Jones Beene wrote:
Not sure what the answer to Stephen's observation is...
One simple answer is, "Stephen is wrong".
Slipped a cog there -- if transmission lines run at 60 Hz (which I
/think/ they do), and if we can model that rather low frequency, locally
at least, as "varying DC" (which I /think/ we can), then the potential
of the wires relative to ground runs something like +/- a million volts
over the course of one cycle.
If the ground is "grounded" then the potential of subsurface soil will
stick close to zero, but I don't know how well "grounded" the ground
typically is.
The E field near the wires, assuming a "varying DC" model, has a
component parallel to the wires and proportional to the current and
resistance of the wires. For superconducting wires that would be zero.
The parallel E field is what drives the current down the wires against
their resistance; it "slops over" outside the wires (there's no abrupt
dislocation in the parallel component of the E field at the surface of
the wire -- curl(E) is roughly zero there).
Most likely, however, that component is swamped by the component which
is perpendicular to the wires, which comes from the fact that the whole
wire is being charged and discharged, with peak charge being around +/-
a megavolt relative to ground. (Viewed globally, the charge/discharge
waves move along the wire, which is acting as a transmission line. But
the "global" view covers hundreds of miles or more. The wavelength is
on the order of a few thousand kilometers; from the point of view of
someone standing under the wires, it appears that the entire wire is
charging and discharging evenly along its length.)
The E field probably falls off as 1/r, r=distance to wire, but I haven't
checked that -- and in any case I'm sure the falloff changes radically
at the soil surface.
except that
there is an apparent proximity effect of some kind to high voltage.
... however it looks like Robin's initial observation wrt power density
available, was right-on ... as apparently, in reviewing the math, I had
multiplied the flux volume (in cm^3) by the speed-of-light denominated
column, instead of reverting to the surface area, so I was high by a
factor of 100. There are quite a few zeros to deal with in this kind of
ball-park conversion, but it looks like neutrino oscillation is not
going to give one much net energy unless it can trigger a nuclear decay.
Jones
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Frederick Sparber has written about the curious phenomenon of
enhanced radioactivity (beta decay mostly):
The Barker patent (US 5,076,971 ) and other's claim that an enhanced
change in the decay rate of radioisopes in minerals occurs when they
are kept inside a chamber with a high potential for an extended
period (50 kv such as a Van De Graaff Sphere).
If true, then this would be an(other) example of a situation where the
"A" field could be detected directly, rather than through the "B" or
"E" fields.
The potential is the timelike component of the "A" field, but doesn't
occur in "B" or "E".
Roy Hammack has exhaustively documented the modification of
radioisotope decay rates of minerals found in soils under high
voltage power lines. This is most important and convincing to the
argument that HV has the ability to somehow alter beta decay.
It would seem to show something perhaps related, but still, it seems
rather different from what was mentioned above.
Unless I'm mistaken, the /potential/ of transmission lines stays
pretty close to 0. There's going to be an oscillating E and B field
near them, and E and B are both going to be pretty strong underneath
the wires, but I would not expect to see much variation in the
/potential/ on the ground under the wires.
http://staff.jccc.net/rhammack/section01.pdf
Fred cites the neutrino flux as ~ 3.5 Billion/cm^2 Sec^-1 and this
Solar Neutrino Flux as being the culprit for the enhanced decay rate-
when that flux is combined with a strong electric field, resulting in
the increase or catalysis of the "oscillation rate" of the neutrino
interaction cross-section.
A few weeks ago, Robin looked at neutrinos (as a potential earthly
power source) from a different angle. He said: "Neutrino flux is an
unlikely candidate, because the power density is only 45 W / m2 (tops)."
He based this not on the (supposed) flux rate, which Fred mentions,
but on the following assumptions:
1) Most neutrinos are the result of the fusion reactions in stars.
2) Our Sun far outshines all the rest of the Universe put together.
1 & 2 => The Sun is the primary source of neutrinos on Earth.
[nobody can disagree strongly with that]
3) The major neutrino producing reaction in the Sun (by a large
margin) is the P-P reaction.
[yes, but the reverse reaction also produces neutrinos]
P + P -> D(nucleus) + positron + neutrino + 0.420 MeV => of which, at
most, 0.420 MeV is carried by the neutrino, usually less.
(Two of these reactions are needed to produce the Deuterium for 1 He4.)
4) The total energy resulting from the production of He4 from 4
protons is 26.73 MeV. => The proportion thereof that is carried by
neutrinos is at most 2 x 0.420 / 26.73 = 3.1%.
5) Of the energy arriving at the Earth from the Sun, at most 3.1% is
carried by neutrinos. The Solar irradiance is 1300 W/m2 above the
atmosphere, so the maximum for neutrinos is 3.1% thereof = 40.8 W / m2.
OK my question is how does this approach reconcile with Fred's ~ 3.5
Billion/cm^2 Sec^ -1 Solar Neutrino Flux (which is a widely published
rate)?
Robin's POV is a completely different way of looking at it, but is it
accurate? It is accurate only if reaction 3) above occurs only twice
(or a few times) per each 4He produced.
IOW although this is indeed a reaction that produces neutrinos, the
reverse reaction also produces neutrinos, as well as other beta
decays in the solar core; but is it the main reaction in the sense
that it only happens a few times prior to each helium fusion event?
Also in the broader sense, I do not think that even the mainstream of
cosmology has considered how many reactions are required, or that
after any individual P + P -> D(nucleus) is created, then in a
certain percentage of these initial reactions, when exposed to the
intense gamma radiation in the solar environment - the initial
reaction will actually be forced into rapid decay before the two D
can line up to form He, and that decay also frees a neutrino.
How many times must reaction 3) be accomplished before the two D
actually fuse into He in reaction 4)? That is not evident from a
quick googling of the web- does anyone know? Do you see how this
could reconcile the two POVs- but is this 'recidivism rate' so to
speak, already accounted for in the standard model?
There could be this huge see-saw going on which results in the ~ 3.5
Billion/cm^2 Sec^ -1 Solar Neutrino Flux, which is a volume instead
of a surface area....
... and the presumed flux is moving at lightspeed, which of course,
could result in an effective "column" of neutrinos which in each
second extends out for 300,000 kilometers, ergo - if the electron
anti-neutrino has the mass energy of 3.4 eV then it all works out to
about 5 kilowatt/seconds per m^2, assuming complete conversion. The
eV is a unity of mass-energy so the rate is superfluous for
comparison. Anyway this (and subject to math errors) is about 100
times more than Robin's assessment, coming from the other POV and
other assumptions.
If it takes 100 of reaction 3) above to result in every D fusion and
to then give the one 4He, which is the end result of the solar
furnace, then the neutrino rate is up to what the published rate on
earth has (apparently) been measured to be.
Not sure that this has been verbalized very well... not to mention,
there are numerous conflicting but 'official' assessments of this
subject are to be found on various web sites.
Jones
