FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Space and Time

Greetings!

Space and Time Discussions on space, time, relativity, physics, and the nature of the universe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-02-2009, 04:59 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Proton-Proton Fusion in our Sun and E = mc^2 Mass loss converted to Energy

Glad to get this one out the door. Once again, you won't find this anywhere. Books and the web only provide the theory minus the details of the calculations leaving it to people interested to struggle through them. This is more for me than anyone. I will use it in the future as another grunt work reference.

This covers the Proton-Proton Fusion of hydrogen into helium by the “PP1” branch which is how about 85% of hydrogen in our size star/Sun is converted. Other stars that are bigger can use the other method (CNO Cycle). It does not cover accretion disk formation or solar mass size star evolution. Further the calculations were carried out to the extent of the most accurate digits on a calculator only rounding off at the very end to keep it as accurate as possible.

Hydrogen consists of a single proton and electron (99.985% of its abundance in nature).

During star formation hydrogen gas in stars becomes more and more compressed under an ever more massive accumulation of hydrogen due to the force of gravity. The more massive a cloud of gas becomes, the more gas it attracts ad infinitum. The gravitational energy causes hydrogen atoms to accelerate with greater and greater kinetic energy toward the center of the cloud heating it up. First the hydrogen atom loses its electron (becomes ionized) which only takes 13.6 electron volts (note 1). Eventually its temperature reaches about 10 million degrees Kelvin. (Kelvin = Centigrade + 273). “Temperature is a measure of the movements (vibration) of the molecules inside a thing. If the thing has a high temperature, it means the average speed of its molecules is fast.” Wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature At that time the repulsion between protons both having a positive charge on them keeping them apart is overcome by the kinetic energy force of their collisions whereupon they stick because the strong nuclear force which is about 100 times more powerful than the electric force holds them together long enough for one of the protons to be acted on by the Weak force turning one of them into a neutron.

Protons are composed of 2 up quarks of +2/3 charge and 1 down quark that has -1/3 charge. +2/3 + 2/3 -1/3 = +3/3 = +1 = the positive charge on the proton. Neutrons are composed of 1 up quark +2/3 and 2 down quarks that are -1/3. Thus, +2/3 + -1/3 -1/3 = 0. Neutrons have zero electric charge. So a proton can easily stick to the neutron forming Deuterium. What happens is when the 2 protons collide and the strong nuclear force holds them together. An up quark in one of the protons is acted on by the weak force particle W+ which turns it into a down quark. This makes it a neutron and the W+ quickly decays into a positron (positive electron/antimatter electron) and an electron neutrino. The W+ particle is a force carrier of the weak nuclear force along with the W- and Z boson particles. The force carrier for the electric force is the photon. (You get this sort of info out of particle physics. Below is Nuclear Physics describing the nuclear reactions.)

The process above of 2 protons colliding with great force and sticking creates a deuteron which is just a proton sticking to a neutron. The nuclear decay of a proton into a neutron is called a Beta plus decay and is expressed as:

Beta Plus Decay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay (Positron Emission)
energy + p → n + e+ + νe Where:
p = a proton
n = a neutron
e+ = a positive electron (antimatter electron/positron)
ve is an electron neutrino.

“Positron emission is a type of beta decay, sometimes referred to as "beta plus" (β+). In beta plus decay, a proton is converted, via the weak force, to a neutron, a positron (also known as the "beta plus particle", the antimatter counterpart of an electron), and a neutrino.”

Notice for this nuclear reaction to happen you must add energy. It does not happen on its own. If it did we would not exist. Neutrons not bound to anything decay on average into a proton, electron neutrino and positron.

Now, if you slam another proton into the deuteron you can get a ‘light’ helium atom which is 2 protons and 1 neutron + a gamma ray. (high frequency and therefore high energy electromagnetic wave). This can be written D + H  3He + gamma ray (where D = deuteron)

Finally if you slam 2 light helium atoms together you can get normal helium with 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Written as 3He + 3He  4He +2p ‘Two light helium atoms produce a normal helium atom and 2 protons are ejected’.

