Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neutron to be the tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nucleus to be constituted by protons and internal electrons
Tokyo Institute ^ | March 2021 | Noriyuki Kodama

Posted on 06/05/2021 10:02:24 AM PDT by Kevmo

Neutron to be the tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nucleus to be constituted by protons and internal electrons March 2021 Authors:

Noriyuki Kodama Tokyo Institute

------------------------------------------------------------

Neutron to be the tightly bound proton-electron pair and the nucleus to be constituted by protons and internal electrons Noriyuki Kodama Studied Physics at Tokyo Institute of Technology (1983-1987), Studying cold fusion as an independent researcher since 2020. Sekido 5-2-7, Tama-city, Tokyo, 206-0011, Japan, +81-90-6164-9203, noriyuki.kodama.0820@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------

Abstract Original nucleus model in the 1920s was the internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and Rutherford already suggested in 1920 that an electron-proton pair could be bound in a tight state. Both of which were forgotten after Chadwick's discovery of the neutron in 1932. However, at the time of neutron introduction we had no experimental nor theoretical evidence to prove the existence such electron deep orbit to tightly bind proton and electron, so we must validate the neutron introduction and change to the current nucleus model because now we have the solid evidences to probe this orbit and we have more advanced knowledge on the nucleus structure of quark theory. I would like to inform the nuclear physics society on the latest experimental data to prove existence of the electron deep orbits(n=0) which bind electron-proton pair with the electron in an electron deep orbit because the related experiments are conducted outside the nuclear physics community. One is “the high compressibility of hydrogen” and another is the soft-x- ray spectrum measurements during a low-energy nuclear reaction, both of which showed the electron transition from n=1 to n=0. At the time of the decision to introduce neutron, EDO was not found, so we must decide whether it is necessary to introduce neutron or adopt the nucleus model in the 1920s with the latest knowledge of nuclear physics and quarks. The latest experiments revealed that a proton has protrusions on its surface by quarks. Based on the experiments of this proton shape and electron deep orbit theory, it is reasonable to employ the tightly bound proton-electron pair as “neutron”, which was found by Chadwick, because this model can reasonably explain the neutron beta decay nature of “neutron” to proton conversion by just the emission of electron, and larger electron energy distribution of emitted electron based on the proton surface protrusion affected by 3 quarks. Thus, I presume that the introduction of “neutron” and change the nucleus model was maitakes and neutral particle found by Chadwick was proton-electron pair in a tight bound state with electron deep orbit and nucleus model that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is correct.

Keywords: nucleus model, low-energy nuclear reaction, Electron Deep Orbit, Coulomb repulsive force shielding, neutrino, beta decay

Download file PDF

Read file Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Download file PDF

Read file

Download citation

Copy link Abstract Abstract Original nucleus model in the 1920s was the internal electron theory that the atomic nucleus is constituted by protons and electrons, and Rutherford already suggested in 1920 that an electron-proton pair could be bound in a tight state. Both of which were forgotten after Chadwick's discovery of the neutron in 1932. However, at the time of neutron introduction we had no experimental nor theoretical evidence to prove the existence such electron deep orbit to tightly bind proton and electron, so we must validate the neutron introduction and change to the current nucleus model because now we have the solid evidences to probe this orbit and we have more advanced knowledge on the nucleus structure of quark theory. I would like to inform the nuclear physics society on the latest experimental data to prove existence of the electron deep orbits(n=0) which bind electron-proton pair with the electron in an electron deep orbit because the related experiments are conducted outside the nuclear physics community. One is “the high compressibility of hydrogen” and another is the soft-x-ray spectrum measurements during a low-energy nuclear reaction, both of which showed the electron transition from n=1 to n=0. At the time of the decision to introduce neutron, EDO was not found, so we must decide whether it is necessary to introduce neutron or adopt the nucleus model in the 1920s with the latest knowledge of nuclear physics and quarks. The latest experiments revealed that a proton has protrusions on its surface by quarks. Based on the experiments of this proton shape and electron deep orbit theory, it is reasonable to employ the tightly bound proton-electron pair as “neutron”, which was found by Chadwick, because this model can reasonably explain the neutron beta decay nature of “neutron” to proton conversion by just the emission of electron, and larger electron energy distribution of emitted electron based on the proton surface protrusion affected by 3 quarks. Thus, I presume that the introduction of “neutron” and change the nucleus model was maitakes and neutral particle found by Chadwick was proton-electron pair in a tight bound state with electron deep orbit and nucleus model that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is correct.

