Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:19 pm

Sure, there's a lot wrong with it, more just a "proof of concept" video than anything else at this stage.

The purple charge cones at the poles are meant to represent the field propensity for incoming charge, just a placeholder really. They're meant to be pushing the electrons towards the nucleons and also "feeding" the protons and neutrons, though it's really rough at this point. I'll be using an ambient incoming charge model that doesn't work like that now that I've got things kinda-working. Everything needs to be direct bombardment - except for gravity, obviously.

So I'm working from relative numbers right now, but that will change. The photons have a mass of 1, the electrons 233, and the protons/neutrons 1821. I'm sure those numbers aren't right but I also can't actually simulate the entire charge field directly, so I'm using a kind of relative interaction to get things going.

We'll refine it as we go, including replacing the charge profiles of all three with more proper emissions and recycling. It's just been a real struggle to make the dynamics work this way without resorting to animation tricks and motion-keying, but it's a baby step I've been trying to take this whole time, since I met you folks here.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:07 pm

I just read or reread most of this thread.

Neutron charge: .63 times the Proton charge. That's what I recall Miles calculating it to be. Nevyn said .6, so I think I'm recalling correctly.

Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.

What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.

What "attracts" neutrons to alphas? It seems that the proton poles have low pressure, which also attracts electrons (and the poles of other protons). I guess neutron poles would have high pressure, since they emit charge there. Maybe one pole has low pressure to attract charge and the other emits it. Or would the neutron be able to absorb charge everywhere but at the poles? (Electron poles should have low pressure, while nectron [neutral electron] poles should have high pressure. So maybe nectrons would not be attracted to protons as strongly as electrons are.)

Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?

Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?

Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:12 pm

LloydK wrote:
Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.

What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.

I was under the impression that the neutrons were already between the protons when the stack is formed and get trapped in there. I don't see how they could get in there after the stack is built. There is too much outward pressure from the emission of the protons.

With respect to neutrons forming in lightning, I would assume at this point that they aren't so much created, although that may be possible, but they are liberated from elements in the path of the lightning. Of course, there is a hell of a lot of charge in a lightning strike, so I won't say that can't change particles. Is there any evidence that other particles are also created? If not, why only neutrons? Maybe the lightning converts electrons into neutrons but if it could do that then I would also assume that it can convert smaller particles into electrons. Maybe there aren't enough particles slightly smaller than an electron to convert. Maybe it does create electrons but since the mainstream assumes that electrical charge is the motion of electrons, they just expect them to be there and don't think about where they came from.

LloydK wrote:
Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?

Because you don't get electrical and magnetic properties from a disc but you do from charge emission that can spin. In many ways it does act like a disc, but a very special disc indeed. A disc would not give you a torque, but the emission can through its spin. A disc does not provide any force, but the emission can through its linear velocity (and its spin).

LloydK wrote:
Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?

The torque is due to the mass, it says it right there in your equation. Torque is actually radius x force (and force is mass x acceleration), so the force is already present and torque just gives you the rotational component of that force given a radius.

LloydK wrote:
Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.

I'm not a fan of changing other peoples posts or even my own, for that matter. What I post is what I said at the time and if I want to point out an error, then I might add a new section (clearly denoted) showing the error and the correction to it. However, that thread is mostly your posts, at least the ones containing images, so you can re-arrange them if you think it will help, as long as it doesn't change the discussion around them.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:16 pm

.
This is a hybrid post. The top part replaces comments I made that were unintentionally deleted.

LloydK. Neutron charge: .63 times the Proton charge. That's what I recall Miles calculating it to be. Nevyn said .6, so I think I'm recalling correctly.
Airman. That sounds right to me.

LloydK. Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.
Airman. Protons may pair without neutrons, but they are not stable; the proton/proton bond alone cannot prevent the mutual emissions from crossing each other and breaking the pair of protons apart.
Where did you hear 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning? I suppose I could buy the idea of neutrons forming pairs far easier than protons since there aren’t any equatorial emissions crossing to break the pair apart. Neutron strings sound feasible, but what kind of charge field could allow such a string to form. I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here.
 

LloydK. What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.
Airman. As I understand it, after 11 minutes or so, there’s a 50/50 chance that a high energy photon impacted the neutron, causing the loss of the neutron’s outside spin. It's no longer a neutron, but it is still the most massive form of electron. All it needs is another collision which might turn it into either a proton or a neutron again.