The above nuclear reaction happens 85% of the time in stars like our sun. There are other methods of producing helium. The entire process can be summarized as: 4H  4He + 2e+ + 2v + 2 gamma rays.
4 hydrgogen atoms come together with energy to produce 4 helium atoms + 2 positrons + 2 gamma rays. To get atomic masses, you add 4 electrons to the left side. To balance the equation add 4 electrons to the right side. 2 electrons go to the Helium atom and 2 combined with the positron antimatter electrons and they annihilate producing 4 gamma rays. The only remaining masses in the above equation are are the 4 hydrogen atoms on the left and 1 helium atom on the right side of the equation. We will disregard the neutrinos because their mass is negligible (and yet to be determined but is less than 3 eV).

E = mc^2 Mass converted into energy in stars like our Sun by proton-proton fusion:
The mass of a proton is 1.007825 u (u = Atomic Mass Units but don’t be to concerned because I am going to line up an equation that eliminates it before you need to worry about it converting it to millions of electon volts.) So the total mass we started with is 4 x 1.007825 u = 4.0313 u. The final mass of a helium atom is He = 4.002603 and so the mass loss is = 4.0313 u - 4.002603u = .28697u Now convert u to Mev which is converting Atomic Mass Units into Millions of electron volts. The conversion factor is 931,5 MeV/1 u so
.28697u x 931,5 MeV/u = 26.73 MeV. There was a 26.73 of mass converted into energy. Notice the
.28697u has the u in the numerator. When I multiply by 931.5 MeV/u the un in the denominator cancels out leaving only MeV. The total energy released by the fusion reaction is 26.73 MeV.

You can do it another way. Just look up the mass of a hydrogen atom – it is 1.67262158 x 10^-27 kg.
4 protons x 1.67262158 x 10^-27 kg = 6.69048632 x 10^-27.
Usually Helium is given in terms of Atomic Mass Units (which is u and = 1.66053873 x 10^-27kg) on a Periodic Table (most abundant isotope) as 4002603u which is equal to:
4.002603 x 1.66053873 x 10^-27kg = 6.646477302 x 10^27 kg.
The mass difference between 4 hydrogen atoms and 1 helium atom is:
6.69048632 x 10^-27kg - 6.646477302 x 10^27 kg = 4.4009018 x 10^-29 kg.
E = mc^2 and
c = speed of light = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s so
E = (4.4009018 x 10^-29 kg)( 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s)^2
= 3.955333284 x 10^-12 Joules (units for Joules can have Kgm^2/s^2)
Converting to Electron volts since there are 6,24150948 x 10^18 eV/Joule:
3.955333284 x 10^-12 Joules x 6,24150948 x 10^18 eV/Joule
= 24687250.19 eV of energy released/converted to energy by this mass loss difference or
E = 24.687205 MeV

Now the above seems a bit short but we did not include the 2 positrons in the initial nuclear reaction and since they are antimatter they annihilate with 2 electrons. Each electron and positron has a mass of 9.10938188 x 10^-31 kg so
4 x 9.10938188 x 10^-31 kg = 3.643752752 x 10^-30 additional mass converted into energy.
E = mc^2 = (3.643752752 x 10^-30)( 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s)^2 = 3.274841656 x 10^-13 Joules
3.274841656 x 10^-13 Joules x 6,24150948 x 10^18 eV/Joule
= 2043995.524 eV or 2.043995.524 x 10^6 MeV.
When added to the mass of the nuclei we have
E = 24.687205 MeV + 2.043995.524 x 10^6 MeV = 26.73120052 MeV about 26.73 MeV
This answer matches the answer given using the other method which included the electrons.

Nowwwwww. Just how much energy is this 26.73 million electron volts?
A calorie is defined to be the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celcius. There are 4.18 Joules in 1 calorie. There are 6.242 x 10^18 electron volts per Joule. Or 6.242 x 10^12 MeV per Joule.
Electron Volt Wikipedia 4-27-9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_volt
“By definition, it is equal to the amount of kinetic energy gained by a single unbound electron when it accelerates through an electrostatic potential difference of one volt. Thus it is 1 volt (1 joule divided by 1 coulomb) multiplied by the electron charge (1.60217653(14)×10−19 coulomb). One electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14)×10−19 joules”

6.242 x 10^12 MeV/26.73 MeV = 2.335 x 10^11
We would need 233.5 billion nuclear reactions x 4.18 Joules in 1 calorie 976 billion nuclear reactions to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree Celcius!!!

But the Sun is enormous. It is 330,110 times more massive than the Earth. Every second 5 million tons of hydgrogen mass are converted into energy on the Sun and 700 million tons of hydrogen are converted into Helium every second. In its entire 10 billion year life it will only convert less than 0.07 percent of its mass into energy. (It only has about 5 billion years left) (Horizons Exploring the Universe by Michael A. Seeds p126 and Understanding the Universe by Professor Alex Filipenko (Berkeley/Caltech.)

References:
Proton-Proton Fusion Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain
Atomic Mass Units (AMU or u) Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit
Weak Force Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction
Deuterium Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

End Proton-Proton Fusion of our Sun

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-07-2009, 03:46 PM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
I love those details and especially that anyone could master it. What do you think about using helium 3 (which has 2 protons and one neutron) and using this to use for atomic energy on jet planes? If only we could get this back from the moon.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-07-2009, 06:13 PM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Yeah the reason I posted it is because if you go to the web or an astronomy book they give you the vague information and claim it is true without demonstrating it. You won't find the sorts of calculations above in any book or web page. They do that with a lot of things in science and mathematics too.

Currently only fission can be controlled - the splitting of large atoms like Uranium into daughter particles releasing nuclear energy. This is done using carbon rods, heavy water and lots of concrete and steel for containment. As such fission reactors are unfeasable for flight. Although there is lots of talk about fusion - there has been since the 1960's. The problem is containing a plasma of 10-20 million degrees. That led to magnetic bottles in a vacuum to suspend the plasma so it would not come into contact with matter (and violently explode). More recently they have been using lasers to achieve the necessary degree of heat for fusion to occur but I don't hear anyone jumping up and down about that yet. To fuse 2 protons together you have to overcome the electric repulsion between them (Coulomb barrier - search). This means 10-20 million degrees on the sun. But to fuse 2 helium atoms takes much more energy/higher temperature - it takes 100 million degrees. To fuse carbon and oxygen takes 600 million degrees. This because helium has 2 protons so the electric force keeping 2 helium atoms apart is much more than what it is to keep 2 protons apart in fusing hydrogen into helium. When they fuse they release much more energy according to E = mc^2 mass loss above than chemical/fossil fuels (where electrons are simply rearranged to release energy and is therefore not a nuclear reaction but a chemical reaction).

The thread above is on how 85% of hydrogen in the sun is fused into helium. There is other nuclear reactions going on that I don't go into above like the Triple Alpha Process where 3 helium atoms come together and form carbon. Another subject that is fascinating is Resonance. As it turns out for 3 helium atoms to stick together and form carbon would be a very unlikely event without resonance. And withoiut carbon there would be no life as we know it. The reason carbon exists is a very narrow window/delicate balance of the strengths of the electric, nuclear and weak forces. The ashes of one set of elements in stars becomes the fuel for the next fusion process. The whole subject is stellar evolution.

Right now at the top of my list is the Hubble Constant determination cause it leads to the age of OUR the universe and the fate of it. Without the Hubble Constant you can't talk about dark matter and energy in a meaningful way. Then there is the Tripple Alpha Process and Resonance high on my priority. I could talk about things like Dark Energy and so forth but they require basic knowledge of astronomy like the grunt work of the preceeding thread. Where do they get these things - is important - what experiements - how and when they were conducted and under what circumstances. What led to the idea there was such a thing as dark matter and energy/what is the evidence for it. It takes grunt work. One article at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-07-2009, 11:55 PM
spacedout spacedout is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 836
I didn't know that three hellium atoms fused would make carbon. Interesting, I thought He3 fusions would produce helium 4 which is much more stable and hygrogen and radiation.

