I am very interested in cold fusion, but I just wanted to know how you would create muons which due to their excessive mass cannot be obtained through radioactive decay? Whether such process would be energy efficient? What ever the process involved, it seems it would need to be quite hot rather than cold.
ouch..... another regression. quit trying to bring in new crap. We were talking about a base fission and the products and you are now ranting about baryon and that their speed affects their 'mass' NO! (*)(*)(*)(*) i hate particle monkeys elements (are mass) energy (em as the fields) stick with what is real and screw the garbage of gluons and baryons and the quacks of quarks. The transition you need is to comprehend the 'energy' in the form of fields and wavelengths versus particles and things it is one of the reasons i did not like feynman, he made people see a picture of how these particles combine based on the energy levels as qubits of 'point' particles versus the fields of the resonant state of the mass (elements).
big size difference between them and not a one is a particle there is the stupid in which u235 fission? i am trying to keep a focus and you are all over the board
What's this with you bragging about the x factor given off in fission and fusion reactions to boil water. If the x factor is not photons/electromagnetic radiation/wave pocket, then what do you think the x should be?
ah..... a regrounding. screw the particle definition................. what elements converted to which an then what energy (photons) are released. we can review the energy and the transition a bit later i want the identifiable input and results labeled, and the quackery you keep leaning on in the middle, can go into the garbage
i already know it is em. and that is what i was trying to see if you at least understood. ie... these are measurable the garbage in your explanation is strickly that now which wavelengths? then the size of them?
You would need to quote a specific fission or fusion reaction, then you would need to calculate the mass defect, subtract the mass of other particles radiated out, and then what remains, you could use to calculate the wavelength of the photon. You could use an equation E = hf
wow..... i asked you specific questions and you just will not address them and claim it is my attitude? In a sense, i can agree; i hate fools using obsolete material to address the basics.
Hey, I agree that not all my information is up to date and this is all just a review exercise for me to refresh my memory, but I am constantly puzzled as to where you're coming from?
the thread is on cold fusion and i was walking thru a basic fission with you to bring you down to the evidence versus the beliefs of how the system works in and of both, elements (mass) and energy (em) are the constituent parts. I am trying to return to these focal attributes and want your to forget the 'laws' or accepted scope when observing the process. Meaning: if i took red and yellow and made green, what to see are the facts and skip the laws, because the reality is, the laws are incorrect and in order for people to evolve with the evidence, then the old knowledge needs to be put aside and a return to the humility of learning and rehashing the rules should be the focus. Stay grounded first as the evidence supercedes the rules. If you and i had experienced all the same material, you would be looking at things with an open mind but do yourself a favor, do not believe that 'them' people know more and that 'them' rules do apply and that what 'they' say is correct before giving yourself a chance to see for yourself. my point; there is a paradigm shift in motion and if you stop to see it thru, you will be surprised at just how 'stupid easy' the scope is. step one................ lose the particle scope; there is no such thing as a fixed particle less than an H atom (hence from the brane thesis to string theory and with the greatest of dbranes confirming that focal postulate), the rest is far easier than you realize if you prefer just maintaining what is accepted then perhaps consider yourself like a religious adherant and move over to rest
That waves are particles while particles are also waves was known since Broglie. Then Broglie began adhering to and fooling around too much with Heisenberg's theories by taking the very correct uncertainty principle too far and claiming (Heisenberg, Bohr and Broglie padding and reinforcing each other) that there is no underlying reality, it's all perceptual. That caused one researcher to remark "now I know the moon isn't there when I am not looking at it". That's the whole problem with this relativity camp, that it's all hypothetical backed with no evidence, existing all in equations and based on assumption that there's no underlying reality (there's something called the Bell theorem proposing a guiding wave that tried to reconcile both camps --->>> i.e. the guiding wave would make changes of any entity in any part of the universe instantenously felt by and affect everything else in the universe). BTW Broglie at the end of his life converted back to the "underlying reality" camp because he found it much easier and comfortable explaining concepts using their guidelines. In any case, there are some deep fundamental conceptual problems out there.
