The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Has anyone in mind any form of energy that can be demonstrated that is not tracable back to fusion energy? That is, stellar byproduct potential or dynamic!

As I have mentioned before, the dynamic energy (EM radiation) is just a local link (planetary) for activation, on the macro scale, of bulk matter. However the bulk of the EM radiation from stars is NOT absorbed locally and is sort of a differed energy used to re-energize inter-stellar and inter-galactic gases by recocking the coulombic PE guns of the condensed matter (knocking off orbital electrons). Light quanta that is too weak to ionize can still set in motion hydrogen molecules or change extant motion. (mixing and stirring). So as light has its energy robbed and frequency dropped, it just goes back into potential energy in the form of coulombic separation of charges to kinematic energy via momentum transfers. These all play back into the hands of the gravitational PE looking to assemble large stellar engines.

All the above is relatively obvious when one considers that there is virtually zero gamma radiation in cosmic rays. All those stellar generated X-rays and gamma rays have be stepped down. All we see is about 96-98% of the cosmic being real fast protons with the remainder being almost entirely helium nuclei.

Back to the original query..........

Imagine.... I give a brick PE by picking it up off the ground and carrying it upstairs to act as a poor man's book end. It, having ponderable inertial mass, has been elevated in a G field. The energy to do this came from me, via my food, via photosynthesis, via solar radiation, via fusion which is only possible by the great PE of gravity.

U-238 naturally self fissions or can be made to fission faster with fast neutron bombardment. Again we are just unlocking the PE from the U atoms that were fused into the large atom at athe time of its creation in a solar furnace or supernova potent enough to fuse such atoms. Still it was fusion that allowed fission to occur. We just pulled the trigger of the cocked gun.

Gravity and coulombic force the great universal sources of all energy we see and need for survival and comprhending our own existence. All of this is POTENTIAL ENERGY continuously and unavoidably dancing to the simplest of basic laws. Dyanmic energy in the form of EM photonic radiation and kinematic motion of ponderable masses are the result of the interplay of these two radically different PE forms. The only great, closed loop, virtual perpetual motion machine in existance.

CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?

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
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

quantum strings, gravity, probably some other alternate matter states left over from the big bang.

All of the above are capable of imparting energy, and have little to do with stellar fusion.

Gravity I'm listing just because no one has a halfway proveable theory for how it works (much less exists). For all we know its a by-product of leakage from another dimension, with the density / mass of an object in space causing the seepage.

Or maybe, just maybe... somewhere in the universe.. a galactic game of advanced d&d is being played.. and someone just cast +3 heavy on the universe.

(mtrusty, at work)
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Gravity IS stellar fusion. Fusion occurs on the sun for no other reason. Strings have never ever been demonstrated or used in a practical implementation or workable engine.

Gravity is PE and not dynamic energy just as the Coulombic force is PE and not dynamic energy All dynamic energy is created by these to potential energy forces.

String theory is just a mathematical musing without absolute, unequivocal, linkages to reality.

The whole point of my post was that there is only two forms of real nascent energy in the universe and they are both static and potential in nature.

All of the energy we use on earth is traceable to gravitational (fusion energy) or Coulombic (electrical) reactions.

There is no nascent dynamic energy in the universe.

All action, reaction and interaction are due to two grossly diverent and unrelated static potential energy forms.

Ricahrd 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
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Frank Sanns »

And the answer is:

Quantum fluctuations. Matter from seemingly nothingness.

Now that is the energy to harness!

Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Richard Hull wrote:
> Gravity IS stellar fusion. Fusion occurs on the sun for no other reason. Strings have never ever been demonstrated or used in a practical implementation or workable engine.
>

Unless your eyesite is significantly greater than mine, you cannot prove that the universe itself is even a closed system. You've dismissed quantum strings because they are unobservable, yet you presume that the universe is a closed system without any energy passing either into or out of it.

