It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could this work?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Logically deconstructing matter at the atomic, nuclear and electrical levels, in a general explanation, for the intent of reconstruction into new atoms through and from the manipulation and deconstruction of existing ones.

An atom consists of 3 atomic particle matter forms, in which 2 of the particles are grouped together and given a single name, the nucleus: an electron, or electrons, a neutron, or neutrons, and a proton, or protons, make up the 3 particles.

The nucleus of the atom is the center of the atom. It is a closely packed together and bonded mix of protons and neutrons.

Electrons(s): they orbit the nucleus in valence shells. There can be one, or many electrons that make up an atom. They can also orbit in inner shells, that are tighter revolutions, closer to the nucleus, and outer shells with more elongated revolutions. Some nuclei can possess more than one electron orbital shell. Electricity is a current and collection of electrons.

A proton has a positive charge, and is one of the particles of the bi-particle nucleus.

A neutron has no charge, and is one particle of particles of the bi-particle nucleus.

Negatively charged space has more electrons than protons.

Positively charged space has more protons than electrons.

Positively charged space acting upon positively charged space will repel.

Negatively charged space acting upon negatively charged space will attract.

A charged space will attract an uncharged space.

The beginning: If the nucleus can be destabilized in this way, then to cause destabilization of the protons within the nucleus, one would want to bombard the nucleus with protons. Because protons are positively charged, and positively charged space will repel, then the bombardment of a pure beam of protons coming into contact with the protons of the existing nucleus, should cause destabilization in the way of proton/proton repelling within it, leading to protons being thrown out of the nucleus and separated from the nuetrons. The goal is to separate the nucleus completely, in a controlled manner, in which the atom of the targeted element(s) making up the matter, is not damaged, in order to harvest and preserve the particles of atoms for future use in the creation of new, desired atoms, carried out by a computer and a very precise and sophisticated machine that implements these ideas and techniques.

This will require a method and environment in which the splitting of the nucleus is surrounded by charges, possibly even specific material, and forces, maybe magnetic, and maybe frequencies as well, that keep the particles of the atom in control during the deconstruction process.

Capturing the protons: protons will be captured through a machine that attracts the protons with an electrical conductor. Why an electrical source? Because electricity consists of electrons, and spaces with more electrons than protons are negatively charged, then an electrical source would possess and/or emanate a negative charge and attract the negatively charged, rogue protons that were thrown out of the nucleus during the proton beam bombardment. If this electrical source is attached to a machine, or a device, that possesses the physical attributes to keep the protons from being damaged from becoming electrocuted by the source and, is able to safely capture and store them for later use, then they can later be utilized for the creation of new, desired nuclei, and eventually into atoms, thus into any element and material that we would ever want to create, or need. This is, and does require complete and total control of the physical building blocks of reality, and outright mastery of the atom and the universe's forces and charges.

After the nucleus is stripped of its protons, a negatively charged space filled with an attraction to neutrons and no attraction to protons, coupled with a machine, would capture and preserve the neutrons for later use. The charge carrying an attraction to neutrons, and not to protons, is to assist in causing a strengthened separation process during the proton beam bombardment and, consequently a segregation of the two atomic particles following their nuclear separation.

The electrons can be harvested, if desired, but primitive forms of electricity are in such abundance, that electrons are always readily available from other sources.


I am currently in the process of extending this theory, and beginning to seriously consider creating and/or patenting the machines, but it will take time and research.

I also know of a few other ways to create spare parts to an atom, such as colliding two gamma rays together, which result in creating an electron and a proton. Both can be used in nuclear and atomic creation and manipulation.

Oh, and guys, it is theorized that every particle has an anti particle. A particle has a spin and a charge. An anti-particle has the opposite spin and charge. Since light has a spin of 1, no charge and no rest mass, it cannot have an anti particle. However, light's "anti-light", and/or opposite, would logically possess a spin of -1, no charge and no rest mass.

Additions, thoughts, critiques? Mistakes? Corrections?




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: IlTuoFratello


Because protons are positively charged, and positively charged space will repel, then the bombardment of a pure beam of protons coming into contact with the protons of the existing nucleus, should cause destabilization in the way of proton/proton repelling within it, leading to protons being thrown out of the nucleus and separated from the nuetrons. The goal is to separate the nucleus completely, in a controlled manner, in which the atom of the targeted element(s) making up the matter, is not damaged, in order to harvest and preserve the particles of atoms for future use in the creation of new, desired atoms...


