Does anyone accept the quark model for the neutron? I find it hard to reconcile anything of that nature with a three layer model.
I would think that by now with all of the super accelerators that this would be well defined. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) Based on evidence, the neutron is believed to be comprised of positive ore surrounded by a negative shell: ttp://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/news13.htm However in recent years there is evidence which suggests the neutron s comprised of three layers: a central negative core which is urrounded by a layer of positive charge which in turn is surrounded y an exterior negative shell. Harry On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I guess one could look at a neutron as being similar to a proton plus an electron but I am not sure that the exact analogy holds up under scrutiny. For one thing, when a neutron decays you get more out of it than the electron and proton. There is a pesky antineutrino and a substantial amount of energy released. The kinetic energy of a mass is equal to Mass * Velocity * Velocity /2. If you set the energy of an electron and a proton to be equal and solve for the velocity ratio you obtain the inverse square root of the mass ratio. I am neglecting relativistic effects since we are speaking of moderate velocities. You could get a fairly close idea of the proton velocity with temperature as you suggest by comparing it to a neutron, but I think the solution to the math above would be easier. One interesting point to consider is the strange energy behavior of a proton and electron combination. If they are in free space they find each other and radiate a significant amount of energy until the ground energy state is obtained. Even though the two are beginning to look like a neutron, energy is released into space. The hydrino hypothesis suggests that a lot more energy can be obtained by allowing the electron to move closer to the proton. If we continue in this manner, why does energy not be released the closer you bring the two components together? And to make manners worse, the neutron has more mass by a significant margin as compared to these two major constituents. Perhaps a neutron is much more complex than it appears. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 3:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) To get a idea about the speed of the proton, it might be possible to make a comparison with the speed of the neutron at various temperature. This might be OK because the proton and the neutron are about the same size and weight. The neutron is just a proton and an electron together…Right! 2000K – hot - 7060 meters/second 330K – room temperature- 2870 M/S 20K – Real cold - 706 M/S On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robin, I would think the velocity of the proton of the same energy as > compared to an electron would be the square root of 2000 or 45 times slower > due to the velocity squared relationship. Now, if the proton slows down > much faster than the electron then the deceleration would be a lot greater. > Perhaps 10 times greater? If you factor this into account then the > radiation levels of the two particles are relatively close. What do you > think? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mixent <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Jun 6, 2012 1:35 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:about Triumph Management (and LENR) > > In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:12:10 -0400 > (EDT): > Hi, > [snip] > > > >I have long wondered whether or not protons generate bremsstrahlung > > radiation > in the same manner as electrons. It seems that the charge is responsible > for > the radiation and not the mass unless you are suggesting that the slower > rate of > deceleration of a proton versus and electron as it travels through matter > is the > reason. > > Precisely. Furthermore the actual velocity of a proton is about 2000 times > lower > than that of an electron of the same energy (relativistic considerations > aside). > > > >Would the same deceleration rate for either particle generate the same > radiation effect? > > I suspect so. > > > > >The flip side of this coin is that the proton would travel proportionally > further as a result of the lower deceleration rate. > > Actually, I don't think they travel as far. I suspect this is because they > are > much slower, and consequently have more time to interact with the > electrons of > the atoms they pass through than an electron of equivalent energy. Alpha > particles have even shorter trajectories. > Besides, the positively charged particles tend to attract the electrons of > other > atoms, dragging them away from their parent atoms, whereas a fast electron > pushes other electrons away, making them more inclined to simply move over > a > little rather then get stripped from their parent atom. > This means that fast electrons don't get as many opportunities to dispose > of > their energy and hence travel farther. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