I read in a Popular Science magazine that He3 can be broken down by microwaves of the right frequency. In fact a picture of a plane was on the cover.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-08-2009, 06:00 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
"I didn't know that three hellium atoms fused would make carbon. Interesting, I thought He3 fusions would produce helium 4 which is much more stable and hygrogen and radiation. "

I said that in the original thread:

"Finally if you slam 2 light helium atoms together you can get normal helium with 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Written as 3He + 3He -- > 4He +2p ‘Two light helium atoms produce a normal helium atom and 2 protons are ejected."

But is that where fusion stops in a star that has the mass of the sun? No. I only covered the process that takes place 85 percent of the time in proton-proton fusion in the sun converting hydrogen into helium. There are other process part of the proton-proton fusion scheme. (As opposed to the more massive star Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cylcle fusion scheme with higher temperatures than our sun can achieve with its particular mass). When the sun runs low on hydrogen and builds up a helium core of ash, the sun becomes less able to support its own weight and begins to shrink. This shrinkage results in greater compression/pressure in the core which increases its heat (in the form of radiation of photons). The sun radiates this heat outward and becomes a red giant fusing hydrogen into helium at a lesser rate and the gravitational energy of the compressed core causes the sun to expand outward such that it will engulf the planet Mercury as such a red giant. Then, when there is little hydrogen left in the core to fuse into helium, it shrinks/heats up to 100 million degrees upon which time helium fuses into elements that have a higher atomic number. Without going into the details (some lower mass fusions occur creating unstable products) this is where the triple alpha process takes place (In stars that have the mass of our sun. Lower mass stars never will produce carbon or oxygen.)

"The triple alpha process is a set of nuclear fusion reactions by which three helium nuclei (alpha particles) are transformed into carbon."
Wikipedia Triple Alpha Process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-08-2009, 07:33 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
Mike Dubbeld wrote: “Positron emission is a type of beta decay, sometimes referred to as "beta plus" (β+). In beta plus decay, a proton is converted, via the weak force, to a neutron, a positron (also known as the "beta plus particle", the antimatter counterpart of an electron), and a neutrino.”

Looking at patterns of information possibility:
proton = 'promotion'
neutron = 'neutral ground'
positron = positive electron = positive modification = positive substitution = change of direction
neutrino = baby neutron = residual (left-over) 'neutral ground'
energy = alternatives
weak force = something juggled out, juggled back in, fixed angle

trying this;

promotion + alternatives + something juggled out, juggled back in, fixed angle =

expansion of space + alternatives = 2-d expansion of space = space musical chairs

space musical chairs + something juggled out, juggled back in, fixed angle =
2 things fixed, fixed to a third, fixed angle
= linear algebra!
(3 items in a row that can all juxta-position)

A slide rule.

It is a kind of neutral ground (neutron); to see the neutron, need a change in direction (positron); to see also the positron, well you cannot, unless you add some alternatives (allowing residual neutral ground to occur (neutrino); to see that also, you need the added energy to be proportional to mass (to uncertainty) so the whole thing is electro-magnetically contained (juxta-positionally contained).

Although I added energy (alternatives) twice- actually that would make energy proportional to mass!

Quote:
"Notice for this nuclear reaction to happen you must add energy. It does not happen on its own. If it did we would not exist. Neutrons not bound to anything decay on average into a proton, electron neutrino and positron."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2009, 07:40 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
idea:

3 helium atoms = 'cold fusion' = cold cold = car bon
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2009, 07:47 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
ideas:


if you want to 'fuse them' you need to 'un-fuse them'- keep them in separate compartments (e.g. by heating to 600 million degrees it creates "thermal isolation" (or imaginary space generated by heat (a 'quantum diffractor': a space range generator or 'helium space surface ...' helium 3-resonance (helium triangulation of space!)(a "helium sun"...?)

volumetric heat: items bump intio each other from heat-jiggling to such a degree that they influence nearby bumping etcetera such that an entire volume of gas is 'space-quantised' as a single e.g. 'helium photon', at this stage the helium is gas-difference so crystallises out as a higher-order atomic structure

