More About Reversing B Radioactivity

Did you know? Recent research seems to show that the solar radiation is linked to neutrino flux? Yes! About 3% more neutrinos reach the Earth before a CME. This has been unknown in cause. They reach at night so this is how they were known to be neutrinos since they hit the sensors by going through the Earth, all the other radiation is stopped by the Earth, since neutrinos are so radiant, if you look at the sun at night, almost the same trillion neutrinos go through you eye as when you look up in the light hours.

This about change in neutrinos has been believed a good advance warning defence for CME events that can cause serious problems and the warning if achieved could save much, click here  for my site about CME defence.

As in the method of reducing radioactivity on this site I envision, the change seen in the machines may fit in the same frame of what is known. here's my possible way to fit this in well with the method of reversing B radioactivity;

The neutrino is released and moves our way.

The sensors have the elements that are somewhat radioactive, most of the neutrinos move past it.  This is because time reversed beta radioactivity needs both electrons and the neutron and the heavy radioactive elements to occur. The electrons are zooming around the metal. Remember a wire with most of the electricity in light? A considerable fraction is also loose electrons. Sometimes some of the electrons will hit just right, and the neutrino is nearby. The reaction converts the proton to a neutron of the heavy atom, and neutrons don't attract neutrons, out they go and the machines senses the change.

This may be made quantitative, by consideration of the number of electrons in the metal, the cross section of the neutrinos with time, and the angle of the NS of the atoms since if SN the electron will be more like a positron and the reaction is changed due to the quantum numbers.

  If this is confirmed quantitatively, it would perhaps also fit and improve the method of reducing the radioactivity.



REDUCING RADIOACTIVITY BY BINDING AND USING A RADIANT BEAM?

One method of reducing radioactivity that has recently been devised in Germany is to bind radioactive atoms in a cooling  shell of other atoms; the high energy particles hit the target and this makes them radiate by implosion, so the radioactivity is 100 times faster.

I would think the problem here is about the radiance of the particles, essentially the reaction seems like short range reversed fusion, like with laser fusion. This is how the process with the machine was discovered. Click here.

Laser fusion is unstable, but the method of my site would not have the unstable reaction like fusion, the targets are stationary, and there is no high energy beam used. The radioactive atoms would be cooled and the electrons own field would implode mostly cancelling the unstable entropy of the radiation of the binding method.

So as far I can see, my method seems better than the German method where efficiency is concerned. Even so I envision using the methods in combination, to speed up both or e.g. to clean more stubborn types of radioactivity, after all we call a radioactive spill a value to clean.

Radioactivity is a big problem for the world. A good method of reducing the radioactivity may help us survive war and accidents. A possible solution I saw on The Ezine Articles site by Lance Winslow (Future Concepts) is how radioactivity would be reduced in a radioactive piece of mass by an external hot radiant beam into a radioactive mass and make it radiate out more by energising the hot mass. This radiant energy would then be used as a power source such as for heating and cooling. Burning the U237 would convert it embers, with no more radioactive heat. The power would be collected fast and since it's easier to use and collect this power this would save us from having to wait millions of years. I wouldn't have to set my watch in other months!

.

The Weak force is the force that powers radioactivity. It was unified with the general theory of electricity in the ElectroWeak theory in the 60's. The Electroweak theory says the force of Electricity and the Weak Force are unified with two charges, plus and minus. A flow of charge between them like light for electricity controls all of the force. The above about using a radiating beam is a method of making a more rapid radioactivity and collecting the radiation fast. After all, a woman seen on TV in the AM says she has a radiant CBS personality! If the Weak Force has two opposite charges that can cancel like the + and - electric charges when one charge is unbound and causing the radioactivity, perhaps a method of binding the Weak Force so the radioactivity is stopped by a Weak Force Beam of the opposite charge may be of value. An "active cancelling" shield via a radioactive beam like this may make the atomic planes or other such inventions more possible by reducing the amount of lead shielding necessary. They've already found a way to reduce the half life of the radiation by using "Cascading" radioactivity of a lighter sort than Uranium, however there would still be radioactivity for quite a while if this type of atomic plane crashed, and this type of cancelling would make it safer yet. So science of this sort may be of value to us.
.Lerner's focus fusion machine, or my atomic motor may be of worth to make the radiant beam to cancel the charge. Focus fusion uses the electric field to make hadrons like protons and neutrons implode, causing fusion by exact implosion. So actually fusion science in perhaps 20 years may be used to stop the radioactivity caused by fission.

