Cold fission of water and another item

[StevenCrum]

Cold fission of water is simply the chain reaction involved in breaking the water molecular bond, and chain reaction is accomplished by making the reaction occur entirely by the components given off in the process. And once you know the little it takes to start and continue the situation it is then a piece of cake.

Something that is good to know is how the process works of getting light gases of oxygen and hydrogen to bond into the greatly different, high density water molecule. That situation occurs from a high positive charge in the upper atmosphere, and an opposite negative charge in the earth shell. The situation then involves helium vents from beneath the earth and lightning streaks upward from the earth to the positive cahrge above.

As it does so its high heat and charge cause the helium molecules (4 hydrogen atoms weakly bonded together) to rip apart into hydrogen pairs. The streaking lightning also causes oxygen pairs in their molecules to rip apart. The two sets of hydrogen and oxygen are energized by the lightning and their opposite energy charges cause them to slam together in the bond type involved. When the water molecule cools the new bond remains and the water molecule exists. It also causes the water molecule to be more dense.

The point of this is that the above shows where the huge amount of energy inside the water molecules comes from. Breaking the bond releases a form of stored lightning energy.

The other thing mentioned in the title of this thread is the following.

The uncertainty principle occurs because the equipment used in trying to test sub-atomic particles has a problem in that the results are always a combination of two things. Those are a combination of a position of the particle and its momentum. Another form is mass and kinetic energy. The point is that the equipment ALWAYS give a combination amount for the two together, but never any indication at all as to the individual amounts of either one. This has led to the statement that it is impossible to know either one. The result is using the uncertainty principle to calculate the situation using probability.

The point of mentioning this is that it isn't impossible at all, and it is quite easy to provide the "mass" of every single one of the elementary "objects" when the science for doing so is known.

The point of this thread is that yes, I know both of the science areas described here, and those are also two feet away of my desk.

So, we can discuss the science or do something else, like squelch it.

[JohnW]

...helium vents from beneath the earth
Yes, that's true. Helium nuclei are created in alpha-decay of heavy elements in the Earth's crust, and will eventually enter the atmosphere.

Unless I missed something, that's the ONLY correct statement above.

[captain swoop]

how about looking after the threads u already created, never mind starting new weirdness!

[peter eldergill]

I belive one of the mods asked him to answer questions in previous threads or retract the statemnets. I believe it was Nereid

see here http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47324

Pete

[antoniseb]

how about looking after the threads you already created, never mind starting new weirdness!
Technically, this is a topic that he mentioned in his opening salvo. I could merge these threads, but I think it would be better to keep this thing separate from all the other seemingly unrelated ideas expressed earlier.

StevenCrum, I am asking you to stick to defending this post for the time being (several days at least). You've made a number of statements that seem to disagree with mainstream science, and you will probably be asked about them. Please answer them here in this thread.

[Swift]

Cold fission of water is simply the chain reaction involved in breaking the water molecular bond, and chain reaction is accomplished by making the reaction occur entirely by the components given off in the process. And once you know the little it takes to start and continue the situation it is then a piece of cake.

Something that is good to know is how the process works of getting light gases of oxygen and hydrogen to bond into the greatly different, high density water molecule. That situation occurs from a high positive charge in the upper atmosphere, and an opposite negative charge in the earth shell. The situation then involves helium vents from beneath the earth and lightning streaks upward from the earth to the positive cahrge above.

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. The reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water is energetically favored, and all it needs is a little energy or a catalyst to get the activation energy. I have personally done the reaction at room temperature with a little piece of platinum wire. You do not need lightening bolts or helium.

I'm not sure what the "cold fission of water" is, but there is no chain reaction. The decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen is endothermic and requires energy, usually either thermal or electrical.

As others have said, you need to go answer questions in the other threads you have started.

[antoniseb]

[the lightning's] high heat and charge cause the helium molecules (4 hydrogen atoms weakly bonded together) to rip apart into hydrogen pairs. The streaking lightning also causes oxygen pairs in their molecules to rip apart.

