FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Strong Force vs. EM
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [17 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

How about the so-called 'Strong Force' is really entirely electromagnetic in
nature? It isn't that difficult to prove that it is so but this simplicity
forces qluons and quarks to evaporate back into the pseudoscientific mist
from which they arose. The intellectual inertia given these fictions will
oppose the truth.

-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle




On 7/7/05 19:09, in article 42cde0a3_3@newsfeed.slurp.net, "Rick Nelson"
<rainbow07@copper.net> wrote:

Quote:
It depends on the Coulomb force geometry. Point particles of charge do
interact in inverse square ways.

But what if there were some crystalline material that "tunneled" point
charges into more specific collision zones? That's a Coulomb effect - a
kind of fusion catalyst.

What are we string to accomplish with fusee9n confined toroids?
Magnetic plus cCpi;0,gb effect?

A cheszeee just popped ny heart brain out and sped off on an electric
scooter. He is pfo a lbly a sergeaagent in the Upper Q ARLINGTON POLICE
IN UPPER ARLINGTON OHIO..\\\

Phil Weldon wrote:
'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...

I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.






-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Cary Jamison
science forum beginner


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

Charles Cagle wrote:
<snip>
Quote:
On 7/7/05 19:09, in article 42cde0a3_3@newsfeed.slurp.net, "Rick
Nelson" <rainbow07@copper.net> wrote:


It never ceases to amaze me that whenever Chuckie comes back from one of his
long hiatuses, he starts with responding to posts so old that OP is long
gone and no one remembers the topic.

Does he really have time to go back and read through a year's worth of old
posts in this group?


Cary
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [17 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:06 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts How do they know the quark's binding force is weaker at s... guskz@hotmail.com Relativity 6 Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:50 am
No new posts Aqua Regia, how strong is it? nebx123 Chem 4 Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:40 am
No new posts Floating floor efficiency vs impact force CSL Acoustics 2 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:32 am
No new posts Matrix problem; only brute force? melanie Math 5 Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:33 pm
No new posts Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven. Max Keon Relativity 129 Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:26 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0708s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0529s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]