Last edited by imagine; 06-08-2009 at 07:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2009, 07:58 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
ideas:

dark matter = constant juxta positioning of space (e.g. flat page of an atlas depicting a globe)

dark energy = constant space of juxta positioning (e.g. flat page of an atlas)

Hubble constant = 'continuous projection of space' = earth interferometer
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2009, 06:43 PM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Imagine I do the same thing you do in a slightly different way. I use what I call 'Word runs'. One word leading to another. For example:

Platonic forms/chakras/hylomorphism/Music of the Spheres/real names/natural frequency/resonance/Fourier fingerprints/derivatives are n-1 reality of an n-dimensional reality/the mind/sets of properties/words/language etc. But I don't usually display it unless and until I think I have something.

Since there are such a wide variety of people with vastly different backgrounds on FC I find it more and more important to say very specific things that can be proven/reasoned or for which there is empirical evidence for by which I mean specific references. That way I don't have to argue with people about things like whether the big bang happened or black holes exist. I point to the evidence and if the other person is not capable of understanding it I might try to produce further more basic evidence (and strictly speaking warrants) or simply ignore and move on.

You get real skeptical over time when basic assumptions you make are constantly challenged and as such you never actually get to talk about much more interesting things because it exceeds the ability of the audience to comprehend them. Its like you start to talk about the contents of a book and the airhead crowd thinks the color of the book has something to do with it since that is the only sort of comment they can make on that subject. They want to argue about the color of the book. Therefore it is best to construct air tight assumptions that can be referred to (the basics) before moving on to the more interesting things. Another example is ionization of hydrogen atoms. Someone is going to come along and want to talk about whether atoms exist. Dumb down the world to their level.

But I find word runs quite useful to remind me of the limits of my knowledge/where I left off in my understanding of things.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-08-2009, 09:38 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Elements with the highest atomic number are the oldest,
Elements with the lowest are the newest,
Earth has more higher elements than any other body in the solar system, including the sun.

Which is older,
Sun or Earth?

:-?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2009, 01:27 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
easier to ionise hydrogen in water?

Mike: my method and your method are complimentary.
You provide the 'hard science', which gives me patterns to play with.

My method ranges from a formal logical technique (which I call "comparing and matching patterns (in 2 or more) dimensions; and which appears to be very similar to QED but uses concepts and patterns of information; it "tries to find where the 'time' is least (or the space is most) providing a final 'arrow" which is a (universal?) 50-50 as in a free future (or something)"; to a more daring approach which jumps from pattern to pattern (like Neo jumping from one building to the other in the Matrix), hanging sometimes on just a window of common ground betwen the two patterns (but enough to get a expanded-dimensional view of the problem). (Like Monet painting: broad brush strokes, may look wild up close but one can stand back and possibly see the whole picture come in to perspective).

Also there is an amount of instinct- going for a pattern on instinct like one instinctively knows how to find the answer- this may involve writing things without knowing in a conventional sense if they will stack up to checking. Generally instinct seems to work- like Luke learning to trust the force on Star Wars- "learn to go with (and trust) your feeling (or innate ability to know things from an "outside time" perspective...)- one can soon check if the patterns work out (the advantage of a free-your-mind aproach is one can discover things that may be otherwise hidden by over-reliance on conventional "wisdom"- allows one to leap-frog to new discoveries.)

Conventional science added to this method = rapid advances in knowledge...?

I am curious to investigate how and why quite extreme versions of pattern matching seem to work: e.g. "hydrogen" sounds like "hi drudgen"; is there any reason why this sound-waves (compression-expansion waves) link between these two should deliver a useful method for navigating science issues re: "hydrogen"?

Continuing the pattern linking I get: "hydrogen" -> "hi drudgen" ; "hi" is a greeting: what one says when one encounters another; "drudgen" is like "drudging" or "plodding along". One says "hi" at a momentary pause? "plodding along" is like one's path is in permanent "pause" state? "Hi" + "druging" involves "momentary pause" + "pausing a moment"? At this stage I have to think to figure out how these patterns can combine...

