|
|
| Author |
Message |
tnlockyer@aol.com
science forum beginner
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject:
Binding Energy Calculations
|
|
|
Somewgere in these news feeds.
Michael Moroney wrote:
| Quote: | "tnlockyer@aol.com" <tnlockyer@aol.com> writes:
Michael Moroney wrote:
What is (n-1H)?
Actually, Thomas (deliberately?) doesn't take into account the
different
definitions of binding energies of a beta decaying nucleus and its
daughter nucleus. They differ because one has a neutron where the
other
has a proton, and thus there is a mass difference of 782 keV
between
the
two references. He discovered this difference when calculating
binding
energy/beta decay energy and thinks it's a proof of his theories
somehow.
|
Mike, the proton and neutron vector structures were discovered to give
(n-1H) very close to the published value.
| Quote: | He calls this energy "discrepancy" (n-1H), the mass difference
between a
neutron and a hydrogen atom.
|
Mike, I did not invent (n-1H). Remember the references I gave you on
the published binding energy? They all list (n-1H) as a correcting
equal to 0.782333 MeV my model gets 0.785726414 MeV.
One more example of QVPP agreeing with experiment.
| Quote: | Mike, How soon you forget. The (n-1H) is the contribution of the
snip rehash garbage from two years ago
|
Now that is typical of your diatribe, Knock it off!
| Quote: | Thomas, go back and read my old posts. They should be still on
Google. You ignore all I wrote and rehash the same mistake-laden
physics.
|
Mike, in all due respects, your posts are insulting truncated replies
(which I complained about then and now). Anyone reading them would
mistakenly get a very low opinion of my work.
I wanted you to get a copy of my book, and you insultingly refused, so
I had to feed the information to you piece-meal.
I would advise all to NOT read your replies, but read my posts and
makeup their own mind.
Mike, reading your posts will give the impression my arguments are
just trivial x=x. I repeatdly tried to get you to see that it was the
QVPP particle geometry, but you turned a blind eye to my arguments.
| Quote: | snip
Mikes off (n-1H) topic diatribe deleted. |
Let me refresh your memory Mike. See:
http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Cu64BetaDecay.gif
Print it out Mike, and for gods sake study it in detail.
That GIF gives the substance of (n-1H) arguments. Cu64 both beta minus
and electron capture (positron) decays and clearly shows that NO
neutrinos are emitted by electron capture or positron beta decay.
Notice (n-1H) is negative when the neutrino energy is emitted and
(n-1H) is positive when that (n-1H) neutrino energy is added to the
atomic mass.
Don't lecture me on atomic nuclei, Mike, with the methods of the new
quantum vector particle physics, one can calculate nuclei binding
energy (mass defect) and show which nuclei are stable of unstable
against decay.
The proton proton cycle on the sun DOES NOT produce copious neutrinos.
If fact, no neutrinos at all.
If we are going to discuss this subject, a new thread should be
started.
Regards: Tom.
www.amazon.com search on: 0963154664 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tnlockyer@aol.com
science forum beginner
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Binding Energy Calculations
|
|
|
Moved from "Electron as point partricle"
Michael Moroney wrote:
| Quote: | "tnlockyer@aol.com" <tnlockyer@aol.com> writes:
Michael Moroney wrote:
Mike, I did not invent (n-1H). Remember the references I gave you
on
the published binding energy? They all list (n-1H) as a correction
equal to 0.782333 MeV my model gets 0.785726414 MeV.
Once again, that "correction" is due to the fact that if you compare
the
binding energies of any beta-decaying parent/daughter pair, one of
them
will be referenced to Z protons and (A-Z) neutrons while the other to
(Z+1) protons and (A-Z-1) neutrons. They will *always* differ by 1
proton
vs. 1 neutron, and the mass difference between them is the 0.782 MeV
mass
difference between a proton's and neutron's mass.
Sorry, no amazing discovery there.
|
That is just my point Mike. When a proton changes into a neutron in EC
or B+ decay, everyone assumes that a neutrino is emitted. The
kinetmatics clearly shows that the neutrino energy (n-1H)is absorbed in
the newly formed neutron.
| Quote: | snip
I wanted you to get a copy of my book, and you insultingly refused,
so
I had to feed the information to you piece-meal.
Sorry, I'm not going to waste my money on more of what I see here.
If
I see it in the library I'll look through it.
snip
Mike, reading your posts will give the impression my arguments are
just trivial x=x.
