Neutron Decay ON/OFF Switch
7
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> QUARKS INFLUENCED BY THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
>> The internal structure of a proton or neutron is not
>> completely fixed--experiments going back decades suggest
>> that the particles are slightly different when inside a
>> nucleus. Now results in the 13 November Physical Review
>> Letters show that the effect is not dependent on the
>> mass or on the density of the entire nucleus, as some
>> theories have predicted. Instead, neutrons and protons
>> appear to change according to their immediate neighborhood
>> within the nucleus.
>
>
> That should've been obvious by the fact that neutrons decay into protons
> & electrons within 10 minutes, if they are not attached to a nucleus.
> But inside a nucleus, they are as stable as protons.
>
> Yousuf Khan
The statements taken together is interesting.
It means the neutron is disintegrating all the time in all environments
but when with the proton around, it helps the neutron pull itself
back together again.
It is the perfect nuclear decay ON/OFF switch!!
If you carry material that can be 'easily processed' to separate
neutrons from protons, then you got highly radioactive material
that is fuel in just the right amounts needed.
The raw materials for the fuel are not radioactive.
Perfect for extremely large space faring machines to gigawatt
electricity generating machines!!!
The key word is 'easily processed'.
If you can't easily convert the source material to release
neutrons or it costs more energy than energy recovered from
neutron decay, then its not a good plan.
tnlo...@aol.com
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> QUARKS INFLUENCED BY THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD
> >> The internal structure of a proton or neutron is not
> >> completely fixed--experiments going back decades suggest
> >> that the particles are slightly different when inside a
> >> nucleus. Now results in the 13 November Physical Review
> >> Letters show that the effect is not dependent on the
> >> mass or on the density of the entire nucleus, as some
> >> theories have predicted. Instead, neutrons and protons
> >> appear to change according to their immediate neighborhood
> >> within the nucleus.
>
> > That should've been obvious by the fact that neutrons decay into protons
> > & electrons within 10 minutes, if they are not attached to a nucleus.
> > But inside a nucleus, they are as stable as protons.
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> The statements taken together is interesting.
> It means the neutron is disintegrating all the time in all environments
> but when with the proton around, it helps the neutron pull itself
> back together again.
>
> It is the perfect nuclear decay ON/OFF switch!!
Interesting way to put it!
When a proton captures a neutron, it releases about 2.2 MeV binding
energy.
The neutron cannot decay because it can release only about 0.78 MeV
energy at decay,
not enough to unbind from the proton, so it remains captured by the
proton forever!
> If you carry material that can be 'easily processed' to separate
> neutrons from protons, then you got highly radioactive material
> that is fuel in just the right amounts needed.
> The raw materials for the fuel are not radioactive.
> Perfect for extremely large space faring machines to gigawatt
> electricity generating machines!!!
>
> The key word is 'easily processed'.
> If you can't easily convert the source material to release
> neutrons or it costs more energy than energy recovered from
> neutron decay, then its not a good plan.
>
Exactly, 2.2 MeV vs 0.78 Mev and the neutron must stay
stable in a captured state.
The quark model cannot give numbers to this process.
Regards; Tom.
Yousuf Khan
> When a proton captures a neutron, it releases about 2.2 MeV binding
> energy.
>
> The neutron cannot decay because it can release only about 0.78 MeV
> energy at decay,
> not enough to unbind from the proton, so it remains captured by the
> proton forever!
When neutrons and protons are paired up in more complex atoms, are they
actually just paired up, or do they bond in complex multi-way bonds?
Let's say two or more protons sharing a neutron, or two or more neutrons
sharing a proton?
Or are they always just pair bonds of a single neutron and a single
proton? Can a pair of neutrons pair bond with each other? Can a pair of
protons?
Yousuf Khan
Y.Porat
-------------------
the firs thing you have toknow is
that non of those particles is
a sphere !!
it is a longish shape with two poles --
that are different
ie back and fron poles
if you take the Triton
it is two neutrons connected
more or less linearity
(i say more or less because it is not exactly on the same line
it is always with a chenge of direction of about 120 deg !!
and a proton
IS ADDED TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THOSE TWO
NEUTRONS
so actually you get a tripple bond
similarly is the
H isotpe with mass 3 AMU
ie
2 protons proton plus one neutron
( i dont know how to write it with our ascii
editor ..)
see my abstract
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
Y.P
------------------
7
tnlo...@aol.com
> tnlock...@aol.com wrote:
> > When a proton captures a neutron, it releases about 2.2 MeV binding
> > energy.
>
> > The neutron cannot decay because it can release only about 0.78 MeV
> > energy at decay,
> > not enough to unbind from the proton, so it remains captured by the
> > proton forever!
>
> When neutrons and protons are paired up in more complex atoms, are they
> actually just paired up, or do they bond in complex multi-way bonds?
> Let's say two or more protons sharing a neutron, or two or more neutrons
> sharing a proton?
>
Tom says;
Yousuf; Yes, I find the binding energy is saturated, that is,
individual nucleons
only bind to the nearest two or three nucleons.
Allows one to determine how the nucleons are arranged in more complex
nucleons.
> Or are they always just pair bonds of a single neutron and a single
> proton? Can a pair of neutrons pair bond with each other? Can a pair of
> protons?
>
Proton can bind to proton, and neutron can bind to neutron, but only
in complex nucleons,
never in isolation.
See and hear the narrated PowerPoint slideshow;
www.vectorparticlephysics.com/Photontomatter.ppt
If you don't have a PowerPoint reader, believe it or not a free reader
is available at;
Regards; Tom.
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf says;
>> When neutrons and protons are paired up in more complex atoms, are they
>> actually just paired up, or do they bond in complex multi-way bonds?