Helium isn't known to form molecules, but I take from the rest of your text that you perhaps mean Helium nuclei are made of four Hydrogen nuclei strongly bonded together (two having been converted to neutrons). As far as I know lightning does not provide enough energy density anywhere to break up an Helium nucleus, though it might well be able to split an Oxygen molecule into two ionized atoms of Oxygen. It would be possible for this Oxygen to form water if there were Hydrogen in the air. There isn't much Hydrogen in the lower atmosphere (where lightning happen), so most of the Oxygen reforms as molecular Oxygen, or as Nitrous Oxides.

[Astrowannabe]

As it does so its high heat and charge cause the helium molecules (4 hydrogen atoms weakly bonded together) to rip apart into hydrogen pairs

First of all, Helium isn't made up of 4 hydrogen atoms. 4 hydrogen atoms certainly can fuse together to form one helium atom, however the hydrogen atoms are fundamentally altered in the process, so a helium atom is quite different from 4 hydrogen atoms. If you break apart a helium atom, 4 hydrogen atoms don't fall out.

Also, the nuclei of helium isn't "weakly" bonded together by any means. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "weak", but helium nuclei have among the strongest bond of any atoms.

However, helium isn't even required to form water, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.


The streaking lightning also causes oxygen pairs in their molecules to rip apart.

That part is true.....

The point of this is that the above shows where the huge amount of energy inside the water molecules comes from. Breaking the bond releases a form of stored lightning energy

However this part is not. Breaking apart water bonds doesn't give off energy, it uses enegy. The formation of water is what gives off energy. So your actually thinking of this backwards.

The actual figure for this is 285.8 kJ/mole, meaning that for every mole of water thats formed, 285.8 kJ of energy is released in the formation. So the only way to split water apart again is to put that much energy back into that water, which means you loose energy (and quite a bit of energy actually) to split water apart.

By the way, this is also how hydrogen fuel cells work. They allow hydrogen to combine with oxygen and use the energy released to power the car.


The uncertainty principle occurs because the equipment used in trying to test sub-atomic particles has a problem in that the results are always a combination of two things. Those are a combination of a position of the particle and its momentum. Another form is mass and kinetic energy.

As far as I know, the uncertainty principal doesn't apply to mass. Anyone else know for sure?

The point of mentioning this is that it isn't impossible at all, and it is quite easy to provide the "mass" of every single one of the elementary "objects" when the science for doing so is known.

Well actually, yes your right. It is both possible and fairly easy to determine the mass of elementary particles, and the science for doing so is in fact very well known. Particle physicists do this everyday. What was the point here?

[Grand_Lunar]

By the way, this is also how hydrogen fuel cells work. They allow hydrogen to combine with oxygen and use the energy released to power the car.

Or the spacecraft, or whatever it is you want to power by the fuel cell. Cars are just a new application.

I'm wondering what the entire point of the original post was, especially given the number of other threads left unanswered by the poster.

[Gillianren]

Isn't the process described, however incorrectly, "fusion," not "fission"?

[JohnW]

Isn't the process described, however incorrectly, "fusion," not "fission"?
Hard to say. The original post is not very lucid, but seems to be describing some sort of chemical reaction, not the nuclear processes of fission and fusion. In real science, cold nuclear fusion of heavy isotopes of hydrogen in water molecules has been hypothesised but never reliably observed, but this would really be fusion of deuterium and/or tritium, not of water.

[Forskern]

I think fusion and fission is used for atomic processes. Tritium and hydrogen would fuse into helium, while uranium would fission into barium and krypton. Atoms "bond" into molecules, but what chemists call it when they split up again, I don't know :S

[Doodler]

I'll admit, I'm a LONG time out of chemistry class, but how do four hydrogen atoms become only one helium atom?

Last I checked (about a minute ago), Helium was only 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons...

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 do not make 2... Unless there's a process I'm seriously missing.

