Structural Nucleo Theory by Dr. Yehiel Porat
hanson
precious metals that have been in use for a long time:
Brass instead of Gold and Nickel/Tin instead of Platinum.
Each of these alloys exhibit physical properties like
appearance and corrosion resistance that mimic the
corresponding noble metal. -- It is interesting to see
why that may be so by comparing their charges:
Cu = 29 + Sn = 50 ::: CuSn-Bronze = 79 ... Au = 79
Ni = 28 + Sn = 50 ::: NiSn-NickelTin = 78 ... Pt = 78
Now besides each pair above just having the same number
of charges (protons or electrons) there is the beckoning
chance that ** Dr. Yehiel Porat's Structural Nucleo Theory **
may shed a better light on this. Rudimentary information
is given by the author of the theory about such matters on his
website ::: http://www.geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
The author."Y.Porat" map...@012.net.il who is a frequent
guest on the Usenet is hereby requested to explain not only the
obvious above phenomena but is invited to PREDICT WITH HIS
THEORY what other kinds of novel material combinations** can
be produced to substitute for rare or toxic metals like Mercury
or Lead, etc. (** RT liquidity // relatively nontoxic).
Other examples that Porat's theory could be useful for include
explanations whether there are alternative reasons for the O3
destruction by CFs, with Dr. Porat explaining that energetic
cosmic radiation can split Oxygen under certain circumstances
into carbon and helium per scheme
16O3 -----> 16O2 + 16O
16O -----> 12C + 4He
If Porat can convincingly lay out with his theory that the process
of reducing the stratospheric O3 content and leaving behind the
infamous "Ozone Hole" that is only partly to be blamed onto
anthropogenic influences then his theory could be a big payoff for
him, the refrigerant producers and the HVAC industry world wide.
In am sure that if Author Porat can demonstrate convincingly
a few of such predictions that then his theory will gain and enjoy
widespread appeal, application and use.
hanson
Y.Porat
A big thank you hanson!!!
please readers note
Hanson didnt start his post by HAHAHA
and it is a big compliment for me
because it means he takes me very seriously
now in order that he and others will take me seriously
i have a dosclaimer!!
i am not a PHD !
just a humble Bsc engineer (plus 68 years of big interst and investment
in science)
2
ther site he quoted above is not all my theory- it is just an
'appetiser' and abstract
much more ofit is in my book
anyway
that site is good enough as a start!!
3
i am am answering now just a quick first response
(cuae i have to do my dayly morning walk very good for old people
health
and not bad for yougsters either (:-)
4
the examples hanson gave are actually very interesting
because it showes that a good innovating model
can serve not only for coffe cup mumblings
but for PRACTICAL USES!
(and that is one of the differences between an Engineer and a
amtrhematician
that became a physicist (:-)
an enginerr will always lok for waht is called in our places
'tachless'-
(since hanson is very familiar with our folkloric language he will
explain what is
'Tachless'
--------
i actually was dealing with sibgle Atoms and very little yet on
compounds of elements
yet the knowlwdge of singles can shedd some light on compounds
though it clear cut
actually i was studying the enigma of Noble Atoms
and came to a new finding different from thr common undersranding
the common is that Atoms are noble because
'there is some perferction in their structure '!
it is only partially right
i found that in many cases it is rather something 'crippled' !!
in their sttructure - that make them 'Noble '
for instance some of the noble gases is rather because there is
somthing cripled
that prevents them even of creating a couple of Atoms
for inatnce Radiom (Radon - just call form memory without opening my
book)
in other cases it is the rather shotage of external orbitsls that makes
them inactive
in pther cases like Gold
it is a combination of external orbitals of a proton and nautron
(external chain of orbitals
that mekes it a closed inactive couple ie
neutron fromone side of that 'reactangul; pipe
and a Proton chain of prbiytals on the other symetric side (and same
pole)
of that 'reactangular pipe'
and for Oxygen and Ozone
Oxygen nus structure can be seen in my site
it is actually a carbon structure and an additional Alpha particle
commected at its middle ie not linearily but parallel to the Carbon
basic structre
and if so
the Alpha can ve removed elatively easily
(the binding energy of that additionasl is two times 0.00375 AMU
(~3.7 Mev)
2 times because it is connestd with two Arms' at two points
0.00375 Amu is not much foer nuclear proccesses
but not little for chemicasl processes!!
