Fusion-physics


  • " ... back to excel....”


    WOW! -BANG! I just found a thing I wasn't even searching!!!!!


    ...Well maybe I made some mistake, but I just found the first sight!! The difference between PLASMA and GAS -states is the Mean free Path TIME, limit being 1/c [seconds]


    No mistake found. I am writing a paper about this. Few diagrams attached for preview.
    - The x-axle is the hight in km in atmosphere in both.
    The "mean path time =1/c"
    - shows mean free path time in seconds at Y-axle, this is logarithmic scale
    - The Blue horizontal line is this 1/c and it fits perfectly to Stratopause. There curve's are linear but there is a clear bend to be seen in this at 116-123 km height. This is against all gas theories. It just shouldnt be there!
    - Please look also the stratopause lines at 55 km height - They are absolutely straight.
    The "Gas derivates with details at 55 &123"
    - shows clearly, how something strange happens in 123.
    - The temperature (Red) goes down rapidly
    - The amount of all particles and the total mass increases even more rapidly.
    - not that this diagram is derivates, 1 = no change, > 1 increasing, < 1 degreasing.
    - Look cyan line, "N" which are mostly below this red temperature line. It's amount degreases exponetialla, as it's turning to N2. But then suddenly this stabile line jumps at 123, and then continues to sink below 116.
    etc... etc...


    @axil thanks, But pls. delete your post and publish it somewhere else.

  • Maybe someone else is also interested to dig the data. This is the source I use;


    http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/msis_vitmo.html


    And with these parametes;



    I found the Helium-hole from the 112-138 km height, it's is shown in the attached picture. As it shows the derivate, thus below 1, the amount is decreasing. The absolute amount was -25.7% less at 122 km height than the peak above at 139 km.

  • This helium hole was not Fusion related. The location is wrong compared to Temperature-dip.
    And when I compared it to south pole, it became clear, that this was NOT caused by the max-orbital speed of Earth at Perihelion and the Sun activity maximum. (Data was from 05.January 2002)


    See first attached picture.


    But the Hole is real. Only it's reason is different. This is actually another prove that the ONLY comprehensive thery for Gravity is actually correct.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le-Sage-Gravitation
    As I have already shown in this paper;
    https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything
    (The end of the paper is already out of date.)
    For those who are interested, I'v written about this topic also in here;
    http://physics.stackexchange.c…and-o-divided-as-measured


    But back to Fusion. In the "Southpole" picture there is clearly some anomaly in 122-123 km height in Temperature and in all other molecules than Helium.
    Another very interesting aspect is, that the amount of Free Nitrogen (N) atoms are slightly increasing in about 90-95 km height (derivate > 1)
    If the Southpole absolute values are compared to Northpole we get following data; (It's not quite "pole", Lat 68 But "Northern hemisphere" is just annoying long to write)



    See Second attached picture.


    There seems to be too many things happening parallel in these Polar regions, that it might be too difficult to dig out any causalities to just a certain aspect.

  • Quote

    As it can be seen, there is least amount of Oxygen at Leading edge. And most amount of Helium. (at 6 o'clock) The situation is vice-versa at approx 16.30. The 720-620-660 are heights in Km.


    Not so surprising, as the Earth sweeps the space from solar wind during its motion around Sun.

  • @Zephir_AWT


    You don't seem to understand the problem.
    Yes, "solar wind" (or what ever particle's in space) Sweeps. Ok. We both Agree with that. What does this mean. I have calculate it (with Excel or what ever, "how" you calculate, depends on your own education.)


    It means that there is DRAG.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)


    But this is NOT aloud, because it would bring the planets down from rotating!
    See this video, correct point from ~7:30 min->, you need to look the next 5 minutes, bunchline is at 9:50-10:45


    Quote

    And so as the earth is moving in this direction, is running into the particles rather, and running away from theones that are chasing it from behind, so that more particles hit it from the front than from the back. And therewould be a force also sideways whenever there was any motion. This sideways force would slow the earth up inorbit, and it certainly would not have lasted the at least 4 billion years that it has been going around the sun. So that's the end of that theory.


    So the Drag is there, AND the planets keep rotating. This is the contradiction, and here I have the answer. With the existence of this drag it can be shown, that also the ENERGY PROBLEM must be there.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ory_of_gravitation#Energy


    AFTER you accept that this ENERGY PROBLEM exists, you can start to seek the answer.
    And the Fusion is the answer.

