The OP’s reaction takes energy … from the batteries …
Another thought (uh oh) … 2C + O[sub]2[/sub] -> Fe … then why not 2CO[sub]2[/sub] -> Fe + O[sub]2[/sub] -> FeO[sub]2[/sub] … we could rust away our greenhouse gas problems …
That’s the beauty of it - it doesn’t do anything.
It’s certainly a balanced reaction by typo-nucleic synthesis methods. You just need to make sure you don’t get the complementary reaction, Al + Cu > Ac + Lu. Neither actinium nor lutetium are fun to handle; lutetium has toxic oxides and actinium is radioactive.
And the ACLU will be pissed about violating their trademark. 
Charge is explained as an interaction of opposite phases in a medium - any medium. The original experiments were done 150 years ago using water as the medium with pulsing bladders. The details of the medium are irrelevant for explaining the nature of the force.
To directly address you question, these is nothing to prevent them from floating around aimlessly. Air molecules also float around aimlessly. All that is required is that they form an elastic gas that can transmit compression waves.
A positron and electron would obviously have a slightly positive and negative side and would tend to attract their neighbors opposite pole.
The thousands of experiments are the same ones we used to form the existing model. There’s ionization energy, there mass, there’s chemistry, the periodic chart. The standard model does not explain certain things that the Cubic model addresses. Let me lay out a few things.
- The standard model does NOTHING to explain how the strong force works. As a hypothesis, it is an AD HOC hypothesis whose only purpose is to save the Rutherford atomic nucleus. If you don’t think so, then you try to explain how there is a force which has little attraction to explain asymptotic freedom, very strong force to keep the protons together, but practically no force outside the nucleus. All the chalkboard equations that ‘describe’ the experiments is still not an explanation of how this is actually possible. This is a mystery force which has no proper explanation is therefore, extremely lacking.
The cubic atomic model addresses this problem by eliminating the need for a strong force and replaces it with only the electrostatic force. It explains asymptotic freedom since the electrostatic force is mediated by phased wave interactions and the force will be zero below a certain threshold. Also, recent data from NIST and careful calculations of the mass energy balance show that only a 1/r^2 type force exists within the atom. If there were some other non-r/r^2 force like the strong force, it would add to the energy balance, but it doesn’t seem to exist.
-
The currently accepted models of the nucleus are the drop and shell models, the problem is, these two models are mutually incompatible therefore cannot really be describing the same atomic structure at a fundamental level.
-
Current atomic models have difficult accounting for the double-hump decay products of fission reactions. This is explained in my paper as a simple geometric consequence of the weakest parts of the atom being torn off.
-
Rutherford scattering results are apparently the same whether you do them with alpha particles or electrons. But electrons are oppositely charged and shouldn’t even bounce off the same way as positively charged alpha particles, yet the result is virtually the same. Nothing in the Rutherford formula allows the charge not to matter. This behavior is explained in the cubic model by the reflection of the particle being caused by the geometric shape of the atom as a pure elastic collision which doesn’t rely on the charge of the colliding objects.
-
If you read the paper, you will see the latest STM pictures of silicon atoms. A picture says a thousand words and these look like hard little lego bricks with very specific shapes and edges. They even show squarish features. This is utterly unexplained by the standard model.
-
The standard model cannot easily calculate the spectra for even Helium. I have already mentioned my paper which shows the spectra can be easily described if you accept the cubic atomic model which binds all the electrons into the atom instead of orbiting them outside.
-
There is a big problem with putting all the electrons on the outside, such as, how do they manage to keep their stately orbits? How do they know where they go. If they are moving around outside of the nucleus, why do they not radiate? This is a complete contradiction to electrodynamics. How can they possibly form the balloon animal doughnut shapes that are calculated? If all the electrons are on the outside and miles away from the nucleus, how come all atoms just don’t repel each other at a distance? No chemistry should be possible if atoms are covered with a shell of far flung negative charges. The cubic atomic model puts those electrons safely bound inside the atom to neutralize the protons. The shells we see are actually the solid shells that come off of the stacked proton/neutron structure. These shells, their quantity and quality are described as a consequence of geometry.
-
Chemistry in general is very hard to describe. Just what is it about an oxygen atom which makes it form 90 degree like molecules like water? Electron clouds are ad hoc said to do this, but really nothing forces them to do so. The cubic atomic model forms ball and stick like docking ports for atoms to form molecules for specific geometric reasons. There are also problems with doing ad hoc hybridization of carbon orbits which is only done to save the orbital model from certain death. They hybridizations are completely unnecessary with the cubic atomic model.