LloydK. What "attracts" neutrons to alphas? It seems that the proton poles have low pressure, which also attracts electrons (and the poles of other protons). I guess neutron poles would have high pressure, since they emit charge there. Maybe one pole has low pressure to attract charge and the other emits it. Or would the neutron be able to absorb charge everywhere but at the poles? (Electron poles should have low pressure, while nectron [neutral electron] poles should have high pressure. So maybe nectrons would not be attracted to protons as strongly as electrons are.)
Airman. I agree with you that under certain favorable conditions, protons can pair – pole to pole, as well as neutrons. It seems to me, proton neutron pairs would form the most stable pairs. Photons arrive from all directions - the proton converts that traffic into equatorial emissions. The neutron converts the same traffic into a linear emission. I believe the equatorial emission of a single proton is less than the proton emission from a proton/neutron pair; the neutron increases the proton’s output. Favorable conditions generally mean the particles can approach most closely pole to pole. I don’t think we need stars to provide enough energy to create alphas. Nectrons and positrons are part of the family - lots of strange bonding going on.

LloydK. Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?
Airman. We haven’t really observed the proton, so we can say for certain. Since the proton is supposed to be an A spin particle, it should be spherical. Its rapid spin results in the equatorial emissions of recycling photons. The disk identifies the proton’s equatorial spin orientation.  

LloydK. Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?
Airman. Stacked spins are radius doublings. Torque is a mechanical idea that doesn’t seem right. Gyroscopic torque perhaps? Since our MJV discussions I’ve believed mass is a function of motion.    

LloydK. Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.
Airman. Are you volunteering?
.
/////////////////////////// End of Restored Post //////////////////////////////////////

The following are Lloyd's comments.

Thanks, you guys, for the replies.

Airman said: "I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here."
I think Charles Chandler agrees and he is one of the foremost experts on lightning, tornadoes etc IMO.
- In the "Aether Battery Iron Sun Theory" thread, upriver wrote: "The larger the discharge, i.e. the more surface it covers, the higher the apparent temperature?"
CharlesChandler on Sun May 01, 2016 10:14 pm said: "It's more complicated than that, especially as the discharge progresses. The charged particles are rapidly accelerated once the resistance starts breaking down. Collisions inside the discharge channel become violent, and the channel is cleared of all remaining particles. This removes the remaining resistance. Electrons in terrestrial lightning are accelerated to 10% of the speed of light in less than 1/1000 of a second, in a channel less than 10 cm in diameter. Approaching the speed of light, the magnetic pinch further consolidates the charge stream. So the discharge channel isn't large. But the footpoints at both ends can be large, where the main trunk branches into the surrounding medium (like a Lichtenberg Figure). The temperature during a terrestrial lightning is around 2500 degrees C, but the highest temperature occurs after the discharge, when the channel collapses, creating sonoluminescence [photons - LK] along the axis of the channel. Then the temp jumps up to 25,000 degrees C. This [channel collapse - LK] is what causes thunder."
- In the "Electric Sun Discussions" thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=67442&sid=7be657ee85855b1dd0b57ae94f3894bd#p67212
on Jun 15, 2012 8:43 am I quoted CC from our earlier discussion: "Yes, positive and negative lightning are both electrons streams. In negative lightning, the cloud is negative and the Earth has an induced positive charge, while in positive lightning, it’s the other way around. But the way the stepped leaders advance from the main negative charge (in the cloud or in the ground) is more or less the same either way."
- Charles discussed lightning some more on Sat Jun 28, 2014 here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=96945&sid=33001b4ae5179881e5701f6fca995c48#p97008
- and on Mon Nov 12, 2012 here:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=72763&sid=1091b580c04a66e69ac0205fdbaa156c#p72799

Airman said: "I don’t think we need stars to provide enough energy to create alphas. Nectrons and positrons are part of the family - lots of strange bonding going on." 
Miles put element creation in the Sun, starting with Deuterium, which I think is a necessary step to Helium or Alpha particles.

You both say the proton disk is an emission disk from a spherical proton.
I don't see why a disk-shaped proton shouldn't be just as good at having equatorial emission as a spherical proton. The two neutrons between two spinning proton disks of the Alpha would not have any way to steady the protons, if the protons are spheres and the disks are just emitted photons. Once the photons exit the proton equator, they should have no way to leverage the proton to hold it steady. But if the protons are disk-shaped particles, then they would be unable to tilt beyond the top or bottom of either neutron. So the neutrons would logically then be able to hold the protons steady.

