Challenging the Coulomb force

This area is for ADVANCED theory and discussions only. If you just joined fusor.net, chances are this is NOT the area for you to be posting.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:51 am

Hi again,

As a long time student of the Fusor.net University under professor Richard Hull, I am taking the liberty of challenging a 300 year old established belief in physics.

I claim there is no such thing as a Coulomb force.

The so called positively charged ions do not repell each other and there is no such thing as tunnelling, this should be good news for most of you guys here.

I shall try and summarise briefly why I make this claim, but for those of you who want the full explanation, I suggest clicking through to my web site below and downloading my paper "Ground Potential", it is unpublished and has not been peer reviewed so the reader actually has to try and understand it.

The crux of it is that there is a simple linear relationshop between relative velocity and relative potential, it's amost trivial.

∆v = c(∆U/Ø)

Where ∆v is the relative velocity between two bodies, c is the speed of light, and ∆U is the difference in potential between the two bodies and Ø is the proton potential (Ultimate potential = constant).

GPT explains why the proton potential (938 MV) is the ultimate potential, one can consider the protons potential as a constant in the same way as the speed of light c, in that nothing can have a higher potential than a proton, the same way as nothing can travel faster than light.

In GPT it is a relatively trivial matter to calculate ground potential, since we know the potential of a proton and an electron (see GPT).

It works out that ground potential is 930 MV, same as the surface potential of the Ni62 nucleus the isotope with the lowest binding energy.

So now let me explain why deuterons resist fusing.

The mass of a deuteron ion is 2.0136 U which converts to 1.875 MeV/c^2, so the mass per nucleon is 937.5 MeV/c^2.

To find the potential we first multiply by c^2 to get 937.5 MeV which is the energy, and then divide by 1 electron to get the potential 937.5 million volts.

Let us now find the potential difference between us at ground potential and a deuteron (deuteron potential 937.5 MV) - (ground potential 930 MV) = 7.5 million volts.

Now we know ∆U we can easily work out the intrinsic velocity of a deuteron ion.

Intrinsic velocity of a deuteron ion with respect to an observer at ground potential = ∆v = c*(7.5 MV/938 MV) = 2,492,944 m/s (~2,500 km/s)

This is the speed deuterons have as soon as you strip their electrons off, and before doing anything to them, when you enclose them in a vacuum chamber they buzz around like angry bees in a jar, and won't combine because they move too fast, not because of a coulomb force.

Think of it in terms of gas pressure, molecules in a pressurised gas vessel appear to repel each other, but as Avogadro showed us, it is the molecule mass, colliding with the vessel, wich causes the apparent pressure, not a new force.

So why do fusors work?

Fusors work because a small amount of the gas in the chamber ionises at of near the grid at low potential, i.e. the electron is removed below ground potential, resulting in a lower ion velocity. Let's work it out..

Grid potential -65 kV

We know an +1 ion accellerated through 65 kV obtains a kinetic energy of 65 keV, this works out to 1.0414 x 10^-14 J

The ion velocity is therefore v=√(2E/m) = 2,495,865 m/s however as we are running the fusor at negative voltage with respect to ground, we are actually reducing the velocity by this amount (approximately 2,500 km/s).

So what we have in effect achieved is to make the deuteron stand still or at least move relatively slowly in the central region of the fuser, and as there is no "Coulomb" force, the deuterons can readily combine and fall to an even lower potential, thereby picking up velocity again.

So it not surprising at all how fusioneers trying to smash atoms together at higher and higher velocities have failed to make progress, they don't understand what's going on.

Ions created at - 65kV are virtually standing still, and will fuse without further persuasion, I am sure of it.

The standard farnsworth fusor works because it starts creating ions within the grid in star mode, but it's not a very efficient way to create lots of -65 kV ions. The proper way would be to use an ion gun floating at -65 kV and inject the low energy ions into the chamber, fusion rates will soar.

I know this is a lot to take in, and there will be plenty of sceptics out there who is going to point out why there is a Coulomb force and that's fine, all I am trying to do here is share what I have learnt from 10 years studying at fusor.net.

Steven

PS: My paper on Ground Potential can be downloaded here https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Potential
Last edited by Steven Sesselmann on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Site Admin
Posts: 10871
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:38 pm

Again, the proof is in the doing. Good luck.

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: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:27 pm

Dan's reply moved from here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10831&p=71607#p71606
Dan Knapp wrote:Steven
With all due respect, I must conclude that you are the one who is confused here. You are confusing rest mass energy with potential energy. The rest mass mass energy of the proton is the amount of energy you would get if you converted the mass of a proton at rest to energy. You then no longer have a proton; you have a photon of that amount of energy. I read your paper. I have no problem if you want to call ground 930 MV. You can reference a potential energy to whatever reference you choose. Potential energy is a relative entity. Ground potential being called zero volts is just for convenience. We say that earth is at ground because on our size scale, the earth is "infinite" with respect to its ability to sink charge, either plus or minus charge. Earth ground potential is not always constant, however. If you have a large current of charge entering the earth at a particular point, the potential of that point can significantly change due to current into the earth impedance (E=IR). This can be a significant issue for the power industry, but is not an issue for the discussion at hand.
The problem with your paper begins with equation 1. For some reason you seem to think that an electron cannot be accelerated through a potential greater than its rest mass energy, and likewise for the proton. The rest mass energy of the particle has no relation to the potential through which a particle can be accelerated. If it did, neither the Large Hadron Collider nor the electron accelerator in your local hospital would exist. Potential energy and rest mass energy are two completely separate concepts.
I admire your efforts to explain some difficult issues in physics. Few people would have the ability or, further yet, the drive to do this. I admire even more your experimental efforts. Still very far fewer people would have the ability and drive to design, build, and test by experiment their ideas. Keep at it! Some very significant discoveries have been made based upon theory that was not quite correct. For example, in my other life I worked in the field of chemistry of drug action. Some of the most successful drugs were designed to work by a certain mechanism and found to perform very well, only later to be discovered that they don't work by the designed mechanism but by a completely different mechanism. Stated differently, the drugs cured the disease by virtue of a "side effect" rather than the effect they were designed to achieve. Physics can work the same way. With a prepared mind, your experiments could yield very significant unexpected results. At the very least they will be fun, which is why I think all of us who follow fusor.net are here.
Dan

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and give feedback. The term rest mass is another one of those unicorns that have been invented to solve a problem, I take the broader view that energy is work and the potential to do work is its derivative.

