Selected parameters are: 1 Height, km 2 O, cm-3 3 N2, cm-3 4 O2, cm-3 5 Mass_density, g/cm-3 6 Temperature_neutral, K 7 Temperature_exospheric, K 8 He, cm-3 9 Ar, cm-3 10 H, cm-3 11 N, cm-3
Display More
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.
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.
Atleast ie. the Helium "absorbtion limit" at 63 km height gives exactly this result. Also the Hydrogen disappears to unmeasurable amount, at 68 km (the measures actually ends allready at 72 km, but this where the curve is going), Anyhow, the result is very close 1/c [seconds]And also for Oxygen (O not O2); my sample ends at 60 km height, and the data ends at 72 km too, but it's 1.106 x 1/c at 60 km height, So I expect that it hits the 1/c at 57-58 km height, and this just reminds me that where does the Ozon layer start at?,,, well it begins at ~55 km!
Yep. The data which I used provided this limit to be as follows; Ar 54 km N2, O2, 55 km, (This is also the temperature Turning point; "derivate max", Peak temperature was 47 km) O, N, 58 km, He, 63 km H, 68 km,
I also found the reason for Mesopause; At 85 km height the Hydrogen is burning (or rather oxidizing, because of temperature). This produces water, and the noctilucent clouds, (76- 85 km) and This water starts to absorb heat from the sun, which causes the mild temperature rise on mesosphere.
The idea of Turbopause was familiar to me also before. The answer was just impossible to be said loud; This is the point where the Fusion ends, height ~100 km. Here you can even found traces of metal. Sodium (Na) can be found in Hights of 80-100 km;
Quote
The thermosphere contains an appreciable concentration of elemental sodium located in a 10-km thick band that occurs at the edge of the mesosphere, 80 to 100 km above Earth's surface. The sodium has an average concentration of 400,000 atoms per cubic centimeter.
So the Fusion-zone is from 100 km - 300 km.
For completion, I also define the Tropopause. It's the region where the "True surface" of the Earth occasionally rises. "The wave tops" of the fluid surface. The calm "true" fluid surface lies on approx 550 m height above the sea surface. It's the base of Cumulus clouds, but it can be lifted through mountains etc. up to 2400 m.
This all can be seen on the existing data. Two key notions; 1. The Water of the Noctilucent clouds comes from space. Hydrogen is not a problem, but how would the oxygen be created? If there would be no new oxygen production, it all would have rained down long ago. 2. From where does the Sodium (Na) came from? It's metal! (btw. It's also the main component on Mercury's atmosphere.)
Everything very coherent and simple, starting from the very basics; from the speed of light. What made me now to grab on this? I saw this video;
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
A muon penetrates about 200-300 an atomic arbit before it dies and becomes an simple electron.
Yes. These muons are one issue. But not directly the issue of the vessel-size like I ment. The mean Free path is basically only dependent of two things; 1. How long is the path. 2. What is the travelling speed.
The path-lenght = particle density = pressure The travelling speed = ~temperature (~ because it also depends on the "mass". <- I hate this word.)
I think the muons are produced by the collisions in gas /plasma which destroys protons/neutrons. Thus "10 000 muons reaches every square meter of earth a minute." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_sources And I think they also mostly decay very fast; (456 m is said) But the reason why they reach Earth can be merely a chain reaction like in newtons-cradle. For the Muons this is like a "relay race" combined with "musical chairs". At least I could calculate that the Muon rate ratio +/- ; 1.27 fits exactly to the proton/neuton model I which simply comes out from the Fusion idea, when calculated from the measured Hydrogen (proton) and Helium (alpha-radiation) amounts. But this I haven't put on paper yet.
WOW! -BANG! I just found a thing I wasn't even searching!!!!!