Airman asked where I got the info about neutrons produced by lightning.
Here's a slightly long answer.
On Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:20 pm in the "Sun model and discharge cause" thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=78327&sid=d0b32f9a0e2d2d52801e684bf4024640#p78238
I said in part:
"I suppose fusion probably produces different elements or particles under different conditions. In another thread we're discussing fusion in supernovae producing many or all of the elements. In the Electric Sun Discussions last summer, I found a claim that lightning produces neutrons. That appears to be a fusion process too. I posted the following [on July 12, 2012] at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6124&start=30#p68202 :
LK2A) http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/nuclear-lightening/ says “new data show that up to 5000 neutrons per cubic meter [per second] are produced every second by lightning strikes [on Earth].” It’s from “Strong Flux of Low-Energy Neutrons Produced by Thunderstorms” at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i12/e125001 ."
- That's an abstract with a pay wall, but I think it originally included the above info.
- Here are more mentions of the same info: https://www.google.com/search?q=5%2C000+neutrons+per+cubic+meter+lightning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
- I repeated that on Oct 29, 2015 at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=108745&sid=92311fb4af5b3e8454dd6b5c5059a758#p108827
and I added a few more comments on that thread.

Airman asked if I volunteer to upload images.
I'd consider doing that. Do yous have a wishlist? If so, I'll look at it and see what I can do. No promises.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Restoring my original comments)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:24 pm

What the hell is going on around here?

First Cr6 replied to my post and overwrote it and now it appears that Lloyd has done the same to Airman.

I was willing to think Cr6 just pressed the wrong button but now that it has happened twice, involving 2 different people each time, I feel it might be a bug in the forum software.

Can Cr6 and Lloyd confirm their actions please? Did you intend to change the original posts or was it a mistake? Do you remember if you used the cite button or not? Did you try to send the post and the system told you there was already another post added before you did and therefore to verify your post? Were you working in a desktop browser or on a phone, tablet, etc?

I regularly use the cite button and it doesn't seem to be affecting my posts so maybe it is something else.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:32 pm

Lloyd wrote:I don't see why a disk-shaped proton shouldn't be just as good at having equatorial emission as a spherical proton. The two neutrons between two spinning proton disks of the Alpha would not have any way to steady the protons, if the protons are spheres and the disks are just emitted photons. Once the photons exit the proton equator, they should have no way to leverage the proton to hold it steady. But if the protons are disk-shaped particles, then they would be unable to tilt beyond the top or bottom of either neutron. So the neutrons would logically then be able to hold the protons steady.

The neutrons can steady the protons and make then turn/tilt/etc, because if the neutrons get in the way of the protons charge emission, that emission will start to affect the next lot of charge emission and this can back up to the proton itself, causing it to re-orient itself in response. The closer the neutrons are to the protons the quicker and easier it is for this effect to occur.

Another way to look at it is that the neutrons get in the way of some charge emission which causes that emission to fly off in a different direction. This leaves that part of the emission field empty, or at least less dense, which allows the ambient field (and other particles) to rush in and affect the proton (and the neutron).

It could even be a mixture of the two.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am

Regarding the proton disk, it is a construct in Mathis's theory to visualize the proton's emission (and the electron's, on a smaller scale). In none of our models is the proton a sphere, though we often represent it like that - because its motions are confined to increasing spin "spheres of influence" which are vaguely spherical. The proton is definitely not a disk, in mine nor Nevyn's nor Mathis's models. That said, Nevyn's are much more defined than mine and way ahead. I'd defer to the shapes his spin stack simulators create, over mine, for any accuracy.

A quick review of the shape mine were tracing:



Regarding the neutron, I feel like we're making progress but also introducing some confusions. Here was Mathis's old model of the alpha, from the Anti-helium paper:



Here is his more recent model, from the deuterium/tritium paper:



And my video attempt at that model, again for quick access:
https://vimeo.com/157484485



So the protons are aligned with the neutrons charge in two ways, in and out. The neutrons are kinda "locked in", there. If they try to float around too much, their incoming charge stream realigns them. They don't really need any other leverage from the protons, and as far as Mathis has written it seems like he's saying neutrons aren't inserted into He4, but rather it's built via fusion of two H2s inside of stars (or wherever, maybe even lightning can fuse helium?). So Nevyn was also correct (per the theory as I understand it) that the proton's emission would repel incoming neutrons in most cases - that is to say, an He3 atom isn't becoming an He4 by simply slamming another neutron in there. He4 alphas are built top to bottom.



The protons don't really need to leverage the neutron with their emission disks, in this configuration. It's the through-charge that is holding the neutrons there. The protons don't tilt much also because of this through charge, since they're receiving it from both ends - ambient up top, neutron on bottom.

Given that the proton isn't a sphere OR a disk, if it does tilt due to a collision it would very quickly recorrect itself, simply because so much charge is coming through from either end. Does this make sense?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:16 am

Nevyn said:
Can Cr6 and Lloyd confirm their actions please? Did you intend to change the original posts or was it a mistake? Do you remember if you used the cite button or not? Did you try to send the post and the system told you there was already another post added before you did and therefore to verify your post? Were you working in a desktop browser or on a phone, tablet, etc?