[Swift]

I finally found an example of the cold fission of water
http://www.weihenstephan.de/dvs/kraft/iceberg/pic/calve_4.jpg
:doh:

[StevenCrum]

To Peter Endegill (#4)

Concerning your thought about me answering the post or retract it, the truth is that I was fully writing every single answer in that thread UNTIL I saw a sentanece that said the complete thread had been cancelled.

It then had been deleted from the board.

So, your accusation is groundless.

[StevenCrum]

To Antoniseb (#5)

My reason for making separate threads is simply because they are not the same topic about Einstein's error about relativity, and keeping them separate makes the discussion far easier and better. The Einstein error isn't even close to being the same science as cold fission or the uncertainty principal. Einstein was involved with quantum mechanics, and was actually working against the uncertainty principle. They are two different science topics.

So, I agree about discussing this science here.

[StevenCrum]

To Swift (#6)

Concerning your platinum wire, what exactly did you do with the wire to get hydrogen and oxygen to form? The answer is that you had a current going through the wire that caused the heat situation on a small scale that I described as the huge process of lightning on a NATURAL large scale.

Your situation is that you don't understand what the platinum wire actually did.

And, your second paragragh is also wrong simply in the fact that yes, you can use ultra-sonic and other energy types to break the water molecular bond, but just because you and others don't know about the chain-reaction, no-energy type, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And, just to prove the truth of this matter, it is a fact that helium breaks the water molecular bond, and without one single bit of energy provided. Helium is also produced when two water molecules break, and is THEN the catalyst that causes further water molecules to also break.

The unknown science is that no one knows that you have to keep the helium in constant contact with the water to then be able to continue the chain-reaction.

The science involved is that a small amount of helium can be injected into a water container, and with the helium kept in contact with the water it will bond to one bond point of the oxygen atom of the water molecule. This bonding causes one of the hydrogen atoms in the helium molecule to then break away and be bonded to the oxygen. That is only half of the reaction.

The oxygen also has a second free bonding point, and where the helium is needed, and does, bond to the second open oxygen point. The doubl;e bonding on the oxygen causes the internal core of the oxgen to turn away from the location that held bonded the original hydrogen atoms to the oxygen in making water.

With the core turned, the oxygen releases the two, original hydrogens. In doing so, the ultra-high energy that the lightning added to the oxyegn core is then released. This is then the energy that is given off in the cold fission of water.

So, there are obviously those who don't know about what helium does, and the chain-reaction involved, but iot factually exists in any case. Yes, added energy can and does break the bond. That does NOT mean other science cannot also, and only means the other science is still unknown.

Test it, and get back to me after you see for yourself that it does exactly what I described.

[peter eldergill]

Are you referring to any of these threads?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47112
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47104
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47324

First of all, it wasn't my thought, it was the moderator's thought

Secondly, I reread my post and I don't see any accusations at all, so please don't suggest that I'm accusing you of anything, or try to put words in my mouth

Here is what I said:
I belive one of the mods asked him to answer questions in previous threads or retract the statemnets. I believe it was Nereid


How is that an accusation of anything?

What are you talking about a thread being deleted? I've never heard of that happening here (except for ads for porn, etc..)

Check the links above, they are all to the threads you started

Pete

[peter eldergill]

Are you referring to your thread being locked? That's a bit different than "cancelled". By that I thought you meant "deleted"

One of your threads was locked so you could discuss the ideas in the other two threads first, that is all.

Pete

PS I'm glad that you've stopped capitolising various words

[StevenCrum]

To Antoniseb (#7)

Concerning the helium molecule and what you described, the true situation is that helium is just a bonding of four hydrogen atoms, while the hydrogen molecule is two atoms. There is no real helium atom at all, and it is only a double hydrogen molecule.

With that, the hydrogen molecule is bonded together in a unique way through its only bonding point, and helium is the only other molecule that has the same unique bond formation. All higher weight atoms have a three position bonding point formation and their bonds involve the three components and charges involved in each.

