Re The FAQ

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
John Futter
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:29 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re The FAQ

Post by John Futter » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:27 am

Jason
Well said but I'm not doing it in the FAQ to try and keep the FAQ clean
I see this sloppy vernacular at work with professionals
and I have a reply when they start on this while they are complaining about low Kelvins due to bad vacuum

the answer from me is
"The vacuum is leaking out"
"The cold is radiating in"

Bemused looks there after and they try to correct me

Just what I wanted
then the slam dunk

"I'm only vocalising bad physics syntax to match yours"

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2108
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:31 am

John,

This is what I have been trying to show with my GPT, we talk about vacuum and pressure, hot and cold, up and down, positive and negative voltage, this is indirectly telling us we are at ground potential, which is more or less sea level, with a nice comfortable 23˚C and 1 ATM pressure, and everything flows towards us (the observer). If we take the well known table of isotope binding energies and flip it upside down we find Ni 62 is at the bottom, it is there because it can't fall any further, it's already at GP.
isotopes.png
Binding energies - upside down
From this perspective the fusion process looks more like a decay process, and not so different to the fission process.

We then discover how easy it is to convert mass per nucleon to potential (potential is just a fancy word for energy density), all we need to do is divide the energy per 1 nucleon by 1 electron and electron volts becomes volts, and in there is the WOW moment, when one realises ground potential is at 930 million volts, not zero as your DVM would tell you.

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

danielchristensen
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:23 am
Real name: Daniel Christensen
Location: Sammamish, Washington

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by danielchristensen » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:09 pm

Steven,
I'm curious as to your justification for flipping the binding energy curve, because to me it seems kind of like a red herring. I've thought this over for a bit of time and cannot come up with any logical reason to turn it upside down.
I would love to hear back,
Daniel

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2108
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:31 am

Daniel,

To me it seems pretty obvious that the table of binding energy should be flipped upside down, because both fission and fusion are decay processes and the point in the middle where Ni-62 sits is the low energy point, where the mass per nucleon is at it's lowest.

This became really obvious to me when I was working on my Ground Potential theory because the number 930 million volts popped out of my equation as ground potential, and just happened to correspond to the mass per nucleon divided by charge of Ni-62, it is ridiculously close.

Ground potential = 930.377 MV

(Nickel 62)/e = 930.417 MV

The correlation is 99.9957 % which I believe is more than a coincidence.

So my belief is the reason we can't extract energy from Ni-62 is because it is already at ground potential, so no potential energy to gain there.

We just need to overcome the belief that equal numbers of protons and electrons means zero volts, that is completely not true, equal numbers of electrons and protons means the charge is the same as the observers charge which is nowhere near zero.

Same goes for the neutron, people believe it is a neutral particle without charge, but no, it has a surface potential of 930 million volts, which just happens to be the same as ground potential.

There is lot to be discovered here for anyone who is prepared to look beyond the blinkers.

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

danielchristensen
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:23 am
Real name: Daniel Christensen
Location: Sammamish, Washington

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by danielchristensen » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:42 pm

How is it that fusion is decay? To me it seem those two processes are diametrically opposite. Also, how is it that when there an equal number of positives and negatives (in this case charges) the sum of the two is anything other than 0?

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11346
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:27 pm

Fusion is definitely not a decay. It is a damned tough assemblage process with lots of energy needed to force two, like charged, totally unwilling, participent low Z atoms to merge under highly non-entropic conditions. Decay is related to intrinsic, stored energy like firewood, coal, gas, nitroglycerine, Uranium, Thorium, etc. Releasing stored energy is a process that, once started with little or no real energy input, will continue unabated until the lowest potential energy state is achieved, whether chemical, mechanical or nuclear.

We do not observe protons, deuterons or helium atoms decay. They are at a stasis point of zero potential energy. Complex systems like wood, Uranium, etc., have, via many processes, absorbed energy at some point in the past. They will ultimately decay to a stasis point of lowest potential energy. Wood will rot, uranium will become lead,etc. However, a bit of energy applied to wood, (lit match) will cause its stored energy to be released rapidly until the wood is consumed. In uranium, just enough of the right isotope in contact with a good mass of its fellows will self fission in an unabated chain reaction, its stored energy coming from some ancient super nova.

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
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2108
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:00 am

Daniel,

All exothermic reactions are decay processes, by way of releasing more energy than was required to initiate the reaction, the resultant product has inevitably lost some mass according to E=mc^2 and as such it undergone some decay. Chemical reactions are no different Hydrogen and Oxygen decays to form water etc..