I regularly use the cite button and it doesn't seem to be affecting my posts so maybe it is something else.
I'm sorry I screwed that up. I meant to click on Citer, but I obviously clicked on Editer instead. So I thought I was writing a Reply with a quote of Airman's post, but I was editing his post instead.

Maybe Cr6 or someone else should allow only one Admin to be able to edit other's posts and let anyone else who should be additional Admins to know the Admin's password.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:15 pm

That's cool. Thanks for letting us know how it happened. I thought when it happened twice that it must be something other than human error and went straight into debug mode.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:17 pm

Note. I've reposted the unintentionally deleted comments from my previous post above.
.
LloydK wrote:Airman said: "I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here."
I think Charles Chandler agrees and he is one of the foremost experts on lightning, tornadoes etc IMO.

Thanks for the comment and info Lloyd. I greatly respect Charles' expert knowledge and efforts to explain Lightning and Tornadoes. As you know, in my opinion, he has been handicapped by classical theory that doesn't acknowledge existence of the charge field. I have nowhere near command of the facts that he does, nevertheless I feel I'm close to coming up with a charge field explanation for Lightning.
 
A volume of atmospheric gas contains x,y,z,…, molecules and atoms. It’s well known that simple movement between large air masses causes the release of predictable numbers of electrons, correlating to electrostatic energy and resistivity of the air. When an electron is removed from an atom (or molecule), say by a random collision with a high energy photon, the atom is said to be ionized.

According to Miles’ charge field theory, an electron removed from an atom exposes one of the atom’s high energy nuclear charge channels. These channels of coherent photons easily accelerate passing electrons (and positrons) and may also ionize any neighboring proton matter crossing its path. Exposed high charge current output channels are blocked by electrons flowing into the proton’s charge intake channel, thereby de-ionizing the proton. In accord with the rarefied medium, proton matter present, temperature and pressure (charge field conditions), equilibrium is reached.

Areas of high moisture are particularly interesting since water saturated air provides a large source of proton matter, including bound electrons. (Water as fuel). High moisture, high speed moving air masses cause plenty of ionizations. In some areas, ionizations occur faster than de-ionizations, further raising the ambient energy. The high number of exposed coherent channels accelerate free electrons to higher average velocities and energies. Increased ionizations causing wind differentials, causing increased ionization by exposing larger areas to the coherent charge streams. A cascading system.

Meanwhile, electrons are in a high energy, high pressure state. Given their additional energies, they clear areas of smaller atoms which results in a partial proton/neutron vacuum. The resulting higher than average density of smaller atoms pushed toward the periphery form walls of increased charge density, electron boundaries. High speed electrons directly crossing into lower energy areas may only travel a small distance, perhaps less than foot or just a few inches– I suppose, before being stopped by the denser photon field outside, surrounding the ‘hotter’ coherent channel areas. Briefly stuck at the boundary, the electron is still available and will likely rejoin the high energy electron group even if the ionization doesn’t spread its way. The electrons cannot escape as long as they are in proximity of the ionized matter.

At some point, the hot ionized area may come into contact with say the earth.

It's the end of another day, I’ll save that for another post.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:31 pm

Airman, do you have reason to doubt the speed of the electrons that Charles mentioned, i.e. 10% of light speed? He has also mentioned on occasion the strength of the electric field in thunderstorms. I think he said something like 2 million volts per meter, I guess.

Nevyn said: "With respect to neutrons forming in lightning, I would assume at this point that they aren't so much created, although that may be possible, but they are liberated from elements in the path of the lightning. Of course, there is a hell of a lot of charge in a lightning strike, so I won't say that can't change particles. Is there any evidence that other particles are also created?"

I never previously thought about where the neutrons would come from in lightning. I think I assumed like you that they came from atoms in the vicinity. I haven't heard about protons forming from lightning, but from what Charles said, it sounds like electrons are also produced. I'm pretty sure Charles would say by ionization, which I guess the electric field could do.


Last edited by LloydK on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:34 pm

That can't be right. Dr Emit Brown said there were 1.21 Gigawatts in a bolt of lightning! Very Happy

avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:42 pm

Does that mean the current is 600 Amps?

PS, I edited my previous post.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:49 pm

I don't know if that 1.21GW is correct or not, but if it is, then yes, the current would be around 600A.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:00 pm

LloydK wrote:I never previously thought about where the neutrons would come from in lightning. I think I assumed like you that they came from atoms in the vicinity. I haven't heard about protons forming from lightning, but from what Charles said, it sounds like electrons are also produced. I'm pretty sure Charles would say by ionization, which I guess the electric field could do.

If the neutrons did come from atoms, then I would expect a lot of debris. For every neutron there should be a corresponding proton and an electron or two (assuming it is alphas getting broken down into their parts since atoms are mostly made of alphas). I haven't looked that hard at lightning before so I don't know if my assumptions are on the right path or not, I was just playing with what you had said.