..

.

Active Cancellation And B Radioactivity

Beta decay is a common motif of subatomic physics. When a proton is converted to a neutron when the proton emits a positron and a neutrino. The overall electric charge remains the same. (In atomic physics it's known there's an adjustment of the electric field of the atom. The neutron tries to reconvert to a proton by electrical adjustment but this can take anywhere from a fraction of a second to days, so this might be achieved by changing the wavelength of the input field and so on faster than the time it would take for the adjustment to take place.) If you have a proton and neutron which attract due to opposite isospin charges and you reverse this process for the proton, it's possible protons could be converted to neutrons in radioactive nuclei. By injecting one electron and a neutrino, this would make what was a proton and a neutron into two neutrons, so they would be much easier to remove from the ersatz radiant nucleus, and would then move away from the nucleus by way of (linear) centrifugal force since the like charge of both neutrons (strong) charge would not be a binding force. To combine the outside electron with the nuclear proton, the opposite N S and N S poles of the electron and the atomic and nuclear fields would implode when aligned with the atomic protons, converting them to neutrons, this entire process is the time reversed process of beta decay. Beta or not Beta, time rewind, some say, is the solution in much of physics! (The electrons with more wavelength than the proton would be focused to fit with a lense into the funnel of the magnetic field of the proton, under the influence of an external field like that used in MRI.) The same is possible but mostly unviable with positrons to make more protons out of neutrons.

.

The strong force lines would be cut just by the of addition of electrons, and this would be of worth, reducing radioactivity because nuclei with fewer protons or neutrons are more stable. We would just have to wait a few hours for the uranium to convert to hydrogen, not millions of years and we would have hydrogen and and electric power left over. Using the electrons to cut the lines of the strong force could be useful to reduce the proliferation of other types of hazardous materials. They may be blessed out west via no waste in their water otherwise till a safer method is found to solve this, and waste from reactors and other radioactivity will continue to pile up. And by reducing the protons to the right number from the uranium it could even realize the alchemists age old dream of changing base metals to gold economically, or this motif might be used to convert chemical waste to better compounds. And by reducing radioactivity it would make atomic mining feasable.

.

Merely cutting the lines of force instead of compression and or pulling it till it snaps with resilience (till it gives way with too much expansion to be so stable) would mean the outward neutrons would be safer and lower energy. While fusion has this snapback of the field plus inertia, the motif of cutting the line of force would have just inertia mostly, with lower energy so this would cause lower chance of fission than more conventional motifs, and fusion takes more energy of the neutrons so this would be of lower probability than the already low probability of fission by this type of science. We already have lower energy neutrons and they're considered safe.
.

This couldn't be used for other purposes like a radiation shield over a city because it would only be for short range worth; without a field to align the incoming electron with the N or S of the radiant atom it wouldn't be able to combine in to cancel out the proton because of the outer electric field almost all atoms (the main type of matter) has. (In the country, a field would make them a brew if cultivation was a lot of booze!) Like magnetism, with the air having more heat, the random motion of the magnetic fields by Curie's law moderates magnetism at higher temperatures. Even if the atoms could be aligned with a super strong magnetic field above an area of land like a city (which would not much better than the problem) the electrons would be scattered by the intervening atoms, so even when a splurge to Honalulu saves on the heating, the probability they would hit just so would be not worth the effort on building the machine just for an urban shield of this type. When you have an atom in the air, the only way the incoming electron could combine with a proton would be via its small wavelength (high energy) with the magnetic field of opposite polarity of the atom so it would hit just right to implode well, and a combination of both of these events would be uncommon. Air also has not much charge to align with the field.

.

..It may seem that the only way protons and electrons can be combined like this is by super pressure like in massive stars where the pressure is high, but it may be relatively easy to achieve in some limited situations. Many combinations are tried by the dense massive star so it finally hits the one that combines well, somewhat like a computer that solves a code by using a large number of combinations. This idea of using electrons of reversed magnetic attraction N S to the N S of the atomic field to reach the proton of the nucleus would be like knowing the combination ahead of time without all the number crunching.

