|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2005 : 08:26:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse How do you feel about meteorology? Do you have problems with the Coriolis effect because it only applies on weather-systems and ballistic (more than a few miles) calculations, and not the bathtub or at the local skeet-shooting range? Contrary to folklore water does not rotate clockwise counter-clockwise in all toilets in Australia.
At some point or another one set of rules becomes increasingly insufficient for calculating, and new rules need to be applied. That the distiction between "regular" physics and quantum mechanics is so pronounced is a blessing in my opinion. It makes it easier to decide what set of rules to apply.
I see what you mean. Still it seems better that one set of rules should produce different effects at different scales, just like relativty theory accurately describes things at different scales of speed. Me an idealist? naaah.
Mark
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 18:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Ah but *if* there was a principle that made a stable electron orbit possible well below the n=1 ground state, there *would* be much more energy in the n=1 hydrogen atom.
Not more than 27.2 eV, markie. More energy won't magically appear because you can somehow get closer orbits.
The n=1/2 state would have an energy somewhere between 0 eV and 27.2 eV (the n=1 state). Let's say that the n=1/2 state exists at 15.0 eV. To get there, then, you'd need to "resonantly" (or otherwise) suck away 12.2 eV from the n=1 state. And adding 12.2 eV to the n=1/2 state would pop the electron back out to n=1.
Now, if this hypothetical "principle" of yours allows things to be different from that, and for there to be more than 27.2 eV of energy below the ground state, then I have to ask: why does that principle fail above the ground state? Because quantum theory works just fine up there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 07:10:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Ah but *if* there was a principle that made a stable electron orbit possible well below the n=1 ground state, there *would* be much more energy in the n=1 hydrogen atom.
Not more than 27.2 eV, markie. More energy won't magically appear because you can somehow get closer orbits.
The n=1/2 state would have an energy somewhere between 0 eV and 27.2 eV (the n=1 state).
You have it reversed. The potential electrical energy of the electron goes to zero as it's distance from the nucleus goes to infinity. (That is clearly stated in well known physical chemistry.) So conversely, it *increases* as one gets closer to the nucleus.
quote:
...I have to ask: why does that principle fail above the ground state? Because quantum theory works just fine up there.
As is well known, the energy required to remove the outer electron of an atom generally deceases as the orbital radius increases. If I recall correctly quantum theory does *not* do a good job at predicting these ionizing energies past a certain point, *especially* if it's not the outer electron. For instance, quantum theory is unable to calculate the energy it takes to remove the third outer electron from, say, the carbon atom. I believe that Mill's theory can.
About the potential electrical energy of an electron. The best analogy I can come up with is this: A 10 kg ball is on the surface of the earth. For all practical purposes its gravitational potential energy to do work is zero. If it is suspended 100 metres above the earth its gravitational energy becomes
10kg * 9.8m/s/s * 100m = 9,800 joules.
But now imagine that a hidden trap door is opened up on surface of the ground exactly beneath the suspended ball, revealing a cavern 900 m deep below the surface of the earth. The gravitational potential energy of the suspended ball has just gone up tenfold, and the law of conservation of energy hasn't been violated.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 09:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
You have it reversed. The potential electrical energy of the electron goes to zero as it's distance from the nucleus goes to infinity. (That is clearly stated in well known physical chemistry.) So conversely, it *increases* as one gets closer to the nucleus.
No, you're the one who has it reversed. Yes, as is often defined, the completely ionized state is 0 eV. But when defined that way, the ground state of Hydrogen is actually at -13.58 eV (that's negative 13.58 eV). Since Mills talks of the ground state existing at 27.2 eV, he's not using 0 eV for complete ionization.
To get from n=1 Hydrogen to n=2, one must add 10.19 eV via a photon, regardless of whether you consider ionization to occur at 0 eV or at 40.8 eV. If n=1 is -13.58 eV, then n=2 is -3.39 eV (more energetic!); but if n=1 is 27.22 eV, then n=2 is 37.41 eV (more energetic!).
Here's the whole thing:State +Energy -Energy
----- ------- -------
n = 1 27.22 -13.58
n = 2 37.41 -3.39
n = 3 39.29 -1.51
n = 4 39.95 -0.85
n = 5 40.26 -0.54
n = inf. 40.80 0.00
Besides, the energy of the electron isn't just the potential energy, it's the sum of the potential and kinetic energies. And beside that, your 10kg-ball example works just fine. To lift the ball 100m, one must put 9800 joules of work into the system. Again, a higher orbit requires adding energy, a lower orbit involves its release (with the ball, the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy which then dissapates as heat during collision with the ground).
And just how would one dig a hole in a proton? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 10:58:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
You have it reversed. The potential electrical energy of the electron goes to zero as it's distance from the nucleus goes to infinity. (That is clearly stated in well known physical chemistry.) So conversely, it *increases* as one gets closer to the nucleus.
No, you're the one who has it reversed. Yes, as is often defined, the completely ionized state is 0 eV. But when defined that way, the ground state of Hydrogen is actually at -13.58 eV (that's negative 13.58 eV). Since Mills talks of the ground state existing at 27.2 eV, he's not using 0 eV for complete ionization.
To get from n=1 Hydrogen to n=2, one must add 10.19 eV via a photon, regardless of whether you consider ionization to occur at 0 eV or at 40.8 eV. If n=1 is -13.58 eV, then n=2 is -3.39 eV (more energetic!); but if n=1 is 27.22 eV, then n=2 is 37.41 eV (more energetic!).
I see, of course. But *if* there were a state below n=1, then theoretically one would not *add* energy (as one would do to get from n=1 to n=2) but rather energy would be releaed to get to this fractional state below n=1, somehow.
quote:
Besides, the energy of the electron isn't just the potential energy, it's the sum of the potential and kinetic energies.
Yes. And Mills actually takes those energies seriously, and that why his approach is classical. So he has worked it so that the stable electron 'sees' the same force pulling it out (centripetal) and the same force pulling it in (electric). QM of course doesn't do such a thing.
quote:
And beside that, your 10kg-ball example works just fine. To lift the ball 100m, one must put 9800 joules of work into the system. Again, a higher orbit requires adding energy, a lower orbit involves its release (with the ball, the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy which then dissapates as heat during collision with the ground). And just how would one dig a hole in a proton?
I'm not sure I'm remembering this correctly, but the scale of size is such that if the proton was the size of a normal marble the electron orbit would be be 300 feet out (or some such figure) for the hydrogen atom. That orbital surface would represent the surface of the earth, the ground state (pun intended). For the supposed 1/100 state, say, the electron would be merely 3 feet away from the marble. So the hole is 97 feet deep, 3 feet away from the centre, the marble-proton.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 12:11:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I see, of course. But *if* there were a state below n=1, then theoretically one would not *add* energy (as one would do to get from n=1 to n=2) but rather energy would be releaed to get to this fractional state below n=1, somehow.
Right, but hypothetically, the n=0 state is at 0 eV (or -40.8 eV). Going from the n=1 state to the n=0 state should release precisely 27.22 eV of energy. Going only part of the way there (say, n=1/100) would necessarily release less energy than that, but Mills claims that it'll release 136,000 eV, if you go through every transition on the way down. It makes no sense.quote:
Yes. And Mills actually takes those energies seriously, and that why his approach is classical. So he has worked it so that the stable electron 'sees' the same force pulling it out (centripetal) and the same force pulling it in (electric). QM of course doesn't do such a thing.
Absolutely it does. Look up "solving the hydrogen atom" and you'll see precisely that in the Bohr model of the atom. The centripetal and Coloumb forces are balanced.quote:
I'm not sure I'm remembering this correctly, but the scale of size is such that if the proton was the size of a normal marble the electron orbit would be be 300 feet out (or some such figure) for the hydrogen atom. That orbital surface would represent the surface of the earth, the ground state (pun intended). For the supposed 1/100 state, say, the electron would be merely 3 feet away from the marble. So the hole is 97 feet deep, 3 feet away from the centre, the marble-proton.