I have some high-speed videos of lightning strikes and you can clearly see the charge field expanding out in a sphere, searching for a path. Little leaders find potential paths and stop and eventually one of them finds the right path and the charge explodes down it. Very interesting stuff and good evidence of the charge field.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:18 pm

Now I found this at Phys.org (and I didn't realize there's so much Deuterium on Earth; oh, they also tell us where free neutrons go, i.e. into nitrogen molecules).

Neutrons Born In Lightning
September 21, 2005

To produce thermonuclear reaction it is necessary, firstly, to have nuclei with a large quantity of neutrons available, for example, deuterium nuclei, and secondly, these nuclei should possess sufficiently high velocity and merge together upon collision, having overcome the Coulomb barrier. It turns out that all these conditions are observed in the course of a stroke of lightning - such a conslusion is evident from calculations by B.M. Kuzhevsky, Ph.D., head of the neutron research laboratory, Skobeltsin Scientific Research Institute of Nuclear Physics (Moscow State University).

Deuterium is always present in water: on average, a molecule of DHO (water, where one of hydrogen atoms is replaced by deuterium) falls to 6,800 molecules of H2O. That means - taking into account the quantity of water vapour available in the atmosphere (i.e. 5х10^-4 g/cubic centimeter) - there will be 10^15 deuterium atoms per cubic centimeter. In lightning, these atoms turn into ions and are capable of gathering speed up to considerable energy.

With the lightning canal diameter varying from 2 millimeters to 5 centimeters, and discharge duration making the ten-thousandth of a second, it proves that billions of deuterium atoms will have time to start reacting with each other and to generate precisely two times less atoms of helium-3 and neutrons. These neutrons already possess enormous energy - 2.45 MeV. However, in the atmosphere of our planet they are capable of living at most for 0.2 seconds, during which they will inevitably meet with nitrogen atoms and be absorbed by them. This time period is sufficient for neutrons to fly a distance of one or two kilometers.

The calculation has been also confirmed by experimental data. The DYAIZA facility developed at the Institute and installed in Moscow at the Vorobyevy Hills repeatedly recorded neutron emission peaks during thunderstorms, their magnitude exceeding that of the background by hundreds of times.

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the above effort. Firstly, this helps to solve a long-standing puzzle: why cosmonauts on board the MIR space station observed high neutron background in the area of the equator. Keeping in mind that thunderstorms permanently burst out in this region, it is easy to guess where high neutron background comes from. Secondly, the same mechanism should also work in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter where thunderstorms are also frequent and sporadic neutron streams should arise there. That means that investigation of these planets' neutron emission should take into account this particular fact not to confuse by accident "thundery" neutrons with some other neutrons.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2005-09-neutrons-born-lightning.html#jCp

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:56 pm

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the above effort. Firstly, this helps to solve a long-standing puzzle: why cosmonauts on board the MIR space station observed high neutron background in the area of the equator. Keeping in mind that thunderstorms permanently burst out in this region, it is easy to guess where high neutron background comes from. Secondly, the same mechanism should also work in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter where thunderstorms are also frequent and sporadic neutron streams should arise there. That means that investigation of these planets' neutron emission should take into account this particular fact not to confuse by accident "thundery" neutrons with some other neutrons.

I would think that if these neutrons were coming from lightning strikes, then it would be pretty obvious to someone on a space station. Just look down! Not trying to say that lightning does not produce neutrons, but that statement is very weak. MIR records high neutron counts above the equator and storms happen more on the equator therefore the storms must produce those neutrons. I'm sure the storms do produce some of them but given Miles equatorial emission model, we have something else that can push neutrons up over the equator. Remember that the Earth's charge emission is high enough to push Helium out of the atmosphere, so it certainly can push neutrons.

If I was in charge of these missions and got that data back, then I would want to perform an experiment that measures the neutron count and looks for storm activity at the same time. Seems pretty easy to me. Correlation is not causation and a scientist is supposed to differentiate between the two.

I also like the way that paragraph goes from drawing conclusions to guessing to fact.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:45 pm

.
I thought I was going to just carry on but it seems we have some discussion. 1.21GigaWatts! I haven't caught up on the latest here yet.

Lloyd said. Airman, do you have reason to doubt the speed of the electrons that Charles mentioned, i.e. 10% of light speed? He has also mentioned on occasion the strength of the electric field in thunderstorms. I think he said something like 2 million volts per meter, I guess.

