11-08-11, 04:33 PM #421
The mainstream media have missed out on all this.
Whether he turns out to be the saviour of the environment or one of the most audacious con-men in history,
the ride along with him has been fascinating.
And continues to be so.
Andrea Rossi Preparing for Huge E-Cat Company
11-08-11, 04:40 PM #422
11-08-11, 04:46 PM #423
It is literally incredible Mi Ke.
I don't know what to make of it.
11-08-11, 05:17 PM #424
11-08-11, 05:47 PM #425
11-08-11, 06:15 PM #426
11-08-11, 06:39 PM #427
That attractive force must be very very weak as there are a huge number of thermal energy neutron in water moderated reactors colliding with each other every second.
You are saying that the "potential well" is not even "thermal energy deep" as room temperature thermal energy "unbinds them" from their "attraction"!
Surely I am not the first to note this and surely some one has cooled neutrons down to liquid He temperture, with them still not being bound as even that low thermal energy is splitting them apart.
AGAIN: If thermal energy is not "unbinding them" from their mutual attraction force, what is?
I think the answer is clear - the net force between the is NOT attractive, but repulsive.
11-08-11, 06:48 PM #428
11-08-11, 08:08 PM #429
For me, despite "expert opinion," the non-existence of NN, even at a few degrees K, says they are NOT attracted to each other.
Also, although not well informed here, I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles.
Last edited by Billy T; 11-08-11 at 08:16 PM.
11-08-11, 08:25 PM #430
Although, I'll note that your reasoning there doesn't obtain. You're just asserting that the attraction is extremely weak, not that it is a repulsion.
11-08-11, 08:54 PM #431
Helium-6 is the simplest nucleus with a “halo”: two loosely bound neutrons in an orbit around a compact core formed by two protons and two neutrons, also known as an alpha particle.Helium 6
Most Precise Measurement Ever Made Of Helium-6 Charge Radius
The Helium-6 Nucleus
Helium-8 Study Gives Insight Into Nuclear Theory, Neutron Stars
You may need to rethink some aspects of your position, Billy.
Last edited by Trippy; 11-08-11 at 08:59 PM.
11-08-11, 09:18 PM #432
Also worth noting is this:
He-4 is stable.
He-5 which has an unpaired neutron, has a half life of 0.76 zs.
He-6 which has a pair of neutrons in its halo has a half life of 806.7 zs
He-7 which had one pair of neutrons, and an unpaired neutron has a half life of 3 zs.
He-8 which has two pairs of neutrons has a half life of 119 ms.
The fact that the nuclei which contain only complete pairs have half lives that are on the order of twenty orders of magnitudes longer than those that don't says something significant (to me at least).
11-09-11, 05:47 AM #433
Rossi has mentioned having plants or offices in Miami, Boston and Manchester, NH.
Why set up in the US, where Corporate fraud will get you a life sentence?
Better to stay in Spain, or still better, move to Greece, where corporate corruption is a way of life.
11-09-11, 05:50 AM #434
I said: "I think Bose-Einstein condensates properties do not apply to only two particles." Your asked why:
For one particle statistic is meaningless - for two, damn nearly so, I think.
If it is attraction I only point out that it is billions of times less than the strong force alone which does bind NP (deuterium). I suggested a fifth force could exist with very short range, which is "killed" by the presence of near by charge. That is, I think, entirely consistent with all known physics. I.e. would change nothing as in all cases, but NN, charge is "near by."
My idea also has the advantage of explaning why the isolated neutron is unstable (decays into a proton and beta, I think). I.e. the neutron is really three quarks so the forces on a neutron act on these three quarks. If there is a repulsive strong "fifth" force, which slightly over powers the strong (attractive force) when no charge is "nearby," then it too act upon these three quarks, making the isolated from "nearby charge" neutron decay.
Last edited by Billy T; 11-09-11 at 06:55 AM.
11-09-11, 08:25 AM #435
I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other.
They travel thru a low temperature lattice without energy loss, despite it still having some weak phonons, because when a phonon "hits one" the other "pulls" it along as if no collision with a phonon took place. (Or something like that when over simplified.) In normal conductors it is the phonon collisions which which remove energy from the non-thermal motion of the electrons - re thermalize them - make resistance.
This "exchange energy" some how comes from the changed statistic of identical particles - helps binds them together as if in a lower energy well. I am sure it is significant for identical nucleons as well as electrons. I don't understand it even as poorly as I did 40+ years go, which was better than now.
