Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

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

Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Richard Hull »

A recent discussion went far afield into a theoretical discussion.

Some confusion related to potential, which is truly just potential energy and the electron volt, velocities, etc., which impact our underatanding of fusion and the fusor we operate.

Potential is another word for potential energy. This is a mere capability, a differential between a higher and lower state. Thus two entities must be involved where potential or potential energy is involved.

"He has such potential!" A simple statement...He can be successful and generate success through action or he can do nothing and be an effective failure, but he will always have potential, no matter what when considering success or failure, (two states).

Potential in electricity is also potential energy. In that there is a difference between charge signs or even charges of the same sign that differ in their relative potential to one another. Potential energy can exist when at least two entities under study are at rest, (charged capacitor, chemical battery, permanent magnet), or it can exist when both are in motion relative to one another. (planets in motion, charges in motion in a circuit or gas, molecules in motion in a solid or gas.)

The volt is a potential energy and has no meaning in and of itself unless referenced against a chosen second differential potential. To state a voltage or potential difference in the system we normally call the two potentials postive or negative or we call one of the entities in the system zero potential and the other a positive or negative potential above zero.

The electron volt has nothing to do with voltage at all!!

The electron volt is a kinetic energy term for a unit of energy. It is not a potential energy but an active energy of something in motion and it need not be an electron! It is only called an electron volt because it references the mass of an electron in motion. (the amount of energy it takes to force an electron to a potential gradient of one volt relative to it previous velocity or conversely the amount of additional energy attained by an electron volt falling through a potential gradient of one volt.) Thus, the electon must be in motion and have kinetic energy before the word electron volt can be applied.

As the electron volt is a specific and well defined unit of kintic energy, it is easy to convert the electron volt unit to any item in motion from a proton in an accelerator or to a piano in a moving van moving at 60 mph.

We must not confuse the volt, a potential difference in electrostatics versus the electron volt a unit of kinetic energy in kinematics. Both potential energy and kinetic energy demand at least two separated entities under study or they have as little meaning as time which demands two separated events to have validity. Just basic physics.

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
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Richard Hull wrote:A recent discussion went far afield into a theoretical discussion.
Yes I take responsibility for derailing the ion source thread, sorry..
Some confusion related to potential, which is truly just potential energy and the electron volt, velocities, etc. Potential is another word for potential energy. This is a mere capability, a differential between a higher and lower state. Thus two entities must be involved where potential or potential energy is involved.
That's correct there has to be at least two entities to define potential, and one of them always has to be the observer, it's meaningless to to try and imagine any physical science without an observer.
Potential in electricity is also potential energy. In that there is a difference between charge signs or even charges of the same sign that differ in their relative potential to one another. Potential energy can exist when at least two entities under study are at rest, (charged capacitor, chemical battery, permanent magnet), or it can exist when both are in motion relative to one another. (planets in motion, charges in motion in a circuit or gas, molecules in motion in a solid or gas.) The volt is a potential energy and has no meaning in and of itself unless referenced against a chosen second differential potential. To state a voltage or potential difference in the system we normally call the two potentials postive or negative or we call one of the entities in the system zero potential and the other a positive or negative potential above zero.
It is not correct to say potential is the same as potential energy, this would be the same as saying speed or velocity is the same as kinetic energy, just as speed is measured in meters per second, potential is measured in joules per coulomb. After 100 years of special relativity we have accepted that the speed of light (m/s) is finite and has an upper limit, but no experiment has been done to check if potential is limited, fortunately we can derive it logically.
The electron volt has nothing to do with voltage at all!!
Were it not for special relativity I would have to agree with you, but no, E=mc^2, and it is common practice to express the mass of a particle in units of eV/c^2, so the mass of a particle can be expressed as energy when you multiply it by c^2 and as raw potential if you divide it by one elementary charge unit (or however many elementary charge units the mass contains). It makes sense to me at least that we should assign this so called "potential" to the surface of the particle, as the potential obviously falls off at the rate of 1/r^2.
The electron volt is a kinetic energy term for a unit of energy. It is not a potential energy but an active energy of something in motion and it need not be an electron! It is only called an electron volt because it references the mass of an electron in motion. (the amount of energy it takes to force an electron to a potential gradient of one volt relative to it previous velocity or conversely the amount of additional energy attained by an electron volt falling through a potential gradient of one volt.) Thus, the electon must be in motion and have kinetic energy before the word electron volt can be applied.
This is an interesting statement, because when you apply my formula and calculate the velocity of an electron with respect to ground potential, you will find it is always in motion, actually it continuously moves at almost the speed of light. ∆v = c(-0.5 MV/938 MV) = -99.946c so you will never see an electron standing still. If it isn't moving tangentially it's going around in loops, but it never stands still.
As the electron volt is a specific and well defined unit of kintic energy, it is easy to convert the electron volt unit to any item in motion from a proton in an accelerator or to a piano in a moving van moving at 60 mph.
Choice of units that's all..
We must not confuse the volt, a potential difference in electrostatics versus the electron volt a unit of kinetic energy in kinematics. Both potential energy and kinetic energy demand at least two separated entities under study or they have as little meaning as time which demands two separated events to have validity. Just basic physics.
Just because I have a differing approach doesn't mean I am confused, the fact is physics has never been more clear to me than it is now, I can use my GPT theory to solve just about any problem in physics I am presented with, in fact most problems become almost trivial. With absolute potential all physical matter will have potential which in turn is velocity, this kind of velocity is sometimes referred to as "four velocity" and when two bodies have differing four velocity they also have relative velocity or relative potential.

