In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.
Subject: Neutrons and p-p fusion
Date: Sep 27, 5:06 pm
Poster: Richard Hull
On Sep 27, 5:06 pm, Richard Hull wrote:
The questions regarding neutrons, their origins, and p-p fusion is a serious core issue with many answers possible and almost none likely to be correct. We can think quite deeply on this subject and just chase our tails like the proverbial dog.
p-p fusion requires rather extreme conditions and is virtually a non-issue for us fusorites.
Now regarding the the 92 natural elements and there isotopes.........
I once felt that stars don't make the elements, they make neutrons. These then join with a bit more effort to the copious protons in the solar atmosphere under the conditions required to form ever greater and heavier elemental nuclei.
We are told that stars only burn to iron and that all the rest of the natural elements (66 of 'em) are the result of the cataclysmic nova and super nova.
I have never held much with the mysterious and for the most part, imagined strong nuclear force. I feel it is a grab at an invisible but seemingly necessary straw by desparate folks looking to quickly move on with their work of discovering everything there is to know.
Amazing how no element can exist without neutrons save element number one, protium. No nautral element can be made to emit a neutron without extreme violence and 100% of such reactions result in a highly unstable, rather rapid decay isotope. All, that is 100%, of the natural radioactives and isotopes will never give up a neutron. They will throw away an electron or capture one. They may shed an entire helium nucleus, but will never let go of a neutron. In an effort to reach equilbrium they will even blast out the most powerful, luminal, electromagnetic waves found in nature, but will not surrender a single neutron.... ever.
I hold that neutrons are the nuclear glue. They are part of some as yet un-noticed and perhaps unseeable electron sharing with protons in the nuclei of Z=>2. This is, in my opinion, the most likely method of atomic binding. It would be electrostatic, of course and we are told that electrostatic forces are not strong enough. But what are electrostatic forces like at sub-nuclear ranges? Can you tell me? Are they linear down to that range? Have you or anyone ever measured same in that range? The answer is of course no! It is immeasurable by experiment and quantum uncertainty. Why bring in an imagined strong force when one already exists amongst particles?! Would not a non-linear, hyper short range, un-measurable electrostatic force be just as good?
If a nucleus can capture an electron (ec) (fact) or emit one (beta decay) (fact) then are there not electrons within the nucleus? NO! we are told.
The neutron decays if found out alone in 10-20 minutes to a proton and an electron with the anti-neutrino (fact) Is the Neutron not a bound electron and a proton (perhaps some liliputian hydrogen atom)? NO! we are told.
All this told us by the nuclear powers that be. The crafters of modern nuclear theory the dreamers of quarks, charm, color, neutrinos and a thousand other sub-particulate pipe dreams.
They see the particles, neutrons, electrons and protons reacting in numerous ways directly visible and measurable doing all of the above (ec, beta decay, neutron decay and deny the obvious while spoon feeding themselves and us with un- measurable, unknowable dreamland stuff! Wow! ain't it grand.
Finally, I am not sure that the neutron exists within a nucleus at all, or that it is a primary particle of matter at all!!
WAIT! You have just been talking about the neutron and what you imagine it to be!!!!!
1. All neutrons are formed in stars (this is for sure and for certain.) However, they may never be formed at all! Instead, the two main particles, electrons and protons may just be bound in special higher Z nuclei directly. Matter is, in effect, whole formed there.
Why do I say that?.. You may ask.
We never, ever see a neutron loose on its own with out extreme near stellar energy violence done to a "happy" or contented atom.
The instant it is free, which is the only way we can ever encounter them, the clock is ticking on the short 15-20 minute life of this virtual non-particle. It is just another radioactive fragment formed from nuclear fragmentation, and severe fragmentation at that. That the neutron is never encountered in nature without violence is a testament to just how jelously and strongly this nuclear entity is held by the nucleus.
The alpha particle, if let fly into the vacuum of space will have a lifetime of infinity. It is just a helium nucleus with bound protons and neutrons. It is as happy as a clam. Likewise, the beta particle will last forever. The neutron from our fusion reactions won't make it to the orbit of mars before it beocmes that from which it was created.... a proton and an electron plus a highly variable amount of energy carried off by another shadowy, made up, "balancer", particle, the anti-neutrino.
Natural condensed matter is made in stars and bound forever with internal forces and energies not easily broken. An atom will always seek to remain stable. With the release of a neutron, the atom and this key piece have a brief existence in their new state as both are unstable and not allowed in the normal universe. Laws of stabiltiy inherent in all matter have been violated in the most severe fashion and order will be restored in the next few femtoseconds of the ancient universal time clock which instantly times out all un-allowed states.
I know all the theory, but as a thinking person, I buy into only about half of it. Nature is simpler than we can imagine. Ocams razor needs to be re-stropped.
I rarely offer my deepest thoughts on this subject as few are able to understand and the ones that do, often won't listen or consider ideas outside their learnin' and acceptin' of the teachin' and the preachin'.
I know Phil Farnsworth would have listened. He may not have agreed or might make argument to refute, but he would have listened, weighed and considered. He was that kind of guy from all I have learned from those interacting with him.
Next great mystery? Why is Technicium in the middle of the periodic table radioactive, non extant and alone, isolated, and far away from its natural radioactive cousins following bismuth way down the chart. Watson!...The game is afoot.
- No VooDoo - N Sep 28, 12:32 pm