------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proposition to the physics community 4.1 Resume discussion on the previous nucleus model by Rutherford Pauli and Fermi As explained in the historical background section, at the time of the decision to introduce a neutron, we had no experimental data on EDO and no theoretical study to verify at the time of the decision; hence, the neutron was introduced and a neutrino was introduced to explain the very large electron energy distribution of the beta decay electron. However, we

have solid experimental data to prove the EDO, the theoretical study to show the possibility to have the EDO, and the deep knowledge on the nucleus of quarks, which affects the proton’s shape. Thus, now is the time to resume the discussion on the nucleus model by the nuclear physics community. It affects the overall nuclear physics, including LENR. The mechanism of cold fusion (LENR) is based on EDO, so the physics community needs to change the nucleus model first and needs to contemplate again about the neutrino, which, I presume, does not exist.

-------------------------------------------------- 4.2 Validate the neutrino experiment and theory Because neutrino is the virtual particles to compensate the larger energy distribution of beta decay electron, and because now it can be explained by the neutron model to be tightly bound proton-electron pair, the neutrino researchers must validate their experiment and theory not based on neutrino hypo. Because we have larger number of experiments to find neutrino, all experiment must be interpreted without neutrino hypothesis because the experiments must have possible other phenomena.

------------------------------------- 5. Summary I have shown the experimental evidence of an EDO based on and the high compressibility of the hydrogen study, soft-x-ray study, and high compressibility of hydrogen study combined with the theoretical study on EDO. I showed that these experiments prove that EDO exists, and neutral particle is tightly bound proton-electron pair, it explains the mechanism of beta decay and its electron has very large energy distribution based on the latest study of proton shape shows that the proton shape has the protrusion caused by three quarks. Thus, I presume that neutral particle found by Chadwick is tightly bound proton-electron pair, and the nucleus model that proton and internal electron constitute the nucleus is correct.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; learnhowtopost; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351934656_Neutron_to_be_the_tightly_bound_proton-electron_pair_and_the_nucleus_to_be_constituted_by_protons_and_internal_electrons
1 posted on 06/05/2021 10:02:24 AM PDT by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All; y'all

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351934656_Neutron_to_be_the_tightly_bound_proton-electron_pair_and_the_nucleus_to_be_constituted_by_protons_and_internal_electrons


2 posted on 06/05/2021 10:04:12 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; citizen; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; glock rocks; free_life; ..

Cold Fusion Ping List
Keywords: ColdFusion; LENR; lanr; CMNS
chat—science

http://lenr-canr.org/
Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y
Best book to get started on this subject:
EXCESS HEAT
Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette
https://www.abebooks.com/9780967854809/Excess-Heat-Why-Cold-Fusion-0967854806/plp
-——— ——————————
Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you don’t like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars, or engage in trolling activities, etc.


3 posted on 06/05/2021 10:06:44 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

So these internal electrons are just hiking around the outside of the neutrons? Need to know before I blow up the block.

Oops too late.


4 posted on 06/05/2021 10:24:31 AM PDT by Peter ODonnell (Pray for health, economic recovery, and justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I was still in college getting my chemistry degree when “cold fusion” raised its ugly head.


5 posted on 06/05/2021 10:25:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Biology is science. Homemade pronouns are narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Does this contradict the theory that neutrons are composed of quarks, not leptons?


6 posted on 06/05/2021 10:30:59 AM PDT by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I learned that from Venus Flytrap.

Love, Bailey & Jennifer
(and the answer is Bailey)


7 posted on 06/05/2021 10:31:48 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Claiming Racism, the antidote to personal responsibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator; Admin Moderator

TexasGator is not welcome on these cold fusion threads. We ask the mods to enforce JimRob’s posted rules.


