• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Nuclear Physics cannot be entirelly correct

pedrone said:
but it seems you dont know the following:

1- There NO exist diprotons (but there is strong force between two protons)

2- There NO exist dineutrons (but there is strong force between two neutrons)

3- But deuterons, YES, they do exist


Therefore, only deuterons can be formed within the nuclei.
Click to expand...
  1. Diprotons may exist but not according to theory.
  2. Dineutrons do not exist.
  3. Deuterons exist.
  4. Nuclei exist and are different environments from the free space in which diprotons do not exist, dineutron does not exist and deuterons exist.
Therefore, this states nothing about the formation of deuterons within the nuclei.
 
pedrone said:
Andrea Rossi cold fusion reactor will show who is wrong


Do you know that cold fusion is impossible by considering a quark model of neutron?​
Click to expand...
That is nothing to do wih my post. Read it again.

Guglinski got the wrong values from his equations even after 'faking' his calculations!
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
[*]He ignored the actual measured radius of the proton.
[*]He tried to derive a new measure of the for the radius of the proton from the structure of nuclei.
Click to expand...
No, he did not ignore it.

The radius of proton is measured with free protons.

The radius of a proton within a nucleus is different of the radius of a free proton, due to the confinment.This explains why there is difference between the non-free proton's radius within the nuclei (obtained from the graphic made from experimental data taking nuclei) and the radius of a free proton

In the case of the electric quadrupole moment of deuteron, there is need to consider the radius of a non-free proton, because it is interacting with a neutron, as Guglinski did.
 
pedrone said:
No, he did not ignore it.

The radius of proton is measured with free protons.
The radius of a proton within a nucleus is different of the radius of a free proton, due to the confinment.
Click to expand...
The radius of a proton within a nucleus is different of the radius of a free proton, due to the confinment. This is important for heavy nuclei.
But this is deuteron. And he still got the wrong value!
So the points are better expressed as:
  1. Guglinski ignored
    1. the measured radius of the proton in hydrogen atoms.
    2. the measured radius of deuteron is 2.1402(28) fm.
      The radius is not simply the addition of the proton and neutron radii but see the tiny proton below!
  2. He tried to derive a new measure of the for the radius of the proton in deuteron from the structure of heavy nuclei.
    He gets 0.275 fm
  3. He then used that radius and got the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of thedeuteron of 3.0 * 10 -31 m2.
    He also has the wrong units but is is common to use units where the charge of an electron is set to 1.
  4. He then changed the proton radius to 0.26 fm with te excuse that experimental data are not exact!
    That is ignorant. The scientific method of doing this is to put the experimental uncertainties into the equation and get a range for the electric dipole moment.
  5. He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
 
pedrone said:
:D
I know,
but it seems you dont know the following:

1- There NO exist diprotons (but there is strong force between two protons)

2- There NO exist dineutrons (but there is strong force between two neutrons)

3- But deuterons, YES, they do exist


Therefore, only deuterons can be formed within the nuclei.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No no no no. There are no dineutrons or diprotons because, on their own, the strong force is not enough to bind them. In a bigger nucleus, however, things are far more complicated. Each nucleon is confined to a potential created by its interactions with all the other nucleons. This is completely different to the free nucleon case.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
2- As the protons and neutrons have the same distribution, and as the diameter of the nuclei has the order of 15F, there is no chance the proton and neutron with the same distribution do not form a deuteron.
Click to expand...
No, they have approximately the same distribution. If you actually read what Eisberg and Resnick wrote, you would find that they were talking about the density profile: the way the density of nucleons changes with radial distance from the centre of the nucleus. This is a one dimensional concept. Pairing of nuclei into deuterons is a four dimensional concept.
 
pedrone said:
:D
So, it's not necessary to be a genius to understand that, as they have the same distribution in the nucleus, then of course they are in the form of deuterons, because:
Click to expand...

Um, sure, whatever pedrone, I am about to ignore you. We will see.

So what process allows for hot fusion?
Iteration4
 
pedrone said:
There is not fusion between two protons.

In the sun hot fusion occurs thanks to the high gravity, and so two deuterons fuse and form 2He4
Click to expand...
And the charge of the deuterons are?

You are now saying that there is some force in a neutral neutron that overcomes the charge of the proton?

What is Coulomb's law Pedrone? How does the fusion of two deuteron's overcome Coulomb's Law?
Interation 4.1
In cold fusion there are several mechanisms, depending on as the experiment is made.
Click to expand...
Show one when it is actually demonstrated.
It seems in Andrea Rossi cold fusion experiment the main contribution is due to repulsive gravity.

Attractive gravity and repulsive gravity have the magnitude of the electromagnetism:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3268


The scientific community thinks wrongly that the interaction by gravitons is 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism.

Gravity as a macroscopic phenomenon (as discovered by Newton) is a combination of interactions by two sort of gravitons:

Repulsive gravitons
Attractive gravitons

The interaction by repulsive gravitons is a little weaker than the interaction by attractive gravitons.

Such "soup" of gravitons cause a resultant macroscopic gravity 1040 times weaker then electromagnetism.