So, yes, there is lots of data out there and no, I haven’t been able to look at all of it, but what I have looked at more consistent and more easily explained by the cubic model than by the standard model which simply has to postulate and ad hoc define ho these things work, but really isn’t a very good fit.
What does ‘attract’ mean if not action at a distance?
Numbers please. No handwaving - show us cold hard calculations that derive, ab-initio, from your model actual results that match those found from experiment.
The second of the papers I linked to above gave you a list of interesting experimental results - results where the theoretical values matched the experimental results to 15 decimal places. Note - these theoretical results are mostly for spectral lines - but in order to get these numbers they take into account the shape of the nucleus.
If you have any hope of being taken seriously you need to show calculations where your model matches these results. If you can’t, it is just fluff.
Thank you for posting a link to your essay “How the Electrostatic Force Works” … one issue in this essay is you’ve not defined “pressure” in any way … and it appears to be a non-standard definition …
I’ll refer you to Figure 1 in this essay. You’ve not labeled your axes so I can only assume that the horizontal is distance and the vertical is pressure. In the top diagram, you’ve shown how the two waveforms at 180º out-of-phase cancel each other out. My question is how does this lead to a “low-pressure” area … when the diagram clearly shows this area to be of “equal pressure”. If you’re relying on the pressure force to attract these two particles, you will have to show how the pressure between the two is lower than the pressure on either side … what you have shown would only cause the particles to vibrate back-and-forth …
You use the analogy of air and water, however with both air and water we have a very strict definition of pressure in terms of gravity, and gravity alone as the causative natural force (via Navier-Stokes equations). Your description of your æther implies that this substance is distributed uniformly throughout the universe and unaffected by gravity. Therefore you’re relying on the electromagnetic forces to describe the electromagnetic force … I’m afraid that doesn’t work.
My question is what natural force is causing the “pressure” in your æther medium?
=====
The electron shell model of the atom has proven to be robust when describing covalent bonding … how does your cubic model explain the chemical stability of H[sub]2[/sub] and the apparent instability of H[sub]3[/sub] and H[sub]4[/sub]?
Well?
This thread is starting to turn into this thread.
Interesting that your link is to this very messageboard but with https:// instead of http://.
It also fires a certificate error on my machine. Probably TPTB didn’t properly attach a cert to all the hosted instances and so one (or more) instance(s) is/are exposing their hosting provider’s cert instead.
It’s not dangerous, but it is worth a moment’s caution & investigation before continuing.
Yeah, weird - the link came from a google search for the thread (because I knew I wasn’t going to find it first time using the inbuilt search engine)
Published in American Nuclear Society
Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon Rods in Water
R. Sundaresan, J. O’M. Bockris, Texas A&M University
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_30330
Verification of the George Oshawa Experiment for Anomalous Production of Iron from
Carbon Arc in Water
M. Singh, M. D. Saksena, V. S. Dixit, V. B. Kartha
http://www.ans.org/store/article-30331
This second reference is an independent verification of the first reference.
This is another carefully done carbon arc experiment measuring the ppm of the before and after concentrations and showing the range of elements produced besides iron.
https://cns-snc.ca/media/uploads/branch_data/branches/ChalkRiver/past_speak/ZIPP_CNS_Blue.pdf
These are all better than anything I could ever hope to accomplish.
The diagram is showing wave amplitudes. There are 4 lines in that chart, you should only pay attention to the top 2. On the top line, what is the amplitude of the waves between the red and black dot? It is showing “zero” amplitude due to cancelling. Or no pressure present from the waves. On the second line, you can observe that the amplitude is double what is outside the red and black dot, or double the pressure. So what is not clear about zero pressure versus double? I’m not sure how you can possibly think that the pressure is in any way “equal”.
I don’t understand why pressure would be defined in terms of gravity. Quite clearly in the space station where there is no gravity, there is certainly air pressure, so that can’t be the causative force in any way. I also don’t see what this has to do with electromagnetic force. The force I am describing is a property of waves in a medium and does not rely on the existence of electromagnetic forces per se. It may be clearer if you read the original paper written nearly 150 years ago that describes this pressure phenomenon:
My paper describes the positron/electrons as ringing bells. These work just like ringing bells in the air. You hit them, they ring at their resonant frequency by pushing air molecules in an oscillatory manner in/out and creating regions of compressed as rarified gases which is a change in “pressure”. It may be difficult to see how this works, but basically if you put two speakers out of phase, facing each other and drive them really loud, you would see an attractive force develop between them. The force that develops between them is very natural and exists for all elastic mediums.