8 posted on 06/05/2021 11:01:18 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Is there some kind of super-duper ultrachemical theory to explain the excess heat that has been observed more than 150 times in peer reviewed journals?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHS883_P60


9 posted on 06/05/2021 11:08:14 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
This is a little bit puzzling, and contradicts what I thought I knew.

It also contradicts what Fermilab thinks it knows:

Hi Boris,

Let me start with your statement, that " If it is made of proton, electron and neutrino it could be as stable as atom of hydrogen? "

The answer to this is that not really. A neutron is not made of a proton, electron and an antineutrino. These particles are only its decay products. A neutron is made of 3 quarks, one up quark, and 2 down quarks and many many "intermediate particles" called gluons which carry the interaction between the quarks. These gluons are exchanged very often, so the quarks feel each of other.

Neutrons do not always decay. Let me be more specific. You know, that most of the matter around us is made out of atoms. Atoms have nucleae and electrons. In the nucleus you usually find protons and neutrons. I am sure you agree with me, that in your everyday life, you DO NOT SEE cars or houses or ... decaying, because their neutrons would decay! In other words, when a neutron is hidden in an atomic nucleus, it is extremely stable and it does not decay according what you wrote. ( Yes, there are some radioactive elements which are not stable, and their neutrons decay into protons, but let us leave them aside for a second.)

On the other hand, if you have a free neutron, taken away from a nucleus, it does decay. So why is that? First of all, you know that so far science recognizes 4 types of interactions (forces), namely the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong interaction. When a neutron is buried into a nucleus, it feels mostly the strong interaction. The quarks are "tight" very strongly to each of other, and it is not allowed for them to change into uud ( the proton) and electron and antineutrino. For the neutron decay, the weak interaction is responsible. If a neutron is freed from a nucleus, the weak interaction of quarks will play the major role, and since the proton is lighter than a neutron, it is allowed for the neutron to go to this lighter stage by radiating out an electron and antineutrino. If you are still wondering and still have some questions, please ask

- bye, Arnold Pompos

Source: Physics Questions People Ask Fermilab: Neutron Decaay

10 posted on 06/05/2021 11:13:39 AM PDT by Steely Tom ([Voter Fraud] == [Civil War])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Neutron to be the tightly bound proton-electron


11 posted on 06/05/2021 11:26:37 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Hell, I don’t know. You’re the true believer.


12 posted on 06/05/2021 11:27:00 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Biology is science. Homemade pronouns are narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
TexasGator is not welcome on these cold fusion threads.

Stamp those feet, Mister Demandy-Pants.

We ask the mods to enforce JimRob’s posted rules.

Who is "We"?

13 posted on 06/05/2021 11:28:52 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

It’s been forty years.

We’ve been promised cold fusion almost as long as we’ve been promised flying cars.


14 posted on 06/05/2021 11:29:19 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Biology is science. Homemade pronouns are narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jerk

Who is “We”?
***The folks on the ping list. If you’re here to provoke, you are unwelcome so get lost.


15 posted on 06/05/2021 11:37:54 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Same amount of time for High Temp Superconductors [HTS], and we don’t have maglev trains nor Superconducting power lines. The difference between HTS and Cold Fusion is that HTS didn’t have an entrenched science mafia protecting their turf. If we had spent 2% of the high-temp fusion dollars on cold fusion, we’d have those flying cars by now.


16 posted on 06/05/2021 11:40:39 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Experiment trumps theory, every time.
~Richard Feynman


17 posted on 06/05/2021 11:41:55 AM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Where’s my flying car?

That what I want to know!

🙃


18 posted on 06/05/2021 12:05:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Biology is science. Homemade pronouns are narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Where’s our hot-fusion toys? We’ve spent $hundreds of Billions in tax money, for nothing.


19 posted on 06/05/2021 12:10:10 PM PDT by Kevmo (some things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

And we’ve been promised hot fusion twice as long.......


20 posted on 06/05/2021 1:10:47 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (Not Responding to Seagull Snark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson