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.
Whaaaa. Kevmo is the Zuckerberg of Free Republic now?
Give us a break and stop highjacking Free Republic. How much steam are you producing on your pitbull farm?
I believe this thread is going to be very entertaining and full of steam.
Jimrob is the author of that thread.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
Deal with it.
“TexasGator is not welcome on these cold fusion threads.”
Nothing in the title or article indicates this is a cold fusion thread.
” ... and we don’t have maglev trains ... “
https://www.jrailpass.com/blog/maglev-bullet-train
What is the Maglev train’s top speed? In April 2015, a manned superconducting Maglev train broke two previous land speed records for rail vehicles. The train was clocked at 603 kilometers per hour or 375 miles per hour. This is much faster than the Maglev trains already operating in Shanghai, China, and in South Korea, which run at speeds of 268 to 311 miles per hour and 68 miles per hour, respectively.
The Maglev train has also exceeded previous Shinkansen world speed records in trials at the Miyazaki Test Track. Most Shinkansen trains operate at speeds of about 500 kilometers per hour (200 to 275 miles per hour). As new technologies are developed and instituted, future trains may achieve even greater velocities.
what does it take to get the admin mods to get these jerks to follow JimRob’s rules?
Cold Fusion is 25 ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better bang for the buck than Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF).
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts?page=30#30
Who’s doing the name calling? You could ban yourself now.
Please leave the thread. All you guys wanna do is create a stir rather than take science seriously so get lost.
VERY misleading. We have had ‘superconducting’ maglev trains as test systems since 1962, but not HTS superconducting trains — certainly not ROOM temperature superconducting — because we didn’t even GET HT superconductivity until 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev#History
History[edit]
Japanese National Railways (JNR) began research on a linear propulsion railway system in 1962 with the goal of developing a train that could travel between Tokyo and Osaka in one hour.[5] Shortly after Brookhaven National Laboratory patented superconducting magnetic levitation technology in the United States in 1969, JNR announced development of its own superconducting maglev (SCMaglev) system. The railway made its first successful SCMaglev run on a short track at its Railway Technical Research Institute in 1972.[6] JR Central plans on exporting the technology, pitching it to potential buyers.[7]
Miyazaki test track[edit]
In 1977, SCMaglev testing moved to a new 7 km test track in Hyūga, Miyazaki. By 1980, the track was modified from a “reverse-T” shape to the “U” shape used today. In April 1987, JNR was privatized, and Central Japan Railway Company (JR Central) took over SCMaglev development.
In 1989, JR Central decided to build a better testing facility with tunnels, steeper gradients, and curves.[6] After the company moved maglev tests to the new facility, the company’s Railway Technical Research Institute began to allow testing of ground effect trains, an alternate technology based on aerodynamic interaction between the train and the ground, at the Miyazaki Test Track in 1999.[citation needed]
Where is name calling called out as a bannable offense? Where did I say I want jerks like you banned? We’re saying we want the rule enforced, the rule that says you’re expected to leave the thread when asked.
They enforce this rule for QANONsense threads.
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.