I mean in this paper; https://www.researchgate.net/p…ything_-THE_MATH_07102016 I show how The Boltzmann constant and Planck constant can be calculated from the Speed of light -Only! Well, this was based on the idea, that the Atom diameter is 1/c [m] when it's on Condensating point. (State of matter; Gas-> Solid/liquid) And while I was working with that paper, I already thougth, that IF this logic is correct, then also the gas-Plasma transition must be able to be drawn from the speed of light. (Solid/liquid cant, but thats a long story)
AND NOW I FOUND IT. Thanks Alan Smith! Thanks Wyttenbach! (...Fuck you Zephir_AWT -But ofcourse this is not ment personally- there is a LOT like you. Majority, I would say :zz(: )
...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]
Atleast ie. the Helium "absorbtion limit" at 63 km height gives exactly this result. Also the Hydrogen disappears to unmeasurable amount, at 68 km (the measures actually ends allready at 72 km, but this where the curve is going), Anyhow, the result is very close 1/c [seconds] And also for Oxygen (O not O2); my sample ends at 60 km height, and the data ends at 72 km too, but it's 1.106 x 1/c at 60 km height, So I expect that it hits the 1/c at 57-58 km height, and this just reminds me that where does the Ozon layer start at?,,, well it begins at ~55 km!
Oh, and I also calculated the needed vessel-size. It seems that some reasonable tank size is enough. There must have been some mistake on the free-path calculation in my prev. message. Now my excel shows that about ~5-10 cm radius might be enough.
This makes me to predict, that Fusion might be achieved as simply as placing Helium-4 to a pressure of 0.01-0.001 Pa and to a temperature of 200-400 K (ie. room temperature of 300 K would be quite ok). It should not be forgotten, that at space there is electron flow, so additionally a voltage should be implemented to ionize the gas.
....Not so quickly! The size of the vessel where this is done, is also relevant because of the mean free path. Because the velocity of a particle is Dependant from atomic mass and from Temperature, this means that Helium has easily 28/4 = 7 times higher velocity than Air which is mostly N2 and has thus 28 "mass" compared to Helium's "mass" 4.
I looked the most optimum conditions at the data presented in picture, and it seems to be at 116 km height in "05" curve. The pressure is ~0.003 Pa and the temperature is 290 K. In room temperature the Free mean path is approx (wiki link above) ~10 m in this pressure. (did I calculate this correct?) so the Helium might need a tank of 70 m, -in radius! (it's not very prectical to think that the collision happens exactly at the wall and travel the longest free path through center on other side) This is structurally quite Problematic and makes the testing very expensive. Luckily the Mean free path can be reduced by lowering the temperature. So were back in trying to calculate the correct temperature. ... back to excel....
So here's few pictures from what I am talking about;
The Thick Blue Hydrogen line is the one to look at. The Green dashed line shows the line shape just "4 hours later". The time presents the sun location 12, all curves are from the same moment.
At this picture above, the Temperatures are shown.The scale is on the Radius. Various lines presents the temperature in different heights (106 -125 km). The position 0-24 is the "local" time, and presents the relative location to sun, similarily as in previous picture the 05 and 09. This picture and data is the same 21.9.1998, 19 UTC data which I have chosen as an interesting point to study because it's near equinox and the LOD (Length Of Day) variation gave expectations that here might be found this kind of stuff.
This third picture shows, how the Pressure varies; lower pressure above >190 km height generates a higher pressure (and density) to height 80-190 km. This makes me to predict, that Fusion might be achieved as simply as placing Helium-4 to a pressure of 0.01-0.001 Pa and to a temperature of 200-400 K (ie. room temperature of 300 K would be quite ok). It should not be forgotten, that at space there is electron flow, so additionally a voltage should be implemented to ionize the gas.
The results were the same as in this first quick study from September. But now, as I fist analysed the exact time to study, the data brought a very clearly anomaly on sight. Pls. look the thick Blue Hydrogen-line at the first diagram. It shows how Hydrogen is disappearing somewhere! The same happens to Helium too. Page 6 shows the comparison from both; 05 and 09 lines, and it makes clear that also the mass (density) is growing. (N2 and Mass are practically the same lines.) Further the Temperature drops too.
I see fusion happening in Thermosphere, Peaking at 118 km height at that diagram, and It seems to be Endothermic.
You obviously didn't read the paper. The author says "Despite several trials, this experiment is unique and a single experiment is insufficient to understand the observed phenomena." So only performed a few times by the same team, not a direct replication of anything else either.
Your right, I didn't read the full paper. I mostly skip the non-technical part. This text in Technical part made me to believe that this was a Replicating experiment. -Sorry.
