• Презентация
    Запись конференции

    The discovery of the nuclear electron and its mass measurement

    Andras Covacs

    After Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron in 1932, there were a lot of discussions whether it is an elementary particle or a hydrogen-like atom formed from electron and proton. During the 1970s, a third model became prevalent: the neutron is thought to be a composite particle built from three valence quarks along with an unspecified number of sea-quarks and gluons, and is thought to decay by emitting a short- lived 80 GeV mass particle. While experimental physics progressed tremendously since the 1970s, the neutron model has remained essentially unchanged. It is pertinent to examine whether the prevailing neutron model still fits recent experimental data. To our surprise, we discovered major discrepancies between such neutron theory and experiments, which prompts us to consider an alternative neutron model. Our experiments demonstrate that the neutron comprises two particles: a positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron-like particle. We refer to this negatively charged constitutent as a nuclear electron . Various experiments converge to the same result: the nuclear electron mass is approximately three time heavier than the ordinary electron. We succeed in precisely measuring its mass, which turns out to be 1553.5 keV.

    Открытие ядерного электрона и измерение его массы

    Андраш Ковач

    После открытия Чедвиком нейтрона в 1932 году было много дискуссий о том, является ли он элементарной частицей или водородоподобным атомом, образованным из электрона и протона. В 1970-х годах стала преобладать третья модель: считается, что нейтрон представляет собой составную частицу, состоящую из трех валентных кварков вместе с неопределенным количествомморских кварков и глюонов, и считается, что он распадается, испуская короткоживущуючастицу массой 80 ГэВ. В то время как экспериментальная физика значительно продвинулась вперед с 1970-х годов,нейтронная модель практически не изменилась. Уместно проверить, соответствует ли преобладающая нейтронная модель все еще недавним экспериментальным данным. К нашему удивлению, мы обнаружили серьезные расхождения между такой теорией нейтронов и экспериментами, что побуждает нас рассмотреть альтернативную нейтронную модель. Наши эксперименты показывают, что нейтрон состоит из двух частиц: положительно заряженный протон и отрицательнозаряженная электроноподобная частица. Мы называем этот отрицательно заряженный компонент ядерный электрон . Различные эксперименты сходятся к одному и тому же результату: масса ядерного электрона примерно в три раза тяжелее обычного электрона. Нам удалось точно измерить его массу, которая оказывается равной 1553,5 кэВ.

    Боб Гринье
    Furthermore to my comments yesterday that LENR likes to produce Alpha conjugate nuclei, especially C and O, my experience shows me that

    LENR likes to produce

    1. protons (likely first observed by Langmuir in 1910s when developing W filament bulbs) observed by piantelli and other researchers as “excess hydrogen”, I call this, in part, proton balancing (where there is a need for higher numbers of neutrons in the products) and because protons are fermionic, they don’t are ejected from the coherent cluster. Adamenko notes that the “electro-nuclear macro-cluster will periodically produce stable nuclei that will be ejected from the cluster” since a proton is the most likely stable nuclei to form, it is unsurprising that protons are seen in various experiments. I shared this argument first at ICCF-22 in my poster sessions.

    2. Tritons are ejected to a much lesser extent, but for the same fermionic and statistical reasons. I have argued that this is the only radio-nuclide that gently driven LENR will produce because beyond that you have Alpha and all other balancing can be done by proton or triton emissions.

    3. It will produce Alpha (4He), however, the first stable alpa conjugate nuclei it produces after that is C (most likely) then O… etc. If the input feedstock to the cluster is 19F, I have shown that it can produce Alpha conjugate nuclei based on that, e.g. 23Na, 27Al. If the input feed stock to the cluster was Ti, I have shown alpha conjugates to Cr, Fe, Ni.

    4. Some fermionic isotopes are favoured for the same reasons, such as 19F, 23Na, Al27 etc. We have seen higher concentrations of 61Ni and 207Pb

    The production of mostly carbon from any input element was first observed by Yull Brown (for instance remediation of Am) in the 1980s and made public at least by 1988 (also in his patent I believe), this was also observed by Solin 1992, Matsumoto 1997, Adamenko 2006.

    In your presentation on slide “Molybdenum fission – 3/5” you used XRF analysis, these devices have known detection limits and cannot see elements below Na without special modifications – but can see elements above Na.

    I mostly covered this in my presentation “LENR in a Can” – I specifically addressed the Fissioning by various authors, including ourselves, of W, and I noted that Mo will fission also. In this presentation, when exposing W, we saw mostly C + O produced, in some areas over 9% Si and in others 0.34% Ti. In this case there is far more churning going on as EVOs/Plasmoids/microBL are running over each other and mixing the mixes. In our experience with fixed falico soliton ends and dead coherent matter beams (SR) we see radially arranged elements or near pure elements respectively.

    Видео

    So, the expectation from our observations and the prior art of Brown and then Solin and then Matsumoto and then Adamenko is that WHATEVER element you put into these Falico Soliton / MicroBL structures, will be, at the extreme, broken down into protons and Alpha particles and conjugates there of, perhaps combining with source elements.

    In your case – the W, Mo and Zr are all not observed in the product of the reaction, whereas they are present in the feedstock. This is entirely consistent with all the previous art I have highlighted from Langmuir onwards. In XRF – these should ALL be detected as they were in the unaffected area. The Ti and Si therefore are not fission products from Mo, they are, as Matsumoto states in his book preface (which you can listen to here) the result of first Micro-BL (Electro-nucleus cluster) driven “completely broken” materias “Electro-Nuclear Collapse” (ENC) being regenerated into conventional elements such as “carbon, oxygen … Iron” – the latter process called “Electro-Nuclear Regeneration” (ENR).

    Simple splitting of Mo into fragments of Ti and e- cannot be argued until the sample has been studied for the complete absence of C and O (and other lighter elements than Na) by EDS or ICP-MS

    I would recommend cutting the spot from the Mo (I know it is tough stuff) and mapping with SEM the C, O, Si etc and Ti and I suspect that you will find it arranged in a radial, possibly vortical formation as we have observed in other systems. If it matches some of our observations it will have C in the centre (possibly with N) and then Si and the Ti as one moves away from the centre – this seems counter intuitive, but it is what is observed at least on one falico soliton half – it may be the opposite configuration on the other soliton half if it is sufficiently organised.

    Боб Гринье
    Видео LENR in a Can – Soliton destruction-construction

    Видео Cavitation, Zero point & Leclair effect nuclear reactions (LENR) | Mark LeClair/Moray King

    Опубликовано

← Старые Новые →