Whatever the scale, if you're going to do that, then obviously to make the analogy work then the ball sitting on the Earth's surface has potential energy even if the ground pushes back with precisely the same force. Considering the Earth's mass as a point source at the center of the Earth, the ball has a potential of 625 million Joules at a radius of 6,378 km. Dropping the ball 900 m from there would release 88,200 of the 625 million Joules. Dropping the ball 99% of the way (to the n=1/100 "state") would release 99% of the 625 million Joules. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 13:13:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Yes. And Mills actually takes those energies seriously, and that why his approach is classical. So he has worked it so that the stable electron 'sees' the same force pulling it out (centripetal) and the same force pulling it in (electric). QM of course doesn't do such a thing.
Absolutely it does. Look up "solving the hydrogen atom" and you'll see precisely that in the Bohr model of the atom. The centripetal and Coloumb forces are balanced.
How I which I took atomic physics at college, now. I took a look at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydsch.html#c2
which seems to offer some good treatment, but it appears that Schrodinger's equation does not consider the mass of the electron by itself but rather a type of mass average with the proton: (m(proton) * m(electron))/(m(p)+ m(e)). So I'm not sure it balances colombic attraction with centripetal force, I'll have to attempt to actually learn this stuff, egad. BTW the same page starts with saying,
quote:
The solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom is a formidable mathematical problem, but is of such fundamental importance that it will be treated in outline here.
Yikes, and that is only for the hydrogen atom. By contrast, Mill's calculations for the first 20 elements can be done on a spreadsheet, apparently.
Mark
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 17:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
[quote][quote] Yes. And Mills actually takes those energies seriously, and that why his approach is classical.
Thanks for an interesting link/topic, Mark... I looked over a few links from googling it the other day, and it seems there's something going on here (I initially was highly cynical.) NASA threw 75K at a serious, reputable researcher to investigate the possibility/ build prototype of a rocket propropelled as such... a petty amount by NASA standards, but seems there's enough potential here to consider it. His attitude is he isn't sure what the mode of action is, but thinks something novel is happening. I have a hard time with the "partial quantum state" bit myself, but the whole thing's intrigueing.
As an aside, I've felt for years that controlled fusion (the real hot kind) might be the key to our energy issues in a future less-distant than one might expect- and the area hasn't received much media attention. This link is dated, but it gives an excellent explanation of the process, how it might work, and the problems. The chart a ways down the page shows the impressive rate of progress in controlled fusion... now we're further along, and have achieved it past the activation input energy- 20 fold better!
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/BB/Kernfusion/Kernfusion.html
The history's interesting- Kurchatov wanted commercial controlled fusion energy generation to be his final contribution to Soviet nuclear physics- he was confident, as under his direction, the capable USSR physicists had successfully tackled the other problems in the field, but in the early years they didn't have the tools to adjust containment fields in real time with plasma state changes, but looks like the day might be here (faster computers, advances in material science.)
This stuff's my bet for the "real deal" to solve energy issues, but it's just a guess. A couple of possible methods are mentioned, deuterium + tritium is what's used. Essentially no waste (even Greenpeace likes it, except for the big expenditures) and enough deuterium in a bottle of Gatorade (or vodka) to power the world for a while. Great stuff.
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/15/2005 17:41:46 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 19:51:03 [Permalink]
|
Interesting Ron, good article. I wasn't aware that they had actually achieved over unity on it as yet, so that's good. There's a lot of money and manpower going into it and I truly hope they can get over the hurdles and achieve the goal of steady state fusion.
In the 1950s I think scientists were confident they would have fusion reactors relatively soon, but of course as we know the devil is in the technical and engineering details, if they can even be called details. I think BlackLightPower is facing a similar type of reality check after some overly rosey predictions several years ago. But the problems aren't as difficult as in hot fusion, so hopefully within ten years or we'll see the pudding.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 19:52:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
NASA threw 75K at a serious, reputable researcher to investigate the possibility/ build prototype of a rocket propropelled as such... a petty amount by NASA standards, but seems there's enough potential here to consider it.
