Element 115 and ZPF: how it might work, and it is a revolution.

www.tsijournals.com...

Page FP9 (second page)

In any case the full paper explains the strategy.

Regarding nature, we already have reached a level of development that enables us to make devices that does not exist in nature. There is a long list

a reply to: Dineutron

This is one part (of many) that puzzles me. "A possible idea is to find a suitable nuclear species that has dineutrons floating near or on the surface of a core nucleus"
Does this imply a nucleus composed of a particle soup? It would seem that with everything else in the atomic world having a structure that the nucleus should have one also.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Dineutron

This is one part (of many) that puzzles me. "A possible idea is to find a suitable nuclear species that has dineutrons floating near or on the surface of a core nucleus"
Does this imply a nucleus composed of a particle soup? It would seem that with everything else in the atomic world having a structure that the nucleus should have one also.

Nuclear physics is complicated and the calculations are difficult, so a lot of what we know is based on observation more than calculations.

Here's an article about that topic:

Dineutron emission seen for the first time

Physicists in the US claim to have witnessed, for the first time, the emission of a neutron pair in the decay of an atomic nucleus. Such “dineutron” decay could extend our understanding of the strong force, which is responsible for holding nuclei together, and the processes taking place in neutron stars...

The obvious place to begin searching for dineutron decay is in nuclei that contain too many neutrons – that is, those nuclei that would want to lose at least two neutrons in order to become more stable. Such neutron-rich nuclei tend to decay one neutron at a time, rather than two at once. But not all nuclei opt for a step-by-step decay: beryllium-16 does not readily emit a single neutron because that would leave a nucleus of beryllium-15, which is more unstable.

Spyrou’s group examined beryllium-16 for dineutron decay. They created the isotope at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University by removing a single proton from a boron-17 beam. Immediately, the resultant beryllium-16 decayed into two neutrons. After examining the energy and position information for all three particles – the two neutrons and the remaining beryllium-14 nucleus – the researchers calculated that the two neutrons were emitted together and in the same direction.

Spyrou says that the direction is important for labelling the process as dineutron decay. If the neutrons had been left the nucleus separately, she says, the angle between them would have been almost random.
“Ferreting out “true events

Bob Charity, a chemist specializing in nuclear structure and reactions at Washington University in St Louis, US, thinks the results are impressive. “A single neutron may interact with one part of a detector and in the process scatter and then interact with another part, making it hard to differentiate a single-neutron event from a true two-neutron event,” he says. “The experimental effort…should be praised for ferreting out the two-neutron events from this background of ‘fake’ two-neutron events.”

However, some scientists, including Charity, are sceptical that the dineutron should be considered a well-defined entity. Since the emitted neutrons are already correlated inside the beryllium nucleus’s halo, these scientists say, they are likely to be correlated outside, too – but that does not mean the neutrons are truly bound together.

“I am not convinced that what they see is a new type of particle,” Marek Pfützner told physicsworld.com. Pfützner is a nuclear physicist at the University of Warsaw in Poland and believes that the concept of a dineutron is “a very simplified way to describe the data, which is used a when more detailed and rigorous description is missing”.

So we have a claimed dineutron being observed, and we also have some healthy skepticism if what was observed was really a dineutron or whether it was just two neutrons. The experimentalists will now probably try to figure out what would need to be done to convince the skeptics.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.

I don't think anybody can tell you with certainty what the nuclear structure is. We have different models and they have different strengths and weaknesses but as far as I know, none of the models are accurate enough to explain all observations.

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

Neutronium

The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[8][9]It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived resonance state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[10] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[11] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[12] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

In the spheron model of the nucleus (Linus Pauling) :
scarc.library.oregonstate.edu...

Spheron model:
www.pnas.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Dineutron

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

In the spheron model of the nucleus (Linus Pauling) :
scarc.library.oregonstate.edu...

Spheron model:
www.pnas.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I have no idea what you're trying to say with your sentence fragment and three links. Perhaps the reason few seem to talk about Pauling's model specifically is because "Pauling promised that the quantum mechanical calculations enabled by his polyspheron theory were essentially the same as those that had been made using various other models in the past."

In an effort to assure the scientific rank and file that he was not seeking to upend their entire understanding of nuclear physics, Pauling promised that the quantum mechanical calculations enabled by his polyspheron theory were essentially the same as those that had been made using various other models in the past.