My primative understanding is that for the universe to be a closed system, there has to be an equal amount of anti-matter/energy lurking around somewhere to balance the system out. If so, where is it? Why does it unobservability render it worthy of presumed existance but quantum strings do not?

You missed my original point. The mechanics of gravity are total unknowns. Great, current physics likes to pretend its PE. What of it? Your trying to convince yourself to be narrowminded. Electrons we have a fairly solid grasp on the function of. To me, this is in the same class as pulling the trigger on a pistol and expecting it to eject a pretty brass case each time. We might understand that it produced a brass casing (but eventually wont), but sure as hell have missed the actual point behind the handgun.

Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself in thinking we should be figuring out how something works, before deciding it and a brother are the exclusive types.
Verp
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 3:27 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Verp »

The cosmos might be a corner of an infinite universe and came about by the quantum fluctuations in that said infinite universe because in an infinite universe, anything is possible, but quantum fluctuations as an energy source are too reminiscent of past ideas for perpetual motion machines. I would be delighted if someone proved me wrong, but I’m not going to risk large sums of money in less I get some more solid evidence quantum fluctuations are a viable energy source.
Rod
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Energy out of the void is an equal to zero point energy is equal to imagined, unobserved occurances.

Reason, logic, observation and experiment can only carry us so far. This is a given. Good realistic science should end there. Thanks to active imaginations and complex machinations, however this logical limit is merely the jumping off point for the new priesthood and the self-annointed to cast the bones for the mere mechanistically limited and tell us how it really is.

Beyond the demonstrable there is only speculation and dreamland.

We cannot observe everything in the universe no matter how much we think we have seen it all.

Only a few short years ago the big bang, energy- mass balance discrpencies and continual smooth expanding universe were virtual givens. The Bondi-Hoyle continuous creation universe of the 50's was a sad joke that was all but a memory.

We make a few more new and wonderful "observations" and now the universe is accelerating outward for no reason. We got it wrong before and we probably still have it wrong on the universal scale. We haven't got a clue as we are too busy troweling over cracks in bad plaster.

Nothing has disproved the laws of thermodynamics or of simple balancing of energy in and out in real comprehensible experiments. I'll stick with these good tools before I would go off on the new track of quantum strings, flavored and charmed quarks, etc.

Gravity is a well studied and calculable force as is the coulombic force. We know just as much about the inner workings of nascent charge as we know about the core issues involved with gravity. (close to zero) We ASSUME we know much more about charge and coulombic forces only because we can use them in wheelwork daily. Actually, we use gravity in about the same way (sling shotting spacecraft, predicting orbits, etc.) It is just that the individual is not seemingly using gravitational devices daily when actually he is. Gravity is really much simpler that charge interactions as it only works one way in common experience.

The electrodynamic wheel spinning for hundreds of years has still not given even the remotest links to gravity and electrodynamics.

In frustration, someone, not wanting to say the emporer has no clothes, thought up a quantum string approach even more tenuous, but just as likely as mother goose being the cause of gravity or free energy outpouring into a universe SEEMINGLY OUT OF BALANCE.

Like good little dutchboys, the egg heads scurry about like busy bees to plug the dike with each new observed discrepency in an already too complicated patchwork of the theory of everything.

Simple hard observations of critically performed experiments are really all we have as a footing in science.

The basic evidence points to gravity and coulombic forces as the progenitors of magnetism and electromagnetic radiation throughout the universe. No energy in the universe is ever observed to create observable charged bulk matter in the form the components of real substance. (electrons, protons, neutrons.) The Einsteinian energy mass equation as observed is virtually a unidirectional affair. This seems reasonable based again on the failure of nature to take energy and make the basic charged particles of 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
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 theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

Unfortuanately you can't tap that energy, but i think the best answer to the question richard poses at the end of his post is mass. Mass is not traceable back to stellar fusion, and it is a form of energy.
mtrusty
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:18 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by mtrusty »

While I dont agree with the assesment that gravity is as known a entity as electrons (electrons we can observe. We know the basic who and how of electrons, where they occur, and what basic sub-particles compose an electron. None of this can be said of gravity. We understand it in a newtonian sense but nothing else.)