Many of them are. But others, such as your (n-1H) stuff is simply a
misunderstanding of binding energy definition. Now if all binding
energy
definitions used a common reference (such as A protons, and
converting
some of them to neutrons subtracted from the binding energy) things
would
be much clearer.
I repeatdly tried to get you to see that it was the
QVPP particle geometry, but you turned a blind eye to my arguments.
It is you who is ignoring my arguments.
|
You again deliberately deleted my following GIF from your reply.
Typical. That is why I advise not reading and relying on your opinions
of my posts.
http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Cu64BetaDecay.gif
| Quote: | That GIF gives the substance of (n-1H) arguments. Cu64 both beta
minus
and electron capture (positron) decays and clearly shows that NO
neutrinos are emitted by electron capture or positron beta decay.
Go and add up the masses of 28 hydrogen atoms and 36 neutrons. Then
add
up the masses of 29 hydrogen atoms and 35 neutrons. Then add up the
masses of 30 hydrogen atoms and 34 neutrons. Compare these three
sums to
each other. Notice anything? (Each of these is the reference for
the
three nuclei mentioned)
|
You still don't get it. Read the above GIF. It summarizes all the
atomic mass and binding energy. Ok, Here is page 126 of the book.
Binding energy 64Ni= 561.754863 Mev Daughter
Binding energy 64Cu= 559.297424 MeV Parent
__________________________________________________
New energy created= +2.457438 Mev gain
Q-(Cu64u-Ni64u)uev= -1.675105 MeV loss
_________________________________________________
Net gain of capture = +0.782332 Mev (Absorbed neutrino)
The Cu64 (B+) Ni64) emmits a positron (19 percent) and electron capture
is (41 percent). In either case the daughter in identical, it is said
that EC and B+ are competing processes.
But both EC and B+ decay reguire the proton capture an electron. In
the case of B+, the electron comes from pair production, if there is
enough new binding energy available for pair production.
In the case of EC the electron comes from the K shell electrons of the
neutral atom.
Cu64 is just as likely to decay by (B-) as also shown of the GIF you
ignored.
But my point is everyone thinks that EC and B+ decays emmit neutrinos.
Clearly they do not.
The positron comes from pair production, not the proton decay as
niavely has been supposed. In fact all the neutrino experiments are
based of that mistaken idea.
Then they could not detect neutrinos and rather than question the
processes on the sun, they started looking for "oscillation" from one
type of neutrino to the other. I know this is wrong, because the
vector particles automatically give EM structures for the electron and
muon type neutrinos. Oscillation is impossible.
But, you refuse to get the book. It would be less sffort to discuss if
you had the book.
| Quote: |
The proton proton cycle on the sun DOES NOT produce copious
neutrinos.
If fact, no neutrinos at all.
Care to explain how EC-capturing isotopes are routinely used as
neutrino
references? Care to explain the QM violations that would exist if
that statement were true? Care to explain the SN1987A supernova
neutrino
burst?
|
Yes, the measurements use the recoil of the emitted photon and think
that is the neutrino. They use the very same math one uses to
calculate the recoil of a photon. Another famous experiment took the
helicity of the EC decay photon to say the neutrino has the same
helicity. See page 135 of the book.
THe example uses Argon 37 decay into CL37. The new energy created is
(1.595839 Mev) Of course 0.78223 Mev is absorbed making an overal
decrease in atomic mass (energy) (Q=0.8134997 Mev) which is expelled.
This (Q) mono energetic photon (gamma) has been misconstrued as the
neutrino's existence, but we know the neutrino energy has to absorbed
to form the neutron, in addition to the proton's captures electron.
The recoil energy (KeCL37) due to the exothermic photon (not the
neutrino) is calculated by first converting the CL37 atomic mass to
equivalent volts.
CL37.uev= 3.443351699 E10 eV.
Then inserting into the well known eqaution for recoil momentum in
terms of the photon enregy is:
KeCL37 = Q^2 / 2(CL37.uev)
KeCL37 = 9.60955903 eV
The recoil energy is very small and is measured by the time of flight
method.
So Mike, the photon, not the non-existent neutrino from EC an B+ decay,
is detected.
Regards: Tom.
www.amazon.com search on; 0963154664 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:49 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Loans | Free Credit Card | Hen Night | Bankruptcy | Mortgages
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Particle
