Вот сегодня на рабочую почту спам пришел. После чтения первого абзаца было идентифицировано сюда. Далее без изменений.
ELECTRIC GAS DISCHARGES -- Newsletter for chemistry
It is possible that future newsletters are going to be delivered with a longer pace because I am not in a hurry anymore. ,,Les jeux sont faites” and I have secured all the critical points of my theory. It is high time to let the present elite of science to boil a bit in its own juice; soon, they will observe that my fingerprint is already present in every scientific domain and there is no chance to find a bypass.
Each passing day increases both the value of my theory and the guilt of quite entire elite of science.
Some responsible nations are going to realize soon that continuing spending money into the present way of doing science is like betting on dead horses …
Coming back to the scientific part, the complexity of phenomena regarding electric discharges in gases cannot be covered into a single newsletter, therefore here only some simple facts, their absurd accepted interpretations and a general framework for future studies are presented. Each section of this newsletter is going to become an entire direction of research in the new proposed theory.
The first section demonstrate simply that although electrostatic phenomenon are not directly related to gas discharge, this class of phenomenon can decide if an electricity theory and also a quantum theory are correct.
What should happen when a negatively charged body comes close to a positively charged body according to the accepted electrostatic and quantum theory?
Depending on the charge amount of these electrified bodies a discharge could take place in air and most important, an extinction of charge always has to take place at atomic level.
As quantum mechanics postulates, this charge extinction has as consequence an emission spectra characteristic for the atom which receive the electron. If quantum theory and electrostatic are correct, each time a charge extinction takes place, emission spectra with lines in IR, VIS, UV specific for the positively charged body should appear.
In contrast to these predictions, the experimental reality is much simpler. Except the air discharge spectra, there are no spectra for the neutralization of positively charged body.
As consequence mainstream physicists have to rule out one of the two possibilities: either quantum idea or the explanation based on charge extinction is absurd.
The proposed theory rule out both these theories of physics and in the new explanation no electric charge is formed and gets extinct during most of electrostatic phenomena. In some conditions it is possible to have a charge separation, but this is only a secondary effect.
Further on it is presented in detail how the modern science is not able in a consistent way the first scientific experiment performed in electrostatic by Otto von Guericke in the in the 17th century.
A simple conceptual model with the explanation for electrostatic phenomena in the new theory is also provided.
Looking into the future, the implications of this new theory are a bit disastrous for present science. As far in common electrostatic experiments no cations or electrons are formed, the force of interaction between ,,opposite charges” was established based on wrong experiments and its validity is questioned.
Coulomb formulated this law in similitude with gravitation law and based on some electrostatic experiments. New experiments are necessary in order to reformulate and clarify the interaction between proton and electron.
In fact the concept of electric charge and the equality between electron charge and proton charge are going to be discussed again in a future newsletter.
Geissler tubes represent the next important step in our topic because it demonstrates how the mainstream physics has missed the most important property of electrons: the driving license. Mass, charge or magnetic moment are derisory by comparison with the new astonishing properties of electrons exemplified bellow.
According to classical electrodynamics, an electron into an electric field has a linear accelerated motion between cathode and anode. Electric field is not able to curve the trajectory of an accelerated electron so the motion has to be linear.
Without being a specialist in the field and without having eye glasses, someone can observe that present theory of electricity cannot explain the motion of electrons into a simple Geissler tube.
In a Geissler tube, electrons can perform acrobatics which are worth to be reminded in Guinness book: they know when to go straight, turn right or left into an accelerated electric field. They can even turn back into an electric field and make loops.
As result of this compound movements they can turn at right angle, have a spiral or sinusoidal motion and even do acrobatic loops etc., although the classical theory of electrodynamics strictly forbid these facts. As it will be seen bellow they also know when to accelerate or decelerate in order to not bother each other and avoid producing an accident.
How could an army of theoreticians in the field of electricity have missed the most important characteristic of these particles, i.e. the driving license?
From the perspective of the new theory of magneticity a new framework is necessary for explaining the observed effects into a Geisller tube. The generation of charge is possible, but it represents only a secondary effect without any importance for the main observed effects.
Probably all theoreticians are very curios how the new theory is going to explain the working principle of cathode ray tubes (CRT).
Of course in this case the generation of electric charge is important, but this does not mean the actual explanation is correct. In fact the subsequent material is going to demonstrate how catastrophically the present explanation for classical electrodynamics is!