Let me clearly state that I am ONLY suggesting that postulating "fifth force" of nature, which, like the strong force is very short ranged, and which is "killed" by near by charge, would be very hard (impossible?) to observer as except for effects upon (1) NN, which does not exist and (2) the isolated neutron, N, which is unstable, this fifth forces does not exist. (There is killing charges too near.) This postulate does simply explain both (1) and (2) FACTS OF NATURE and is consistent with ALL known facts (AFAIK.) so is attrctive, at least to me. I don't think proving this 5th force does not exist is possible.
Last edited by Billy T; 11-09-11 at 08:32 AM.
11-09-11, 12:13 PM #436
To my mind at least, the half life data on its on suggests pairing of neutrons is occuring.
11-09-11, 01:00 PM #437
"I think that says something very significant to all, me included. In post 416's foot note I noted that super conductivity only exists because of the "exchange energy" of the "pared electrons" which interestingly do not need to be "near" each other."
Perhaps what you are implying with "pairing" and what I am focused on are different: Perhaps you are thinking in terms of "force interaction pairs" much more than "exchange energy pairs" and me more the other way round.
That is why I mentioned in the super conductivity case the paired electrons do NOT need to be close to each other - Pairing is not "force bonding" - it is not something that can be classically understood that way. It is something that some how falls out of the mathematics of quantum statistical physic. - At least if memory serves me correctly from long ago. The pairs are part of the same wave function, more joined together in "monemtum space" than in 3D physical space, again as I recall.
Somewhat like "entangled photons" don't need to be near each other (can be miles apart) yet if one is observed to be spin up the other will be found to be spin down even if speed of light limit does not permit the "spin of A" is up information to get to photon B before it is measured to have spin down. Exchange energy pairs are one quantum system.
Last edited by Billy T; 11-09-11 at 01:12 PM.
11-09-11, 01:06 PM #438
11-09-11, 01:25 PM #439
In fact I am suggesting that it is very strong, perhaps the same order of magnitude as between N & P (not just a "tiny residual") but I note the NET force, if attractive, between N & N must be very, very, very weak as even 3 degree K "thermal forces" are greater. I.e. how did the net force get to less than a "flea's fart" force, if not by being slightly more than balanced out by a postulated 5th force also of very short range? (so it can not be directly observed) and which is killed by "near by charge" (as tritium, with two near each other Ns, etc. is strongly bound)?
BTW I started a thread bout this year's Nobel physics prize being one that would spin Alfred in his grave for its total neglect of the instructions in his will but bardeen cooper schrieffer fully deserved the one they got for explaining how super conductivity occurred. The BCS theory lid the foundation for enormus benefit to mankind - just a Alfred's will required. Fact that stars about 13 billion light years way move so as to suggest the existence of an extremely low density energy (many orders of magnitude less than moon light) will never directly benefit mankind as Alfred required - the energy density is (what? 10 orders of magnitude?) too low to ever be used.
Last edited by Billy T; 11-09-11 at 01:50 PM.
11-09-11, 09:08 PM #440
To wit: your reasoning is based on the classical physics idea of how a potential well binds a particle - if the potential well is deeper than the particle is energetic, then the particle is trapped. Otherwise, the particle escapes. So, any potential well, no matter how shallow, should bind a particle provided we make the particle's energy low enough.
However, things work a bit differently in quantum physics. For starters, there is the tunnelling effect - for any finite potential well, there is some non-zero probability of finding the particle outside the well, even if the particle's energy is less than the depth of the well. Of course, this alone does not really conflict with binding particles into wells, as such - for a one-dimensional finite-potential well, there is still always at least one bound state. The only change is that you accept a finite probability of the particle tunneling out of the well, but this probability dies off quickly as you move away from the well.
And since the standard undergrad treatment of quantum physics stops at 1-dimensional potential wells, most of us (who are not quantum physicists) assume that this intuition extends to 3 dimensions. But it turns out that it does not - in three dimensions, an insufficiently deep potential well does not have any bound states. The reasoning behind this is a bit mysterious to me (it comes out of several-page-long derviations of differential equations and boundary conditions), but the upshot is clear: the intuition that any potential well, no matter how shallow, can trap a sufficiently cool particle is incorrect. An insufficiently strong three-dimensional potential well does not have any bound states. It doesn't matter how little thermal energy a particle has, the well won't trap it.
By Fettman in forum SciFi & FantasyLast Post: 11-26-13, 09:24 PMReplies: 836
By albertchong1999 in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 03-27-13, 12:08 AMReplies: 223
By jsaldea12 in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 07-06-09, 10:46 AMReplies: 7
By quantum_wave in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 05-10-09, 10:36 AMReplies: 95
By Kaiduorkhon in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 04-19-07, 12:48 AMReplies: 36