past and we missed it."

longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:02 pm

Basically it breaks all of newton's laws?

I have researched and conducted this experiment and my conclusion is that it is all ionic motion. Nothing wierd as far as I found. And really inneficient form of motion at that.

Todd Massure
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Todd Massure » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:05 pm

I don't know about that Paul.... considering the number of atoms all around us which are paired up one proton for every electron, it seems like there would be quite a cumulative charge.
Unless there is actually a surplus of one or the other to make up for this, but I think that would have been observed.
I wonder if some of these strange observations me be because the electron dwells more in the quantum world than does the proton?

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark » Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:08 pm

I have 1.60217653 x 10^-19 C for both proton and electron, that seems to be pretty much identical.
As I understand it the charge on the proton is down to the quark composition, but the electron is a fundamental particle that cannot be decomposed to anything smaller. It therefore seems very strange that the charge on the electron should be exactly some multiple of quark charge without apparently being composed of them.

Todd Massure
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Todd Massure » Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:12 am

Quoting from:

http://www.school-for-champions.com/sci ... atomic.htm

Quarks

Another group of sub-atomic particles are the Quarks. Just like their name, they exhibit unusual characteristics. The fundamental particles among the Quarks are:

* Up and Down Quarks
* Charm, Strange, Top and Bottom Quarks

Other particles are made up of combination of Quarks.
Up and Down Quarks

The Up Quark has an electrical charge of (+2/3). The Down Quark has an electrical charge of (-1/3).
Proton

The Proton is made up of two Up Quarks and one Down Quark. The electrical charge of the proton is then: (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+1).
Neutron

The Neutron is made up of one Up Quark and two Down Quarks. The resulting electrical charge of the Neutron is: (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = (0).

According to this site an electron is a lepton not a quark and as Andy said is still considered to be a fundamental particle. I'm not saying this really answers anything - just a little background info.

-Todd

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

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Goldenspark » Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:53 pm

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about the standard model is that it seems to be so complicated.
All these flavours and colours of quarks etc. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't all this interesting stuff emerging about supposedly impossible nuclear interactions (e.g. carbon water arcs forming iron).
That's why I was just wondering if all these weird and wonderful particles are perhaps functions of the way in which they are being searched for.
I do accept that I am pretty ignorant in all this, but the idea of simple, beautiful nature seems to have gone out of the window when it comes to particle physics.
There are several things that make me uncomfortable;
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the fact that quarks do not exist outside the nucleus are but two.

Post Reply