As preliminary introduction, some experiments performed between 2000 and 2005 demonstrated that a flow of electrons coming up from a CRT has nothing to do with an electric current. Here is the link and sorry, but I have not time to make some grammatical corrections to that old text:
Other new interesting facts are very important for the present discussion.
A simple circuit composed from an electrostatic source and a CRT demolishes entire electromagnetism theory.
For the entire portion of metallic circuit, electrons moves with a snail speed, i.e. few mm/s, through the metallic conductor. As soon the electrons are emitted by cathode, they are accelerated into electric field and they arrive to speeds of km/s during their trip through the gas tube.
Introducing a cathode ray tube and generally a gas tube into an electric circuit raises an insurmountable problem for the present theory of electromagnetism: such circuits do not respect the equation of continuity anymore because electrons travel with different speeds different portions of the same circuit. As consequence, for some moments of time, there are going to be portions of the electric circuit with a higher concentration of electrons and other portions with a deficit of electrons.
Let us go further with a bit more complicated case: do not be scary it is undergraduate level anyway …
Let us have the same circuit but a CRT with a perforated anode and a Van der Graff device as electric source. It is simple to organize the experiment in such manner that no charges are allowed to leak out outside the circuit. The Van der Graff device produces charges only by the contact between two different materials and without having a connection to the ground.
I have performed this experiment and I was questioning for long time how this circuit is working…..
What theoreticians have not observed in about two centuries is the fact that a perforated anode is equivalent with a node in the electric circuit and current splits into two parts. A part of the total charge is removed from the circuit because there is no way of returning the electrons from the phosphorous screen; for another part of the initial current, electrons are captured by anode and they return into the main circuit.
According to the present theory of electricity, a battery cannot work if the total electric charge which depart from negative pole do not return to the positive pole; either a chemical battery or an electrostatic one is going to stop working only for this simple fact.
In the proposed theory there is a charge separation in a CRT in these conditions of low pressure and high voltage, but the entire situation needs to be reconsidered and reinterpreted; charge movement has nothing to do with an electric current. In the most happy case, a charge existence (stationary or in movement) ensures the conditions for an electric current to travel through.
The experiment performed by James Franck and Gustav Hertz in 1914 is considered the most convincing evidence of energy levels in atoms and implicitly for the quantization of energy at atomic level.
Their experiment showed that if the electron kinetic energy was equal to or greater than the energy of the first excited state of mercury, the electrons could lose an amount of energy equal to that excitation energy. At still higher voltages there can be additional collisions leading to more dips in the current measured (fig. 10) and in the same time inside the tube more regions having a disc shape form which emit photons are observed. The emission is in UV, i.e at 253.7 nm.
In order to have a clear picture of what is happen in a Franck Hertz experiment a new cut off experiment has to be performed.
Generating beams of electrons and adjusting their energy has made serious progresses lately and now experiments with beam of electrons and even polarized electrons are possible in many research laboratories.
The idea of the experiment is quite simple: a beam of electrons with energies of about 45 eV collides with a cloud of mercury atoms inside a closed container; the pressure inside this container is similar to that of a classical Franck Hertz experiment i.e. about 3 kPa. The container has quartz walls and the emission of UV light or the entire spectra in VIS+UV can be observed and eventually analyzed.
What are the expectations from this experiment according to quantum theory?
The only relevant thing modified in respect to the original Franck Hertz experiment is the modality of ,,generating the electron beam” and nothing more; therefore the expectations are quite simple to be foreseen: the results of this new experiment have to be identical with the initial Franck Hertz experiment.
As far no electric current passes through circuit, the results are interpreted from optical perspective. If quantum theory is correct, a succession of disc shaped regions which emits photons in UV at 253.7 nm should be observed as in previous case.
These disk shaped regions have to be centered toward the point where the beam of electrons enters the chamber; this point plays the hypothetical role of cathode.
How many such disc shaped regions should appear? With an electron beam of about 45 eV, there should be six distinct separate regions in form of the disc emitting in UV.
The expectations for this experiment from the perspective of the new theory are completely different; by no means can a beam of electrons ever produce a succession of disk shaped emission regions in mercury cloud!
In our case at 40 eV energies, electrons do not care of the quantum theory at all and as far their energy is greater that ionization energy of mercury atoms, the most result of these successful collisions are a ionization of mercury atoms. Further on, ionized mercury atoms have a short life and they capture other electrons and a full emissions spectra characteristic for mercury is obtained.
So, the predictions of the new theory are completely different from the quantum theory in each aspect as follows. Quantum theory expects to obtain only a succession of first excitation level in mercury and new proposed theory predicts that complete ionization are the most outcomes of electron-mercury atoms collisions. Quantum theory expects to have a succession of disk shaped regions which emits at 253 nm and the new theory predicts that outcome of these collisions are an entire spectra for mercury and no disk shaped regions.
What is the interpretation of Franck Hertz experiment from the perspective of the new theory?
A simple framework explanation is based on the fact that excited states of maters present usually an increased conductibility.
This is an entire new field of research and studies have to be made in order to differentiate between the conductibility of the same material when its constituents are excited with different amounts of energy.
So in original Franck Hertz experiment, as voltage is increased, there is going to be an increased number of mercury atoms which are getting excited. Atoms can get excited even they do not arrive to radiate back radiation at a specific energy (an emission line) and this is going to be a further topic for a newsletter. If the energy furnished to an atom is less than energy necessary for an electron jump, such atom can get excited but without any release of photons.
With an increased number of excited mercury atoms, the current increases through circuit and this is observed in the graph until the value of 4,9 eV is attaint.
Jumping over this value has a very simple consequence: most excited mercury atoms can return to the initial state with a photon release and the concentration of excited mercury atoms in the tube decreases to a value close to the initial state. If the concentration of excited atoms decreases it is normal that conductibility of the gas decreases and a dip in current is registered.
The same pattern repeats at multiple values of 4,9 eV; each time excited mercury atoms decay to its ground state, the conductibility of gas decreases.
As a general observation: the results of the experiment are not a consequence of electron – atoms collisions, but the consequence of the specific way a field interacts with atoms in certain conditions. I avoid saying an electric field because the entire interaction is between magnetic moments (magnels).
A complete and detailed interpretation of this experiment is difficult and more complex than a simple graph with results show; it is necessary a new theory of fields and their interactions with matter constituents and this is going to be presented in the future.
There is a quite old article which demonstrates with simple chemical concepts that quanta hypothesis and the idea that a flame generates electric charges contradict experimental reality too.
The link is here:
Similar to electric discharges and Franck Hertz experiment, the flame contains excited species and these modify the conductibility of the flame.
In extreme conditions it is possible to arrive at charge generation and eventual separation but these are exceptions and not the rule.
Last but not least a new general framework for the future studies in this field is presented.
It is a pity that some simple facts have been known for a long time and they have not been taken into consideration by the scientific community in explaining the phenomena of gas discharges.
The outcomes of gas discharge are a direct consequence of working conditions and a general theory with some simple formula able to describe the entire field is not possible. It is possible to have a simple framework which encompasses the physical model and after that math can come with different levels of complexity to complete the description.
The description of this model starts with what happen in a common gas tube at very low pressures and at few decades of KV. When the pressure in such tube is 0,0004 mm Hg or bellow, no discharges are observed into tube.
It is easy to be understood why this information is only a footnote in books and scientific texts although this is the most interesting case to be discussed.
According to modern science, vacuum has all kind of marvelous properties. Electromagnetism postulates that vacuum can be traveled by electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic waves and in fact Maxwell equations are fully valid only for vacuum. Quantum theory and particle theory have already switched toward literary fiction with their claims about vacuum energy and virtual particles but these ideas do not worth losing time for a description.
Contrary to these intellectual fallacies, vacuum is only emptiness and as it can be seen a simple experiment from electrostatic gives enough information about the right way of seeing the things.
Of course someone has to make distinction between vacuum and interplanetary or interstellar medium; the latest is never a pure vacuum as present theories of gravitation assumes.
This simple experiment raises some insurmountable problems for the classical electromagnetism though.
First of all, if an electric current cannot travel into advanced vacuum, than it is pure nonsense to have some marvelous electromagnetic equation for vacuum; the Maxwell equation proves to be redundant because they cannot apply for the very specific case they were designed.
Secondly, it is very curious that an electric current refuses to pass though a gas tube below 0,0004 mm Hg. According to classical electromagnetism, an electric current is a flow of electrons emitted by cathode and advanced vacuum in the tube must insure good conditions for conduction. Of course in this case the conduction is given by the electrons emitted from cathode and there is no contribution from secondary ionization in the tube. Maybe in this case a new field of physics has to be opened for research: electron movement in a vacuum pump field! Is it really a vacuum pump stronger that electron acceleration in a 30 KV field?
When pressure in tube is increased other experimental facts are observed and these are detailed in the newsletter.
The link for this newsletter:
Dr. Chem. Sorin Cosofret