Helium and hydrogens also have a three-component situation in their bonds but that three is located on the next level down in the sub-atomic bond charges. This doesn't expalin it in detail, but briefly describes the bonds.

And no, this doesn't involve nuclei changing at all, but only the external bonding between atoms to form molecules.

And, the water formation by lightning naturally is from the lightning streaking upward through helium streams coming from earth surface cracks. It has nothing to do with hydrogen in the atmosphere.

[JohnW]

To Swift (#6)
And, just to prove the truth of this matter, it is a fact that helium breaks the water molecular bond, and without one single bit of energy provided. Helium is also produced when two water molecules break, and is THEN the catalyst that causes further water molecules to also break.

The unknown science is that no one knows that you have to keep the helium in constant contact with the water to then be able to continue the chain-reaction.

The science involved is that a small amount of helium can be injected into a water container, and with the helium kept in contact with the water it will bond to one bond point of the oxygen atom of the water molecule. This bonding causes one of the hydrogen atoms in the helium molecule to then break away and be bonded to the oxygen. That is only half of the reaction.

The oxygen also has a second free bonding point, and where the helium is needed, and does, bond to the second open oxygen point. The doubl;e bonding on the oxygen causes the internal core of the oxgen to turn away from the location that held bonded the original hydrogen atoms to the oxygen in making water.

With the core turned, the oxygen releases the two, original hydrogens. In doing so, the ultra-high energy that the lightning added to the oxyegn core is then released. This is then the energy that is given off in the cold fission of water.

So, there are obviously those who don't know about what helium does, and the chain-reaction involved, but iot factually exists in any case. Yes, added energy can and does break the bond. That does NOT mean other science cannot also, and only means the other science is still unknown.

Test it, and get back to me after you see for yourself that it does exactly what I described.
Helium doesn't do any of these things. It's chemically inert, and is not involved an any reactions affecting the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule. And it certainly doesn't contain hydrogen. Are you familiar with the phrase "chemical element"?

Did you do the experiment you're discussing here? When you added helium to water, did you see anything other than bubbles of helium?

[Nereid]

To Peter Endegill (#4)

Concerning your thought about me answering the post or retract it, the truth is that I was fully writing every single answer in that thread UNTIL I saw a sentanece that said the complete thread had been cancelled.

It then had been deleted from the board.

So, your accusation is groundless.(my bold)

What is the thread which has "been deleted from the board"?

The one(s) peter eldergill refers to are all still very much visible (and only one is closed).

[Grand_Lunar]

I'll admit, I'm a LONG time out of chemistry class, but how do four hydrogen atoms become only one helium atom?

Last I checked (about a minute ago), Helium was only 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons...

1 and 1 and 1 and 1 do not make 2... Unless there's a process I'm seriously missing.


The only process I know of four hydrogen atoms making one helium atom is the proton-proton cycle, the process that occurs in stars.

[StevenCrum]

To Astrowannabe (#8)

Actually, helium is made up from four hydrogen atoms even if the common thinking is otherwise. This can be tested and figured out to be right. For now, I would suggest not assuming too greatly that some things are cast in stone.

The reason I brought it up about helium is because helium is the natural way that water is formed. By the way, this is also why rain can occur near lightning bolts, and when there are no rain clouds anywhere nearby.

As far as your "using energy" that might be the common thinking, but reality is that it takes energy to make the two atoms in water to bond. This energy is even seen in common sense in the fact that water is incredibly more dense than the individual oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The reason for the high density is because of the high heat and lightning charge causing the oxygen nucleus to have far greater magnetic attraction on its orbiting electrons and proton. (And, yes, a positron is actually a proton in orbit) So, the FUSION guys are those who are thinking backwards, and fusion is impossible to get more energy out than put in. The true energy situation is fission and energy coming out from the energy required for bondings.

