Groups > sci.physics > #593132 > unrolled thread

Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...

Started by	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
First post	2016-08-14 12:18 -0700
Last post	2016-08-17 19:41 -0400
Articles	20 on this page of 25 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#593132 — Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-14 12:18 -0700
Subject	Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...
Message-ID	<abcf6dab-7a25-459e-87fc-ce93d724444e@googlegroups.com>

You can collide for example protons with a lithium target or a boron target and get fusion. I claim, based on Charles S. Cagle's physics, that the nuclei during such a fusion event actually have very low velocities relative to one another.

Let me explain. My model is like this; a nucleus comes flying at very high speed into a target. It penetrates deep into it and, very rarely (about one in 100 000 or one in a million), has a trajectory that leads almost exactly towards a target nucleus. It comes nearer and nearer to the target nucleus and feels the strong electric field from said nucleus. All, or almost all, of its momentum is now transformed into bremsstrahlung. Now, the two nuclei are much closer to one another than the distance to the innermost electrons (they are still there surrounding the target nucleus) and have near zero velocity relative to one another. Coulombs law "goes in reverse" and the nuclei are drawn to each other, and undergo nuclear fusion.

Most physicists would just laugh at this model. Fine; laugh all you want. What I wonder is the following: can you think of a fact or experiment or logical reasoning, that can disprove the fusion model above?

Sven

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#593136

From	Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-14 15:36 -0400
Message-ID	<a4adndIxFMymVS3KnZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#593132

On 14/08/2016 3:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> You can collide for example protons with a lithium target or a boron
> target and get fusion. I claim, based on Charles S. Cagle's physics,
> that the nuclei during such a fusion event actually have very low
> velocities relative to one another.
>
> Let me explain. My model is like this; a nucleus comes flying at very
> high speed into a target. It penetrates deep into it and, very rarely
> (about one in 100 000 or one in a million), has a trajectory that
> leads almost exactly towards a target nucleus. It comes nearer and
> nearer to the target nucleus and feels the strong electric field from
> said nucleus. All, or almost all, of its momentum is now transformed
> into bremsstrahlung. Now, the two nuclei are much closer to one
> another than the distance to the innermost electrons (they are still
> there surrounding the target nucleus) and have near zero velocity
> relative to one another. Coulombs law "goes in reverse" and the
> nuclei are drawn to each other, and undergo nuclear fusion.

No, you almost had it right, but there is no mechanism for Coulomb's law 
to just reverse like that. The only way for it to reverse like that is 
if nucleus could go in reverse is for it to become its anti-matter 
equivalent nucleus. Instead something else is happening, explained below.

> Most physicists would just laugh at this model. Fine; laugh all you
> want. What I wonder is the following: can you think of a fact or
> experiment or logical reasoning, that can disprove the fusion model
> above?

Yes, easily, what happens is that at a certain point, the nucleus starts 
to feel the effects of the Strong Nuclear force, which is 137 times more 
powerful than the Electromagnetic force, but only works over very short 
distances. The Strong force range is 10^-15 meters, about the size of a 
medium sized nucleus. Once the protons get to within this range, the 
Strong Force takes over and overpowers the Electromagnetic repulsion.

Fundamental Forces
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593446

From	noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-16 15:28 -0700
Message-ID	<aee8ad98-80d9-4ef6-88dc-83b6f8c30eb4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593136

that's a g00d hypothesis

> No, you almost had it right, but there is no mechanism for Coulomb's law 
> to just reverse like that. The only way for it to reverse like that is 
> if nucleus could go in reverse is for it to become its anti-matter 
> equivalent nucleus. Instead something else is happening, explained below.
> 
> > Most physicists would just laugh at this model. Fine; laugh all you
> > want. What I wonder is the following: can you think of a fact or
> > experiment or logical reasoning, that can disprove the fusion model
> > above?
> 
> 
> Yes, easily, what happens is that at a certain point, the nucleus starts 
> to feel the effects of the Strong Nuclear force, which is 137 times more 
> powerful than the Electromagnetic force, but only works over very short 
> distances. The Strong force range is 10^-15 meters, about the size of a 
> medium sized nucleus. Once the protons get to within this range, the 
> Strong Force takes over and overpowers the Electromagnetic repulsion.
> 
> Fundamental Forces
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593584