So back to fusion, if you want two deuterons to fuse they have to have the same four velocity or four momentum, i.e. the two deuterons have to be relatively at rest with respect to each other, but when you ionise a deuteron at ground potential you are effectively releasing an angry bee in a jar...why?

Because ∆v = c((930MV-938MV)/938MV) = -0.0085c = -2500 km/s (∆U calculated here is ground potential 930MV less the proton potential 938MV)

Now how the heck are two particles trapped in a tea kettle moving at 2500 km/s supposed to fuse?

Fortunately they don't otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble.

But if we ionise the deuteron at -62 kV the velocity of the particle inside the tea kettle is almost zero, and folks, that's why you are seeing neutrons.

The freak'n laws of physics were wrong so I had to fix them a bit, that said I couldn't have done it without you Richard :)

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: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Richard Hull »

The observer has nothing to do with potential other than to define it. There is no potential without two other differential items other than the observer.
This is the now well studied lab or interial frame of reference story. If the oberver wants to be one of the reference points, this is fine, but he is still at a differential to what he observes or he would not measure anything.

If two giant plates are charged to 100,000 volts relative to each other. They have no potential relative to an observer unless a connection is made to the observer in some fashion between both plates. (meter, etc.) In short, the observer can do no experiment to determine their potential relative to each other or himself unless some form of contact or other observation is made via yet another object he can observe. ( piece of paper touching one plate and then racing for the other, touching it and then racing back to the original plate, etc.)

The two ends of a battery are at a potential difference in and of themselves and can do work and supply energy. We have no way of knowing that beyond our knowledge of chemistry. The Sun and stars function off potential differences, gravitational, electrical, etc. They need no observer to do so. The observer merely observes two differentials and defines them in his or her own way, via arbitrary units defined by that observer.

Folks here can decide for themselves which of these views are correct. The current science that has brought us out of the dark ages and taken us to the moon or your new image of it.

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
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Its a well known fact Richard, one can get to the moon and back with little more than Newton's laws of physics and a slide ruler, you guys proved that in the 60's, and it's not because Newton was right, it's for the the same reason you can't see the earths curvature when you are sitting in your bathtub, the potential differences are relatively small.

Let's work out the surface potential of the moon, its pretty easy when you know how fast it moves, but to do it we first have to know our own absolute potential, I can calculate my own potential by knowing the mass of an electron and a proton. The formula looks like this.

øe = (øg-øp)/2 * sqrt(1 - (øg^2/øp^))

Where øe is the electron potential, øg is ground potential and øp is the proton potential

Now we just have to solve this for this for ground potential, so we ask Stephen Wolfram to help.
Wolfram Alpha
Wolfram Alpha
We get two solutions one which represents ground potential and one which represents the inverse, the positive solution is the one we are after and it says that ground potential is a cool 930,377,000 Volts.

So then how do we know if moon potential is the same?