.

After the electrons convert the protons to neutrons and then filtered out the neutrons from the uranium, you have all the neutrons.. These isolated neutrons will also then decay, Isn't this just more radioactivity?" you may ask . A simple way is to put the neutrons in a reflective box or a box with sides made of standing wave of laser light that would let the neutrons be supported at the base between the stasis of their weight and the atoms of the box. While the radioactivity would indeed be present (I like to listen to a radio in a silver and gold wave at christmas, hint, hint if you're rich!) it would be the same B radioactive decay of the neutrons from the atoms to a electron and with the protons, these would combine if held in a container to make hydrogen. The binding of the protons with the electrons may be achieved just by shaking it up a bit.

..

It might seem using B radioactivity wouldn’t be of worth if the electrons would have trouble finding the right spot where the magnetic pole of the nucleus was.. Since a machine like strong MRI would align the atoms well, if MRI aligns the nuclei even if the outside electrons of each would shield, this means there are reliable ways to interact with the nuclear polarity from outside even if the shielding electrons of each atom would seem to stop the electron of the B radioactivity (Mazola rounds me out) so even with the shield of the electrons, the electron of the beam could either find it’s own way and a tunneling beam might be used, or since it’s well known that at high energy a particle with no charge like light behaves like a heavy particle, we might be able to find the right energy of the beam to not interact much with the outer electrons while gaining power enough inside the heavy atoms to find the right compression to convert to an electron there under the higher density of the field, and thus reverse the radioactivity because we know where the inner field of life is, FM as seen on fitness jog zooms when she zips by! We would know where the poles of the inner realms of the atoms because they align by tunneling right after the MRI, and a low energy beam at the speed of light at the right wavelength would sense where the outermost atoms and the S or N pole that would yield the neutrons would be and would remove the outer neutrons layer by layer even if at high speed, saving more energy of the beams. Since half of the neutrons would be flung outward and half inward by the spin of the nuclei, this would reduce short term efficiency by 50% but when the layers were removed ever deeper, the entire mass of atoms in a while might eventually be converted to much more energy in than out a bit later. The ingoing protons from this process would be lower energy than like in fusion so they would bind without causing much upset to then be removed (may help mothers burp with bromo seltzer the Band That Rocks With Mamma, Fizzes The World..) We may not see much of this process of reversed B radioactivity in usual atoms like the air because the electron would have to line up with the atoms just so without the machine and this is not probable. Even so there may be a certain low probability of this happening, and research with the radioactivity of the air may be a good way to test see if this is of more worth. Of course we can't always predict subatomic physics just by thinking about math, so this line of research with a huge payoff may be worth more research even if the predicted rate around us is not seen for some reason, this might be much cheaper than a 10 billion dollar machine. Even if this process may be a bit complex, it may be far simpler and cheaper than other machines other than the problem of lepton number, which is conserved. The best option may be to merely aim the machine toward the sun, it radiates out about 1/5th of its energy in the form of neutrinos, about a billion per second through your lenses even when you wear your shades, talk about power for geometerologists! Here are some other possible ways we might solve this..

...

.

One way to create shielding e.g. for computer monitors may be using a laser or maser to slow down the incoming radiant heavy particles from the monitor and waiting awhile with the particles in a holding zone and then just combining the end products of the decay, protons and electrons, to make hydrogen. Using a way like this to reduce computer radiation from lead shielding in monitors may solve this problem for the environment which will otherwise build up over time and contaminate our food and water. If heavier nucleii are in the radiation these could be filtered out by making the holding zone a centrifuge or by using their electric field and these would then be dissolved by reversing the B radioactivity in a second step and reducing the heavier nucleii to hydrogen.

.

The machine would be simple to operate, and would take just a few minutes to make a lot of hydrogen (protons and electrons from just a wire and the muons) out of a pound of e.g. U 238, and in the hydrogen economy this could be a source of extra energy from uranium. Waiting a few minutes for rich, clean hydrogen from radioactivity would be a lot easier than waiting millions of years, and hot dish while you save.

.

.

PASSIVE SHIELDING

...