Anyway. I can debunk the matter answer. stellar fusion as we all know produces a variaty of by-products. Helium, oxygen, and most other heavy elements. Most current theory I've read says that the heavier elements making up planets was created in various suns that have since gone nova. To be brief, that mass your referring to was probably made inside a long dead sun. Thats one even I wont contest, there is no other observable mechanism for their creation.. and dating of the avaliable elements shows they aren't nearly old enough to have existed since the start of the galaxy.. much less since beginning of time.
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

mass as a whole though, had to be around before stars coallesced (sp?) because there had to be mass to form stars, plus, you can create mass on earth too, as a way to store energy (antimatter) albeit at crappy practical efficiency levels.
davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell »

Sticky energy. As the primordial "energy" cooled it started to "condense", as the particles grew in mass, then gravity was born. I believe that the understanding of what gravity is, is one of the keys to a unified theory.

David Trimmell
ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski »

Richard Hull wrote:
>
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
> Richard Hull

If, as some theories suggest, [nearly] equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were produced during the big bang, and some of that anti-matter still exists, then you could produce some energy from the annihilation of the matter and anti-matter.

Lots of ifs, and that's the best I could come up with ;-)

Fusion is king. (but only on a large scale)
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

So was the initial energy source of the big bang, fusion?

Let me throw this in. I have been reading a number of studies that suggest tha the speed of light is decreasing. That the universe is a lot smaller and younger than we think. Some have said the speed of light at the instant of the big bang was 1 billion X faster than it is today.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

I think a lot of folks may have a wrong idea about mass creation in stellar furnaces. Real, ponderable, inertial mass is indeed created in all fusion processes, but it is without recognizable form in condensed matter!

So unfathomable is this extra mass that it is commonly referred to as "MASS DEFECT". This is effectively the fusion binding energy trapped in fused matter. It is released only in fission or in cataclyismic events for non-fissile material.

Stellar fusion uses ONLY already extant infallen matter (99.999% protons) to make all heavier atoms and certainly all neutrons are fusion products and, likewise, probably the first fusion in stellar furnaces as not one single observed atom save for hydrogen has ever been observed without neutrons. Neutrons are not found in space or as a component of cosmic rays simply due to the short half life of this highly unstable particle. I have always felt that the reason the neutron is stable in an atom is that it is involved in a complex dance with protons sharing its electron in some as yet to be understood electrostatic dance. In short the neutron bound to one or more protons in some nuclear shell arrangement is the nuclear glue. Such gluing can only occur in gravitationally locked matter systems we call stars. The proton electron soup at the core is probably the birth place of neutrons and bulk matter up to a point on the periodic chart where the star's size will not allow further construction. Iron is the accepted limit, but I bet on a grossly reduced basis the fusion probability goes on up the chain to all that we see on earth. The amount of lead or bismuth produced is so low that our spectra analysis can't detect it.

The accepted and somewhat accredited stellar first fusion theory of proton-proton fusion is a joke. Read up on it! It states that two protons fuse and one of them quickly "DECAYS" into a neutron! What an imagination!

The bottom line is that not one single primary charged particle is ever created in a star, by fusion or any known process. In the few observed instances when positrons and anti-protons are seen to form, it is the result of incredible energy releases AROUND BULK MATTER. That is the key....around bulk matter. We never see positrons or anti- protons in cosmic rays. (we do see them is cosmic ray showers as the real ultra energetic charged nuclei entering the atmosphere crash into the atmospheric atoms.) Such energies are rare in the observable universe.

Man makes devices that can really savage matter in the small. He creates non-universal energy densities and thinks that what pours out represents something current and real. The most real particles observed are the vaporous mesons so readily seen in cosmic ray star showers. The bulk of all the crap reaching the ground are mesonic debris. No meson survives beyond 1usec in the real universe and apparently represents a genuine form of proto matter.