  • The drag is here and the planet rotation is slowing down - this is another known fact. No need to raise the LeSage theory, fusion the less.
    You can be mental case without problem - but you shouldn't get illogical with your alleged IQ...
    ancient.png


    You just blow your second change Zephir_AWT. This is the last message I will ever write to you. There surely is enough mediocre minds around, if I ever happen to miss such a dialogue.


    For those who are open minded and able, this LOD acceleration might be of interest.
    http://physics.stackexchange.c…ths-kinetic-energy-change


    Quote

    Another example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest so far was measured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. This difference means that 25.6 x1021 J of Kinetic energy was stored for 32 years.


    And I am aware that "Storing kinetic energy" is oxymoron. But this is what you get, if you calculate this. The rotation speed was Accelerated, and this increase of kinetic energy must come from some other source. There must be an Input. And IF there is an Input, then there can also be OUTPUT. >->> Drag becomes aloud. So, it's not the end of the Theory.
    But how much is this "25.6 x1021 J"? In 2013, total world energy consumption was or 3.89 × 1020 joules, And as for 40 years, it was only 1/2 of that, it's actually close the amount what Mankind has used energy in last 200 Years.


    It's 5.2077 ms, 226 Year on the most aggresive curve (2.3 ms/cy) in the previous post, or 372 years in the mildest 1.4 ms/cy -rate.


    So.. how it can be calculated?


    This is just Mathematic. You can calculate it with your head, excel, whatever, if you do it correctly, you get the results.
    But I can't give knowledge or understanding, I can only share information.

  • I like the reasoning of our "Joker".
    (Our Friend Jokela) He is not afraid to present hazardous
    assumptions, and even if these assumptions are false, it
    forces us to think.












    An exemple:


    n+Li7
    reaction did'nt increase the yield of the weapons "per se".
    But it don't consume any neutron, and product a tritium nucleus. This
    is this produced tritium which fuse quickly with deuterium and
    produce a lot of energy. (18 Mev?)


    But
    our Joker is right: the 3th generation aneutronic "fusion"
    reaction B + H --> 3 He4 is actually a fission reaction. No doubt.


    About
    his stratosphere and thermosphere diagram:


    I
    suppose the y-scale is in kilometers. This diagram is misleading
    because the abscissa is graduated in percentages.


    In
    the stratosphere, no problem: 20% oxygen, and traces of hydrogen and
    helium. (Yes, there are traces of hydrogen, even at sea level!) The
    rest is nitrogen.


    In
    the stratosphere, since there is no convection, oxygen should begin
    to sediment with respect to the lighter nitrogen, but since the air
    density is relatively high, molecular shocks cause the diffusion and
    this counteracts sedimentation.


    This
    is why dust and ice crystals are found very high in the atmosphere.
    According to the kinetic theory of perfect gases, dust should not
    rise higher than a few millimeters in the atmosphere. But the
    atmosphere is not a perfect gas (it is like human history). And
    therefore, by a "Saltatory" effect, (a bad translation of the french "Effet Saltatoire" which mean "Jumping effect" ) the dust collides and
    bounces higher and higher, even into the stratosphere, during sand
    storms. (Like the three balloons of the video above)


    That
    is why we also find clouds of fog on the moon. Aldrin had observed
    it: the regolith dust charged electrically by the solar wind repelled
    instead of agglomerating by Van Der Vaal effect, and the saltatory
    effect produced rather thick (relatively) clouds. The LEM propellant
    had stirred up a lot of dust. But the astronauts rested several hours
    before going out. The fog can not be seen in the photos, but the
    astronauts were clearly seen in the parts of the low and shady lunar
    relief where it had flowed like a liquid, and where the sun could
    still illuminate it.


    Let
    us return to our noctiluscent clouds: what is the weight of a
    molecule of water? Hardly more than the weight of an atom of oxygen
    (16 for atomic oxygen, 18 for water). The peak of water must
    therefore be barely higher than the peak of molecular oxygen , Not to
    mention the peak of the OH radical, (17) between the two peaks. It is
    not shown on the diagram of the friend Jokela, but it is there, you
    can be sure!


    So
    it is not impossible that this water forms crystals, if it finds
    objects on which to condense (the dust of a shooting star, for
    example)


    Let's
    talk about the peak of helium: gravity is not enough to bring the
    helium atoms back to the ground, so they leave our planet, but LESS
    FASTER than the hydrogen atoms. This is why we see a peak forming (in
    percentage, let us not forget)


    For
    hydrogen, no peak: it is the major constituent of the "void"
    intersidereal, so the concentration will tend asynptotically towards
    its intergalactic concentration, which must be I suppose near the proportions
    obtained during the big bang, memory, I Believe 3/4 of hydrogen, a
    quarter of helium.


    So
    no need for fusion in the thermosphere to explain these beautifull night
    clouds.

  • And I am aware that "Storing kinetic energy" is oxymoron.


    The earth poles are regions with low kinetic storage effect. If the polar ice melts and the water travels south the eart rotation speed should diminish. But.. if the tropical ocean is heating up too then this effect might be even bigger. Sea level increased by 30 cm in average the last 50 years... But ohm..,what about the density of the underlaying solid soil? If more mass stays on it it will go up, and the rotation slows down again. Further on we added gas (CO2) to the atmosphere about 0.1% of its mass. We build large storage lakes at various places.
    Even the earthquake, that happend in Japan 5 years ago, caused a 10 meter displacement of the rotation axes...
    And , most important, earth undergoes Larmor precision, which will change the rotation frequency on a regular basis.


    I'm sure there is a paper somewhere, which sums up all these effects, but we, here, can only speculate and that's a waste of time...

  • @fabrice DAVID
    Nice post with well thought arguments. I give short&quick reply;
    n+Li7
    According to present theory it should have decreased it with -2.5 MeV. It sould also be noted that it was expected, that the Li7+ n Makes Be-8 which further makes 2x He.
    This energy was actually calculated to the original Yield expectation, it was only thought to be delayed, as Li-8 -> Be-8 halflife is 0.84 seconds, and thus not add on too much on peak power.


    Saltatory, Molecule weight.
    This is true.
    Yet, there is no reason why the Noctilucent clouds should produce these ice chrystals first at the hight of ~80 km. (Temperature limit already at Tropopause, ~65-70 km below)
    And there is also now reason, why they would not be homogenous distributed, but form a cloud. Only this Saltatory priniciple in mind, there should be all components present in same scales as this H2O is. And there actually even is ie Sodium (Na) Metal about 400 ppm. And though this Sodium can be explained with shooting stars with first view, if you broaden the observations in other planets, youll find that ie. 29 % of Mercury's atmosphere is sodium. There is also a lot of other Metals.


    What comes to the Molecular weights; Ok,
    so H2O has 18,
    N2 has 28
    O2 has 32
    Ar has 40
    There is no trace that the Argon amount would be reduced at hights, though the weight difference between Ar <-> N2 is 40/28= 1.43 and and H2O <-> N2 is 28/18 = 1.55


    Yet there is a clear analogy with the Fact that absolute amount of H peaks at ~84 km, but disappears quickly with factor 0.00003 when the height is 73 km.
    Otherwice said, there is 38500 times more free Hydrogen in 84 km height, than in 73 km Height. If the H2O noctilucent clouds in height 76-85 km, is coming from the Earth. Why is this Hydrogen then reduced so quickly?


    @Wyttenbach
    Yes. Bringing Ice from poles to "equator" (generally raising the see level) reduces the rotation speed. And so does the Added CO2 and all the hydropower lakes.
    All fine and comprehensive. The Problem is that form 1973 to 1998 the LOD was getting shorter, and thus the rotation speed was increaced.

  • According to dense aether model, the fluctuations of Earth momentum arise from dark matter density fluctuations, primarily these ones which exist at the connection line of Sun-Jupiter and another heavy planets (explained 1, 2 and 3). The noctilucent clouds result from condensation of ice on surface of micrometeorites, which serve as a condensation nuclei.


    [


    Any further questions?

  • Dear Human Beings,


    I found it quite Hilarious, to see how my own picture, I created about two years ago, Is replied to me, as some kind of an counter argument to my own comment.


    As an attachmend is my intern PDF-copy of this picture with Finnish titles, dated 26.6.2015, 20:52:35.
    (pls. look the Metadata of this PDF.)


    -This is really priceless-

  • If some of you people don't have any argument to say, why not just stay on Facebook and just place those thumbs to various places.


    Heres the first Draft of my paper;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_from_The_Speed_of_Light


    To avoid unpleasent conversation caused by some one-liner spammers, I invite those who actually have something to say, to come to this site

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/f…viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16592

    for a dialogue.

  • Alan Smith No, the Dimensionless heat capacity doesnt. Yes, the one with dimensionful does.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…mensionless_heat_capacity


    And I am talking about the dimensionless one.


    snotty No. It didn't help. -I read it already before asking here. I've asked this also here;

    https://physics.stackexchange.…1/heat-capacity-of-plasma

    and here;

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/f…b8361405792334bcd06190957

    And this source given in later;

    https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ppd/s…pdfs/NRL_FORMULARY_16.pdf


    Didn't help me either.


    But thanks. I've used to this (no answers to my questions) since I was just a kid.