Well we could move a big laboratory to the moon and carry out exact mass measurements of electrons and protons and do the same calculations or we could simply observe how fast it moves relative to ground. It passes over my head roughly once a day so I just need to know the distance it travels to find the speed.

Distance travelled = Radius 385,000,000 meters * 2π = 2,419,026,343 meters

Velocity = 2,419,026,343 meters / 86,400 sec = 27,997 ~ 28,000 m/s

Now it's easy to calculate the potential of the moon using the 1" formula in GPT (derivation here: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Potential)

∆v = c(∆ø/Øp)

solve for the difference in potential

∆ø = Øp * (v/c)

Proton potential Øp is 938,272,000 Volts

So the difference between ground potential moon's surface potential is (28,000 m/s / 300,000,000 m/s) * 938,272,000 = 87,572 Volts or 87 kV

Considering ground potential is 930 million volts, the difference is very small.

Now you you also argue that events in our universe take place regardless of weather they are being observed or not, I believe this is false and needs to be considered further.

GPT shows that time is the equivalent of a changing absolute potential, i.e. ground potential is falling which is the cause of time itself. It is the natural processes of nuclear decay which are responsible for the drop in potential, billions of nuclei in solid matter disintegrate and fall to lower potential over time. If the universe is some 13.6 billion years old the potential drop is only in the order of 0.5 mV per year.

Now this insight means you are changing time when you change your velocity or potential, climbing up a ladder speeds up time and going down in a mine slows time. but don't be fooled to think that it's only your clock changing, oh no your entire universe has to be in synch with your clock.

So you see the observer is everything, the universe has no time without you.

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: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Richard Hull »

You have slipped out of fusion related issues of potential and EV energy related to the amateur fusor and into a pet theory. The thrust of this posting was to inform newbies and others here regarding charge and potential and the electron volt energies related to charged particles in a fusor using accepted physics which is all we have to really have to work with. New theories are nice, but have no tests related to fusion or general acceptance.

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
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

On the contrary Richard, my objective has been and still (for the last 11 years) is to find a better way to do fusion. The example above demonstrated how my theory works as well for large bodies like the moon as it does for charged particles within the atom. In the spirit of experimental amateur science I share my thoughts and experiments with the wider fusion community in the hope that someone out there might understand what I am working on and hopefully see the point of it.

In my opinion original ideas should be encouraged, not frowned upon, otherwise this forum will end up being nothing more than a boring shrine to the 6", 10^-9 Q tea kettle fusor, where no one dares posting unless it agrees with the moderators opinion of what a fusor should look like. Personally I would rather see a new idea fail, than repeat what every other person has already done.

As for the opening post, it was factually wrong, in stating that potential is the same as potential energy.
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: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Richard Hull »

Naturally, you can move in your direction and the bulk of the rest of us can tow the line in another. It is the choice of those here to choose what they find to be the actual case for them in their 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
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Dan Tibbets »

In the post by S. Sesselman
......
"It makes sense to me at least that we should assign this so called "potential" to the surface of the particle, as the potential obviously falls off at the rate of 1/r^2."

Well, that is true for a point source. When the particle has a diameter / surface area much larger than the distance to a test particle, this needs to be modified, as reflected in an aspect of Gauss Law
......
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... aulaw.html

This may even apply to fusors. If a proton (positive ion) flys past a cathode grid to a greater radius. it will reverse and pass back inside the radius of the grid at a set single kinetic energy, no matter how high (greater radius) it reaches before reversing (or if it is a newly created positive ion). This of course ignores collisional effects and assumes the particles outward momentum/ energy is not greater than the negative potential on the cathode. This would not be the case if the inverse square law was applied without qualification. This also applies to gravitational potential energy when considering the surface gravity of planets/ etc. and escape velocity/ or the reverse- terminal velocity. Adding angular momentum of one or both articles and curved surfaces of the one article/ particle adds even more complexity as orbital dynamics and free fall become significant. This angular momentum is important in Tokamaks, and I believe in Tri Alphas approach to the FRC plasma containment. Application to other schemes is also potentially* important.

* Another use of potential

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan, can you define a surface?

You might have a EUREKA moment followed by FACEPALM followed by DOH!
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: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Richard Hull »

As I have noted for many years. What goes on in the average amateur fusor as is commonly built here, is a complex mish-mash of many different physics related events. Absolutely nothing is tightly controlled and no one process rules solely to achieve fusion. Several processes are involved just as there are several hampering it. Doing fusion to great advantage or net gain is just not possible.