And the CIA threw $20 million at "remote viewing," and some other agency threw more than 75K at teleportation research. My point is that government funding of research is not a reliable indicator of how "worthwhile" that research is, which is why you don't find a lot of "mainstream" physicists crowing about their government funding. What matters is results. NASA, if I remember correctly, found Mills' results to be equivocal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 20:43:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...I wasn't aware that they had actually achieved over unity...
Yea, the words "self-sustaining" were what caught my attention, too... which is why intuitively I feel it's so promising- it's just scaleable like nothing else. I knew about the magnetic field adjustment problem (that's the biggest hurdle) but it seems they might be on top of that. The potential of this is... well, there's no word for it! Being skeptical, I'm cautiously optimistic- but amazingly utilitarian advances (nuclear fission, DNA sequencing, etc.) "do happen" from time-to-time.
Dave-
Your point is absolutely valid, of course (the CIA dumping a ton of energy and cash into "psychic research" during the Cold War "Just in case" the Soviets "Might be on to something" seems pretty weird, in retrospect.) Teleportation? Had no clue... but after that, nothing would surprise me. RE NASA null-results didn't see that, will take a look. The principal investigator didn't at all sound like someone who'd waste his time on malarkey (seems enough compelling evidence to support further look was implied) but I'll look further.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2005 : 21:07:11 [Permalink]
|
Section 9 of this 2002 paper seems to verify repeatable results, although the energy output isn't exactly "stellar" (neat, but nothing to write mom about)... correct me if someone has a different take on it (I read it over real quick-like, but it seems clear there's something going on here, although exactly what isn't apparent at all.)
http://users.rowan.edu/~marchese/final-niac.pdf
It starts on page 22.
Spectrographic stuff seems to verify microwave/H/H2O peak, water bath calorimetry looks highly suggestive of positive results, with possible interference variables which could account for exotherm deemed "unlikely" by research thus far (that was 2002,) paper said wished to verify further. My 50 cent quick-take is "looks interesting, if not good."
I dug around for something more recent on this... perhaps these results are dated?
As an aside, although I kind of like this (read it more carefully, seems there's "something" to the phenomenon) when I hear "Harvard Medical School" these days, I almost start to wonder. It's kind of counterintuitive, but we've had Chopra, the others ya'll mentioned, Andrew Weil, and that guy pushing the latest "miracle" weight-loss pill on infomercials is another... I have no idea whether it's any good, but the way they present it ("It's too powerful and expensive unless you're 40 pounds overweight") smells of snake oil. It's almost to a point where when I hear "Harvard Medical School" I think "Here we go again..."
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/18/2005 00:33:01 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2005 : 14:21:09 [Permalink]
|
I wish I hadn't put this in pseudoscience now, but live and learn.
The current issue of Focus magazine is carrying an article on BlackLight Power and hydrino theory.
http://www.focusmag.co.uk/cover.asp
(Sorry, fully article not available online only in the magazine)
But there is an article today in the Guardian, which can be found at
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1627657,00.html
Here are some excerpts:
quote:
It seems too good to be true: a new source of near-limitless power that costs virtually nothing, uses tiny amounts of water as its fuel and produces next to no waste. If that does not sound radical enough, how about this: the principle behind the source turns modern physics on its head.
Randell Mills, a Harvard University medic who also studied electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims to have built a prototype power source that generates up to 1,000 times more heat than conventional fuel. Independent scientists claim to have verified the experiments and Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market. And he claims to be just months away from unveiling his creation.
...
Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."
But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."
...
According to Prof Maas, the first product built with Blacklight's technology, which will be available in as little as four years, will be a household heater. As the technology is scaled up, he says, bigger furnaces will be able to boil water and turn turbines to produce electricity.
In a recent economic forecast, Prof Maas calculated that hydrino energy would cost around 1.2 cents (0.7p) per kilowatt hour. This compares to an average of 5 cents per kWh for coal and 6 cents for nuclear energy.
Hey, I predicted earlier in this thread that a home heater would be the first product ;)
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2005 : 14:27:10 [Permalink]
|
That four year estament sounds familar....
But I think I will remain skeptical on this until it hits the market. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2005 : 17:46:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes."
Emphasis mine. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