Protons may make a good passive lightweight shield if held in a sheet by the opposite magnetic poles of each proton in a wire that has an outer tubular field of electrons, a sort of continuous atom with the protons in a strong link at the center, so the proton wire is super strong for many uses. It would be a thin plate that would be a more efficient shield. If you have a shield of just lead the high energy particles go through, all the particles have to line up by luck to stop all of them. If you have a robo mower and it mows at random, it takes a lot mower time to mow the lawn, because it's inefficient, so this type of shield may be reduced in weight and size because the proton wires would shield more of the room continuously with the same amount of proton mass. Atoms take up a lot of room, but proton or neutron wires may be much more dense, so they could be more efficient. A neucleus in conventional lead shielding is a sphere but a shield just of proton and neutron wires would be a plane one proton and one neutron in depth so it would be much thinner with the same amount of shield reducing weight by 75% or more. Because the neutron has an internal electric field (plus and minus make 0) wires of this material also might be bound by the somewhat longer range electric and nearer strong force inside the protons or neutrons. Something makes particles like protons and neutrons not have absolute implosion so at some level as the longer strong force charges of protons and like neutrons in e,g. atomic physics implode they would seem to balance between the attractive and the short range contact force like the Weak Force charge. If the implosive force is strong like the strong force in usual atomic reactions it's more probable to create instability by the reaction causing expansion out under pressure, like the sun's gravity causes radiation outward by the implosion of the mass, but like protons and like neutrons of these types of solids would have not much strong attraction because the like strong charges in like protons and like neutrons don't attract as much. (Or the strong poles might be reversed relative to the magnetic poles so the magnetic poles would attract in general until they reach the strong somewhat expansive force at reduced distance, the balance between them may be stable, making a solid of both strong cohesion and compression.) Because the magnetic field lines of the strong force would compress and strengthen the magnetic field lines this may make it stronger in tension than any other electromagnetically bound solid, and like nanotubes because the field lines lining up might conduct electricity except with more power and reduced power loss because the lines are strong. Strong force particles neither attract or repel, compression further inward would reach a more solid footing as it must to not implode infinitely. If the shielding were cheap (see hadron solid for more about super dense solids) lead shielding could be replaced with shields made of proton and neutron wires in many machines.

..

For More Physics Click Here for My Physics Links Pg.

MAIN SITE And MORE...

..

This Site Is IP Protected

& By The Author...

..

Edward L Moses and The Fusion Machine He Hopes to Build ..The above (about reversing beta radioactivity to lighten up heavy particles by injecting electrons to convert heavy particles to lighter less radioactive clean hydrogen) seems like a plan by Edward I..Moses of the NIF. Moses' plan was to bombard heavy atoms of atomic reactors with neutrons to both make lighter atoms and also to make lots of energy. Believe it or not 95 percent of the uranium of power of reactors is unused, waste uranium (as in this month's issue of Scientific American Feb 2010, the article I got these comments from and base my own improvements here for you, the roof's got moss gathering no gold stones or starstones of the stellerator yet!). Edward C. Morse a professor of nuclear engineering at The University of CA Berkeley says the problem with using neutron pellets of the fuel have to be exactly round and extremely well machined to make them implode inward just right. Any small imperfection on these bits of power thus makes the cost the actualy making them a million dollars apiece, according to others than Moses who make the pellets in their own machines like The Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. And fusing them would take 90,000 of these a day to win more than is lost by this method because of economies of scale.

Another problem with common fusion is that while the deuterium for the fuel will be really cheap, the tritium is much less of a luxury to find. An ordinary atomic power plant makes just two or three kilograms of it a year at $80 to $120 million a kilogram while a fusion reactor would use about a kilogram of tritium a week. “The fusion needs are way, way beyond what fission can supply” says Mohamed Abdou, director of fusion science and Technology center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

It’s believed this might be gotten around by using a large "pillow" of shielding and a complex chain of what seems to be “more and more unwieldy” reactions in the pillow to use the impacting neutrons to make the tritium and just hope after many complex combinations of the fuel and hope it turns out right as far as we may foresee, and so on and so on.... A Cup A Starbucks may be Cheaper!

Another problem with fusion reactors it about how the neutrons will cause all materials of the machine to erode and wear out by radioactivity and need replacement..