In GPT the hydrogen atom can be represented as a simple sine wave, where the proton is the crest and the electron is the trough, and where the balance of mass is determined by the potential of the observer (the baseline shift if you prefer). Tried explaining this here https://youtu.be/sxWXMW-GbtE (later realised I made a few mistakes in the video but you get the drift)

The crux of ground potential theory is the realisation that potential is absolute and limited, you could think of this in the same way as the speed of light, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light with respect to us, it therefore follows nothing we can ever build will have a potential difference of more than 938 million volts. (accelerating a proton through multiple stages to an energy higher than 1GeV is possible but nature doesn't make particles like that, it makes protons)

So it means we live in a world with 4 dimensions x, y, z and U where time is nothing more than a falling ground potential.

Surface potential and velocity is proportional and as fusioneers we already know this, just look around in your world and you will see it is correct. VanDegraaf and the whimshurst machines both work by this principle, they are a simple method for converting velocity to electrical potential. When I apply GPT to the hydrogen atom the numbers fall into place I get both the correct size and electron velocity to a high degree of accuracy.

All we have to accept is a world of limited electrical potential.

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

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:49 am

Dan Knapp challenged the logic of Eq.1 in my paper:
The problem with your paper begins with equation 1. For some reason you seem to think that an electron cannot be accelerated through a potential greater than its rest mass energy, and likewise for the proton. The rest mass energy of the particle has no relation to the potential through which a particle can be accelerated. If it did, neither the Large Hadron Collider nor the electron accelerator in your local hospital would exist. Potential energy and rest mass energy are two completely separate concepts.
Eq.1 states that the surface potential of an electron is 0.511 MeV and that no matter how many electrons you bunch together you will never be able to increase the surface potential beyond 0.511 MeV. and I go on to say that the same applies to protons. The logic follows that if we live in a world made of electrons and protons, we can never establish a potential difference of more than 938 Million volts, even if we separated and bunched together every proton and every electron in the universe (that's of profound importance).

I then go on and say, if the absolute maximum potential possible in our world is 938 million volts, then ground potential MUST lie between 0.511 MeV and 938 MeV, this is indisputable.

Once I realised I was on the right track, I decided to go looking for the holy grail of equations, and I believe I found it in Eq.3.

Eq.3 states is as follows:
The surface potential of an electron is equal to half the difference between ground potential and the proton surface potential times the gamma factor (here expressed differently to Einstein but numerically the same dimensionless value).

Further on in the paper I show how the potential gamma factor can be solved with Einsteins gamma factor to give us the ultimate 1" equation

∆v=c(∆U/Ø)

It's the equation that governs every cog in our Universe.

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: 1510
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Dennis P Brown » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:00 pm

Again, what happened to the neutron in your system? Its rest mass energy is greater than 938 MeV.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Coulomb force

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:42 am

Dennis,

Good question about the neutron, and one that I struggled to understand myself when I first developed the theory.

That was until I realised the neutron isn't a neutral particle at all, because if it was indeed neutral, it would by definition be a photon. The cold neutron is a charged particle it's surface potential (when at rest) is at ground potential, which is why electric fields don't affect it. Remember all velocity is relative to the observer so if you are standing at ground potential and the particle is also at ground potential it doesn't matter one iota what some third party field is doing, velocity a thing between you and the particle.

We can go on and ask the question, where do neutrons come from and why do they exist?

I am of the view that one proton and one electron belong to the same wave, a normal electromagnetic wave albeit assymmetrical on the ground potential plane, we can call the proton for crest and the electron for trough, positive and negative energy if you like. When you take the second derivative of the wave (a point if you like) and apply the GPT velocity equation it turns out that the velocity of the crest is in the opposite direction to the trough. This means that the wave spins like a dumbbell, and in the case of hydrogen the dumbbell has one heavy side and one light side, and what I call ground potential is at the centre of rotation.
H1.png
Hydrogen 1
If we strictly follow this model it becomes rather obvious that the Bohr model of the atom is wrong, electrons do not orbit nuclei, they orbit protons, not just in Hydrogen but also in the heavier elements. This means the electron spends some time inside the nucleus, so when Hydrogen goes on to form Deuterium it does indeed have two protons and two electrons, but one of the electrons is always hidden away inside the nucleus. If I am not mistaken quantum mechanics also predicts the probability that an electron can exist inside the nucleus.

So to answer your question, I suggest the neutron is just a hydrogen wave with a little more potential, which is why it is unstable.

The rest mass of a neutron is 939.57 MeV less the rest mass of Hydrogen 938.790 MeV = 0.78 MeV

So if we ignore the neutrino for a moment the decay of a neutron should result in the proton and the electron heading in opposite directions with a combined kinetic energy of 780 keV, and this amount of energy, the source of such energy being the energy originally eaten up by the fusion of two hydrogen atoms into one deuterium.

So to summarise, my view of the neutron, it's a hydrogen atom with smaller radius and 780 keV of extra angular momentum.

Steven

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

Post Reply