Back to the antiproton-positron conundrum. Within a micro second or less of anti-particle creation, the same amount of charge and energy is rebalanced and the anti-particle disappears with the universe retaining the same amount of protons and electrons as before the event but with a crippled and weakened photon. The normal matter particles involved are now moving much faster than before the incident. Charge, energy, momentum, type and form of matter is fully conserved and preserved.

As great a mystery as that of the origin of nascent charge and gravitation associated with bulk matter is the methodology behind the acceleration of the nuclei found in Cosmic ray flux. (nuclei composes about 99.99% of all cosmic radiation) The average energy of the nuclei we detect (mostly protons) is far greater than any accelerator on earth can provide (10e14ev). The upper energy levels are beyond comprehension (10e24-10e26)ev. It appears that the interstellar medium is stirred and accelerated A LOT!

There is apparently a lot of high speed open, unbound coulombic charge moving about the universe. Neutral matter for the most part, just doesn't move except as gravitationally linked mass.

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 theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

The easiest way to look at the stability of the neutron in the nucleus is that of conservation of energy. Take the deuteron for example. It has a binding energy of 2.2 Mev, while beta decay yields only 1.3 Mev. So the deuteron is infinitely stable, since it would violate conservation of energy if it decayed.

Next example is C12, binding energy of 92.1 MeV, if it beta decayed it would go into N12, which has binding energy of 74 MeV, so beta decay is again prohibited, since 18.1 >> 1.3.

What i don't understand is for radioactive elemnts the undergo beta decay, what determines the half life.
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by 3l »

Hi Greg:

In Quantum Mechanics 509, we learn that the size and charge of the nucleus
determines whether an atom will be radioactive or not and how long the decay is. In elementary chem course we learned that charge imbalance is bad for a nucleus. Too many or too few charges. In the case of the beta decay ,too many neutrons, too few protons. In the advanced course we learned nifty concepts like the nucleus was mostly empty space with charges milling around at high speed. The particles are so small that the energy provided by the enviroment was enough to cause them to move at many km/sec...the lighter the particle the faster it goes. The "skin" of the nucleus is really where the particles are yanked back by attraction. This prevents the escape of those particles.
However if the nucleus is undergoing an imbalance of charge or energy a particle can tunnel out of the nucleus. The probabilty of escape can be calculated to the millisecond if you like by simply taking the depth of the energy well of the nucleus (energy to pull that particle away) vs the energy to form that particle. You would think the little fellow wouldn't have a chance. But by rebounding back and forth against the skin the particle reduces the probabilty by each hit so to speak. The size of a nucleus is pretty tiny so the hits would be several thousand per second.
It takes billions of hits or more to cause a decay. Until the number of hit equals the probality coefficient nothing happens.
But when it does the particle tunnels out of the nucleus and bounds away on it's merry way. Oh yeah most beta decays are fast due to the low mass of the electron...faster movement.
A tip of the hat to Dr Hammidi my advanced nuclear instructor.

PS this method seems to work pretty good on uranium decay natural decay series by alpha decay
It seems to work when a nucleas has too much energy and "boils" away neutrons.(just turn up the heat)
positron decay happens just like beta decay but a proton turns into a neutron

I hope this helps (?)

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Anthony has brought up some interesting points which are vey reasonable questions. Questions for which there appears to be little in the way of evidence. This would opt for an evolving universe with sliding constants which I happen to believe in strongly. I would imagine that in the universe I envision that only potential energy is fixed and inviolate. dynamic energy and all constants we hold dear alter to maintain the PE balance. Dynamic energy (EM, Photon, momentum) being mere secondary reactions acting as conveyance for the exchange and balance of PE.

As regards the big bang.......... this states that all matter was created from an infinitely small point with a virtually infinite amount of energy. I am still working out my thoughts here. I am positive whatever happened evolved exponentially with time as relates to what we call constants and matter particles. I am equally sure that charge and gravity were hear all along, although the relative balance and actions may have evolved to what we observe today, with all the PE perfectly perserved. We are currently on the long slow tail of that exponetial curve where things just aren't changing much per unit time anymore.