From	Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-17 17:11 -0400
Message-ID	<mfudnQppuoN8TynKnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#593446

On 8/16/2016 6:28 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> that's a g00d hypothesis

It's a bit more than just an hypothesis, it's an actual theory, or 
rather two of them, called Quantum Chromodynamics, and Quantum 
Electrodynamics.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593561

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-17 11:18 -0700
Message-ID	<ef840208-eb9c-4ad3-bd00-0e787c569343@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593136

You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument or experimental evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion really happens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593600

From	Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-17 19:15 -0400
Message-ID	<65mdnVuddcCPbSnKnZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#593561

On 8/17/2016 2:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument
> or experimental evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion
> really happens.

I reiterate accepted knowledge because it is accepted knowledge, which 
has been tested for decades. You have come up with a hypothesis in 
search of a problem. What mechanism do you expect will cause the 
electromagnetic force to just switch from repulsive to attractive? You 
haven't thought your theory through properly, whereas the accepted 
knowledge has been.

You will also have to prove why you don't accept the existence of the 
Strong nuclear force?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593674

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-18 10:50 -0700
Message-ID	<ab4a863f-ffa6-40fa-af67-65b5e8db93f9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593600

Den torsdag 18 augusti 2016 kl. 01:15:37 UTC+2 skrev Yousuf Khan:
> On 8/17/2016 2:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> > You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument
> > or experimental evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion
> > really happens.
> 
> I reiterate accepted knowledge because it is accepted knowledge, which 
> has been tested for decades. You have come up with a hypothesis in 
> search of a problem. What mechanism do you expect will cause the 
> electromagnetic force to just switch from repulsive to attractive? You 
> haven't thought your theory through properly, whereas the accepted 
> knowledge has been.
> 
> You will also have to prove why you don't accept the existence of the 
> Strong nuclear force?
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

Charles S. Cagle's physics proves this. His homepage is down now unfortunately. The reason I even started this debate was first to find any counter argument (against my beam fusion model), that I had not thought about (no one here came up with anything) and second to make the point that with my beam fusion model and Cagle's physics, it is possible to account for ALL experiments that involve nuclear fusion and probably also muon catalyzed fusion!

1. Fusion in a plasma. Very rarely nuclei will be close in momentum space and position space and undergo nuclear fusion. When you increase temperature and or pressure there will be more collisions per unit time and more pairwise relations tested per unit time and more fusion reactions. This has lead almost all physicist on the planet on a "chase to the end of the rainbow for a pot of gold" - heat and pressure and we will get break even one day.

Someone really good at statistical physics and plasma physics may be able to rigorously prove the above the above model for fusion in a plasma.

It is important to understand that the above applies to every type of plasma fusion experiment, if it's a Tokamak, a Fusor, magnetic mirror device, some pellet heated with lasers or electron beams or whatever, doesn't matter.

2. Beam fusion. Every type of beam fusion can be explained with the model I presented. Negative or positive ions colliding with whatever. And also, I think, colliding beam fusion, where both nuclei are moving. It can all be explained by the nuclei losing all their energy through bremsstrahlung.

3. Muon catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed fusion the two deuterium nuclei are bound close to one another, something like a 1/200th of the distance between the same nuclei in a D2+ ion. If you were to calculate their de Broglie wavelength I'm sure that it would be larger that the inter-particle distance. Coulomb's law goes in reverse, so to speak, an voilá; fusion.