Perhaps unwittingly, this assurance left many colleagues within the field wondering why Pauling was bothering to develop this theory at all. For many physicists, Pauling’s work seemed redundant, or perhaps merely an attempt to change the names of existing terms to new ones that fit more elegantly into Pauling’s conceptual framework of atomic structure.

So if the calculations are the same as with the other models, it's not radically different.

I re-read your proposed scheme in the OP and it sounds extremely inefficient. Whatever gravitational waves you might possibly get from dineutrons if you can excite them to produce gravitational waves would probably be too small to measure or harness, and would likely be less energy than you put into the process to produce them. Maybe if you're using some astronomical figure for Zero Point energy you think you can get some of that, but I think we've established such high values of ZPE are not consistent with observation. Observations suggest a very low amount of vacuum energy, slightly greater than zero. You probably can't harvest that, but even if you could, there's not much there to harvest as explained in my thread on that topic posted earlier.

Finally, please learn enough physics to figure out that Lazar's ideas should not be given any credence, as explained in the "Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan" I posted earlier.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Would having a defined nuclear structure help or hinder this observation? It would seem that with a nucleus soup of particles, having both neutrons with the same energy and vector would dictate the existence of a dineutron. With a structured nucleus, this becomes less compelling.

I don't think anybody can tell you with certainty what the nuclear structure is. We have different models and they have different strengths and weaknesses but as far as I know, none of the models are accurate enough to explain all observations.

What is important I think is that there isn't enough binding energy between two neutrons to really bind them together, but, there is almost enough. So maybe it's the "almost enough" which helps keep the neutrons together as they are ejected until they are detected, in what has been proposed as "an extremely short-lived resonance state".

Neutronium

The dineutron, containing two neutrons, was unambiguously observed in 2012 in the decay of beryllium-16.[8][9]It is not a bound particle, but had been proposed as an extremely short-lived resonance state produced by nuclear reactions involving tritium. It has been suggested to have a transitory existence in nuclear reactions produced by helions (helium 3 nuclei, completely ionised) that result in the formation of a proton and a nucleus having the same atomic number as the target nucleus but a mass number two units greater. The dineutron hypothesis had been used in nuclear reactions with exotic nuclei for a long time.[10] Several applications of the dineutron in nuclear reactions can be found in review papers.[11] Its existence has been proven to be relevant for nuclear structure of exotic nuclei.[12] A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so.

If there is not enough binding energy available to produce a stable particle, is there enough for one neutron to drag another along? This would imply that the drag along energy is greater than that binding the neutron to the nucleus.

originally posted by: pteridine
If there is not enough binding energy available to produce a stable particle, is there enough for one neutron to drag another along?

Maybe. There was a proposed resonance mode, but I don't really understand that, and I'm not sure if that proposed method is confirmed.

This would imply that the drag along energy is greater than that binding the neutron to the nucleus.

In the case of beryllium-16 decaying into beryllium-14, the reason it does so is because beryllium-15 is even more unstable than beryllium-16. So you could be right about that in the case of beryllium 16 decay into beryllium 15, in fact I couldn't find any mention of that decay mode. It seems beryllium-15 and beryllium-16 both decay to beryllium-14.

Ok, let's now describe a propulsion system that satisfies the "observables" of UAP described by the NAVY (here slightly redefined).

1) no observable propulsion system
2) no plume or exhaust
3) no heat emitted
4) extremaly high power involved with no signature
5) super high speed and acceleration deceleration
6) trans medium travel


We recall the first message of this thread. A dineutron converter could convert EM ZPF to real gravitational waves at X and gamma ray frequencies. These waves cannot be observed with current instrumentation, this is ok for explaining 2) and 3).
The energy density of ZPF (whatever they are, vacuum energy or a quantum property of matter) is extremely high at the frequencies accessed by the dineutron converter. This explains 4).
In the same way that a Laser can be pumped by non coherent light with shorter wavelength, the gravitational waves produced by the dineutron converter could pump a HTSC Gaser like the one described here:
www.tsijournals.com...
HTSC Gaser radiation is coherent and can be focused to provide propulsive effects as described in the same paper.
This explains 1) 2) and 5)
The focused gravitational waves and massive graviton propulsion does not use ordinary fluids for propulsion, therefore the vehicle can travel everywhere without changing travel mode, explaining 6).

We can conclude that it is possible to explain all that we can observe by using notions and knowledge already published.

a reply to: Dineutron

Youre saying we cant detect x rays or gamma rays. A lady over 100 years old begs to differ...as does your dentist

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think it was referring to gravitational waves with the same frequency as x-rays would have in electromagnetism.

But how on earth would a HFGW generator work with actual physics known to experimental reality, and how would it have any engineering useful capability given the extremely small value of G vs any other force?

a reply to: mbkennel
When generating any kind of radiation the really important factor is converter efficiency. That is the ratio between the output power in wanted radiation and the input power, the difference is losses, that are generally heat.
A converter that uses coherence and quantum phenomena is generally more efficient than a converter that is based on classical physics.
For instance if you want to produce monochromatic red light, a diode laser is thousands of times more efficient than an incandescent lamp with a suitable filter.
The same can happen if you want to generate gravitatiional waves. Efficiency is improved by using coherence and quantum transitions, in this case it is true that we need to improve efficiency by about 40 orders of magnitude respect to a classical system. The htsc gaser is a way to do it. Chapter 3 of this book.
benthambooks.com...
Please read the above two papers. Reading the "full" text might be sufficient in order to understand the method.
Thank you.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think it was referring to gravitational waves with the same frequency as x-rays would have in electromagnetism.

But how on earth would a HFGW generator work with actual physics known to experimental reality, and how would it have any engineering useful capability given the extremely small value of G vs any other force?

Pais paper attempts to explain how he "amplifies" that small value using the Gertsenshtein effect via generation of a high frequency EM field.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Well i think Pais is full of crap and bits of his patents Descriptions are useful for other things totally unrelated to his patents purposes which is the only reason they are even awarded patents.

JASON group says the Gertsenshtein effect is so rediculously minescule regardless of the amount of energy you use unless its on galactic scales that it literally stupid to even consider it for any form of propulsion. And if the JASON group says so then its good enough for me.

I'll read into your bentham book chapter you supplied a link to and circle back to the conversation afterwards but at this time im pretty skeptical.

Ok having read further into the gaser concept wouldnt the energy output be no greater than that of an actual laser. Regardless if it were a gravitational energy or a photons energy. I mean energy is energy aint it? Wouldnt simply shining an actual laser out the back has the same equivalent propulsive effect as the energy dumped i to the gaser beam? I think JASON looked into it and to push something at light speed using the Gertsenshtein effect youd consume the equivalent mass of the entire earth in matter anti matter reactions in roughly 2 hours.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Rightly sceptical IMO... the paper is purposefully unintelligible ..
If I had to bet- there is no Sal Pais and if there were - he wouldnt use the Haisch/Puthoff PV model as the "proof" citation.


TBF- it was a bit of a joke bait post to see if mbkennel would do the leg work of looking into it - as I've already worn out the Pais welcome mat with Arbi....

Apparently - Zel'dovich was employing elements of the Gertsenshtein effect when he was doing his none linear medium tinkerings...

It all seems a bit ominously prescient by certain tall tale tellers who have mentioned Zel'dovich in purposefully obfuscated comments in the past..


Then there's this super radiant amplification related piece which fits into the above ( and could explain how you amp the output ) .. which Pais seems to hint at with his counter rotating positively charged mass....which then evolves (in his own work) from bits of superconductor spinning around very fast- to exotic matter (i.e plasma/BEC) being electromagnetically perturbed to cause that desirable none equilibrium state.


ETA:
I'm not sure the application would be shooting Gasers out the back per se. ...but there are those rumours about why they might want to slow lasers in delay columns of anomalous materials.
Trickle charge..... then release the compressed (and amplified) excited plasmomic state when needed.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Well mbkennel is probably the smartest guy currently visiting ats period...whos not lurking. He's a real deal physicist. Anyways, I'll wait to see what MB says. If he says its crap, then it is.

Gravitons (quanta of gravitational waves) are NOT photons, and the general conclusions applicable to the photon rocket are not applicable to gravitons if not for some special configurations).
Gravitons can aquire mass:
www.jstor.org...
Abstract
An exact solution of Einstein's equations........The ultimate result of the collision is the development of a space-time singularity, ...... The solution obtained in this paper provides the first example of an induced transformation of a massless into a massive particle.

Cosider that the cited singularity generates a gravitational field, but it is not matter or energy that curves spacetime, instead it is "pure" curvature... It is simply a direct rectification of a gravitational wave to an almost "static" gravitational coulomb like field.

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is a coautor of this paper. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983.

How much mass the graviton can acquire is written here (for some special configurationa).
www.tsijournals.com...

a reply to: Dineutron
Wait...so... gravitons... and photons arent the same thing? Thanks to this thread i get smarter every day. Hey bob! Did you know gravitons and photons are two different things! I sure didn't.