I don’t doubt it. What makes you think I do? I believe electrons ejected by solar flares can reach 0.3 c, but that’s in space. Single electrons traveling at 0.1 c are quickly stopped by the atmosphere. Like firing shot into sand, it doesn’t go very deep. Within the channels, electrons reach high speeds because the smaller atoms were pushed aside. I didn't get to the highest velocities during the actual lightning strike yet.


I mentioned water as fuel above; I meant water was bringing a loose electron to the party. Water, the left side configuration, has an electron at the very top. When water is ionized, that is the first electron lost. When things get really hot, Miles’ suggests the molecule will assume the form on the right. We have a high energy configuration to liven things up. Those top vertical channels are the exposed coherent charge channels I’ve mostly been referring to above. I don't believe there's any fission going on. If Water were to break, we would have 2 Hydrogens and an Oxygen, sure, but also, all the electrons bonded to the original molecule would be blown away; all new elements would have wide open charge channels, very, very hot. Maybe some of that does happen, I doubt it. Most of the debris are free electrons. The high energy areas are chock full of electrons. 

Here's a high speed lightning video. Sorry, just an image. I believe my description is consistent with what I see.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120723.html

Lightning Captured at 7,207 Images per Second
Video Credit & Copyright: Tom A. Warner, ZTResearch, www.weathervideoHD.TV
Explanation: How fast is lightning? Lightning, in fact, moves not only too fast for humans to see, but so fast that humans can't even tell which direction it is moving. The above lightning stroke did not move too fast, however, for this extremely high time resolution video to resolve. Tracking at an incredible 7,207 frames per second, actual time can be seen progressing at the video bottom. The above lightning bolt starts with many simultaneously creating ionized channels branching out from an negatively charged pool of electrons and ions that has somehow been created by drafts and collisions in a rain cloud. About 0.015 seconds after appearing -- which takes about 3 seconds in the above time-lapse video -- one of the meandering charge leaders makes contact with a suddenly appearing positive spike moving up from the ground and an ionized channel of air is created that instantly acts like a wire. Immediately afterwards, this hot channel pulses with a tremendous amount of charges shooting back and forth between the cloud and the ground, creating a dangerous explosion that is later heard as thunder. Much remains unknown about lightning, however, including details of the mechanism that separates charges.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:20 pm

That video is pretty cool. You can see that one of those initial tendrils makes a connection to the ground and THEN the big bolt comes blazing through.


Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:39 pm

.
Slow motion lightning is fascinating. If there’s strong evidence for the charge field here, we should be trying to find some and convince CC classical theory just won't do. Please feel free to correct as necessary.

Lightning, A charge field explanation.

Let's consider the video. In this particular lightning strike event, we see ionizations begins from the top left. At first, it isn’t gradual. I believe that indicates a large shift of high speed electrons from the much larger volume of ionized air above were stopped at the boundary of the cooler mass of air in our view. Again, they weren’t stopped really, they’ve just slowed to normal atmospheric velocities. The initial event has, however, started a clear progression of ionizations, expanding an area like a constantly increasing radius. We have the suggestion of the Lichtenberg pattern. What is growing here?

Ionizations are constantly expanding the hot volume’s surface outward. As atoms within the cool side of the boundary are ionized, each additional molecular ionization means a new electron is released, and a new coherent channel is opened, which sometimes extends the boundary outward. Of course it is the photons within the coherent charge channels that do most of the work clearing the channels of atoms, and also re-accelerating increasing numbers of free electrons that were previously high speed, previously reduced to atmospheric velocities on the cold side of the previous boundary. I suppose that means that electrons traveling at high speeds in ionized areas would tend to accumulate at the cool edge boundaries. Not in uniform distributions, instead forming patterns reflecting their final trajectories. Electrons can sometimes bunch together, and react as groups.

The ionization progression is a chain reaction. Electrons are being separated from protons and then widely displaced, with no chance of rejoining their nuclei. The air, in thrall to the high energy ionized water molecules, is experiencing a phase transition to a state of less bounded electrons. The equilibrium involves a maximum number of exposed, first level ionization, exposed high energy coherent charge channels versus electron availability to block those channels.

Each electron is a charged particle which recycles photons. The electron’s channels are wide open, a thousand times less charge channel current than a proton, still, it doesn’t take a huge amount of electrons before they are seen as a bright dot or streak in the dark. Most of the initial electron motion that occurred in the cloud was invisible to us, but the video shows quite well, the leaders, the extent of the ionization, the moment ionization touched the earth.

The release of electrons lights up the sky. The earth’s surface is comprised of proton matter and bound electrons far denser than any found in the atmosphere and they are released in far greater abundance. These electrons enter the ionized areas via an explosive increase in the number of exposed channels between the earth and ionized air above. A widening area, millimeters up to centimeters. The lightning strike will continue, perhaps wax and wane, until large ionized areas within the cloud, including the protons comprising the lightning bolt itself, are de-ionized.