By the way, nuclear explosions are also the full situation of bonding energy of the nucleis being released and core objects exploding outward to spilt other cores. The exploding objects also slip sub-atomic cores, so there is a whole lot of bonds broken and energy coming out, but it is all completely energy coming out equalling energy put in the make the core parts bond together.

As far as the uncertainty principle and mass, the situation is that if they have the mass of the objects then they have everything they would need for their point location and momentum. Mass solves it all.

[StevenCrum]

To Gillianren (#10)

The fusion versus fission is exactly the situation involved. Fusion is impossible to get more energy out than put in, and fission is simply the release of stored bond energy inside atom nuclei and molecular bonds. There is also the kinetic energy that gets rammed into foundational sub-atomic components, and taht likley comes out in nuclear explosions as well. But, all of it is still energy going into the atom cores and molecular bonds being made to come out after bonds are broken.

[StevenCrum]

To Doodler (#13)

First of all, a neutron is one proton and one electron magneticvally bonded together, and there is no single neutron particle. Helium is then actually 4 protons in its core, two electrons in the core, and two electrons in orbit. A hydrogen atom has one proton in the core and one orbiting. Four hydrogen atoms bonded together also have the same total as the real helium situation.

I don't know why the original scientists don't know this but the above is reality.

[StevenCrum]

To Peter Endergill (#18)

No, I wasn't referring to either of the first two threads, and the third one doesn't link anywhere, so it might be the one where I was writing and the thread got cancelled. So, I don't understand which answer location you are refrring to either.

But, you required that I answer or I retract the statements. As far as retracting, an answer or not isn't required for truth to exist. So, if I fail to answer that doesn't relate to whether a statement is true or not. In this case, the statements are true and a retraction is then fully wrong as far as truth in science. In any case, even if the truth isn't known to you doesn't equal wrong either. It just means there are those who don't yet know.

On the situation of a possibility of some errors in my statements that isn't an issue either because this entire borad section is all about beyond the mainstream, and is then completely theory-related anyway. And, theories are stated plenty without factual proofs. That is entirely what the uncertainty principle is all about - a theory that is certainly a shaky one at best. Actually, that one is still printed, and is actually a fully wrong one. So, retractions aren't really appropriate in my writing at all. As is soon to be fully proven also.

[StevenCrum]

To Peter Endergill (#19)

I was writing along and there was a message at the top of the page that said the thread had been cancelled. It was then also locked, and when going to the board it was also gone. So, what does that mean? It was cancelled.

[StevenCrum]

To John W (#21)

Yes, I am familiar with the phrase "chemical element", and I factually know how every single element in the periodid table got formed in the beginning of our planet, and everywhere else. And, I know all of the energies and forces that are involved in the making of all of those elements.

In reality it isn't me that doesn't understand how the helium molecule exists, and the situation is the original scientists didn't have the equipment to test it correctly and everyone is just assuming the original is correct, or who knows what else is involved. In the end, they don't know that helium is just four hydrogen atoms bonded together as I have described, and can describe a whole lot more in deep detail.

As for the testing, the testing can easily be done and the results seen to prove the truth involved. So, do the test and you can see for yourself. And yes, I have seen a version of the test.

[StevenCrum]

To Nereid (#22)

The thread was the one about the continuing operation of the atom. And, I noticed today that that thread had been somehow returned to the board. But, the day I originally wrote it, the thread lasted about fifteen minutes and got zapped.

[Van Rijn]

To Peter Endergill (#19)

I was writing along and there was a message at the top of the page that said the thread had been cancelled.


I have no idea of what you mean by "cancelling" a thread. Did you cancel or back out of a post?


It was then also locked, and when going to the board it was also gone. So, what does that mean? It was cancelled.

What is the name of this thread? I recall you going off in an apparent huff, leaving a number of questions unanswered in existing threads, then coming back and starting a new thread. That thread was locked. You still haven't answered the questions in the other threads.

[StevenCrum]

To Grand Lunar (#23)

By the way, your star thing is very interesting, and the real situation with star energy release in their shell gas is as follows.