As to where the initial creation energy or matter or whatever came from...........you are on your own.....faith-religion..... or just happened kinda' because it did. Your choice.

I have also considered the very real possibility that when the universe as a whole detects a loss of coulombic charge (condensed, neutral, stable matter, that an equal amount of gravitational PE is formed as is actually exhibited in condensed, stable, neutral matter. This helps explain some balancing of the PE, but leaves the mystery still swimming nicely around charge and gravity. We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.

Lots to cogitate over.

Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.

One doesn't hear much of the nuclear shell model today, but once it was a big deal with no congealed theory to advance it. It is found discussed in depth in numerous nuclear physics texts of the 50's and early 60's i.e. "Nuclear Phsics", Kaplan, 1955, Addison-Wesley.

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
davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell »

Richard, all, very interesting stuff. Richard I have a question, though. What about Positron decay? Cu64 decays 19% of the time by Positron emission. The following process is the usual description: proton (+1 charge) => neutron (0 charge) + positron (+1 charge) + neutrino (0 charge).

David Trimmell

Richard wrote:
"Lots to cogitate over.

Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled."
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Ooh Now you got me started!

What about the "Speed of Gravity?" (lots of articles on it lately)

Example: If the sun was snuffed out of existence, would the Earth hurl out orbit and into the universe immediately or would it take 8 minutes for the lack of gravity to reach Earth? (Speed of light reference)

Also, would it be a ripple effect? like plucking a bowling ball off of a waterbed.
davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell »

Well I found a answer to my question regarding Positron decay.
See; http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1259.html

But it would be interesting to understand how this actually happens. Like Pair production...

David Trimmell
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Dave,

The net effect following the decay is that no antimatter is to remain extant in microseconds.

The proton is seen to disappear and the leaves a neutron in the nucleus and a positron a flying. Now before all this happened the universe had a proton in the atom of copper and The extra-nuclear universe had X number of electrons. The instant the positron is free it will turn into a gamma ray after forcing the universe to give up an electron (probably within the copper somewhere).

NOW where there WAS a proton in the copper atom, there is now a neutron SO the atom now still has the proton in it plus the missing universal electron. (neutron is proton and electron). So no protons have disappeared from the pre-decay universe and no electrons have disappeared either. what has effectively happened is the atom did a gamma decay by way of a positron, converting its proton to a neutron. An extranuclear electron just moved into the atom with the proton. Energy is balanced, charge is conserved and particle type is conserved. All is as it was before where PE, charge and particle type is concerned.

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
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

I see Dave posted from the internet the solution. Nonetheless, particle type is even preserved. Something I have never really seen pushed.

Bulk charged matter... positive protons and negative electrons can't just go away from the universe, never to return. We can do a hell of a lot with all that mass defect energy from the original fusion, but we can't just trash those electrons and protons. The mass defect traditionally involves a bit of good old monetum transfer and very conveniently dreamed up uncharged neutrinos of horrendous energy and virtually zippo mass. This way the umpire can wave a "safe" in the game of the standard model without having to show wholecloth.

A look at Rad Decay shows that the probability of positron decay in Cu64 is only moderate. The most likely decays are standard negative Beta and Gamma. Notice that gamma is the tell-tale 511kev of a >1.2mev photon down conversion. Lots o' isotopes and lots o' ways to decay.

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 theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

It would take 8 minutes because it would be impossible for the force to travel at faster than the speed of light. If im not mistaken it has been measured,dont ask me how, to be the speed of light. This is obviously in agreement with the particle exchange model where the graviton mediates the force, and has zero mass, and travels at c.
ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski »

Richard Hull wrote:
> Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.

