At 12:24 pm 22/07/2005 -0700, Merlyn wrote: > It is a very compelling theory Frank,
You say the nicest things, Merlyn. 8-) > but I don't think it works out. But here comes the "but" ;^) >--- Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I find myself in this situation with regard to the >> effect of drop in Beta-atmospheric (B-a) pressure >> on the strength of the attraction and repulsion of >> positive and negative charges. I am confident that >> the explanation I have given is correct, albeit >> obscenely unorthodox, but I find I have to demand >> a justification, an explanation, from myself (my >> own worst critic) as to why. >> >> To summarize the situation. >> >> The repulsive force between like charges is affected >> >> by the drop in B-a pressure as one enters into a >> material such as water, steel, concrete, palladium >> etc. >> >> The attractive force between unlike charges is >> unaffected by a change in the B-a pressure as one >> enters the material. >> >> So the problem is: >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Why are repulsive forces affected and attractive >> forces not affected by the B-a change? >> ------------------------------------------------ >> ======================================= >> ! A TENSILE STRESS THEREFORE IS ! >> ! MERELY A REDUCTION IN THE AMBIENT ! >> ! COMPRESSIVE STRESS AND THE ! >> ! CONCEPT OF ACTION AT A DISTANCE ! >> ! IS NO LONGER REQUIRED ! >> ======================================= >> >> .....and that really is the crux of the >> matter. The force that pushes the like charges >> apart emanates from those charges - but - the >> force that pushes the unlike charges together >> emanates, not from the charges, but from the >> charges' enveloping environment. >> >> Let's, give it a name. Lets call it the >> Gamma-aether, the Gamma-atmosphere (G-a), >> for we are assuredly dealing with two vastly >> different levels of the total Aether. >> >> The need for a Gamma-atmosphere was implicitly >> recognised in the Southampton paper by >> designating the familiar atmosphere, the air, >> as the Alpha-atmosphere (A-a)to both distinguish >> it from the Beta-atmosphere and to provide for >> up to 22 more enveloping atmospheres as they >> become required. <g> >> >> Now it is not that the change in the B-a pressure >> does not affect the value of the Gamma atmosphere >> pressure at all. It does affect it. But the G-a >> pressure is so bloody enormous that the change >> brought about by a change in the B-a is negligible. >> Anybody familiar with calculus will be very >> familiar with thingees being negligible when >> they are very small compared with other thingees. >> >> >> When the B-a pressure is lowered, as it is >> in the "FLUID PHASE" reduced B-a pressure of >> a material such as water or metal, the >> repulsion between positive charges is reduced. >> In other words, the Coulomb Barrier between >> positive charges is lowered. This is the >> essential key to understanding Cold Fusion. >> >> And in order to make progress in bringing CF to a >> commercial product, without blowing oneself up in >> the process, one would be well advised to take >> Whitehead's good advice. >> >> >> ==================================================== >Picture it this way... > >I have a spring (coulomb force) separating 2 steel >plates (protons) >Note that the space between the plates is open to the >surroundings atmosphere and not sealed. >The force required to move the plates closer together >is very precisely calculated in air at 14.7 psi. >Now if I were to place the entire apparatus under >water where the pressure was raised to 100 psi would >it make any difference in the force needed to compress >the spring? The added pressure acts equally on all >sides of the plates and so cancels out. I don't see the repulsive force between two like charges as something static, but something dynamic, a flux, a flow of substance. Now, clearly, the repulsive pressure this flow will exert will be proportional to the difference between the pressure of the outgoing flow and the ambient pressure of the field. If both pressures are the same, for example, then there can be no repulsion. The nature of the "attractive" force is quite different. It doesn't emanate from the charges themselves but from the ambient field. It is brought about by the Bernoulli pressure drop in the flow and counter flow between the electron (at a pressure above B-a ambient) and the proton (at a pressure below B-a ambient). To give a loose analogy which I wouldn't want to press too far. The earth receives directed radiation from the sun at one average wavelength and transmits it isotropically at a lower wavelength. The higher wavelength is analogous to the Gamma-atmosphere. the lower to the Beta-atmosphere. >Frank, as I understand it you see charge as relative >to the background (beta-aether) rather like >temperature. As pressure, the inverse of temperature - but you're on the right track >If we were to call protons hot at 71 degrees and >electrons cold at 69 degrees then a hydrogen atom >would be neutral at 70 degrees because it averages >out. It would be at ambient pressure, neutral charge. >however if you separated the particles / charges, >having 10 electrons @ 69 degrees each on one side of a >wall and 10 protons at 71 degrees each on the other, >the charge imbalance should be 20, but the temperature >difference is still only 2 degrees. If you think of inverse temperature as a pressure then we are talking about stress per unit area and by having more charges you are in effect increasing the area. The total force is the same but the stress is unchanged. >IMHO it is the absolute difference in charge rather >than the ratio that is important. > I don't think we are really in much disagreement. 8-) Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and constructive reply. It's nice to hear from people who are prepared to think way, way, way outside the box. 8-) Also, your post will give me the incentive to find a better analogy for what I intuitively know must be the case. Cheers - and thanks Frank P.S. When I was first introduced to fluid dynamic phenomena I was struck by how counter intuitive they are. The flume for example; one would expect a stream to pile up higher and go slower when going through a narrow opening. But it does the complete opposite.
