Ground breaking work of Frank Znidarsic (Cold Fusion & Anti-gravity explained)

[tomd000]

I am going through the videos and the paper "quantum cold case mysteries resolved". On page 15 of this paper there is a calculation of the spring constant - k. Two protons inside a nucleus are modeled in terms of a spring using Hooke's Law - k=Fmax/Xmax. Fmax is given as 29.053N which is the maximum electrostatic force experienced by 2 protons being pushed together. This occurs at the coulomb barrier - 1.409fm.
My question is:- Is this force (29.053N) the same if the proton is inside the nucleus and external to the nucleus?
I am somewhat confused because the displacement used in the equation (Xmax) is twice the fermi spacing (what is that?) rather than 2*1.409fm (which is where Fmax was calculated).

[gravityblock]

I am going through the videos and the paper "quantum cold case mysteries resolved". On page 15 of this paper there is a calculation of the spring constant - k. Two protons inside a nucleus are modeled in terms of a spring using Hooke's Law - k=Fmax/Xmax. Fmax is given as 29.053N which is the maximum electrostatic force experienced by 2 protons being pushed together. This occurs at the coulomb barrier - 1.409fm.
My question is:- Is this force (29.053N) the same if the proton is inside the nucleus and external to the nucleus?
I am somewhat confused because the displacement used in the equation (Xmax) is twice the fermi spacing (what is that?) rather than 2*1.409fm (which is where Fmax was calculated).

Tomd000, I'll let Znidarsic answer those questions, for he can answer them much better than I can.  However, I would like to point out for those who may be questioning the modeling of this as a spring, that the harmonic oscillator is an important model in physics for a simple exact solution.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator ) & ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator )

The quantum harmonic oscillator is the quantum mechanical analog of the classical harmonic oscillator. Because an arbitrary potential can be approximated as a harmonic potential at the vicinity of a stable equilibrium point, it is one of the most important model systems in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it is one of the few quantum mechanical systems for which a simple exact solution is known.

GB

[lanenal]

The elastic constant is constant at a certain displacement.  It varies inversley with displacement.  Rubber bands do this also, they get softer as they are stretched, thus their "elastic constant" is dependent upon their position.  Take a balloon.  It is hard to blow when it is deflated.  Its elastic constant is stiff.  As the balloon is inflated it is easier to put air into it.  Its elastic constant decreases with its inflation.  The same sort of thing happens with electron.  I hope this helps.

Frank Z

Yes, thank you for this analogy, it is easy enough to understand. But then why in the end of the same paper, a numerical constant value is given for K_{-e}?

lanenal

[spinn_MP]

The elastic constant is constant at a certain displacement.  It varies inversley with displacement.  Rubber bands do this also, they get softer as they are stretched, thus their "elastic constant" is dependent upon their position.  Take a balloon.  It is hard to blow when it is deflated.  Its elastic constant is stiff.  As the balloon is inflated it is easier to put air into it.  Its elastic constant decreases with its inflation.  The same sort of thing happens with electron.  I hope this helps.

Frank Z

Ok, what is it? Does "elastic constant" changes, or not?

The balloon analogy is not suitable.
Inflating a balloon is a well understood subject, where the relations of volume, pressure, surface area and a stretching constant are not linked linearly.

A constant should be a constant, don't you think? At least under defined conditions.
Cheers!

[gravityblock]

It's a contant at a certain displacement.  If the displacement changes, then the constant also changes.  If the displacement doesn't change, then it remains a constant according to that displacement.  This is no different than "c", which refers to a constant and is related to the speed of light.  The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum, but if you change the medium then the speed of light also changes, thus "c" changes.......so one could argue that "c" isn't a contant. The "elastic contant" and "c" are both terms which have been defined by the physics establishment.  If you don't like the definitions or the terms, then complain to the ones who defined them or chose the terms to describe them, and not to the ones who use them.  It appears there are those who want to nitpick at certain terms or definitions.  Nitpick all you want, but it doesn't change anything.  Call it a variable, a variable constant, a constant at a certain displacement, or whatever you like, but it will still give you the correct result if used properly.

GB