Well, it's getting late this morning, and I still haven't made a post.
I'm running into problems reporting on nuclear physics because I don't have enough background and lack the time to obtain it. That didn't stop me from reading more about the subject this morning. But, there wasn't anything I could post about it.
What it did do is make me wonder a bit about the Widom Larsen theory. You know, if you look at these theories long enough, you could start having doubts. Doubts about Widom Larsen? Yes. But not to worry. If you read about it enough, there are doubts about all theories. They are, after all, just theories. The problem starts when a theory is taken as absolute truth. Like climate change.
In science, can there be such a thing as absolute truth? But with religion there is. Religion has the certainty that science lacks.
Turning from science, I went back to politics. What I found is this disenchantment with Obama. His supporters are disappointed. They want him to fight harder. I was tempted to make fun of Obama on the basis of this disenchantment. Shall I mention the idea I had? Yes, but only briefly. You see, there is this slang word known as "weenie" which seems to apply to these stories. A "weenie" is an ineffectual male, which is basically what it boils down to. So, is Obama a weenie? That's the humor, or I thought so. I suppose there will be some who will not be amused.
I like to point out something that I've mentioned from time to time. That is about a sense of humor. There isn't enough of that right now. "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't be living." That's a quote from a guy I used to work with in the old days. Well, how about it people- can you take a joke?
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
ISS in trouble?
Spacex mission could be delayed but Cautious Optimism that Russia can get a mission to keep Crew in Space Station
This could mean a potential loss of the ISS. Let us hope that is not the case.
This could mean a potential loss of the ISS. Let us hope that is not the case.
Morning Summary, 8/3
Good morning.
It appears that I have reached a snag in my armchair physics studies. It will take a long time to study it all in order to be able to understand it properly. After spending some time on it this morning, the significance of my lack of understanding was becoming more clear to me.
After reaching my age, I have noticed a tendency of mine- many times than what I care to remember- to take on more than I can chew. And here I am, having done it again.
With respect to "cold fusion", it is enough for me to say that I understand it to be incorrect use of language. I respect language enough to want to make that distinction. Cold, in this sense, means low energy. Fusion in this sense, means strong nuclear force. Putting those terms together appears oxymoronic. In order to bring about fusion, one needs high energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and bring the strong nuclear force into play. Therefore, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Hence, the confusion of cold fusion.
Low energy nuclear reactions seem to be the more correct term. It is not fusion, it is not overcoming the Coulomb barrier, it does not invoke the strong nuclear force. It invokes the weak nuclear force instead. The forces in the Standard Model of Particle Physics are: strong, weak, and electromagnetic. Strong and weak nuclear forces are substantially different from each other. For example, the Coulomb barrier implies electromagnetic force. Likewise, weak nuclear force involves beta decay; not fusion, nor fission. Fusion and fission belong to the strong nuclear force. Beta decays do not make bombs. But they can be used to make energy.
It has taken me awhile to get to this point. But I haven't got a lot of time. Let's just leave it at this point. I think I've got it now- so as to understand these most basic points. No need to pass myself off as an expert. Let that distinction be made clear. I am just an ordinary guy trying to understand a difficult subject. And write about it as best I can.
It appears that I have reached a snag in my armchair physics studies. It will take a long time to study it all in order to be able to understand it properly. After spending some time on it this morning, the significance of my lack of understanding was becoming more clear to me.
After reaching my age, I have noticed a tendency of mine- many times than what I care to remember- to take on more than I can chew. And here I am, having done it again.
With respect to "cold fusion", it is enough for me to say that I understand it to be incorrect use of language. I respect language enough to want to make that distinction. Cold, in this sense, means low energy. Fusion in this sense, means strong nuclear force. Putting those terms together appears oxymoronic. In order to bring about fusion, one needs high energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and bring the strong nuclear force into play. Therefore, it would seem to be a contradiction in terms. Hence, the confusion of cold fusion.