Cheers,

Sven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593751

From	Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-18 18:53 -0400
Message-ID	<EPKdneytG6T2oSvKnZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#593674

On 8/18/2016 1:50 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Charles S. Cagle's physics proves this. His homepage is down now
> unfortunately. The reason I even started this debate was first to
> find any counter argument (against my beam fusion model), that I had
> not thought about (no one here came up with anything) and second to
> make the point that with my beam fusion model and Cagle's physics, it
> is possible to account for ALL experiments that involve nuclear
> fusion and probably also muon catalyzed fusion!

Don't know who he is, doesn't matter, sounds like yet another crank. If 
a person tells me to go read someone's webpage, rather than go read a 
paper they published, then it means they are cranks that I'm being sent to.

> 3. Muon catalyzed fusion. In muon catalyzed fusion the two deuterium
> nuclei are bound close to one another, something like a 1/200th of
> the distance between the same nuclei in a D2+ ion. If you were to
> calculate their de Broglie wavelength I'm sure that it would be
> larger that the inter-particle distance. Coulomb's law goes in
> reverse, so to speak, an voilá; fusion.

Voila, magic! If you want to be taken seriously, then explain the 
mechanism by which the electromagnetic force just changes direction and 
goes from repulsive to attractive. If this were true, then 
electromagnetic force should also exhibit the opposite behaviour, where 
a previously attractive relationship all of a sudden turns repulsive 
(e.g. electrons and protons). There is no such experimental observations.

You have to prove to me why you think the Strong Nuclear force doesn't 
exist.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593685

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-18 13:50 -0500
Message-ID	<np501e$1if2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#593561

On 8/17/2016 1:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument or experimental
> evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion really happens.
>

Did you see my mention of the experimental evidence against it?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593828

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-19 12:21 -0700
Message-ID	<133dbd33-c875-484b-a0b2-580cb87ed58f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593685

Den torsdag 18 augusti 2016 kl. 20:50:27 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/17/2016 1:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> > You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument or experimental
> > evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion really happens.
> >
> 
> Did you see my mention of the experimental evidence against it?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.

Hmm, an experimental setup with a very thin foil of Lithium that is being irradiated by a proton beam with low intensity and with a very sensitive gamma ray spectrometer next to it, may do the trick.

BTW; What do you think about my H-bomb post?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593850

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-19 16:10 -0500
Message-ID	<np7skv$1uis$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#593828

On 8/19/2016 2:21 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Den torsdag 18 augusti 2016 kl. 20:50:27 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/17/2016 1:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>> You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument or experimental
>>> evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion really happens.
>>>
>>
>> Did you see my mention of the experimental evidence against it?
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.

I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In 
a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon 
interactions.

But you can do it in fixed target experiments as well, where the 
incident protons are RF-bucketed with low enough intensity that 
double-occupancy rates are low. This was done all the time in the 1970s 
and 1980s.

>
> Hmm, an experimental setup with a very thin foil of Lithium that is being irradiated by a proton
> beam with low intensity and with a very sensitive gamma ray spectrometer next to it, may do the trick.
>
> BTW; What do you think about my H-bomb post?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593943

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-20 09:56 -0700
Message-ID	<77b93c3e-ab5a-4e9f-807a-8b488dd9505b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593850

Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 23:11:00 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/19/2016 2:21 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> > Den torsdag 18 augusti 2016 kl. 20:50:27 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> >> On 8/17/2016 1:18 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> >>> You just reiterate accepted knowledge. I don't see a single argument or experimental
> >>> evidence against my hypothesis on how beam fusion really happens.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did you see my mention of the experimental evidence against it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
> > target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
> > bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
> > the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
> > nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
> > measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
> 
> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In 
> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon 
> interactions.

The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely, by investigators because there is so much other radiation.

> 
> But you can do it in fixed target experiments as well, where the 
> incident protons are RF-bucketed with low enough intensity that 
> double-occupancy rates are low. This was done all the time in the 1970s 
> and 1980s.