The great abundance of earth electrons ensures that the electron reduction process that occurred in the cloud cannot happen on the earth’s surface. After a lightning strike, if the cloud still has moisture, ionization may resume. If not, the cycle is broken, eventually the majority of energized atoms and molecules will assemble their usual complement of electrons, under the given pressure and temperature, charge field conditions present. I expect the majority of extra electrons present will eventually return to the earth’s surface.

With respect to neutrons. Obviously I hadn’t given the subject any thought before. Lightning involves super abundances of electrons. For all intents and purposes, the neutron may be considered the largest possible electron. All the high velocities ensures many electrons will be gaining spins and energy, up to and including neutrons. I also believe there might be a high amount of neutrons released from proton bonds. Of course this is a scientific confirm-able fact, although it now seems to make perfect sense seeing an increased number of neutrons after a lightning strike.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:23 am

That's pretty good, Airman, but it sounds a bit too mainstream for my liking. I'll take a stab at it and see where it leads.

Before the video starts, we have a dense cloud that is blocking and storing the Earth's charge field. When it gets dense enough, charge expands out and starts to break down molecules in the atmosphere. This releases their stored up energy causing other molecules to break, leading to a chain reaction like a slow motion explosion. More charge comes down from the cloud and more molecules break down.

At the start of the video, we see an explosion of visible light photons. Enough to overwhelm the camera. The IR field has been spun up into visible light. As this charge explosion travels out in a sphere, it strikes atoms in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Helium and various compounds containing them. The molecules will break down and some new, temporary, molecules will be created. These aren't normal molecules that would form naturally but molecules that can support the new charge fields these atoms find themselves in. Oxygen atoms will bond together into chains, much like Hydrocarbons, and these Oxygen chains can channel a lot of charge.

The atoms are feeling a lot of charge coming from multiple directions. Their outer-most electrons are liberated and they start to channel more charge and bonding with other atoms and channeling even more charge. We see this as bright patches. Each channel allows more charge to escape from the cloud, which it really wants to do, and so the channels become semi-permanent. The ends of these chains represent strong charge emission points and will affect the nearby atoms and molecules, causing a new branch to be created.

These atoms were previously aligned to the Earth's charge field and suddenly feel a stronger, more energetic, charge field and so they must re-orient themselves to this new field. This is part of what causes the zig-zag nature of lightning. The atoms may be mid-turn when they bond with, or are in channel coherence with, a leader.

I just coined the term channel coherence which is a distant bond between atoms or, most likely, molecules. The channeled charge is so strong that the bond can form considerably further away than normal. This allows a bit more flexibility in the directions of the bonding objects and we end up with a zip-zag. Basically, the charge will go to the first new channel that can support it, whether it is nicely aligned or not.

This continues on, mostly in a downward direction but we do see some channels moving back up. Eventually, one of the channels touches the Earth and at this point, we have the possibility of two events. If the cloud is denser, with respect to charge, than the Earth, then the cloud will expel its energy into the Earth. It is more likely that the Earth is more dense, and can emit more charge at the point to connection, so it will actually take over the channel and emit its own charge up into the cloud. That is what we see in this video.

Now the Earth is a giver, and that cloud is no match for all of that compressed charge. The cloud can't contain it and most of it just keeps going up, through the cloud and up into the higher atmosphere. This can cause interactions with the particles in the upper atmosphere much like an aurora. These have been photographed from space.

A good question is 'Why does it stop? Once the channels are open, why would they close?' and my answer is two things. First is the coherent bonds between molecules, which are quite weak, and the huge charge density coming up from the Earth will eventually break some of them. New bonds will form and this can give the lightning a pulsing behavior. The other is that the Earth itself will run out of charge in the region of the connection point. The Earth will fill it back in but it can't do that at the rate that it is escaping while connected to the cloud.

It could probably do with a bit more work, I'm just writing off the top of my head, but that is how I see it.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:56 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Each electron is a charged particle which recycles photons. The electron’s channels are wide open, a thousand times less charge channel current than a proton, still, it doesn’t take a huge amount of electrons before they are seen as a bright dot or streak in the dark...

The release of electrons lights up the sky...

Electrons don't light up anything, only photons do. The electrons may be emitting those photons or spinning them up into visibility, but our eyes don't see electrons and electrons don't move anywhere near light speed. I know you didn't really mean to say that we're seeing electrons, but the phrasing was a bit imprecise there. I'm certain our eyes can detect electrons, but we don't "see" them. They impact and transfer energy, but don't pass into the receptors and on to the brain as light or color (as far as I understand).

It's often amusing to me that mainstream physics doesn't even believe in the particle which allows them to see at all in the first place. "It has no mass! It's virtual!"