i didnt study ozon
but my guess is that Ozon is not connected 'nuclearly'
but chemically
ie much less than 3.7 Mev actually much less or else it would not be
decomposed just by Em radiation
soit is probably a linear chemical connectionnow wone would ask waht
is the difference between chemical bond and nucler bond:
please folow my 'chain of orbitald suggestion
presented on the Alpha particle just at the beginning:
the chemical is doner as known by the electron link (the last link on
the chain
while the nuclesr is done by some more inner link on that chain of
orbitals
that i called 'The medium orbital'
i even founf that is it is not just a bond loss of 0.00125 AMU
but actually A SUB PARTICLE
and strangely enough they come in TRIPPLES!!
does it ring some bellof recollection to you ??
(how about 3 quarks ??)
and i found as well the magis substructure and figure 3 !!
ie
3x0.00125 = ...... surprize 0.00375 Amu
and that magic figure of x3 goes even up and up
but i am not goint to reavel it all jsut now and here !!
so
do we have enough as a starrt ??
so Thank you Again Hanson
and the others that will join that important thread
but only the
'BON AFIDE'!! ones !!
Y.Porat
-------------------
Autymn D. C.
tell.)
A neat trick with gold is that, despite its nobility, it bonds with
many other metals to make ungold "golds"; that is, white gold, red
gold, black gold, grey gold, green gold, blue gold, lilac gold, carmine
gold. The shops, however, market these as golds, or metals, when many
of them in the pictures are obviosely dull "ores" as I'll call them.
Ores are on the brink of earths, then salts.
-Aut
Y.Porat
BTW are you a chemist in your formal education ??
i think we had once a discussion and may be a dispute
about some of my prediction invloving Gold
according to my model
Gold and Mercury (Hg) have a very similar nuclear structre
Platimun is also a neighbour of Gold but from the 'lower side' of the
periodic table
but hase some noticable difference in some detail of its nuclear
structre
and has some differnt edge orbitals
so my prediction is that
it should be much easier to turn Hg to Gold
raher than turn Platinum to Gold
their order in the Mendeliev table is
Pl Au Hg ie 'elbow to elbow' neighbours while Gold is at the
middle of them
i dont speak about some rare acidental isotopns of them
i mean the 'main strean abundant isotops of all of them
i have no previous idea about experimental facts
so
can anyone prove or disprove my prediction??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Eric Gisse
hanson wrote:
[...]
Porat does not have a doctorate, or any formal education in physics.
Y.Porat
i already noted it above (unlike some other imposters here ....)
i know some Phd imbecils and crooks as well here
2 please bypass the 22 years disturbed and sabotaging student from
Alaska
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
The work that i did about nuclear and Atomic structure
could award me ' a bit more ' than the common PHd
it might even be a new landmark in physics .
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Autymn D. C.
> > (But bronze is not brass. The authors/translators of the OT couldn't
> > tell.)
> >
> > A neat trick with gold is that, despite its nobility, it bonds with
> > many other metals to make ungold "golds"; that is, white gold, red
> > gold, black gold, grey gold, green gold, blue gold, lilac gold, carmine
> > gold. The shops, however, market these as golds, or metals, when many
> > of them in the pictures are obviosely dull "ores" as I'll call them.
> > Ores are on the brink of earths, then salts.
> BTW are you a chemist in your formal education ??
I am not, but I'v ae a'longstanding interest in kèmicei for want of
dear metals and stones, as well as the neat recipes in subversive texts
such as the /Anarchist's Cookbook/. For a few years I'v wanted to make
a death ray, so hav bene compilant lists of elemental incendiaries and
conductors. I can even say what substances/reactions are better than
onia and alqali perklorates for solid kèmical rocket engins. They
need a good magnet.