Low energy nuclear reactions seem to be the more correct term. It is not fusion, it is not overcoming the Coulomb barrier, it does not invoke the strong nuclear force. It invokes the weak nuclear force instead. The forces in the Standard Model of Particle Physics are: strong, weak, and electromagnetic. Strong and weak nuclear forces are substantially different from each other. For example, the Coulomb barrier implies electromagnetic force. Likewise, weak nuclear force involves beta decay; not fusion, nor fission. Fusion and fission belong to the strong nuclear force. Beta decays do not make bombs. But they can be used to make energy.
It has taken me awhile to get to this point. But I haven't got a lot of time. Let's just leave it at this point. I think I've got it now- so as to understand these most basic points. No need to pass myself off as an expert. Let that distinction be made clear. I am just an ordinary guy trying to understand a difficult subject. And write about it as best I can.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Google Moon
Like Google Earth, there is Google Moon. You can see the Apollo landing sites here. But not in great detail.
I wanted to see more detail, but this was good enough for my purposes. My purpose was to check out the idea that you could drive across the lunar surface from the poles to the equator. That seems doubtful to me now because of the ruggedness of the lunar landscape.
The rovers on the latter missions covered some distance, it appears. The distance between the poles and the equator would be in at least 1500 miles or so. The surface would have to be relatively level to make that long of a trip. That doesn't exist on the Earth either, but the Moon is even more rugged than that. Plus, whatever conveyance you have will not be up to the journey, most likely.
Update:
By the way, here's a video of a mission to produce a 3D map of the lunar surface. It doesn't give that much detail though.
I wanted to see more detail, but this was good enough for my purposes. My purpose was to check out the idea that you could drive across the lunar surface from the poles to the equator. That seems doubtful to me now because of the ruggedness of the lunar landscape.
The rovers on the latter missions covered some distance, it appears. The distance between the poles and the equator would be in at least 1500 miles or so. The surface would have to be relatively level to make that long of a trip. That doesn't exist on the Earth either, but the Moon is even more rugged than that. Plus, whatever conveyance you have will not be up to the journey, most likely.
Update:
By the way, here's a video of a mission to produce a 3D map of the lunar surface. It doesn't give that much detail though.
Video: Why are tar sands evil, again?
Nine out of every 10 calories you eat come from fossil fuels. If it wasn't for fossil fuels, the machinery to harvest crops and to bring them to market could not work. You can't feed a world with animal power. Can't be done. So, to say that oil is evil is to say that most people alive today are evil because they must eat.
No? How else do you propose to feed people then? Windmills and solar power? Not enough energy there. For if there was enough, it would certainly be done. It can't be done because the need is too great.
The only other alternative is nuclear, which is probably considered even more evil by these people. Evidently, they are ignorant, or suicidal. Either way, they are not worth listening to.
Destination: Moon or Asteroid? Part III: Resource Utilization Considerations
The Once and Future Moon, Paul Spudis
The verdict is Moon First. I agree. So, how do we do this?
Here's a start:
EML1 Building by QuantumG
The verdict is Moon First. I agree. So, how do we do this?
Here's a start:
EML1 Building by QuantumG
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Many body effects, many theories
Is it time to throw away the gasoline cans because of the energy revolution? We are still waiting. Seems like everyone is looking for the one single answer that fits all observations.
excerpts from natscience.com:
It can be recalled that the phenomenon LENR or "cold fusion", is a surface phenomenon. Rossi's quote above fits with idea of maximizing the surface area. Maximize the surface area, maximize the effect.
BECNF theory posits that there is a many body effect on the surfaces. Same with Widom Larsen's theory- relying upon the actions of quasiparticles on surfaces, which corresponds somewhat with BECNF theory.