I like your theory for the most part, though I feel Nevyn's is a bit more accurate and descriptive of the process. The "boundaries" in your description bother me, since I don't understand them very well. Much like "double layers", it seems like there's a lot missing to the theory - which Nevyn's pretty much does away with entirely, in this case. Don't take this personally - it's my own problem that I haven't studied boundaries and layers enough, but what I have seen and read (especially in the EU stuff) they're simply replacing the physics with "double layers" and "boundaries" as a band-aid to the theory. I'm not saying these things don't exist or happen, just that I think they're caused by charge effects and the EU people of course always miss that connection. I still find it hilarious that Thornhill and Scott and those guys still can't tell us what electricity is, despite being among the foremost electrical engineers in that paradigm.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:44 pm

Jared, I understand that desire to get below such abstract terms and that is totally why I kept searching for something else after finding the EU. I liked what they were doing but needed to go below it. I haven't tried to go back up the chain that far and figure out the EU in Mathis theory, it's enough trying to figure out the mainstream. Actually, it's enough just trying to figure out Miles' work. I do like it when these kinds of discussions get me thinking like that though. It's a good way to consolidate what you know and I can get stuck in my apps, trying to figure out the intricacies of Miles' work, that I don't do it often enough.

I've generally thought that double layers and boundaries and bow shocks are just charge fields meeting. They probably differ by the size of the charge photons or possibly charge density. When I first starting reading the EU and came across double layers, I interpreted that as a field moving outward into a field moving inwards, way before I ever heard of Miles. That's probably why I liked his work so much, it went along with what I was already thinking and went much deeper than I could have gone myself.

We should analyze double layers a bit more closely. Are they truly spherical or are they stronger at the equator? Does this differ by size where the atomic/molecular level is more equatorial but planets and stars are more spherical? How does photon radius affect a double layer? What sorts of particles can be generated by a double layer? How does that equate to the charge photon sizes?

It seems like an interesting thing to model and build an app around.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:57 pm

I've read about double layers for years, way before discovering Mathis, and it still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's really tenuous, nebulous, and fuzzy. It kinda stinks of, well, fiction. Maybe fiction isn't the right word, but what's double about it? We have two layers, but they aren't doubled at all, since they're different. If we had two layers of earth, say topsoil and bedrock, we wouldn't call that a double layer.

Not to say we shouldn't dig in wherever possible, especially in understanding electrical effects. I just can't find anything really useful or helpful about DLs.

We have this picture:


And then piles of writing that doesn't really tell us much about it. Why are the electrons and protons separating? What is causing them to stay apart? We can assume photons, since even in the mainstream they call them charged layers. So do the photons (charge) get sandwiched between the electrons and protons somehow, and since they have chirality the electrons are being pushed one way and the protons another way?

Particle acceleration: The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.

(from the Plasma Universe Wiki) https://www.plasma-universe.com/Double_layer#Double_layer_formation_mechanisms

So is the spin of those transversal traveling photons pushing the larger particles in different directions? Is their spin then being imparted to other incoming particles?

Particle populations: As described in the formation of double layers, there are four populations of charge particles inside a double layer (1) Free electrons that are accelerated across the double layer (2) Free positive ions that are accelerated in the opposite direction across the double layer (3) Reflected electrons that approach the double layer, but are reflected back and counter stream away (4) Reflected positive ions that approach the double layer, but are reflected back and counter stream away. Note that in the case of weak double layers not all electrons and ions entering "from the wrong side" will be reflected, and therefore there will also be a population of decelerated electrons and ions.

(from the same page)

As we can see, they still don't even know what "charge" is there. They call the electrons and positrons and whatnot "charge particles", when it should be "charged". It's kinda flimsy, you know?

In Mathis's theory, we almost always have electrons and protons following the charge photons. If we apply that concept to DLs, then the electrons and protons and other particles should be following charge streams, but where are they? What would cause charge to separate into three or more layers like this? (electron layer, photon layer, proton layer) and wouldn't that actually be a triple layer, not a double?

I admit I don't know much about this, despite reading everything I could find on it for five years. If my attitude towards Dls seems sour, that would be because it is. When a theory doesn't make much sense to me, and is used constantly as a mechanism to bolster a larger set of theories (EU), but there's no mechanism underlying it FROM those people, I get a little iffy.


Last edited by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:08 pm

.
Lightning - charge field explanations.

Ideas are still being accepted.

Nevyn’s included thoughts I’ve never imagined and am still trying to process. Like forming high energy chains, … .

Jared, Artist/architects are always working up visions. Don’t be shy, give us yours.
 
Maybe someone else will have something to add.

An orderly review of ideas presented should follow.

But what am I thinking? The thread has already left.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum