RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, That first link was most interesting, thanks kindly. I will need to study a bit more about what is meant by the Zemach radius and the magnetic radius. I do think that the whole concept of a "billiard ball" particle falls apart on close inspection, rather like the old Bohr model. Yet, we can still use these lumped parameter analysis to good effect. As regards the capacity, I should point out that my experience with this is pretty much all on the macro scale. Capacity is a geometric phenomena, if you can define the shape of the object and it's relation to the ground plane, and you know the permittivity of the medium in between, you can determine the capacity. As Fred pointed out in his post, in the case of the electron the radius is determined by the following equation. r = q^2/[4(pi)eo* mc^2] and you can see the energy term is "hidden" in there. But no matter how we determine the radius, we still end up with something in units of length. Now, it is an experimentally known fact ( hey, I designed plenty of HV capacitors using this formula, so it works for me at least ) that the capacity of a sphere in space is given by the following equ. C = 4*pi*e0*r So given those two things, that was my result. It confuses me as well as to how we end up with different numbers. I think we can both agree that the energy in a capacitor is 1/2*C*V^2. But as I said I'm not using that relationship at all to calculate my capacity, it being a purely geometric property. Perhaps what all this is really saying is that, if we use your derivation from energy considerations, that the resulting shape in not spherical? In which case, I would need to use some other formula to calculate the capacity... I don't know. If I get some free time I'll look over your derivation more closely, and see if I get any insights. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you again Keith. The 3 db point on the proton is about 1.2 Fermi's. The max extent is about 1.4 Fermi. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0405118 http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/17-795-799.pdf I don't understand where the .8 Fermi radius come from. Is it a half amplitude point? My universe is 1/2 yours because I state that the energy of a capacitor is Energy=1/2 CVV You use, energy = CVV where did the 1/2 go? I am baffled. Frank z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Thank you again Keith. The 3 db point on the proton is about 1.2 Fermi's. The max extent is about 1.4 Fermi. http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarX iv.org%3Aphysics%2F0405118 _http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/17-795-799.pdf_ (http://www.infim.ro/rrp/2005_57_4/17-795-799.pdf) I don't understand where the .8 Fermi radius come from. Is it a half amplitude point? My universe is 1/2 yours because I state that the energy of a capacitor is Energy=1/2 CVV You use, energy = CVV where did the 1/2 go? I am baffled. Frank z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
You're welcome, Frank. I am aware that the value of the proton radius is questionable, for example http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html the two values listed are 0.805 ± 0.011 and 0.862 ± 0.012 femtometers. So there is some wiggle room for theory, but 1.4 seems like too big a stretch from the known experimental evidence. See this for example. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9712347 which is a pretty good summation of work up to that date. Anyway, with these base figures I get a capacity for the proton of ~.96 x 10^-25 Farads. While I don't know how this all fits into your theory, it might prove more profitable to just toss out preconceived notions, find the most accurate measured values, and play with those. As I said, there's some wiggle room with the proton, but not much more than .1 femtometers. I rather like the direction Fred was going with this, although I would disagree that the impedence of the electron is the space impedence. I'd be happy to bat this around, but it seems like this list is still immersed in the kinds of discussion that drove me away last year. If you or anyone else has read this far, and you want to discuss these issues or others relating to the new energy scene, do contact me privately, I run a list for just this purpose. No requirements for joining other than the ability to think rationally and post without (too much ) axe grinding...*grin* Hope this helps. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you Keith, I made a mistake in calling the classical radius of the proton and the maximum radius of the proton by the same number. One is actually twice the other. My work required the radius of the proton 1.4 fermi meters. Do you have any ideas of why this is? Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Thank you Keith, I made a mistake in calling the classical radius of the proton and the maximum radius of the proton by the same number. One is actually twice the other. My work required the radius of the proton 1.4 fermi meters. Do you have any ideas of why this is? Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, You should try moving to my universe, it's twice as large and we won't be bumping into each other as much *grin* But seriously, why do our calculations differ? If my derivation is wrong, can you show me why? Let's at least nail that down before we tackle the entire universe... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. .. I hope that I am not the source of the several that have unsupscriped from this list. This, as you have said, this is remarkable. What is even more remarkable is; compute the capacitance of a sphere 13.3 billion light years in diameter. Reduce this valve of capacitance by the gravitational coupling constant. You will get 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads. Is the capacitance of the universe established by the gravitational field and its bounds? Is this universe capacitively coupled to everything within it? It think so. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html What do you think? Frank Z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. .. I hope that I am not the source of the several that have unsupscriped from this list. This, as you have said, this is remarkable. What is even more remarkable is; compute the capacitance of a sphere 13.3 billion light years in diameter. Reduce this valve of capacitance by the gravitational coupling constant. You will get 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads. Is the capacitance of the universe established by the gravitational field and its bounds? Is this universe capacitively coupled to everything within it? It think so. _http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html_ (http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html) What do you think? Frank Z
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, OK, I see where we differ. I'm using this value for radius of electron. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html For the proton, using that capacity of sphere formula, I get... ~.9 x 10^-25 Farads using the proton radius here. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html I guess talking about the "radius" of either of these two particles is a bit misleading, a sort of "lumped" analysis where a distributed one is in order. It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Keith Nagel writes C = 3.135*10^-25 F and we seem to differ by a factor of two. BTW, this is pretty well known, are you claiming the idea??? I've not got a reference at hand, but I'm sure a little searching would turn up something... K. Thank you for you comment Keith. No, I am not claiming to have discovered the value of capacitance of a proton. r=1.4 x 10-15m. It is well known. It is sort of one of those uninteresting facts that no one cares about, except perhaps me. The field of physics is divided into two camps; Quantum and classical. The quantum regime is considered to be preeminent. The classical world falls out as large numbers of quantum events occur. I disagree with this. I believe that the quantum regime is a subset of the classical universe. I believe that there is a minimum of stray capacitance that can be experienced by a particle. This minimum of stray capacitance is a classical phenomena. It is a property of the universe. The quantum regime falls out a consequence of this classical property. I started with 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads and developed the quantum regime from this first principle. I got the same answers, however, I employed an underlying classical premise. I did not come directly to Planck's constant from this approach. I came to 1.09 megahertz-meters as a fundamental quantum constant. With a little math 1.09 meters/sec can be converted to Planck's constant. I hope you understand Keith http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/index.html Frank Z