>> Let's say two or more protons sharing a neutron, or two or more neutrons
>> sharing a proton?
>>
>
> Tom says;
> Yousuf; Yes, I find the binding energy is saturated, that is,
> individual nucleons
> only bind to the nearest two or three nucleons.
>
> Allows one to determine how the nucleons are arranged in more complex
> nucleons.
Are you saying that's actually how it is, or that's how one would need
to model it to make it simpler to calculate?
Is this in any way analogous to the electron shells at the atomic level?
>> Or are they always just pair bonds of a single neutron and a single
>> proton? Can a pair of neutrons pair bond with each other? Can a pair of
>> protons?
>>
>
> Proton can bind to proton, and neutron can bind to neutron, but only
> in complex nucleons,
> never in isolation.
Even hydrogen can have upto 2 or 3 nucleons, i.e. deuterium & tritium.
How much less complex can they be?
Yousuf Khan
tnlo...@aol.com
> tnlock...@aol.com wrote:
> > Yousuf says;
> >> When neutrons and protons are paired up in more complex atoms, are they
> >> actually just paired up, or do they bond in complex multi-way bonds?
> >> Let's say two or more protons sharing a neutron, or two or more neutrons
> >> sharing a proton?
>
> > Tom says;
> > Yousuf; �Yes, I find the binding energy is saturated, that is,
> > individual nucleons
> > only bind to the nearest two or three nucleons.
>
> > Allows one to determine how the nucleons are arranged in more complex
> > nucleons.
>
> Are you saying that's actually how it is, or that's how one would need
> to model it to make it simpler to calculate?
Yousaf, I find that is how it is;
If you listen to the following referenced PowerPoint Presentation,
the process is explained, in the later slides.
I find that nucleons arrange into patterns common to all nuclei.
> Is this in any way analogous to the electron shells at the atomic level?
No, it is known that, in the ground state, electrons are found at
the nucleus.
> >> Or are they always just pair bonds of a single neutron and a single
> >> proton?
>>> Can a pair of neutrons pair bond with each other? Can a pair of
> >> protons?
Tom said;
> > Proton can bind to proton, and neutron can bind to neutron, but only
> > in complex nucleons,
> > never in isolation.
Yousaf said;
> Even hydrogen can have up to 2 or 3 nucleons, i.e. deuterium & tritium.
> How much less complex can they be?
You are right, the deuteron's proton and neutron are the simplist
stable nucleous.
See and hear the narrated PowerPoint slideshow; (Last few minutes show
the nuclei modeling process)
www.vectorparticlephysics.com/Photontomatter.ppt
If you don't have a PowerPoint reader, a free reader
is available for (PowerPoint 2007) at;
Regards; Tom.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
neutrons that still have not become hydrogen atoms going back to the BB
That is what Heisenberg was trying to tell us. Its reality Bert
Sam Wormley
Bullshit, Herb.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
hydrogen. Some neutrons decay faster than others. If you could think Sam
you would realize how neutron decay fits so well with the uncertainty
principle. Sam I am not sure you are a teacher. Best you learn some
stuff Bert
Sam Wormley
If you only knew what the Uncertainty Principle says, Herb.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
presumably teach? It goes along the lines of "quantum mechanics" oi ya
It was said by Heisenberg that there are features of the universe,like
position and velocity of particles that can't be known with absolute
precision. Smaller the the time scales,more uncertainty. Reality is
particles and fields undulate and jump between all possible values. That
go with QM uncertainty. What Heisenberg was really telling us was the
quantum tiny realm is a roiling frenzy,immersed in a ocean of quantum
fluctuations. Sam have one of your very bright students explain this
to you I am sure its well over your zipper. Bert PS I could add a lot
more,but I know this is more than your low wit brain can take
Yousuf Khan
With a decay half-life of 10 minutes, it seems highly improbable that
there are still any free neutrons left over from the Big Bang. Dividing
13.7 billion years by 10 minutes, that's 7.2 x 10^14 half-life cycles
ago. Plugging 0.5 ^ (7.2E14) into my calculator, and my calculator calls
that zero.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
> See and hear the narrated PowerPoint slideshow; (Last few minutes show
> the nuclei modeling process)
>
> www.vectorparticlephysics.com/Photontomatter.ppt
>
> If you don't have a PowerPoint reader, a free reader
> is available for (PowerPoint 2007) at;
>
> http://office.microsoft.com
>
> Regards; Tom.
Thanks I'm downloading them now.
Yousuf Khan
G=EMC^2 Glazier
be 13.7 billion years old,but that is what the uncertainty principle is
all about "probabilities" Oi ya bert
Sam Wormley
Free neutrons, Herb, have a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes
(885.7 ± 0.8 s).
In other words, there are NO 13.7 billion years old free neutrons, Herb.
And you know what, Herb, you have no fucking idea what the uncertainty
principle says.
Yousuf Khan
Okay, you're playing a pedantic game here. It is estimated that there
are 10^80 atoms in total in the entire universe right now. If we assume
that they all started out as neutrons in the early universe. It's not a
bad assumption as the Universe is mainly made up of Hydrogen, which is
basically the constituent parts of a neutron: a proton and an electron.
If we take the previous calculation of the half-life cycles 7.2E14, then
1E80 * 0.5 ^ (7.2E14) is still equal to 0. There just isn't enough atoms
in the Universe to still have any free neutrons left from the Big Bang.
Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Estimates of the matter content of the observable universe indicate
that it contains on the order of 1080 atoms. The vast majority of the
energy density is contributed by dark matter and dark energy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b169ff6$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
I estimate you assume "entire" means "observable".
I therefore conclude, based on my estimate and assumption,
that you are a ranting bigot.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Heisenberg is having a good laugh at both of us. I am certain of that.
Bert