=====
The H2 would obviously be stable if the hydrogen is just a proton with an electron sitting on it. This is an obvious dipole and the opposite ends of the dipole would simply line up head to tail. You don’t need anything like covalent bonding with all its sharing to explain something as simple as this. I don’t know about the other forms you are referring to, but most atoms generally can only form 2 atom gas molecules, probably due to symmetry restrictions (e.g. you can’t have a lopsided molecule made out of identical atoms) That would be a simple consequence of geometry.
These are all very good questions, thanks for your interest.
But question for you, just how does the electron shell model explain why the 2 bonds in oxygen are at roughly 90 degree angles and what keeps them there? Why not straight bonds or bonds that just move around anywhere they like? How successful is this if it can’t say anything about the specific bonding geometry?
Not everything is calculations. Most of my 8 points are showing flaws in the atomic model that would exist with or without my particular atomic model. I do have some number such as calculations of the ionization energy and alternate calculations for the Rutherford experiment and calculations of fission products and calculations for spectral lines for helium and lithium, etc. Although it would take a lot of work to list them in this post. You will see them if you take a deep dive into all my postings over the years.
Concerning the 2nd paper you cited, this is all calculations done on hydrogen like atoms. Between the standard and cubic atomic model, there really is no difference for a single proton atom. So anything you could have calculated on a hydrogen like atom, would also mostly apply to the cubic atomic model as well. What’s with all the calculations on only hydrogen? Heck, if you were going to do that, you might as well stick with the Bohr model and Rydberg formula. Why do we not see anything about calculating the properties for Helium? It only has one more proton to deal with? Is quantum mechanics all “fluff” past hydrogen?
A Hydrogen-like atom is one with one electron in the outer shell. It can and does include all the other atoms down the same column in the periodic table. And other exotics. So Lithium for one. The article says this.
Like to simply tell us what your numbers are? Show how close you get. 15 decimal places?
Thank you for the references. I’ll take a look at these later today.
Neither of the two universities I work for had access to that journal so I could not read those papers. I did read some papers which cited the first one. It was interesting and made for good reading over lunch so thanks again for the references. I was not particularly swayed from my view that the positive results from cold fusion are a result of experimental error. I found that the papers lacked a good explanation for the observed effects which is why I believe it is far more likely to be experimental error.
For the record, I’m not going to debate the matter with you, although I will continue to read the thread. Francis (and others) clearly know much more about this than I do. I’m a computer scientist (artificial intelligence research) so although I know a little bit about physics and chemistry, I’m no expert. The preceding has just been my semi-educated viewpoint.
I sure wish I was wise enough to follow beepkillbeep’s example …
Ah … yes … a space station is both closed and static … I wasn’t aware we were assuming the universe was both closed and static … the causative force defining pressure in the space station is the electrostatic force holding the solid and rigid shell together …
Your reference is tl;dr … maybe just copy/paste the part that says sound wave interference creates a vacuum … I don’t think this can be demonstrated … Let’s start with 1 atm pressure in a space station, we ring our bells as in the top diagram, our barometer between the bells reads a steady 1 atm … not zero … in the case of the second diagram, our barometer will fluctuate up and down; however, our average pressure over one cycle will be 1 atm … thus our average pressure force is zero … no average acceleration …
I’m clear on “zero pressure versus double”, what I don’t understand is how you’re getting zero pressure … the horizontal line in your top diagram shows average pressure of the closed container.
=====
If I may: p[sup]+[/sup] e[sup]-[/sup] — p[sup]+[/sup] e[sup]-[/sup] … this is obviously still dipolar … what stops a third H from attaching? … Perhaps the two form a square, but then what stops another square pair from attaching? … Things look messy if we consider D[sub]2[/sub]:
p[sup]+[/sup] n[sup]0[/sup] e[sup]-[/sup]
e[sup]-[/sup] n[sup]0[/sup] p[sup]+[/sup]
That’s identical to helium …
Do you mean roughly 135º? These are questions answered best by QED … something about electron spin pairs gives atoms their apparent tetrahedral bonding structure …