First of all, the main gas in star atmopsheres is methane gas, and believe it ot not, the four hydrogens of methane are also broken from their bonds to the central carbon by helium. This is another place where hydrogens released from methan molecules is then bonded together into the helium type of molecule, and the helium then bonds to free bond points on the carbon atom, and the four hydrogens of methane are continually released. This is also a chain reaction that produces as much helium as it uses. And, the methane bonding energy is given off each time. The process is a controlled molecular fission, and is all about the molecular bonding of methane.

By the way, after the hydrogens are released from the carbon atoms, the carbons are then pulled magnetically into the star core area. That carbon is then fused into a glassy from that makes a huge diamond mirror around the entire core. This then causes a huge amount of reflected radiation going outward also from the star cores.

So yes, it is involved in stars. By the way, carbon has three bond locations, and for methane all four hydrogen atoms are located only at one bond point. That point is the opne that is highly associated with heat and heat that is fully involved with the creation of methane and all hydrocarbons. When helium attaches to one of the other carbon bond points, the hydrogens are released just like the water molecule does.

So, that was a truly good example and point.

[StevenCrum]

To Va Rijn (#31)

So, we are writing in a tread and all of a sudden it gets blocked because I haven't gotten to answering another thread. And, without any explanation as to what is going on or why.

Interesting.

[StevenCrum]

By the way, I have a clock beeping at me and indicating that it is the time I have to leave here. I have to go and that means EXAVTLY THAT and not that I am leaving for any other reasons like failing to answer other thread posts.

I just have to go now.

[Van Rijn]

To Va Rijn (#31)

So, we are writing in a tread and all of a sudden it gets blocked because I haven't gotten to answering another thread. And, without any explanation as to what is going on or why.

Interesting.

You mean like this explanation (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=833410&postcount=13)? Seemed pretty clear to me.

And I was one of the people still waiting for an answer.

[Astrowannabe]

To SteveCrum:

Actually, helium is made up from four hydrogen atoms even if the common thinking is otherwise. This can be tested and figured out to be right. For now, I would suggest not assuming too greatly that some things are cast in stone.

Well, the common thinking is otherwise, and it has a mountain of evidence to support it. It has been tested repeatedly for decades, and what I told you is what the evidence supports. Since YOU are the one who is claiming otherwise, the burden of proof falls on to YOU. Until you can provide convincing evidence with experimental backing, then this conversation will assume that conventional science is correct.

As far as your "using energy" that might be the common thinking, but reality is that it takes energy to make the two atoms in water to bond.

This isn't so much common thinking as proven fact. They can prove this to you in high school chemistry. Combine hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, and a small catalyst of energy and water will form out of thin air. In addition, a huge amount of heat will be liberated which is far greater the the energy of the catalyst.

If you try doing it the other way (breaking apart water), you have to add in a huge amount of energy into the water (this is called electrolosis and is performed in industies on a daily basis) and you get NO energy out. THAT is proven science. Disagree? Then perform and experiment and prove all of us wrong. But until you do, we will all once again believe what conventional science has already shown us. Once again you need to prove your claims or they are pointless.


One last point that kind of relates to all your claims you have made so far. I can claim that clouds are green, but that doesn't mean I'm right. You have to support your claims somehow, and you have to do it with more then just thought experiments.

You have to do some kind of testing, or show us the results of someone else who has already done those tests. Key word there being SHOW US. Post a link somewhere.

[Van Rijn]

First of all, the main gas in star atmopsheres is methane gas, and believe it ot not, the four hydrogens of methane are also broken from their bonds to the central carbon by helium.


Well, no, I don't believe it. First, how would you have significant methane in the atmospheres of all but the coolest stars? And you can just forget it at depth. Also, the evidence is that stars on the main sequence are mostly hydrogen. If you are going to argue otherwise, you will have to present your evidence.

Finally, what does helium have to do with methane?