> i think we had once a discussion and may be a dispute
> about some of my prediction invloving Gold
Yes, you badmouthd the relativistic contraction for gold and mercury.
The sudden state-shifts from platinum to mercury on that period are
because of charge-shielding from the greater room and drop afforded by
strong fields and swift inner charges.
> according to my model
> Gold and Mercury (Hg) have a very similar nuclear structre
Then why does gold only hav one stabil isotope?
> Platimun is also a neighbour of Gold but from the 'lower side' of the
> periodic table
> but hase some noticable difference in some detail of its nuclear
> structre
> and has some differnt edge orbitals
>
> so my prediction is that
> it should be much easier to turn Hg to Gold
> raher than turn Platinum to Gold
Duh, it's near nickel.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> > (But bronze is not brass. The authors/translators of the OT couldn't
> > tell.)
> >
> > A neat trick with gold is that, despite its nobility, it bonds with
> > many other metals to make ungold "golds"; that is, white gold, red
> > gold, black gold, grey gold, green gold, blue gold, lilac gold, carmine
> > gold. The shops, however, market these as golds, or metals, when many
> > of them in the pictures are obviosely dull "ores" as I'll call them.
> > Ores are on the brink of earths, then salts.
> BTW are you a chemist in your formal education ??
I am not, but I'v ae a'longstanding interest in kèmicei for want of
dear metals and stones, as well as the neat recipes in subversive texts
such as the /Anarchist's Cookbook/. For a few years I'v wanted to make
a death ray, so hav bene compilant lists of elemental incendiaries and
conductors. I can even say what substances/reactions are better than
onia and alqali perklorates for solid kèmical rocket engins. They
need a good magnet.
> i think we had once a discussion and may be a dispute
> about some of my prediction invloving Gold
Yes, you badmouthd the relativistic contraction for gold and mercury.
The sudden state-shifts from platinum to mercury on that period are
because of charge-shielding from the greater room and drop afforded by
strong fields and swift inner charges.
> according to my model
> Gold and Mercury (Hg) have a very similar nuclear structre
Then why does gold only hav one stabil isotope?
> Platimun is also a neighbour of Gold but from the 'lower side' of the
> periodic table
> but hase some noticable difference in some detail of its nuclear
> structre
> and has some differnt edge orbitals
>
> so my prediction is that
> it should be much easier to turn Hg to Gold
> raher than turn Platinum to Gold
Duh, it's near nickel.
-Aut
Y.Porat
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > > (But bronze is not brass. The authors/translators of the OT couldn't
> > > tell.)
> > >
> > > A neat trick with gold is that, despite its nobility, it bonds with
> > > many other metals to make ungold "golds"; that is, white gold, red
> > > gold, black gold, grey gold, green gold, blue gold, lilac gold, carmine
> > > gold. The shops, however, market these as golds, or metals, when many
> > > of them in the pictures are obviosely dull "ores" as I'll call them.
> > > Ores are on the brink of earths, then salts.
>
> > BTW are you a chemist in your formal education ??
>
> I am not, but I'v ae a'longstanding interest in kèmicei for want of
> dear metals and stones, as well as the neat recipes in subversive texts
> such as the /Anarchist's Cookbook/. For a few years I'v wanted to make
> a death ray, so hav bene compilant lists of elemental incendiaries and
> conductors. I can even say what substances/reactions are better than
> onia and alqali perklorates for solid kèmical rocket engins. They
> need a good magnet.
>
> > i think we had once a discussion and may be a dispute
> > about some of my prediction invloving Gold
>
> Yes, you badmouthd the relativistic contraction for gold and mercury.
> The sudden state-shifts from platinum to mercury on that period are
> because of charge-shielding from the greater room and drop afforded by
> strong fields and swift inner charges.
?????????
------------
it i think that no one could disprove by experimental data that
Hg can betetr be turned to Gold
rather than Pt can be changed to Goldi mean the main stream isotops
--------------
>
> > according to my model
> > Gold and Mercury (Hg) have a very similar nuclear structre
>
> Then why does gold only hav one stabil isotope?
it is probably not for a few minutes study
yet i made a quick look at my model
and i found
1
as above
there is nothing prior to it in the periodic table
even the 'closest to it from the lighter side ie Platimum is different
2
it is very symetrical and has less external orbitals than anything
under or above it
----------------
>
> > Platimun is also a neighbour of Gold but from the 'lower side' of the
> > periodic table
> > but hase some noticable difference in some detail of its nuclear
> > structre
> > and has some differnt edge orbitals
> >
> > so my prediction is that
> > it should be much easier to turn Hg to Gold
> > raher than turn Platinum to Gold
>
> Duh, it's near nickel.
Ni is No 28
ie far below it !!
--------------
now i have another prediction:
O (oxygen) cannot be turned to Fl 9Fluorine)
though they are neibours
whie i say cant be turned i mean
by a nuclear process (ie not by a big bang....)
and i mean **the mainstream isotop**
ie
not the rare 'exotic' isotops
can someone prove or disprovae it by experimental known data ??
(i hvae no previous knowlwdge abou tthe experimental data !!)
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Autymn D. C.
> > > so my prediction is that
> > > it should be much easier to turn Hg to Gold
> > > raher than turn Platinum to Gold
> >
> > Duh, it's near nickel.
> > -----------------------
> Ni is No 28
> ie far below it !!
> --------------
See the links: http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/25647.
> now i have another prediction:
>
> O (oxygen) cannot be turned to Fl 9Fluorine)
> though they are neibours
> whie i say cant be turned i mean
> by a nuclear process (ie not by a big bang....)
> and i mean **the mainstream isotop**
> ie
> not the rare 'exotic' isotops
>
> can someone prove or disprovae it by experimental known data ??
> (i hvae no previous knowlwdge abou tthe experimental data !!)
Add three neutròns to three protòns. Generators or cosmic rays can
do it.
-Aut
Y.Porat
No !!
there is a difference between your imagination and reality
hand waving is not good enough
please bring experimental data !!
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Eric Gisse
Why should you hold yourself to different standards than you hold
others?
You have no experimental observation of a massive photon, yet you
insist that the photon is massive *anyway*.
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------------
Y.Porat
if you dont get that E=hf is an experimental formula
and you dont get that that i showed that
if the h containes the mass dimesion of 1 kg
and that there is nothing in hf to multiply that h and the Kg
dimsnsion by
Zero
than the Enrgy of the photon and therefore of the Kg in it are nonzero
than ??
waht do you want now fromme ?? curse ??!!
so go do your homework or ask someone else to explain to you
my profe
you could say ok it has mass but relativistic mass
but
there is no relativistic mass
ifthat rumour has not arrived yet to Alaska than look for it
now bye
i am fed up with you
go climb on another horse or else i wioll climb on you more rudely
2
just note the title of this thred
photon mass has nothing to do with it
unless you are a comulsive irrational personal enemy of mine !
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
Y.Porat wrote:
> hanson wrote:
> > Yehiel "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> > news:1162007531....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> "Autymn D. C." aka "Dyslexia" wrote:
> > >> [Al snips crap]
> >
> > > > if you cant help- at least dont cause damage!!
> > > so you should be at least be - if not uaseful than
> > > ethical as those ancient Doctors!!
> > > keep well
> > > Y.Porat
> -------------
> -Hi hanson however you must admit that the jewish folklor
> of east Europ (that does not exist there for known reasons
> was built during a 1000 years
> if you realy know it it is extremely 'juicy' and versatile
> and has a lot of life wisdom
> anyway
> lets cut the bulshit of !! and concentrate on my model
> as you started and innitiated.
> ----------
> folowing your advice to be practical (tachless' ) and predictive
> in an unprecedented way
> i brought above the prediction
> about Oxygen that cannot be turned to Fluorine
> though they are immediate neighbours!
>
> no one except me can bring such a prediction!!
> it i sone of many ones that i can do .
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------------
so untill now
no one could disprove my prediction that
Oxygen cannot be turned by ordinary nuclear process to Fluorine
and vice versa **though they are immediate neighbours**!!
so it should say something
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------