On the point of the binding energy somehow affecting mass of the system, you're quite right, I take that back. I started thinking too much, and there you go. Like I said, I've been out of the game for a few years and haven't played around with these concepts much. I was rather referring to your proposterous claim dismissing the laws of thermodynamics. You can make a specific system more orderly, but the energy you used up to make it so will make the universe overall more disorderly. And when you take a nucleus having less binding energy and turn it into one with a higher binding energy per nucleon, you've increased the disorder of the system (helium or iron atoms are examples of such a disorder). That's common to all processes that give you a net gain of free energy.
i understand the greats and there accomplishments. My point is that this is today and we can also 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and think too. As each in their period improved the understanding a bit, well so can we, did, have and will. i am focused on the baby steps before trying to go with the grandioso
ok..... ie... the energy of mass being caused by em, in one fashion or another think of the pirates code; it's a sort of guideline ie... why does it (energy) equilibrate? that is where you and the whole of planck's mess have forgotton what the sun did was quite opposite. It was mass (nebula) that combined to order. my point, there are two sides to the equation. For example; the spring aint loading by accident. i disagree, which is what i shared with the evolution of a star or even the concept of eating of a life a flame the problem people have is the concept of 'heat' versus the concept of energy itself. everything is free how you configure the process is what mankind does; we think then we perish and leave the free here where we found it free then the argument of the 'free energy' as the fools like to debate on, is stupid. i aint into that game. NOTHING is free in the concept of energy as a human life must contribute their energy, time and commitment to create a process of the usable configuration.
It is good to be skeptical. I'm skeptical as well of Rossi's device. Everyone should be if they really haven't seen definitive proof. Cold fusion has been proven, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a hoax.
Since when did Planck get dethroned? His main claim to fame was to quantify radiation/energy emissions. As a light-is-strictly-a-wave proponent, do you mean to say that a black body would give off radiation in infinite number of wavelengths within a certain wavelength range? That would give all the energy conservationists a heart attack. Your commentary on the Sun as a more ordered system than a nebula. Well, how would this account for all the gravitational potential energy receding into the more negative range when things come together due to a gravitational pull? Do you mean to tell me a satellite in orbit has a lower gravitational potential energy than one on the ground? Since when did this get revised? You seem like a go-getter type, but don't jump too far ahead of yourself.
What would be truly intriguing? Cold fusion has appeared to be successful in peer reviews and hundreds of scientists have gotten the same results Fleischmann and Pons did.
is ptolemy on top anymore? why? knowledge evolves by incorporated 'entropy' from rendering 'speed' as the foundation of energy (momentum) the gravest error in all physics. whats an occilation? ie... it aint of a single direction, hence the d/t of walking the planck is what is causing people to drown. if you'ew walking in one direction (walk the planck) then you are falling off the deep end. evidence; conservation (first law, makes the second moot) to comprehend the 'black body' you must comprehend what the 'carbon' (black) is converting the energy too and with graphene, you have a place to start. iee.... from the BB to the double slit experiment; the mass (elemental structure) is relative to the emission/evidence. yes....planck is done! and copernicus did the same thing and then eventually supported by gallileo, then newton, then planck and einstein............... but that dont mean it was 'finished' ie...einstein himself knew the planck/heisenberg frame was wrong (copenhagen) but it was not HIS fault because the entanglement (gravity) of energy was not understood as well the concept of the mass (elements) being the scope to comprehend the conversions of wavelengths was not maintained. For example; colors share the energy is absorbed and emitted based on the matter likewise, these words are entangling mass (energy is the cause of gravity, not the matter) the energy shared among the mass (elements) is what is causing the mass to accumulate with more momentum is can break away; kind of like the tip of a wave you are learning it now i did the math 3 decades ago and have since been learning how to combine the all branches of the sciences. Think 'paradigm shift'
It appeared that the test was successful. There is no way of knowing that though because the customer still hasn't been revealed. I think it was a 6.5:1 power output to input ratio. It only ran at 470 KW instead of the planned MW supposedly because the 1 MW would produce too much heat.
I have my own very tentative ideas for a type of solid-state fusion reactor, and it's stuff like that that I'd like to see. Something novel which is different from the approaches currently having money thrown at them. I could rant and go on and on about this but to summarize I think that the toroidal pinch, levitated dipole, electron-spiral toroid, field-reversed configuration and of course, the tokamak, are all fundamentally the same, with really the only differences being in whether a certain current element is made out of superconductors or plasma. Inertial confinement fusion is mostly just a poor substitute for nuclear testing, which we should just restart instead. I like the dense plasma focus, the polywell, and periodically oscillating plasma spheres, but I am not crossing my fingers. And do you know what they observed? Anomalous amounts of heat. Is that interesting? Yes, but they certainly jumped the gun by saying that it was nuclear fusion, when there wasn't any evidence that suggested it was necessarily a nuclear process at work.
That has more to do with hot fusion. They thought it couldn't be anything chemical because those materials usually don't chemically react, and it gave off more energy than chemical reactions. What would suggest a nuclear process? Neutrons or radiation? It's a common misconception, but nuclear radiation doesn't have to be given off in a nuclear reaction.