There are many theories about "cold fusion". It has been said that there are too many. So, I pose the question, as I heard Edmund Storms posed in a similar vein, what if there is more than one way to skin the nuclear cat? Many body effects, too many causes? [ those last questions may be too cute, sorry]
excerpts from natscience.com:
- What fuels the E-Cat? Rossi states that he uses micrometer grain
sized nickel dust enriched to contain more of two useful isotopes,
N-62 and N-64. - The nickel is then processed to increase the number of
surface tubercles (protrusions) to provide greater area for heat
producing reactions with hydrogen gas under pressure. A secret
catalyst is added to break apart the molecular hydrogen gas (H2) into
atomic hydrogen (H1). - To make it simple, what happens is that nickel has a
particularity that protons spread from it's surface with extreme
efficiency very close to the nucleus, even if repelled by the so
called coulomb barrier forces. When we inject protons of hydrogen at
high pressures and temperatures, they go pretty close to the nucleus
of the nickel. At those points we have nuclear effects that produce
gamma rays which add more energy. We increase the pressure leading to
extremely high pressures... similar to ones that happen inside White
Dwarf stars. In that situation the so called Gamow Factor, which is a
probabilistic calculation of the coulomb repelling forces, is
overcome. At that point enough energy is produced to make it worth
being recorded." - Andrea Rossi
It can be recalled that the phenomenon LENR or "cold fusion", is a surface phenomenon. Rossi's quote above fits with idea of maximizing the surface area. Maximize the surface area, maximize the effect.
BECNF theory posits that there is a many body effect on the surfaces. Same with Widom Larsen's theory- relying upon the actions of quasiparticles on surfaces, which corresponds somewhat with BECNF theory.
There are many theories about "cold fusion". It has been said that there are too many. So, I pose the question, as I heard Edmund Storms posed in a similar vein, what if there is more than one way to skin the nuclear cat? Many body effects, too many causes? [ those last questions may be too cute, sorry]
Widom Larsen and BECNF -comparison and contrast
Widom Larsen Theory and Zawodny at NASA Aviation Unleashed
Comment: The significant thing about Widom Larsen is that it requires no new physics. No need to overcome the Coulomb barrier, as neutrons are formed, which are captured by the nucleus. It is pointed out that this could not be fusion, since it isn't a proton which is entering a nucleus of an atom, but a neutron instead. Beta decay will account for subsequent transmutations.
This theory does not explain the E-cat. It will require electric input to allow the electrons to merge with the protons forming the neutrons. So far as I know, the E-cat is requiring only heat.
This theory does not explain the E-cat. It will require electric input to allow the electrons to merge with the protons forming the neutrons. So far as I know, the E-cat is requiring only heat.
Krivit on Widom Larsen theory .
Krivit gives a simpler explanation of Widom Larsen.
The key point is that it is different from BECNF in that it doesn't overcome the Coulomb barrier as BECNF does. Therefore, it would seem that the burden of scientific proof is higher for BECNF. Yet, Rossi's device is said to be operational. As far as I know, there is no device yet that employs the principles of Widom Larsen.
There are some similarities with the BECNF theory covered here previously. (see label on left sidebar for a list of these posts) Both theories posit that quasiparticles allow unusual events to occur.
In the case of Widom Larsen, low energy neutrons are formed. The neutrons can be absorbed by nickel nucleii and release energy due to beta decay.
In the case of BECNF, the Coulomb barrier gets suppressed by the Bose Einstein condensation. This allows close enough proximity of ordinarily repelling like electrical charges- protons and nickel nucleii- so that they can fuse and release energy.
These unusual events lead to the production of heat which explains the "cold fusion" phenomenon. It is important to clarify though, that Widom Larsen theory is definitely not fusion.
Both theories rely on the many body theories of quantum mechanics.
Krivit gives a simpler explanation of Widom Larsen.
The key point is that it is different from BECNF in that it doesn't overcome the Coulomb barrier as BECNF does. Therefore, it would seem that the burden of scientific proof is higher for BECNF. Yet, Rossi's device is said to be operational. As far as I know, there is no device yet that employs the principles of Widom Larsen.
There are some similarities with the BECNF theory covered here previously. (see label on left sidebar for a list of these posts) Both theories posit that quasiparticles allow unusual events to occur.
In the case of Widom Larsen, low energy neutrons are formed. The neutrons can be absorbed by nickel nucleii and release energy due to beta decay.
In the case of BECNF, the Coulomb barrier gets suppressed by the Bose Einstein condensation. This allows close enough proximity of ordinarily repelling like electrical charges- protons and nickel nucleii- so that they can fuse and release energy.
These unusual events lead to the production of heat which explains the "cold fusion" phenomenon. It is important to clarify though, that Widom Larsen theory is definitely not fusion.
Both theories rely on the many body theories of quantum mechanics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)