Where the charge on a particle resides is not important. It has a measurable charge referenced to any instrument or other charged particle and that is about all we need to know.

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
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Steven Sesselmann wrote:Dan, can you define a surface?

You might have a EUREKA moment followed by FACEPALM followed by DOH!
A surface (with real surface area greater than 1/ infinity) would be present for any particle or source that was not by definition a point. As I understand Gauss law this is best illistrated by a infinatly large plane with some surface charge. Suspended above this is a test charged particle. This test charged particle will obtain some finite velocity - the terminal velocity irregardless of how far above the plane it starts. In a video by a MIT professor, this is demonstrated with a metal coated and charged pingball ball suspended next to a ~ 1 meter square metal coated and charged carboard "plane" TGhis is of course not an infinate plane, but so long as the test ball is suspended at a distance somewhat less than the length of the plane, Gauss Law equations better defines the deflection than the inverse square law- which again only absolutely applies to a point source. Or, approximately to a source of a given diameter which is much less to somewhat less (?) than the distance to the test particle.

The pertinent video lecture is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxasQBBlWmk

As Richard Hull points out, the physics is complicated and dependant on a complex mixture of physical interactions that are difficult to model.

An example of a modeling error involving point like structures (lines) versus real surface area structures that persisted for over a decade is EMC2/ Bussard assumptions (in mathmatical models) that the Polywell Magrid was made up of infinately thin line magnet structures- surface area was thus zero (almost). This allowed for simplification of models and led to a made up feature called the "Funny Cusp" between infinity thin magnets spaced infinity close to each other. This of course was nonsense, but it was not caught by anyone despite multiple reviews, etc. Finally this was corrected (led to WB6). The biggest consequence was that ExB transport across the magnetic fields with subsequent impacts on the real magnet surface areas could not be ignored. This necessitated a compromise in the separation distance between the magnets. The cusps were wider but tolorable, and ExB losses were adequately controlled. Or at least that was the goal.

Also, in the Polywell (the positively charged magrid version), any electron that escaped through a cusp with any outward energy that was below the escape energy (potential on the magrid) would stop, reverse and reenter the same cusp with the potential energy from the magrid (or some consistent energy below that due to other considerations). The electrons that had higher up scattered or down scattered energies (but still below the escape energy- KE greater than the Magrid opposite potential energy/ voltage) would still reenter at at almost the same KE. This is a manifestation of the dominate Gauss Law considerations over the inverse square law considerations.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan,

It's rather fascinating how little our understanding of a "surface" is, just look up the word surface on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface

Very little is known about surfaces, yet our world is entirely made up of surfaces, the floor, the walls the table etc., but when we look into the atom we discover it's mostly empty space, so what is this thing we call a surface? Some attempts have been made to explain the surface tension in therms of electron charges, but the answer is even simpler.

All clues indicate that solid objects around us are are mostly empty space so if we use your example above we can illustrate any object as a point source with an isotropic potential field stretching to infinity.

Sounds simple enough right, but have you thought about why this field exhibits a surface at some arbitrary radius ?

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Steven Sesselmann wrote:Dan,

It's rather fascinating how little our understanding of a "surface" is, just look up the word surface on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface

Very little is known about surfaces, yet our world is entirely made up of surfaces, the floor, the walls the table etc., but when we look into the atom we discover it's mostly empty space, so what is this thing we call a surface? Some attempts have been made to explain the surface tension in therms of electron charges, but the answer is even simpler.

All clues indicate that solid objects around us are are mostly empty space so if we use your example above we can illustrate any object as a point source with an isotropic potential field stretching to infinity.

Sounds simple enough right, but have you thought about why this field exhibits a surface at some arbitrary radius ?


Steven

The answer is simple, at least for levels of understanding that are based on simplicity... :)

Classical physics are adequate for many things- it worked for Newton and I think all of Maxwell's equations, including Gauss Law. More refined understanding requires quantum mechanics.

For this discussion point sources are a relative condition where the interacting force originates from a structure much smaller than the distance to the object. This approximation is good enough untill the distance of seperation approaches the size of the interacting structures.