A 'loop' is what I get. Well, when this crazier-looking version of pattern association works, one gets a pattern (here it is "loop") that actually works as a*shortcut to navigate the science of the original subject ("hydrogen"). Note the associations are free; I do not force it, my mind would detect a pattern will help me get where I am trying to go, some people see my method and start force-matching patterns; but it is allowing one's mind to detect linkages between concepts that fast-track one's way to rapid insight and awareness of the underlying issues.

Is "hydrogen" a subject that "loop" helps comprehend? Not sure.

Usually the associations are easier to follow: e.g. "amino acid" as "friendly sharp corner" could be as "amino" sounds like "amici" or other words from languages that denote "friend" (e.g. "amicable" etc.); and "acid" seems to involve this idea of "sharp corner" (often casual English usage of scientific term can be very revealing on its underlying single pattern)(e.g. "the atmosphere at the sports stadium was "electric" " can shed light on underlying concept of what "electricity" is).

Also another aspect is the individuality of a person's mind- each person has their own asociations of patterns, and as such their own unique navigation system to jump from "fractal" to "fractal" and find core understanding comncepts to solve/unravel scientific problems. Everything can be cross-checked against "conventional; science" but can also discover new things or raise new questions or debates re: conventional science.

It is not crazy as it is based on freedom and honesty: admitting all data includes all skeptical data, all arguments and all counter-arguments.

Mostly it's just logic with short-cuts and lots of trusting one's instinct.

Here is a curious thing;

"ionisation of hydrogen atoms":

if I take the simplification; "atom" as "division":

"ionisation" involves "placing a fixed charge on something" so is like "multiplication"
as 2 x 3 = 6 involves 2 ways of arranging 3, or 3 ways of arranging 2, so a fixed spatial arrangement : a particular "edginess" placed on space? An "object" that can be rotated. "Ionisation of an atom" as "rotatability of space of a division" = "long division"?

But QED I found also looked like "long division", so in QED "ionisation of atom" will look like "long mulitplication" (or "inverse factorisation") (or "space coher-ing"?)

Hey: "space cohering" is "space sticking together" is- not a room with division into 2 spaces, but just 2 spaces sticking togther so "a space that you can "quantise" (a space you can navigate around: a conservation space).

Hey that looks like the opposite of "hydrogen" of "loop". when one draws a circle free-hand, you have to have "an uncertainty carried forewards" in one's hand? Hydrogen?

does one's hand, when free-hand drawing a circle, create a pattern of information in how one's hand interacts with its surroundings, that is analogous to the substance called "hydrogen"? (it fits the "Hi" "Drudging" pattern (continuous yet discontinuous 'pause"?))

Is "Ionisation of an atom" placing a "charge on SPACE"? A division ("atom") is already "charged each way", to charge it again would require a loop- a charge on space- a space that you can navigate around?

If that "loop" already is a match for the concept of "hydrogen"; then to see both the concept "hydrogen" and "ionisation of an atom" would require "a double loop" (or figure 8 ..pattern)?

Two hydrogens coupled together (like in water molecule?)

Last edited by imagine; 06-09-2009 at 01:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2009, 01:33 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
this could indicate that hydrogen in water is partly de-ionised, or "cold fused" (joined together only in blocks)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2009, 04:21 AM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
hey imagine, why'd u ignore my q?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2009, 04:45 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
This message is hidden because PoseidonsNet is on your ignore list.
IAJ, NS and I-AM-AN-IDIOT will be happy to exchange idiocy with you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How special is Humanity? Mike Dubbeld Religion 15 05-12-2009 05:39 AM
Collapse of the Hydrogen Atom New Science Space and Time 50 05-12-2009 03:02 AM
Onesimpleprinciple JukriS FrostCloud Members 105 02-20-2009 07:54 AM
waves and radiations??? tralne General Science and Nature 14 06-12-2007 07:30 AM
Harmonic Oscillator and Gravity purrcy Space and Time 11 08-30-2005 11:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network