The atoms which are easiest to split are the unstable ones such as certain isotopes of uranium. Enormous amounts of energy are released when an atom is split by a high energy proton beam. You are looking for a means to contain a nuclear explosion. We currently use a form of controlled fission in our nuclear power plants, but that does not involve proton beams. Protons move at great speed when they are released from their atoms, tending to impact and split other nearby atoms, especially if they are unstable. Additionally, firing a proton beam at a particle and then containing/recording/attempting to control the resultant tiny explosion is currently the domain of CERN and similar supercolliders.

What you describe should be possible but it's very difficult, expensive, and dangerous.

On the other hand, CERN has to get protons for its beam from somewhere; they are generally not free-floating entities. Therefore if I were you I'd first look in to how supercollider scientists isolate protons for their proton beams. Because I suspect they already have a means of extracting protons from nuclei. Why reinvent the wheel?

edit on 18-11-2015 by OuttaHere because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
W



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
You're defining quantum physics. Without an observer, the world exists as a probabilistic waveform, it is us, as the observers, that literally materialize the world. This was observed with Electron orbit which exist as a probabilistic waveform until observed, and then they collapse (materialize) upon observation.

I might have a few of the details wrong, because this is off of memory, but this is the basis of Schroedinger's Cat and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

In other words, your mind does what you're describing in the OP, you just aren't aware of it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: IlTuoFratello

Sorry IlTuoFratello, there is so much wrong with your understanding of physics, it is not even funny.



A charged space will attract an uncharged space.



negatively charged, rogue protons



a negatively charged space filled with an attraction to neutrons


sigh....



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello
Positively charged space acting upon positively charged space will repel.
Negatively charged space acting upon negatively charged space will attract.
A charged space will attract an uncharged space.


No. Like charges repel, opposite charges attract. Negative will repel negative. Positive will repel positive. Positive will attract negative. Negative will attract positive. Chargeless is indifferent to charges (except for polarization influence or something like that, but effectively no net force).


The bombardment of a pure beam of protons coming into contact with the protons of the existing nucleus, should cause destabilization in the way of proton/proton repelling within it, leading to protons being thrown out of the nucleus and separated from the neutrons.


Why do you need to harvest the protons from a nucleus if you have a source of protons already? Most of the time you will get less than one harvested proton from your target for a number of bombarding protons.

The charge of the nucleus will very effecively repel the oncoming protons. With suitably high energy you can shoot protons into a nucleus, but that takes a lot of effort. Moreover, the nuclear forces will take over and hold the injected proton fast as a part of the nucleus. You will have accomplished the alchemical feat of transmuting a nucleus of the original atom to a nucleus of of the next element.


The goal is to separate the nucleus completely, in a controlled manner, in which the atom of the targeted element(s) making up the matter, is not damaged,


I do not understand at all. You are separating the atom into protons, neutrons, and electrons, and yet you are not damaging the atom. How come the disassembly of the atom leaves the atom undamaged?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Thank you for your corrections and for pointing out my absurd gaffes. I will get to fixing the language, so that those mistakes no longer exist.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pirvonen
Why do you need to harvest the protons from a nucleus if you have a source of protons already? Most of the time you will get less than one harvested proton from your target for a number of bombarding protons.


Good point, actually. I was thinking that it would be easier to break down atomic matter and then reconstruct it, when compared to the current processes that we use to produce a proton, neutron, and/or electron beam.


The charge of the nucleus will very effecively repel the oncoming protons. With suitably high energy you can shoot protons into a nucleus, but that takes a lot of effort. Moreover, the nuclear forces will take over and hold the injected proton fast as a part of the nucleus. You will have accomplished the alchemical feat of transmuting a nucleus of the original atom to a nucleus of of the next element.


If this is true (I do not know, of course), then perhaps disregarding the use of protons themselves and, instead using some other positively charged particle and/or frequency directed at the nucleus would cause proton disruption. I am not looking for an explosion, but rather a controlled manner in which an atom can be safely deconstructed, its constituent particle pieces captured and preserved by attracting charges, and then re-using those raw materials to put back together and create new atomic material of different nuclear make-up. Literally transmogrifying Uranium into Gold. I understand the different isotopic states of uranium, brought about through an increase of protons within the nucleus, that can also eventually leave behind plutonium 239, I believe it is, once enough protons assimilate within the nucleus of uranium.

To me, this process is very primitive. Uranium into plutonium through taking in protons is very simple, a kindergarten example of causing a changing of states of matter into a new and different element, this is the basic nuclear idea that I am getting at.

I envision my theory being more complex, and the actual physical processes being more controlled and able to produce more extreme changes in states of matter. Not simply from one element down, or one element up, but into any new element and atom through controlled nuclear manipulation and atomic valence.


I do not understand at all. You are separating the atom into protons, neutrons, and electrons, and yet you are not damaging the atom. How come the disassembly of the atom leaves the atom undamaged?


This I have yet to determine. Perhaps a proton beam into a group of protons and neutrons will cause damage, and explosion, a nuclear chain reaction, which is why small amounts of matter would only be handled at a time, if this is so though, then a better idea might be to go with applied charged wave frequency to the nucleus, so that no particle matter collisions could take place (i.e. proton on proton, or proton on neutron, etc.).

Leaving it undamaged is quintessentially a part of the deconstruction and preservation process. Without proper forms of technology and devices in place to grab the free atomic particles and detain them from wanting to fly off, annihilate and become huge nuclear chain reactions, then nuclear explosions and nuclear waste is all that we will be left with.

Having the properly charged spaces, and forces readily in the area to grab these free particles, in my opinion would serve to mitigate nuclear and atomic chaos during the deconstruction of the particle matter.
edit on 18-11-2015 by IlTuoFratello because: Fixed quotes



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Sort answer to the questions... No it couldnt...

Why?

Well you have to invent quite a few machines to do any or all of this... neutrons are not stable on their own either, they are also notoriously hard to cool (stop them moving and keep them in one place)

Also Protons, attracted to electrons... they become hydrogen, neutral, and then cannot be as easily manipulated as you suggest.

Also, smacking protons into a nucleus, doesn't spontaneously cause it to kick out protons, there are lots of things that happen when you do that... you would be best ot read up on some basic particle physics and nuclear physics and then you will see that what you propose, on paper, kinda might work... sort of... with a bit of magic... but producing a useful machine to basically perform alchemy would be impossible with our current understanding and technology. There are so many probabilistic issues in what you write that, you would most likely not break down a nucleus into its parts, but just make a radioactive mess... or at least a very localized radioactive mess.

Also other positively charged particle or frequency.... well positively charged... means a proton basically, and frequency? you can fire Gammas at the nucleus but it wont help you do what you think
edit on 24-11-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
web.mit.edu...

Basic look at an example of proton bombardment of lithium... as you see in figures, most of the time, you don't simply knock off a proton, you tend to basically produce helium or other stuff, rather than Hydrogen



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: IlTuoFratello

If you are really serious about developing this theory to a workable cnclusion, I can only hope you will put twice the original effort and work into a containment vessal.

I would not be surprised to learn it all kind of "blew up in your face".



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello

If this is true (I do not know, of course), then perhaps disregarding the use of protons themselves and, instead using some other positively charged particle and/or frequency directed at the nucleus would cause proton disruption. I am not looking for an explosion, but rather a controlled manner in which an atom can be safely deconstructed, its constituent particle pieces captured and preserved by attracting charges, and then re-using those raw materials to put back together and create new atomic material of different nuclear make-up. Literally transmogrifying Uranium into Gold. I understand the different isotopic states of uranium, brought about through an increase of protons within the nucleus, that can also eventually leave behind plutonium 239, I believe it is, once enough protons assimilate within the nucleus of uranium.

To me, this process is very primitive. Uranium into plutonium through taking in protons is very simple, a kindergarten example of causing a changing of states of matter into a new and different element, this is the basic nuclear idea that I am getting at.

I envision my theory being more complex, and the actual physical processes being more controlled and able to produce more extreme changes in states of matter. Not simply from one element down, or one element up, but into any new element and atom through controlled nuclear manipulation and atomic valence.


Welcome to nuclear physics, 1931. There have been numerous particle accelerators working on collisions of nuclei for many decades.

Here's what they've found.

The problem is that you can't control it. In the nuclear reactions there are usually numerous potential outcomes all with varying probabilities. It's very hard to impossible to alter those branching ratios with any technologically useful means or effectiveness, or in less than extreme conditions like nuclear weaponry or supernovae.

This is unlike the case with chemical engineering, whereby with very clever designs of catalysts and external conditions, one can engineer the desired pathways to have higher likelihoods than the undesired ones. You can do that in multiple stages and get fairly pure pharmaceuticals out the end. No equivalent for nuclear transmutation: you have only primitive, blunt tools of raw force, and you get out messes.

It's a bummer but we have to accept reality.

edit on 25-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join