Quote
Consequently, we conclude that an unexplained neutron emission was certainly observed. The largest net count was: 0.7 pulse/s. The estimate total neutron emission was: 3.8x 104 neutron/s with an uncertainty of about 20%. We note that, in the initial paper of Fleischmann and Pons ([1], p. 306), the neutron emission is nearly the same: 4 x 104 neutron/s with a cathode 10 cm long and 4 mm in diameter.
I don't want to discourage anyone from replicating the experiment. I just consider it's not quite safe. And I would at least stop the experiment after the same level of neutron emission is reached, as in these previous non-dangerous tests. And then I would like to run the test few times, to see if the turbulence has a role in this.
Do you have the needed heavy water available in UK? If this is only about some third party testing, and just replicating the stuff?
If somebody fancies replicating the Buxerolle paper....
Why it should be replicated? Wasn't it already a replication itself? I personally accept the results, and have no particular means to have doubts that the test was honestly made.
I also consider it potentially dangerous experiment. I mean the linear growing neutron-flux might first end from a disturbance. (Potential Explosion danger) I'd rather develop the hypothesis forward and tried to find some consistent theory behind this. At least for the critical level of neutron flux, where the test should be stopped, if the linear growth continues, as I expect it will.
Yes. It simply means that the "force" defines the mass through Accelaration. F/a=m. But you actually don't need to define any "force" [kg*m/s2], you can define everything with velocity squared [m2/s2], this is often denoted with Y, ie as "Theoretical Spesific supply" But we can call it with any name. This gives that Y/a=l, Means, divided with acceleration gives some length. [m]
So take ie. "G" and divide it with "g" and get "AU". But the units are "wrong", no they are not. [kg= m3], so you end up wondering that the Earths density is 5.8 kg/m3 and this is impossible. Well, but what actually is the "surface" of a planet which defines it's "Volume". Why should it be the Material condensing point? I mean the Earth's atmosphere extends quite high. Ask from your "authority" what this means. My "authority" (calculator) provides me coherent answers.
When you say policies, arguments and strategies are coherent, you’re praising them for making sense.
... But I just might not be able to help you.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein
So, pls. Just questions and arguments. And let's keep in mind, that we might never reach consensus about what is "right". I mean it's fully aloud for people to believe in ie. Geocentric model. There is nothing wrong about that. This model is so much easier to understand. It just left out the rest of the universe, and as such, the information is limited to a more comprehensive levels. I think 40% of the humans living now, can more easily follow this guy;
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Yet, not trying to forget that ONLY the NATURE has Right at the end.
So what are you actually asking? And what you actually expect me to answer?
There is no mass. It's pseudo thing. If you take the Mass prototype to moon, and start defining all the stuff in physics with this prototype. Do you expect to get the same results? Will the physics and all it's constants remain the same? (Ofcourse, if you use the scales calibrated in Earth.) But how would you calibrate your scales? Ofcourse the difference is very small in the case of the moon, but it still would a difference. -> This simple statement means that the "concept of MASS" is WRONG. The G is not even today constant; (not even in Earth)
Quote
Between 1973 and 2010, the lowest average value of G was 6.6659, and the highest 6.734, a 1.1 percent difference. These published values are given to at least 3 places of decimals, and sometimes to 5, with estimated errors of a few parts per million. Either this appearance of precision is illusory, or G really does change. The difference between recent high and low values is more than 40 times greater than the estimated errors (expressed as standard deviations).
Your question is perfect, and waiting for a "Coherence" is gut thing to do. But what do you Want to Know;
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
How does a Person answer "why something happens?" (from 0.55->)
There is no mass. It's pseudo thing. So thus ie. the Mass difference of isotopes can't provide any source of energy. If something is happening, like in Fusion and Fission indeed does, it's based on other reasons. Photon hasn't got mass, but it has energy. This should be already enough to give you the impression that there is something WRONG in mass-energy causality.
I don't understand. IMO you're dismissing well working and widely used binding energy concept on behalf of incoherent thought, which you're unable to understand yourself. Please, don't take it personally - but I think, you're suffering with schizophrenia (cognitive delusions).
No, I am not dissmissing anything "well working". If you go through this list from nuclear weapons tests (as i have done) you find mostly that ie. ALL first Fusion bomb tests have produced a much Higher Yield than expected. And still it's said that most of the energy came from Fission. There is also a huge amount of fizzle tests. Even if you study the peaceful nuclear power production, you find that you can actually calculate the Energy production with almost any isotope combination, and you will get about the same results. This is far from being accurate and well working concept.
It's irrelevant if something is "widely used".
I am able to understand it myself. This concept is actually even more simple, after you get into it.
...and finally, Thank you for your mental-analysis. I am used to hear such a proposals in a weekly basis. Unfortunately your inability to understand can't be explained with my "cognitive delusions". I have a confidence for this, as Swiss-state just invested >200 kCHF and a year for trying to find out if I am insane and whats the problem. This is related to my divorce, the main problem lies in deep cultural difference between Scandinavia and Swiss. The result was, that only verifiable abnormality is my IQ. (Even though the test was made with my 4th language.) So that's my problem, and cause I have been aware about this serious problem for 20 years, I have learned to live with it. According to plain statistic, I cannot even have a proper dialogue with over 80% of the population. This produces a behavior model, which lead the mental-analysts to assume that I may have a "Narcissistic personality disorder". But if this is properly tested, my results are ~12 in the scale of 0-40, when average is 15. If you really want to continue a dialogue about this issue, I do have solid arguments. Left over is a weak suspicion that I might have a "sensitive paranoia", --just because I don't trust to other people's abilities. Well, it comes simply from my life experience, but if someone wants to use word "paranoia" to describe this, I am fine, as it doesn't influence in reality. If you want to study this issue further, I do have 168-page 125 Mb scanned PDF in German language available.
But I would like to talk about science; i.e. If my hypothesis is wrong, I am fine with that. You actually need only one good argument to change my mind. Here, in this forum, I am just trying to have a proper open minded dialogue about the science. And I am fully aware about the problems of discussing from my hypothesis. (I've faced these problems already myself) I mean if there is no Mass, how do you actually can define anything with the current language? Energy? Force? Power? Everything is messed with mass. What is Mass-less energy? Or What is Massless power? Luckily this was actually already solved allready by Leonhard Euler. I mean you can i.e. completely define a Turbomachine without a mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_pump_and_turbine_equation And the Gravitation can be defined with Froude's law. Everything was actually allready known. I only needed to rearrange it. But I must admit, that I am still in this situation (Youtube video); Feynman: 'Greek' versus 'Babylonian' mathematics I propose to look atleast 3:00->4:00 So I am Babylonian. OK. And 8:20 -> to end. Maybe you understand, or maybe not, but can you even define me the mass ANY OTHER WAY than with a prototype? This is also advising video
So I am sorry if I sometime Do write ie. the Pressure and Volume wrong, like I did in my previous comment. Writing first (PV=nRT) P1V1=3 P2V2 though the n1 vs. n2 was Obviously only 1.5x So, I simply forgot the incoming neutron and corrected my mistake. If this is my "Understanding problem",well no, I will definitively NOT take it personally.
Ps. I even added my foto, for helping those who are defining the quality of arguments from speakers appearance.
Without going into the devilish details they shone a laser beam onto some already condensed hydrogen making it condense even more and voila out came an abundance of muons.
Does anyone have anymore info about this? I tried to google, and read the article.In the article were btw. very interesingly written between the lines, that there are no killing-gamma-rays in these processes.
@Zephir_AWT Your video-picture in the same chain is nice, and the whole thing is explained here;
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
This Aspect is relevant to the question of Alan Smith about my claim of the need of equal masses. I mean atomic nuclei doesn't work that way. A single proton have no possiblity to know what is the atom number of the molecule it is a part of. It means the collision is always happening between the smaller nuclei and a similar size part of the bigger nuclei, which then transfers the collision energy to the rest of the nuclei, -if this is possible. In the case of Lithium (6,7), Beryllium (9) and Boron (10,11) this is not possible. The first enough stabile construction able to hold under a collision of single high speed proton/neutron needs atleast 12 units. (Carbon)
YES! I just looked the abundances of Lithium and Beryllium, and though production of all known isotopes could be produced through this nucleosynthesis idea; https://www.researchgate.net/p…187_Nucleosynthesis_chain I allready see how the math of the natural abundances will also fit perfectly after calculating this through this newest idea from today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…_elements_in_the_Universe ... I think I work this to an Excel now..
So the main problem in Physics, is actually that the whole science is messed up with a pseudo thing called mass. But total mass of universe is ZERO. You actually can sit down and found this answer from the Newton's 3rd.