However, in special conditions near to nuclei, only the attractive gravity actuates, and so it helps the cold fusion, since it has the magnitude of the electromagnetism.
However, cold fusion occurs through resonance, in special conditions, and so the gravity only helps its occurrence.
Gravity ifself, alone, cannot produce cold fusion
Click to expand...

Um, so lets see as the two deuterons approach each other the repulsive force of Coulomb's law rises to infinity.

How do they fuse?
Iteration4.2
 
What is this "cold fusion" that pedrone talks about? It seems that he knows exactly why cold fusion works, and the tiny flaw that it does not is the only thing that prevents his Nobel prize.
 
Reality Check said:
The radius of a proton within a nucleus is different of the radius of a free proton, due to the confinment. This is important for heavy nuclei.
But this is deuteron. And he still got the wrong value!
So the points are better expressed as:
  1. Guglinski ignored
    1. the measured radius of the proton in hydrogen atoms.
    2. the measured radius of deuteron is 2.1402(28) fm.
      The radius is not simply the addition of the proton and neutron radii but see the tiny proton below!
  2. He tried to derive a new measure of the for the radius of the proton in deuteron from the structure of heavy nuclei.
    He gets 0.275 fm
  3. He then used that radius and got the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of thedeuteron of 3.0 * 10 -31 m2.
    He also has the wrong units but is is common to use units where the charge of an electron is set to 1.
  4. He then changed the proton radius to 0.26 fm with te excuse that experimental data are not exact!
    That is ignorant. The scientific method of doing this is to put the experimental uncertainties into the equation and get a range for the electric dipole moment.
  5. He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
Click to expand...
Ask A Scientist
Physics Archive

Proton Radius​

name David P. Bligh
status other
age 40s

Question - What is the radius of a proton?
------------------------------------
David,
The radius of a proton depends on how you mean radius. It turns out that a
proton is not actually a ball. Latest experiments show that a proton is
made of three smaller particles called quarks. Quarks have a size too small
to measure. They may have no size at all. These three quarks spin around
each other very quickly. In reality, a proton does not have a radius. As
for radius of orbits, that involves an area of quantum mechanics that is
still being explored. We do not yet know enough about the force between
quarks to determine a value for orbit sizes within a proton, or a neutron.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Illinois Central College
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00306.htm
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
He also has the wrong units but is is common to use units where the charge of an electron is set to 1.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Therefore the nuclear physicists use to commit the same error, since Guglinski's calculation was made in the same way as they do
:D


Reality Check said:
[*]He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...
Therefore, according to Reality Check, Eisberg and Resnick are wrong too, since such value is quoted in their book
:p
 
Reality Check said:
[*]He still gets the wrong value for the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron of 2.7 * 10 -31 m2.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...
Reality Check
when claiming that something is wrong, you have to say what is the correct value.

What is the correct value of the electric quadrupole moment of deuteron, measured by experiments ?
 
pedrone said:
There is no demonstration for you.

Andrea Rossi is not doing personal demonstrations for VIP persons yet.
:D
Click to expand...

Uh huh, sure, come back in six months with a real demonstration and I will admit you were rightadmit you were right or you cana dmit you were wrong.

Or that there is some excuse as to why there is no demonstration.
 
Last edited:
pedrone said:
Ask A Scientist

Physics Archive​

Proton Radius​

name David P. Bligh
status other
age 40s

Question - What is the radius of a proton?
------------------------------------
David,
The radius of a proton depends on how you mean radius. It turns out that a
proton is not actually a ball. Latest experiments show that a proton is
made of three smaller particles called quarks. Quarks have a size too small
to measure. They may have no size at all. These three quarks spin around
each other very quickly. In reality, a proton does not have a radius. As
for radius of orbits, that involves an area of quantum mechanics that is
still being explored. We do not yet know enough about the force between
quarks to determine a value for orbit sizes within a proton, or a neutron.

Dr. Ken Mellendorf
Illinois Central College
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00306.htm
Click to expand...
So?
That is well known: "We do not yet know enough about the force between quarks to determine a value for orbit sizes within a proton, or a neutron." The theory has not cought up with the experimenatl results yet.
 
pedrone said:
:confused:
Therefore the nuclear physicists use to commit the same error, since Guglinski's calculation was made in the same way as they do
:D
Click to expand...
:confused: The point is that he followed a convention that is not mentioned in the images you have posted.

pedrone said:
Therefore, according to Reality Check, Eisberg and Resnick are wrong too, since such value is quoted in their book
:p
Click to expand...
Have you actually looked at the Eisberg and Resnick book closely?
Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles was published in January 1985. Eisberg and Resnick's value is outdated.

Guglinski's book was published in 2006 (21 years after Eisberg and Resnick). He should be using the 2006 value of the deuteron electric dipole moment.
 
pedrone said:
What is the correct value of the electric quadrupole moment of deuteron, measured by experiments ?
Click to expand...
Here you go again:
Deutrium
Magnetic and electric multipoles
In order to find theoretically the deuterium magnetic dipole moment µ, one uses the formula for a nuclear magnetic moment
...
The measured electric quadrupole of the deuterium is 0.2859 e·fm2.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom