Electron gun- what's wrong here?

For the design and construction details of ion guns, necessary for more advanced designs and lower vacuums.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:31 pm

Jeroen,

Yes, it will behave like a triode, however it is not irrelevant at what potential an atom becomes ionised, and in a fusor you will get more fusion when you create low potential ions. The way to do this is exactly as David is doing, one could go a step further and lower both the ring and the filament together, making sure there is enough differential to generate a stream of electrons.

As for the Coulomb force and the gravitational force for that matter, have you ever seen either?

I would be most surprised if you said yes, because I have never heard of anyone observing any of the four fundamental forces we are being taught about, the fact is we observe constant or accelerating velocity and so as to not look like idiots, the so called educated people gave it a fancy name like "Coulomb Force", "Gravity" etc. and those who were not so smart bought it.

Unicorns that's all they are, and the sooner you spot them the sooner they gallop away..

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

David Kunkle
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:43 pm
Real name: David Kunkle

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by David Kunkle » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:35 pm

Jeroen Vriesman wrote: Having the filament and the anode ring both biased with an negative potential is the same as have a higher positive potential on the target, but with the side effect that the chamber walls are positive with respect to the electron source, this will pull the electrons to the walls of the chamber.
I understand that the chamber walls and nipple the electron source is contained in would be positive w/ respect to the negatively biased source. But with Gauss' Law, wouldn't there be zero E field inside the nipple and the spherical chamber to pull the electrons to the walls? Or is it really just a matter of the negative fields pushing the electrons away, and some of the electrons just happen to find their way to the walls which then simply go to ground?

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:48 pm

Having the filament and the anode ring both biased with an negative potential is the same as have a higher positive potential on the target
This statement which is widely believed to be true is a false statement. I think I have a reasonable argument for absolute potential and for the statement above to hold true, potential would have to be scalar. A particles velocity appears as a function of it's potential with respect to the observer, so yes Schroedinger was right, it does depend on who is looking.

Steven

Ref: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Potential
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Thu Jul 28, 2016 8:12 am

Hi david,
But with Gauss' Law, wouldn't there be zero E field inside the nipple and the spherical chamber to pull the electrons to the walls?
Yes, but only if there are no objects in the chamber with some other potential. If you have something inside your chamber at a potential U, and the chamber is grounded, the electric field is about U/d (the shape of the field can be much more complicated, U/d is just an indication) where d is the distance between the object and the wall.

In my experiments involving emission I have to make the filament a bit positive to avoid all the emission current running between the filament and the chamber walls.

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:14 am

Hi Steven,

in your reference you seem to state that potential is limited because relative velocity is limited, however, the energy associated with relative velocity is not limited, it goes to infinity near the speed of light, so the potential is not limited. You are using the special theory of relativity in one argument, but you skip it for the conclusion.

There is some truth in force being an illusion, Newton already knew that his theory of gravity was problematic, it introduced a "mysterious force working at a distance".
However, the problem is not physical, it's a psychological problem, the idea that some kind of "contact" is needed for a "force" is just a result of our size and the way humans experience the world. All "forces" work at a distance, when we push things around there is not a single molecule actually touching another molecule.

What's happening is that the phenomenon we call "force" is just the first derivative of the total energy of the system, we just exchange forms of energy, gravitational, electrical, thermodynamic energy etc.
When we push against a wall it just means that we do not shift enough energy from one place to another to push our hands through the wall, "contact" just means "not having enough energy to change the state of the matter involved".

This insight leads to some very useful mechanical methods, called the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics

So there is just the potential of the system. Thermodynamics show us that states which can be solely described by information theory still represent an energy, so the whole thing can be modelled as information only. Attempts at modelling gravity that way have recently been made by Verlinde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

So indeed, "force" can be considered less fundamental than potential, but potential is not limited by the speed of light, since the energy needed to reach the speed of light goes to infinity.

In physics the EM theory is considered a "gauge" theory, the potential of the system as a whole can be varied without changes in behaviour.
Only by assuming the entire universe does not have a net charge one could define the absolute zero potential. (the idea that the potential at infinity is 0)

That force (and even the derived concept of a "field") are less fundamental than potential is experimentally proved by the Aharonov-Bohm experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov% ... ohm_effect, a wonderful experiment!

As for your "second case for absolute potential"... seems to me a case of "not even wrong". Choosing the proton is arbitrary (if you take a charmed lambda or sigma particle you get different "absolute maximum" potential), equating the equivalent energy to surface potential, stating that a collection of protons has the same surface potential as a single proton (without even defining the "surface" of the charge collection)? Strange stuff.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:56 am

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:Hi Steven, in your reference you seem to state that potential is limited because relative velocity is limited, however, the energy associated with relative velocity is not limited, it goes to infinity near the speed of light, so the potential is not limited. You are using the special theory of relativity in one argument, but you skip it for the conclusion.
Jeroen, you make an important observation, because in my paper I talk about "potential" not "potential energy", the two terms are often confused. When you divide potential energy i.e electron-volts by electrons you just get Volts and the unit Volt is a measure of raw potential and it has to be limited.
Jeroen Vriesman wrote:There is some truth in force being an illusion, Newton already knew that his theory of gravity was problematic, it introduced a "mysterious force working at a distance".
However, the problem is not physical, it's a psychological problem, the idea that some kind of "contact" is needed for a "force" is just a result of our size and the way humans experience the world. All "forces" work at a distance, when we push things around there is not a single molecule actually touching another molecule.
Correct, I agree and we need to keep in mind that the terms forces and fields are mathematical constructs of the mind which have no physical reality, but help us calculate the velocity, which is really all I am saying in my paper, that the term potential refers to velocity or change of velocity.
Jeroen Vriesman wrote:What's happening is that the phenomenon we call "force" is just the first derivative of the total energy of the system, we just exchange forms of energy, gravitational, electrical, thermodynamic energy etc. When we push against a wall it just means that we do not shift enough energy from one place to another to push our hands through the wall, "contact" just means "not having enough energy to change the state of the matter involved". This insight leads to some very useful mechanical methods, called the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_mechanics
Agree..
Jeroen Vriesman wrote:So there is just the potential of the system. Thermodynamics show us that states which can be solely described by information theory still represent an energy, so the whole thing can be modelled as information only. Attempts at modelling gravity that way have recently been made by Verlinde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
So indeed, "force" can be considered less fundamental than potential, but potential is not limited by the speed of light, since the energy needed to reach the speed of light goes to infinity.
I would agree, force is less fundamental than potential and potential is less fundamental than velocity, because velocity is what we actually observe, so why is it so hard to see that potential is limited when we ultimately measure potential in velocity?
Jeroen Vriesman wrote:In physics the EM theory is considered a "gauge" theory, the potential of the system as a whole can be varied without changes in behaviour.
Only by assuming the entire universe does not have a net charge one could define the absolute zero potential. (the idea that the potential at infinity is 0)
This is where my ground potential theory diverges from the standard model, because the term you used above "entire universe" implies that we somehow act out our lives in a domain called the universe, I see this concept as fundamentally flawed. In GPT the observer is floating at ground potential and by manipulating it's own potential it changes the relative universe. I came to this conclusion because the GPT equation which relates the mass of the electron to ground potential is non local, i.e. when you as the observer climb a set of stairs, you increase your absolute potential which reduces the mass of an electron everywhere, so you are basically turning back the clock of your whole Universe not just your own clock. Think carefully about this.

It is also an outcome of the theory that space everywhere is at ground potential, this means our current understanding that looking out into the universe is equivalent of looking back in time is wrong. What we see when we look out into space is NOW on the absolute time scale, we see the sun as it is now and we see the moon as it is now. True light travels at a finite speed, so if we see the moon as it is now, then it's also in our future as we see it. So the light cone changes shape.
Jeroen Vriesman wrote:That force (and even the derived concept of a "field") are less fundamental than potential is experimentally proved by the Aharonov-Bohm experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov% ... ohm_effect, a wonderful experiment!
Skim read it, but it's not something I can understand in reading it once, my initial reaction was that the experiment is flawed because it's measuring the velocity relative to the local fields and ignoring the observer, this is the general trend with quantum experiments and the reason why everyone is puzzled about quantum behaviour, they forget to consider the observer. When three people stand around the box containing Schroedingers cat, there are three observers and three realities, and not one realitry because there is one box and one cat.

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:As for your "second case for absolute potential"... seems to me a case of "not even wrong". Choosing the proton is arbitrary (if you take a charmed lambda or sigma particle you get different "absolute maximum" potential), equating the equivalent energy to surface potential, stating that a collection of protons has the same surface potential as a single proton (without even defining the "surface" of the charge collection)? Strange stuff.
Protons are a pretty good candidate, I have always been fascinated about protons, where they come from and why they are all identical, as a manufacturer I envisage some machine mass producing these particles that make up 99.945% of everything. They also happen to be the most energy dense naturally occurring particle, number one on the table of isotopes, which is why I chose the proton as the upper limit to potential. if there was another particle heavier and denser it would sit above and before Hydrogen on the table of elements, but noop I doubt you will find any stable particle up there.

938 million volts is just another way to express the speed of light c, the only reason the units are different is because we have messed up the units. So to normalise the units in GPT I simply multiply the speed of light by the fraction of absolute potential, and I can find the velocity of any particle with this simple equation.

∆v = c(∆U/Ø)

You can also write it like

∆v = ∆U (c/Ø)

Where c/Ø simply fixes up our stuff up of the units and ∆v = ∆U simply says velocity is exactly the same as potential.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:01 pm

A quick edit error: You say
When you divide potential energy i.e electron-volts by electrons you just get Volts ...
and of course, the unit of electron-volt cannot be divided by electron to produce a volt. The unit is named electron-volt. One does not divide equations by a physical material but only by numbers or numbers with units.

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Dennis P Brown » Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:07 pm

Another point; you say
protons make up 99.945% of everything
. You are forgetting neutrons.

Also, protons may or may not be stable - one may assume it is but that isn't the same as it being one; so why not use neutrons for your potential since these are heavier than protons and are very stable when bound with a proton. In fact, some table of the elements use the neutron ... .

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10470
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:55 pm

What began here as a failed electron gun project has devolved or evolved, your choice, into a theoretical discussion. Let's stay on topic in this thread.

I suggest another forum and a new thread if some wish to continue this offshoot.

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.

David Kunkle
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:43 pm
Real name: David Kunkle

Re: Electron gun- what's wrong here?

Post by David Kunkle » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:56 am

I put the circuit together with all the right parts. Feeding it 5V DC, the HV probe initially shows 4-500V (occasionally catch it at around 1kv with an initial power on), but it would quickly fall to around 300V. And repeat each time I cycle it on and off. With just the circuit board minus diodes and caps, etc., I measure only 43V AC on each of the 2 outputs. When it measured only 43V on the HV probe, I tried just hooking up the DMM to it, but it flips out and goes blank. Not what it's supposed to be doing. Could it have been damaged when I had it mis-wired with the microwave diodes?

Post Reply