This brings up the age old question - what is a neutron? I've had it beated into me by every physics text I read that a neutron is not a proton and an electron. They go out of their way to say this. Yet a free neutron decays into a proton and an electron (no doubt why they go out of their way to say that it isn't made up of those two particles, they just magically appear I guess). It was here on the forum that I first heard Richard suggest that is indeed the case, and that it is the electron that holds the neutron together, by binding it to a proton, sort of a mini molecule. (my words, forgive me if I changed the meaning of what you said)

It certainly seems to make sense, based on the emperical data available. It would also suggest that it might be possible to make a neutron, if you could somehow smash an electron and proton together. You'd need a lot of them to play with, and a lot of heat and pressure to get it to happen every so often. Now where oh where might you be able to find those conditions?

Have any serious attempts been made to produce neutrons here on Earth? I would think you'd have dozens of young postdocs chomping at the bit. Sure, it's heresy, but if you're first, you've assured yourself of a phone call from the guys in Stockholm, after the dust settles.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

The making of neutrons would be a fusion event of sorts, but the electron never fuses to the proton.

a fellow by the name of Mills running a company called Black Light Power claims to have a method of producing what he calls hydrinos. These are touted to be hydrogen atoms that have a whole interger sub-quantum orbital.

Quatum mechanics is based on the theory that as an electron falls into a lower orbit it loses energy and radiates photons. All fully observed.

The theory further states that all allowed orbits are described by a whole interger starting from zero. (the lowest observed energy state of the orbital electron.)

Mills proposes that by various processes, the electron can drop to yet lower orbits than found in natural processes. Still obeying quantum jump rules, but with negative whole intergers.

The problem is that we normally see the addition of energy to the normal hydrogen atom only excite the electron to a higher energy state or, at about 14 volts totally remove it.

Mills claims that only the hydrogen atom, with its single electron can do this sub-quantum jumping and then only under special conditions.

He claims to have produced the -1 variety and studied the peculiar behavior of same. One particularly interesting claim is that they just can't be contained in a normal vessel, leaking through the intermolecular bonds, much as helium in a balloon.

The neutron if a form of collapsed hydrogen atom would absolutely have to have energy added to collapse the orbital. This energy appears to be gravitational in nature and not the classical electrostatic energy for it tends to ecite the atom. Neutrons are made in stars, this is obvious. When neutrons decay, they impart a good deal of energy to the proton and electron within and this looks to be a form of gravitational binding energy.

The neutron is obviously very stable in an atom where other protons are huddles real close by almost as if it is acting as a form of nuclear glue. In the extra nuclear world, the neutron is very unstable, the tight orbital electron is just not allowed. It decays.

The question is wide open so far as I am concerned. Science hasn't answered the neutron question so far as I am concerned.

Something happens to compress an electrostatic system like the hydrogen atom into a new form in stars. When done it is ripe for the production of deuterium with the huge amount of protons about it. Fusion......collisional fusion........inertial fusion.... is just a shabby mime of nature's real fusion process, gravitational fusion.

Bottom line..... magnetic lensing, inertial colliding and electrostatic focusing are very poor confinement mechanisms of highly charged particles. Not one single scheme has been see to work at good efficiency. Only one way of doing fusion is observed to work well. The crushing force of gravity works because it doesn't give a damned about charge as it is in no way related to charge or electrodyamnics or electromagnetics. The charged electron and proton soup is hopelessly trapped and must do business regardless of charged state or magnetic field.

Every time man tries to confine the boogers they ooze out of his grip and flow away from the action. This is their job they are forced to do it by simple electrostatic and electrodynamic laws. It is like trying to compress water in the closed palms of two hands...Impossible.

Sneak arounds like pulsing, laser compression, collisional systems, etc seem good, but are woefully inefficient. Magnetic confinement systems are all but abandoned having been the main thrust of the 50-70s. Nothing on the horizon even looks slightly hopeful.

Gravity does fusion.

Get your hands on that through either a lucky punch or understanding the mechanism and you have a shot at it.

See. The neutron is a very strange critter and mostly likely, the first fusion.

I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.

Man just can't make neutrons from pieces-parts.

The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.

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)”