You should be looking for a hard X-ray or gamma ray photon that always accompanies a fusion reaction (from the "last" deceleration of the projectile nucleus when it is closest to the target nucleus). Perhaps someone at some time found something? It may be buried inte literature so to speak. Perhaps you know something?

BTW, what do you think of my muon catalyzed fusion post (in a reply above)?

> >
> > Hmm, an experimental setup with a very thin foil of Lithium that is being irradiated by a proton
> > beam with low intensity and with a very sensitive gamma ray spectrometer next to it, may do the trick.
> >
> > BTW; What do you think about my H-bomb post?
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594116

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-21 18:10 -0500
Message-ID	<npdcc9$1cd8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#593943

On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>> > > Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
>>> > > target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
>>> > > bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
>>> > > the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
>>> > > nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
>>> > > measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
>> >
>> > I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
>> > a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
>> > interactions.
> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
>

I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a 
collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM 
calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in 
the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the 
beams pass through.

The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated 
with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in 
the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you 
will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the 
field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is 
sufficient to rule out your theory.

On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory 
which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you 
can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable 
outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through 
observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594319

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-23 08:59 -0700
Message-ID	<205ad94c-1c8c-4164-b1f8-66b89c21347b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#594116

Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> >>> > > Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
> >>> > > target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
> >>> > > bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
> >>> > > the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
> >>> > > nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
> >>> > > measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
> >> >
> >> > I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
> >> > a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
> >> > interactions.
> > The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
> > energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
> > increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
> > energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
> > by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
> >
> 
> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a 
> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM 
> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in 
> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the 
> beams pass through.
> 
> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated 
> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in 
> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you 
> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the 
> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is 
> sufficient to rule out your theory.
> 
> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory 
> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you 
> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable 
> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through 
> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594322

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-23 11:13 -0500
Message-ID	<nphsnv$1al$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#594319

On 8/23/2016 10:59 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
>>>>>>> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
>>>>>>> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
>>>>>>> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
>>>>>>> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
>>>>>>> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
>>>>> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
>>>>> interactions.
>>> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
>>> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
>>> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
>>> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
>>> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
>>>
>>
>> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a
>> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM
>> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in
>> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the
>> beams pass through.
>>
>> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated
>> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in
>> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you
>> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the
>> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is
>> sufficient to rule out your theory.
>>
>> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory
>> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you
>> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable
>> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through
>> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read
> for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!
>

I had presumed that you know how to do this:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DZero+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CDF+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMS+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594345

From	Sven Andersson <pairwise.relations@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-08-23 11:41 -0700
Message-ID	<1d1943e9-8137-4940-b331-27f48116de24@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#594322

Den tisdag 23 augusti 2016 kl. 18:13:55 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/23/2016 10:59 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> > Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
> >> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
> >>>>>>> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
> >>>>>>> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
> >>>>>>> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
> >>>>>>> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
> >>>>>>> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
> >>>>> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
> >>>>> interactions.
> >>> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
> >>> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
> >>> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
> >>> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
> >>> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a
> >> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM
> >> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in
> >> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the
> >> beams pass through.
> >>
> >> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated
> >> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in
> >> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you
> >> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the
> >> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is
> >> sufficient to rule out your theory.
> >>
> >> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory
> >> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you
> >> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable
> >> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through
> >> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read
> > for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!
> >
> 
> I had presumed that you know how to do this:
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DZero+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5
> 
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CDF+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
> 
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
> 
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
> 
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMS+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Point me to a review article or a book, instead! It's not that I can't do it myself but sometimes asking maybe a shortcut to finding the best information.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594351

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-23 13:55 -0500
Message-ID	<npi663$hm3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#594345

On 8/23/2016 1:41 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Den tisdag 23 augusti 2016 kl. 18:13:55 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/23/2016 10:59 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>> Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>>>> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
>>>>>>>>> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
>>>>>>>>> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
>>>>>>>>> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
>>>>>>>>> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
>>>>>>>>> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
>>>>>>> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
>>>>>>> interactions.
>>>>> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
>>>>> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
>>>>> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
>>>>> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
>>>>> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a
>>>> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM
>>>> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in
>>>> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the
>>>> beams pass through.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated
>>>> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in
>>>> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you
>>>> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the
>>>> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is
>>>> sufficient to rule out your theory.
>>>>
>>>> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory
>>>> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you
>>>> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable
>>>> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through
>>>> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read
>>> for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!
>>>
>>
>> I had presumed that you know how to do this:
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DZero+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CDF+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMS+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Point me to a review article or a book, instead! It's not that I can't do it myself but
> sometimes asking maybe a shortcut to finding the best information.
>

I think you need to come a little more halfway. I've given you oodles 
and oodles of links to experimental papers, because you were unable to 
even find them yourself.

Now you are asking for an easily digestible synoposis, so that you don't 
have to do the work that physicists do.

Here's the bottom line. You've presented a new (germ of a) theory and it 
is your job to reconcile its predictions against known experimental data 
that is relevant. I've pointed out the kinds of experiments where those 
data are available AND I've given you the lists of their papers AND I've 
summarized the results that are in conflict with your theory. Now, you 
have three options:
1. You can decide to check those data yourself by doing what other 
physicists do with their theories -- by reading those papers.
2. You can elect not to read those papers and abandon your theory on the 
likelihood that the data have shot it out of the water.
3. You can elect not to read those papers and stick to your theory, 
regardless of the the counterevidence in those papers, in which case you 
will quickly class yourself among the wannabe cranks who don't like the 
work involved in doing science.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594353

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-23 13:57 -0500
Message-ID	<npi69r$hm3$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#594345

On 8/23/2016 1:41 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Den tisdag 23 augusti 2016 kl. 18:13:55 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/23/2016 10:59 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>> Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>>>> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
>>>>>>>>> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
>>>>>>>>> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
>>>>>>>>> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
>>>>>>>>> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
>>>>>>>>> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
>>>>>>> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
>>>>>>> interactions.
>>>>> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
>>>>> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
>>>>> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
>>>>> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
>>>>> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a
>>>> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM
>>>> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in
>>>> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the
>>>> beams pass through.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated
>>>> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in
>>>> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you
>>>> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the
>>>> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is
>>>> sufficient to rule out your theory.
>>>>
>>>> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory
>>>> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you
>>>> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable
>>>> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through
>>>> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read
>>> for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!
>>>
>>
>> I had presumed that you know how to do this:
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DZero+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CDF+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

The above should be
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ATLAS+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44

>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMS+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Point me to a review article or a book, instead! It's not that I can't do it myself
> but sometimes asking maybe a shortcut to finding the best information.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594508

From	noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-24 10:37 -0700
Message-ID	<4ecb2f40-c7ac-408c-96ff-f9c8dc66b1cd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#593828

1/137 is just a ratio between strongforce & electromagforce?

> Hmm, an experimental setup with a very thin foil of Lithium that is being irradiated by a proton beam with low intensity and with a very sensitive gamma ray spectrometer next to it, may do the trick.
> 
> BTW; What do you think about my H-bomb post?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594528

From	kdthrge@gmail.com
Date	2016-08-24 12:19 -0700
Message-ID	<a3fb32f4-344b-4a60-9ea0-5d2239ed60ac@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#594508

In a nuclei, the electric force of each of the protons is combined so that the overall electric force is the simple addition of the proton's electrical field.

If the protons have a form of oscillating electric field, in close proximity, the vectors of the identical oscillating fields could become synchronized and therefore non-conflicting. Allowing the protons to exist in close proximty with the electric power (Z value) combined as the simple addition of the protons, which determines the chemistry of the nucleus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...

Contents

#593132 — Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...

#593136

#593446

#593584

#593561

#593600

#593674

#593751

#593685

#593828

#593850

#593943

#594116

#594319

#594322

#594345

#594351

#594353

#594508

#594528