Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, but backtracking to the original post- wasn't the whole point premised on the Mills' hypothesis of missing Coulomb force? BTW - Interesting thread along these lines from FrediFizzx et al: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-11/msg00078.html In terms of a current loop - almost 400 amps! http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-11/msg00179.html
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/ r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. but backtracking to the original post- What original post? This one, or its preceeding ones? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wasn't the whole point premised on the Mills' hypothesis of missing Coulomb force? [snip] I don't know what that is all about. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] JB: I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. Yes - It is at macro dimensions. ... but at nanoscale and below there are, first of all- numerous online references to a jump to the fifth power at the atomic scale. However, I cannot find a definitive citation for that. This situation is (or could be) similar to that of EM radiation. A classical calculation shows that the power radiated by a blackbody is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength BUT... although this relationship does hold experimentally for wavelengths of light up into the ultraviolet, it fails for shorter wavelengths and was corrected by Max Planck. At shorter wavelength we find a jump to a fifth power law. I made a quick search to look for an authoritative reference to this connection in a more general sense - but nothing popped up quickly. It is important enough to dig deeper - if - someone does not come to my rescue here with the voice of authority. I would like to think (for obvious reasons) that it has some relevance to the Hartree energy and the scale of dimensions related to that. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:55:26 -0900: Hi, [snip] On Nov 16, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace and Robin, The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/ r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius ... I think that an inverse fifth power will apply here, Why? The dipole force is a 1/r^4 force. but backtracking to the original post- What original post? This one, or its preceeding ones? My original post to Jones was private email, to which he replied on list. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ?
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 5.149x10^-9 N and the magnetic force is 3.910x10^-17 N, so the Coulomb force is about 132 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. Somehow I missed the earlier posts in this thread, but that is to be expected I guess since I have over 1000 unread vortex messages, skipped due to lack of time or the hint of religion or politics somewhere in the associated threads. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 5.149x10^-9 N and the magnetic force is 3.910x10^-17 N, so the Coulomb force is about 132 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. The Lorentz force on the electron due to moving through the proton's magnetic field at the Bohr radius at orbital speed, is about 1.637x10^-16 N, which is roughly on the order of the attraction due to an assumed perfect coupling of the magnetic moments. As always, I'm a bit prone to computational errors, but the gist of what I'm saying above is right. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Let me try this again. On Nov 15, 2008, at 8:14 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hi Robin, How then is the electron bound to the proton at all? ..consider: given that a circular orbit, in QM terms, is an illusion, the lack of an apparent binding electrostatic attraction (even if one did not agree with Mills) does not necessarily prelude magnetic (or other) attraction. The magnetic field of an electron at the Bohr radius is a least a factor of 1000 times stronger than the electric field, no ? The electron waveform is co-centered with the proton so one way to look at it is there is on average no net Coulomb force or magnetic force on an orbital electron, though there is some degree of spin coupling between the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom. The question then becomes where do we actually observe the electron when we sample for it and what size is it there, what forces should it have on it there? These are questions having random variables in the answers. Looking at this from a Bohr point of view, i.e. the electron essentially being a point charge with a magnetic moment orbiting the proton at the Bohr radius, the Coulomb force is 8.239x10^-8 N and the magnetic force is 1.0010x10^-14 N, so the Coulomb force is about 2 million times larger than the magnetic. The dipole magnetic force is a 1/r^4 force, so can exceed the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at a small enough radius, but for high energy nucleus plunging electrons only. The Lorentz force on the electron due to moving through the proton's magnetic field at the Bohr radius at orbital speed, is about 1.048x10^-14 N, which is roughly on the order of the attraction due to an assumed perfect coupling of the magnetic moments. As always, I'm a bit prone to computational errors, but the gist of what I'm saying above is right. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
- Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Sorry Jones, You know nothing. You aren't doing research at top universities, you don't have supervisors/mentors at the highest level, have to be subject to due-diligence, show real data, approach a problem from many directions and get it to tie up, get peer reviewed. That is the mark of real science. It's honesty, openness, plasticity of thought (the desire to move arguments on with more SOUND arguments and DATA), has a receptive ear. Mills doesn't appeal to REAL data nor appeal to the body of knowledge that has come before. Get over it. Remi. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments Demon Problem in a nutshell: Basically you must have a **discriminant function** to decide what's fast and slow (a gate etc.). The arguments come down to that your #1 function gets randomised because it is getting knocked about too (its small, on the scale, right?) or #2 that it is blinded by the isotropy of the radiation, or #3 that it must have a little computer running it and this inevitably rejects more heat into the environment than the d.f. is trying to reduce. Here's the way out: All the old arguments are bogus if you use phase changes and think out of the square. This can be argued macroscopically (thermodynamics T-S diagrams, meso-scopically considering the chemical potential and nano-scopically by molecular dynamics simulations. That's what I'm up to and I feel a renewed vigour after all the years of boredom. It is an interesting subject. I need to type this up clearly in the thesis from all the early papers. It's based on logic and fact. I'm not jerking myself off denying reality. I don't see the point in jerking science because like God, it just stares back at one, unchanging, because it just IS regardless of ONE. If you want to play God with the laws of nature become a science fiction writer. One day that kind of person will have their own Holo-deck or Fantasy Island and they can make the rules, be rich, be loved but it will be an imaginary world. I am finding it fascinating and interesting again and that solely motivates me, not the pursuit of money and shiny offices. Love the problem and solving the problem for its sake and forget the trappings of office. After I've done my projects I'll run off with some of my girlfriends into nice exotic countries and happily live the life of a farmer, then disappear into the background, job done. I've got no ego trip merely a personal journey and to have fun for the mind. Go cross-correlate that with sociopath crank messiah inventor types and compare them to real scientists. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
- Original Message From: Remi Cornwall RC: You know nothing. You aren't doing research at top universities, you don't have supervisors/mentors at the highest level, have to be subject to due-diligence, show real data, approach a problem from many directions and get it to tie up, get peer reviewed. ... and while that can be a disadvantage to publishing more-and-mode rehashed mediocrity, it can be a distinct advantage in finding the occasional hidden truth - the big breakthrough - i.e. in some pursuits (a few) where the mainstream is wrong. There are admittedly not many where areas where the mainstream is wrong, thankfully, but there are more than most close-minded pedants can easily grasp. RC: That is the mark of real science. It's honesty, openness, plasticity of thought ... ... you are joking, right? Or do you not understand our shared language very well? There is very little plasticity of thought in the mainstream, almost by definition! especially when real data comes in to challenge accepted belief structures. It generally renders pedants very uncomfortable- causing them to spout out rather silly-sounding non-sequiturs in defense of what they think they know. The easy thing to do is simply to do the DISHONEST thing - which is what you are practicing today it seems, and call the real data wrong, simply because it does not fit well with you flawed understanding, and especially when you have failed to do the work necessary to see for yourself. Your incorrect notions on this will change, probably sooner than you desire - and in the mean-time, you can sign-off from the list once again to pursue something which apparently does seems to have merit, perhaps even a spark of genius -- but which you seem reluctant to explain well-enough for meaningful criticism. Why waste our time with this absurd level of negativism on issues where you are misinformed, and yet remain secretive on issues where you do have expertise ? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
I have a lot of work to do and haven't touched this area for over two years simply because I didn't want to push it in front of very conventional supervisors. The struggle has been to get into the mindsets of establishment scientists and present the thesis. It's been difficult, breaking down a few times, disappearing for months, popping up again, conceding (both ways), toning stuff down, taking advice. The MD stuff I'd never talk to my supervisors about at this stage. One was trained as a theoretical physicist at Cambridge so no point arguing at this stage. Wait for the data. No-one sticks their neck out until the bandwagon is rolling. More than anything I've learnt about research is that it is more like politics. People are not necessarily wanting to solve problems but change their positions when it becomes unsustainable. You go there all young and giddy and have to tone it down. http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/PartOutline.pdf I think eqn. 33 page 16 is really neat and economical and I don't really need to do the MD simulations but I will. I want to tidy up this: http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/NonCarnot.pdf Came to me in a flash a few years ago and was written down quickly. This one is very old (2002) and I am embarrassed by it. More prose than maths (around page 5) http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/PTSP2ndLaw.pdf REMEMBER THIS STUFF NEEDS TIDYING UP. When I have an idea I sketch it down quickly not necessarily complete then I come back to it. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 18:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels - Original Message From: Remi Cornwall Yes it a Maxwell Demon but it can be done if you know your way around the Maxwell Demon arguments. This is not to detract from you argument, which I like -- ... but would want to see more detail (like are you using the penduli in the same way as the 'tuning fork' analogy?) ... yet I find it most amusing that you can readily accept a Maxwell Demon - for which there is zero proof, and at the same time be so vocal in rejecting the Mills theory of 'redundant ground states' of hydrogen; for which there is ample proof from him, from cosmology; and even quasi-independent University replication, where a megajoule of excess is documented, and with little other way to explain it (non chemical at least). Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tata, Butanol, Biofuels
Very easy to email and be snappy. Sorry Jones, I just don't believe you can drop below ground state and not see it in nature. Where is the spectrographic data? Turn a 'scope at a hot nebula and Mills should get lines he predicts. Preferentially hydrogen (and all the other stuff) should have dropped to the ground state long ago. So why are we all excited? (if you excuse the pun) Why isn't everything collapsing so that atoms are about 10pm in size? What's kicking us up from his sub-levels and why doesn't it then kick us higher? Why aren't things routinely ionized? It's nothing personal but this is getting my goat. Come on, simple answers. Get to the point.