The solution also confirms that a positive mass M in the conjugate metric is seen as a negative mass M from its gravitational effect felt on our side.
And even on page 64;
Quote
no more black hole!
and further on Page 66... But why should we implement some new "Dark Gravity"? Of course we can do it, and it would provide better theory than the existing one, but it still keeps the stuff more complicated. It's all much more simple If the whole mass is left away. Even for the Pioneer effect he has made the same conlutions.
Thanks Alan Smith for posting this!
This exactly the same what I mean. This just more complicated, and is only a theoretical approach.
Well, ofcourse no Endothermic process can explain any High Yield. The clou is, that it can be explained though the Fission of Lithium-7. So, actually it's the whole Binding energy concept based on E=mc2 which is wrong. (This doesn't mean that E=mc2 is wrong) You basically can't predict any energy production from the atomic mass. If you study this closer, the whole concept is empty. The heavy elements (above iron) have more or less constant energy production / fission. And the light elements? Well, You have LENR. You have Castle-Bravo.
In addition to the fusion reactions, the following reactions with neutrons are important in order to "breed" tritium in "dry" fusion bombs and some proposed fusion reactors:
n + Li-6 → T+ He-4 + 4.784 MeV n + Li-7→ T+ He-4 + n – 2.467 MeV
The latter of the two equations was unknown when the U.S. conducted the Castle Bravo fusion bomb test in 1954. Being just the second fusion bomb ever tested (and the first to use lithium), the designers of the Castle Bravo "Shrimp" had understood the usefulness of Lithium-6 in tritium production, but had failed to recognize that Lithium-7 fission would greatly increase the yield of the bomb. While Li-7 has a small neutron cross-section for low neutron energies, it has a higher cross section above 5 MeV.[27] The 15 Mt yield was 150% greater than the predicted 6 Mt and caused unexpected exposure to fallout.
So I simply think that these MeV energies + or - ,,, ARE WRONG. And the very explanation for the high yield of Castle Bravo is simply;
n + Li-6 → T+ He-4 + n n + Li-7→ T+ He-4 + n
and can be calculated by the Ideal gas law, where the "n" means the amount. I mean the above equations goes for pressure and Volume; PV -> 1.5 PV, and the free neutrons just gaining more velocity remains there to keep up the Chain reaction.
But of course this can idea can be wrong. I would appreciate if you could show me an experiment which does not fit in my theory. But don't bother do deliver some stuff where you show how the old "binding energy" theory works with heavier isotopes. I already know and agree it works there in the measurable range, and even the gamma radiation is produced for a good reason.
My sanity doesn't influence in anything. If I am wrong then so be it. But the present theories doesn't seem to be right either. So something MUST BE CHANGED. If you need mental support to accept the need of this kind of change, I propose the Book of John Gribbins, Page 255 -> It's ideas are mostly not usable. But it shows the scale of the problem.
There is no mass. It's a pseudo thing. And as a such, you can't expect anything from the measured atomic mass.
This is actually really interesting stuff. I mean the reproductibilty of such an experiment is definetly extreme difficult. If you are not aware about the need of having "laminarized" fluid, the only way to get it work is such an random occasion. In these videos; NSF Fluid Mechanics Series , it was somewhere (oh I rembered, i.e. here) clearly stated that the difference of the experiment is totally different (factor 1.5) if the fluid is left undisturbed for a time.
The settling of the fluid can thus be crucial for the succes of the experiment. In the linked video serie, they left the water to rest over night, to get the stabile, reproducible experiment results. Thanks for Wyttenbach for clearing the current source. It was not clearly stated in the paper, and the adjustabilty of the current made me to expect some instabile power source connected to electic grid. I mean here it's not really about from settling the fluid. It's much more about making it to fluctuate in some atomic scale. This means the power source which produces these fluctuations must be very stabile, such as a DC from chemical source is. And this then makes a settled fluctuation in the fluid, which then leads to LENR reactions.
The possibilty of explanation is extreme high. I mean if the linearily growing line in figure 1 in the paper under discussion ends it's growth only in some disturbance? I mean there actually is no limitations on which material are fissile. If this process suddenly starts to split oxygen, then Your lab will blow sky high, as 16O -> 4 4He and the "Heat" which comes purely from the 4 times "n", from Ideal gas law is extreme, added with the simultaniously gasifying water; H2O -> H2 + 4He. ....The volumetric expansion can be quite remarkable. This Water is yet quite safe, as the 17O and 18O are quite rare, there might not be expected any true atomic Explosion. Unless all the Deuterium is suddenly split to free neutrons and protons ... well it might be possible.