While we now appreciate the atomic nature of matter and the origin of forces from these tiny particles, the effects we experience in the macro world is mostly crowd effects, not individual interactions- at least such are not required to make predictions that are more accurate than our ability to measure the results. The effects are accumulative. We respond to the force fields associated with a collection of particles, and it is the size/ volume, etc. characteristics of these particles that determines the interaction and not any single particle by itself. The point perspective is modified or ignored. This is not necessarily kosher, but it is convenient and often extremely accurate. The derivation of Gauss law as it pertains to the interior of a hollow conducting sphere or cylindrical volume above a infinate plane is derived by considering the many point sources on the surface of the sphere/ plane. But, once derived we have a much simplier and useful construct for considering interactions. Also we have a handle on where this simplification begins to become excessively inacurate and we need to revert to the many point source interactions. A example of this in a Fusor may be the electrostatic force field that forms a potential well- that is due to a biased crowd of charged mobile and/ or fixed particles, and the individual (near) point like interactions that are the Coulomb collisions. Which perspective is used is based on your goals.

And, just to re scale your argument about atoms as point source particles, even protons and quarks and even gluons (?) are not point sources. Electrons may be point sources, at least I have not heard of anyone succeeding in detecting any measurable diameter for them. A proton is effectively a point source for an electron orbiting about 1 billion proton diameters away from it. But another proton or other charged particle inside the nucleus may be almost touching. Now the perspective of a point source is questionable. I'm sure this is taken into account in the fine scale descriptions of nuclear interactions. I think it is even applicable when describing the inertia of matter- Higgs interactions, etc.

Classical physics is a good description of the universe. Quantum mechanics is even better. Neither is perfect. They are tools to make predictions, not nessisarily representations of reality. What is the surface of a string in 10 dimensional space? In other words I cannot give an answer to your question, and I am not sure anyone can. I can only emphasize that there are "Standard Models" that are good at making predictions within the limits of our ability to measure, and within the exhaustion limits of the physicists willing to argue the issues and perspectives, and assumptions, and uncertainties, and biases. I could go on, but I am exhausted...




Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Potential,...Energy,... volt,... EV, etc.

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan,

Thanks for making a good effort, it just highlights how inadequate the laws of physics really are. I think part of the problem is the way institutional science goes about teaching the subject. Students are rewarded for getting answers right not for thinking. Sure you have to think to get the answers right, but that's where it ends. The organisational structure of science is very similar to the church, where those learned people who master the "accepted" theory are promoted and decorated with robes and hats just like bishops. When these learned people stumble upon a problem they can't solve they inevitably substitute it with a unicorn and that unicorn then becomes part of the dogma going forward.

Now back to my original question about surfaces. The answer lies hidden in special relativity and it takes a little bit of untangling to extract, so I won't go into the details of it here, but we have to correct one thing in our current understanding of the world, namely how potential is absolute and limited just like the speed of light, and it certainly appears sensible to me that this limit is 938,000,000 volts

The first EUREKA moment is when you realise absolute potential is the same as absolute time, and how the flow of time is equal to a drop in potential, the reason we have not yet measured this is because the drop in potential is small. One year represents a drop in the absolute potential of around 0.0005 volts and for the standard unit of measure for time which is the second, it is approximately 1.5E-10 Volts

The observers NOW is simply a function of where on the absolute potential scale he, she or it is at any point in time, I decided to call this ground potential, even though two observers at ground potential can never share exactly the same potential (see Pauli exclusion principle).

The FACE-PALM moment is when you realise ALL surfaces we observe are at ground potential, and that these surfaces represent the absolute boundary between past and future. (remember higher potential is past and lower potential is future).

The DOH! moment is the realisation that everything we observe is happening NOW, not in the past as we have been led to believe, yes light travels at a finite speed, but what we see right now is and always will be NOW on the absolute time scale.

Bodies with different motions relative to the observer must therefore have differing surface potentials in order for the observer to see them NOW, so when we ionise a hydrogen atom the proton and electron must move at extremely high velocities in order to be in the observers NOW, and I have calculated that the proton needs to move at 2500 km/s and the electron at more than 99.5% the speed of light.

My view of reality is therefore that the world is what you want it to be, and by manipulating physical potential you can change the world around you.

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

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”