To put it simply "water runs down hill" and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that water doesn't run any further down than sea level (with few exceptions).

Regarding electric charges, did it never bother you that the positive charge is 1836 times as heavier than the negative charge?

So if we were to put equal number of electrons and equal number of protons on a either side of a scale it would be highly off balance wouldn't it?

I don't subscribe to the current belief in charges fields and forces, I agree the definition has been useful for calculating cause and effect, but it has done little to teach us about nature. Positive and negative charge is function of whether a body or particle is above or below ground potential (observers potential).

Ultimately matter is a wave so if we compare forces to a sine wave on the screen of an oscilloscope we see that the wave either side of ground potential is positive and negative and always moves towards ground potential with a steady velocity which is a function of its potential.

Force is not the result of an invisible field, it's a velocity associated with the difference in potential between two bodies. ∆v = c(∆U/Ø) where Ø is absolute potential. (you can read more about this in a recent post I made in the Advanced discussion area).

The simple equation says: is if two bodies move relative to each other there is a difference in charge (think of a Van de Graaf and the Whimshurst machine)

PS: Nothing to gain by pointing out that my ideas differ from generally accepted science, and therefore it must be wrong, anyone who takes that approach is doing religion not science, no the only way to be 100% sure is to go down the rabbit hole and find out for yourself. All I can do is point in the right direction.

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

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11346
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:09 pm

Comparing mass with charge is rather silly. Charge is charge, mass is mass. The charges are equal and opposite, the masses are different. So what? No big deal. it is just the way the universe is happy with things in our environment and how matter exists today.

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
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2108
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:49 pm

Richard,

Charge is charge, mass is mass in the old book of Faraday, but it's time to question the validity of this old school thinking. Charge and mass are more closely related than most have realised, special relativity shows us how mass and energy are related and by choosing our units carefully we see that the electron has energy of 511 keV and a charge "1e" , and we know that potential (Volts) is J/C or energy over charge, so it should be perfectly valid to state the potential of the electron as 511 keV/1e = 511,000 Volts, doing the same thing to the proton tells us it's potential is 938,000,000 volts.

Initially it might be a bit mind bending to see how a particle can be associated the unit Volts, but remember particles are really just waves so think of it as a wave on the V,t plane.

So what does it mean that electrons and protons have equal and opposite charge?

It simply means the observer is floating somewhere in between the two charges, understanding this fascinated me so I wanted to try and find out where we as observers are on the potential scale.

Taking some ideas from special relativity and adding a bit of intuition I eventually came up with this equation which relates the electrons mass to the protons mass.

V_e = [(V_p - V_gnd)/2] * sqrt[1 - (V_gnd^2/V_p^2)]

Where V_e is the electron potential, V_gnd is ground potential and V_p is the proton potential

In order to make this work I had to make one postulate stating that electric potential E/Ø is absolute and limited much in the same way as speed x/t is limited to c.

The term 1/(sqrt(1 - (V_gnd^2/V_p^2))) is dimensionless and numerically equivalent to gamma 1/(sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)))

This equation states that the electron potential rises at the rate of V(gamma) as ground potential decays.

My interpretation of this is that ground potential is in a state of constant decay and will continue to decay until the electron potential and ground potential are at unity, which will be when the electron mass is 469 MeV/c^2 (plenty of time left). It looks like we have fallen around 8 million volts since day one and according to Wiki that looks to be some 13.8 billion years, so divide one into the other and the annual potential drop is 0.0005 Volts per year or 0.5 millivolts.

This doesn't sound like much, but if we go back to the time of the Dinosaurs 100,000,000 years ago ground potential would have been a staggering 50 kV higher.

Enjoy it while it lasts ;)

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

danielchristensen
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:23 am
Real name: Daniel Christensen
Location: Sammamish, Washington

Re: Re The FAQ

Post by danielchristensen » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:15 am

Steven,
Something to think about is that a proton is not the only particle with a +1 charge. A proton is composed of two up and a down quark, giving it a charge of +1 and a rest mass of 983.2 MeV/C^2. Whereas a bottom sigma is made up of two up and a bottom quark, with a charge of +1 and a rest mass of approximately 5810 MeV/C^2. There is a disparity between the rest mass but not charge. I'll admit that I'm no expert in this field and my logic may be completely wrong, but what I've said about masses and charges of baryons in relation to GPT confuses me a great deal.
Daniel

Post Reply