I'm probably being a bit stupid (again) - but could you clarify what you mean by 'equal masses'?
No! It's a perfect question. A honest one. I actually don't even mean "masses", I rather mean "Kinetic Force" but as "force" is "F=m*a", I actually doensn't even mean Force, but something like "Strength"; In turbomachinery this is denoted with "Y" Specific pressure head. And in the case of particles, this would be Y=a*l, and the unit is m2/s2, which basic form must be c2. This might be near the concept of "Field", but again, If I talk about Specific field of a particle, there wont be too much dialogue.
So the main problem in Physics, is actually that the whole science is messed up with a pseudo thing called mass. But total mass of universe is ZERO. You actually can sit down and found this answer from the Newton's 3rd. But Let's get back to Fusion.
What I mean with "Equal masses" is simply similar mass number. And your question actually just delivered me the explanation for Lithium and Boron abundance. I actually don't have time to explain this now Throughly, but It's already written here, page 4. So, I just write clean that hand written paper; (Stupid answer; Ink don't disturb your thoughts whilst writing.)
Quote
Fusion through collision Synthesizing isotopes is mostly done with some Target-projectile combinations, which has a 3...5/1 -ratioin atomic mass. Ie. 292Lv was made with 238U as a target, and 54Cr as a projectile. This kind of Fusions most propably doesn't happen in nature, where both of these particles are moving in random directions, causing huge variations in impact energy. This variation would lead to fission and fusion simultaniously, and would thus be too random process, to be able to ever synthesize heavier isotopes. The basic Newtonian physics offers here a simple solution. If two objects of same mass and velocity(1) collides in space, after the collision they both will have the same direction and velocity(2), regardless from the collision angle. -When the collision is not elastic. This means, that the collision energy is high enough to over come the strong nuclei Force. (Potential wall) But small enough to be unable to split the Nuclei. -Or the nuclei must be as strong as Possible, but it must have the smallest possible potential wall. All this leads to an optimal case with similar masses on "target" and "projectile"(3)
I note that few points might need some more explanations; (1) velocity = temperature, This is same if the (gas/plasma) particles are in same temperature. -> Similar mass and same temperature is thus equally correct said. (2) The important aspect not said,(propably said somewhere in my linked paper) is that the particles remains together, in the same location. And if they are not disturbed this metastable Isomer can go through "Isomeric Transition" and form a Stabile nuclei. This is the reason for need to have low pressure. Low pressure is nothing else than more time between collisions. (google "Mean free path") (3) This talk about "Target" and "projectile" comes from the synthesized isotopes, which are also nothing else than "fusion". Searching some "silver bullet"-combination can get your(lab/uni/location) name to periodic table.
Hope this helped to follow my thoughts (which are not necessarily correct)... -This answer is far from being complete.
It just added two new piece to my ideas, and this might be about completing the puzzle. My previous hypothesis for fusion has been; 1. Low pressure 2. Equal masses 3. Adequate particle velocity (=temperature, > 200 K)
And the post just added the turbulence, or rather Lack of it; 4. Laminar conditions. There is a thread (I've had no time to read it , but already the title) which supports this idea; "bose condensation as a force multiplier" AND 5. Ionizing (with electricity)
Now the 3. and 4. are actually total contradictions, and this might be the reason for the need of low pressure (1.)
I've already spoken out my experiment-idea (somewhere, here? don't remember), that the fusion might occure simply at low pressure when the particles has equal masses, but low pressure is bad for power density, and it's difficult to measure the results. But until now, I've have problem about electrons. As I think they prevent and shield the atoms about being fusioned/fissioned.
Adding all aspects in, brings me to the following experimental proposal;
Single isotope material (doesn't matter too much which) is cooled down to very low temperature. .....Sorry, my ADHD..... I come back later, just got an idea about the condesation etc. want to do some excel now.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.More DetailsClose
Thanks Wyttenbach! 
-But ofcourse this is not ment personally- there is a LOT like you. Majority, I would say :zz(: )
means Page 8.