|
At 12:24 pm 22/07/2005 -0700, Merlyn wrote:
> It is a very
compelling theory Frank,
You say the nicest things, Merlyn.
8-)
> but I don't think it works out.
But here comes the
"but" ;^)
>--- Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I
find myself in this situation with regard to the
>> effect of drop in
Beta-atmospheric (B-a) pressure
>> on the strength of the attraction
and repulsion of
>> positive and negative charges. I am confident that
>> the explanation I have given is correct, albeit
>>
obscenely unorthodox, but I find I have to demand
>> a justification,
an explanation, from myself (my
>> own worst critic) as to why.
>>
>> To summarize the situation.
>>
>>
The repulsive force between like charges is affected
>>
>> by
the drop in B-a pressure as one enters into a
>> material such as
water, steel, concrete, palladium
>> etc.
>>
>> The
attractive force between unlike charges is
>> unaffected by a change
in the B-a pressure as one
>> enters the material.
>>
>> So the problem is:
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------
>> Why are
repulsive forces affected and attractive
>> forces not
affected by the B-a change?
>>
------------------------------------------------
>>
=======================================
>> ! A TENSILE STRESS
THEREFORE IS !
>> ! MERELY A
REDUCTION IN THE AMBIENT !
>>
! COMPRESSIVE STRESS AND
THE !
>>
! CONCEPT OF ACTION AT A DISTANCE
!
>>
! IS NO LONGER
REQUIRED
!
>>
=======================================
>>
>> .....and that
really is the crux of the
>> matter. The force that pushes the like
charges
>> apart emanates from those charges - but - the
>>
force that pushes the unlike charges together
>> emanates, not from
the charges, but from the
>> charges' enveloping
environment.
>>
>> Let's, give it a name. Lets call it the
>> Gamma-aether, the Gamma-atmosphere (G-a),
>> for we are
assuredly dealing with two vastly
>> different levels of the total
Aether.
>>
>> The need for a Gamma-atmosphere was implicitly
>> recognised in the Southampton paper by
>> designating the
familiar atmosphere, the air,
>> as the Alpha-atmosphere (A-a)to both
distinguish
>> it from the Beta-atmosphere and to provide for
>> up to 22 more enveloping atmospheres as they
>> become
required. <g>
>>
>> Now it is not that the change in
the B-a pressure
>> does not affect the value of the Gamma atmosphere
>> pressure at all. It does affect it. But the G-a
>>
pressure is so bloody enormous that the change
>> brought about by a
change in the B-a is negligible.
>> Anybody familiar with calculus
will be very
>> familiar with thingees being negligible when
>> they are very small compared with other thingees.
>>
>>
>> When the B-a pressure is lowered, as it is
>> in the "FLUID PHASE" reduced B-a pressure of
>> a
material such as water or metal, the
>> repulsion between positive
charges is reduced.
>> In other words, the Coulomb Barrier
between
>> positive charges is lowered. This is the
>>
essential key to understanding Cold Fusion.
>>
>> And in
order to make progress in bringing CF to a
>> commercial product,
without blowing oneself up in
>> the process, one would be well
advised to take
>> Whitehead's good advice.
>>
>>
>>
====================================================
>Picture
it this way...
>
>I have a spring (coulomb force) separating 2
steel
>plates (protons)
>Note that the space between the plates is
open to the
>surroundings atmosphere and not sealed.
>The force
required to move the plates closer together
>is very precisely calculated
in air at 14.7 psi.
>Now if I were to place the entire apparatus
under
>water where the pressure was raised to 100 psi would
>it make
any difference in the force needed to compress
>the spring? The
added pressure acts equally on all
>sides of the plates and so cancels
out.
I don't see the repulsive force between two like charges
as
something static, but something dynamic, a flux, a
flow of substance. Now,
clearly, the repulsive pressure
this flow will exert will be proportional to
the difference
between the pressure of the outgoing flow and the ambient
pressure of the field. If both pressures are the same,
for example, then
there can be no repulsion.
The nature of the "attractive" force is quite
different.
It doesn't emanate from the charges themselves but from
the
ambient field.
It is brought about by the Bernoulli pressure drop in the
flow and counter flow between the electron (at a pressure
above B-a
ambient) and the proton (at a pressure below
B-a ambient).
To give a
loose analogy which I wouldn't want to press too
far. The earth receives
directed radiation from the sun
at one average wavelength and transmits it
isotropically
at a lower wavelength.
The higher wavelength is
analogous to the Gamma-atmosphere.
the lower to the
Beta-atmosphere.
>Frank, as I understand it you see charge as
relative
>to the background (beta-aether) rather
like
>temperature.
As pressure, the inverse of temperature - but
you're
on the right track
>If we were to call protons hot at 71
degrees and
>electrons cold at 69 degrees then a hydrogen
atom
>would be neutral at 70 degrees because it
averages
>out.
It would be at ambient pressure, neutral
charge.
>however if you separated the particles /
charges,
>having 10 electrons @ 69 degrees each on one side of
a
>wall and 10 protons at 71 degrees each on the other,
>the charge
imbalance should be 20, but the temperature
>difference is still only 2
degrees.
If you think of inverse temperature as a pressure then
we
are talking about stress per unit area and by
having more charges you are in
effect increasing the
area. The total force is the same but the stress
is
unchanged.
>IMHO it is the absolute difference in charge
rather
>than the ratio that is important.
>
I don't think we are
really in much disagreement. 8-)
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and
constructive
reply. It's nice to hear from people who are prepared
to
think way, way, way outside the box. 8-)
Also, your post will
give me the incentive to find
a better analogy for what I intuitively know
must
be the case.
Cheers - and thanks
Frank
P.S. When I
was first introduced to fluid dynamic
phenomena I was struck by how counter
intuitive they
are. The flume for example; one would expect a stream
to
pile up higher and go slower when going through a
narrow opening. But it
does the complete opposite.
It took me awhile to digest this post this
insightful and delightful post. It could become pattern for a new
format ( dialog between members views)
I can now better understand Grimer's invention of the word "
compreture". Compressed temperature or the inverse of temperature. The
relationship between temperature and pressure begs for a better definition of
each. Perhaps we should obsolete the two words as we have done with many
electrical terms.
The words temperature and pressure are technically obsolete and cause
thinkers as well as readers to stumble. Grimer's explanation to
Merlyn required it to be couched in analogies because emerging
scientific word based terminology lags science theory. Likeso, instrumentation
lags. Science needs measurement instrumentation in "differential " format.
Reliance on " exact" measurement is a misnomer since there ain't no such animal.
Differential allows " float" which is permissible in mathematics which in turn
must form the base. The same is true of mathematics. Hopefully some young wizard
is even today thinking of the next level of math necessary for " fleshing" out
theory. A good example is the socalled " Big Bang theory. Sounds great for a
Hollywood movie but lacks substance. The universe, creation, however you
choose to describe it, is dynamic. Big bang imposes conditions that creation
does not accept..
I enjoyed the PS about flumes. One of the largest Parshal flumes ( 50 foot
throat) in the world is near Houston. Old man Parshal had it right. Give
the water a little hill to climb , drop it down a chute and watch the
falling water " pull" the inlet water over the hill and through the throat
like a chain.
Richard
|