By the way, after the hydrogens are released from the carbon atoms, the carbons are then pulled magnetically into the star core area. That carbon is then fused into a glassy from that makes a huge diamond mirror around the entire core. This then causes a huge amount of reflected radiation going outward also from the star cores.


As with your other threads, it seems you are just shotgunning one assertion after another. Would you please slow down? All you are doing is raising more questions, the obvious one being, "WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?"

[Doodler]

To Doodler (#13)

First of all, a neutron is one proton and one electron magneticvally bonded together, and there is no single neutron particle. Helium is then actually 4 protons in its core, two electrons in the core, and two electrons in orbit. A hydrogen atom has one proton in the core and one orbiting. Four hydrogen atoms bonded together also have the same total as the real helium situation.

I don't know why the original scientists don't know this but the above is reality.

Ehm, like heck they are. They're each a composite of three quarks. IIRC, a proton is two Up quarks, one Down quark, and a neutron is two Down, one Up.

[captain swoop]

he is making it up 'off the cuff' as it were. I find it quite amusing watching everyone scamper around after him.

[Nowhere Man]

Pass the popcorn, Cap'n. Steven certainly gives the appearance of knowing nothing about chemistry. And physics. And biology. We have another pig-wrestle here.

Fred

[Gillianren]

You know that delighted, giddy feeling I get when I discover that there's someone who knows less about physics or whatever than I? It's back.

[Van Rijn]

he is making it up 'off the cuff' as it were. I find it quite amusing watching everyone scamper around after him.

Whether he is making things up "off the cuff" or not, he is obligated to answer pertinent questions about his ATM assertions.

[Grand_Lunar]

I don't know if you follow astronomical news that much StevenCrum, but the only stars that contain methene tend to be brown dwarves.

Temperatures are too high to allow for chemical reactions in normal stars (those that produce energy from the proton-proton cycle).
You might recall that in the state of matter known as plasma, which is what you find in stars that are still active, electrons no longer orbit the nucleus, but roam free. In that state, chemical bonds cannot exist, therefore something like methane isn't found.

The process you mention for carbon is totally incorrect.
In fact, the only stars that I know of that produce carbon are the so-called Carbon stars, a type of red giant that produces a higher ratio of carbon to oxygen, during it's advanced fusion processes. I believe it's part of the triple-alpha process, but I may be wrong.

Anyway, the carbon will also be in a state of plasma, given that it is tens of millions of degrees in the core of the star, and will sink to the center, not because of magnetism, but because of it's higher density. Of course, in carbon stars, a good deal may also be vented out, forming a dust cloud around it that is detectable.

Incidently, you don't need a reflective surface in the core to radiate the energy any more than you would with a hydrogen bomb (the closest we reproduce fusion).

If you don't mind my asking, what was your source of data concerning the subject at hand in this thread and for the process of carbon in stars?

[Swift]

<snip>
Concerning your platinum wire, what exactly did you do with the wire to get hydrogen and oxygen to form? The answer is that you had a current going through the wire that caused the heat situation on a small scale that I described as the huge process of lightning on a NATURAL large scale.

Your situation is that you don't understand what the platinum wire actually did.
You have that absolutely backwards from what I said. The platinum wire catalyzes the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water, not the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no electricity involved in the first reaction. Lots of electricity is involved in the second. I know this because I have actually done these reactions.


And, your second paragragh is also wrong simply in the fact that yes, you can use ultra-sonic and other energy types to break the water molecular bond, but just because you and others don't know about the chain-reaction, no-energy type, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Then you must demonstrate your "no-energy type chain reaction".

I have actually bubbled helium through water (to make an water-vapor saturated inert gas mixture) and no chain-reaction creation of hydrogen and oxgyen happened. You must explain the details of your procedure for this.

[Maksutov]

how about looking after the threads u already created, never mind starting new weirdness!And answering the questions submitted to you that remain unanswered.

[antoniseb]

I'm closing this thread, so that StevenCrum can focus all of his attention here on the 1905 Einstein paper.