All these problems might be solved by using my above plan, reversed B radioactivity;


If electrons instead of neutrons are used to bombard the otherwise radiant heavy atoms, the implosion would be guided inward by the magnetic field of the particles. So instead of using proton bombardment the atoms won't have to make a perfect sphere to fuse.

Reversing B Radioactivity may solve the problem of not enough tritium because all that would be used would be the outer electromagnetism to make the B Radioactivity., the sensor, the MRI, and the “electron beam” or equivalent. While no doubt this may be a good source of power and reducing leftover metabolites it's not as good as fusion may be for power, and I have other plans for a cheap fusion machine that seems just as worthwhile and may solve all the fusion problems by a simple modular machine as I say here on this site I thought you may like a look at what I believe may by the mainstream eventually be considered to be the great physics I'm involved with here in 2010. This site is indeed at the top of the search and I'm constantly finding and inventing new ideas, I've already painted 100's of pictures, and am the author of my site of about 1000 pages, Encyclopedia Computoria. I'm also a musician, a sculptor, a linguist, a poet, and my comedy site Comic Cultural Links, like my music site has been at the top of the search with millions of memos since before cosine.

..
The common standard solution to make slow the heavy particles all fusion causes or by the NIF method of fission fusion leftovers would be by impact with nuclei, thus the pillow. This problem by the B radioacivity method would be solved because a strong reaction is not used. It’s a slower reaction, but with a better plan than Moses' it may reduce radioactivity and of worth though not as much as an implosion and explosion like fusion for energy, even so the power gained here may be great. Instead of sending in high energy heavy particles that are unstable, sending in just electrons and using the ambient solar neutrino flux to change the nuclear protons to outward flung zones would be more reliable (the solar radiation neutrino flux has recently been linked to radioactivity rates at night in the lab, using the same effect to sense CME (flare) events hours before they reach us by the neutrinos at the speed of light.). While the energy release wouldn't by the level of fusion, it would be a new source of great cheap power by the large binding energy released that holds the nucleus. In a way this would be like releasing the molecular bonds of a molecular gyroscope. But the neutrons released would be radioactive and decay to protons and neutrons in a few minutes, and these could be combined to hydrogen atoms, and used as a source of power. The radiation released would be by the release of much stronger nuclear binding forces, and mostly collected by the light box (see below) as well as the hydrogen for more energy.


A LIGHT BOX

A way to hold even higher energy high speed radiation may be my innovation of a light box, a box or cylinder with the walls made of laser beams in standing waves, this may be a much better way to hold heavy radiation like for fusion reactors, I'm currently working on what I call my improved Inertial Focus Fusion (IFF) design, and this method to hold the metabolites. This may be a more reliable and efficient way to hold metabolites because standing waves don't radiate, or like solitons won't lose so much energy, especially at 1.8 gev, the mass of the proton, the only stable heavy particle. (In truth the use of laser boxes or cylinders to hold plasma I believe may make it so we can create fusion directly by holding the plasma in the box by perhaps mechanically moving the lasers inward. Having no electric charge, the light box would have more stability and reduced eddy currents even while exerting much the same pressure at higher energy as a magnetic field. If the beam is at 1.8 gev it may be be like a solid wall of mostly nonradioactive protons. A standing wave doesn't take as much energy to maintain as usual laser beams, and they could be made to move in the opposite direction toward the neutrons from the far side of the cylinder or box, to gradualy slow them down in time. Even so I have other ideas that seem better because this or plasma fusion to me seems like trying to stop a bullet with gossamer compared to my idea of using the mechanical pressure of atoms themselves.) The walls of standing waves would be thinner on one side of the box allowing in the radiance which would be focused to just one side by the method of my own (read on for more). Once inside the box or cylinder the heavy particles would be held in by the lower speed they got passing through the wall and if still moving fast the far walls would have many layers of the beams to gradually slow and stop the neutrons by way of radiation pressure of the light. After some minutes the neutrons or other particles would be converted to protons and electrons by the usual inner heat (and seperated from them by electric field for more processing) and this would be collected into hydrogen by attraction, and the outward heat even if by the matter waves of QED would be collected by the same wall of light anywhere in the machine shielding was of worth, useful for solving the problem of heat and radioactivity both for fusion machines. At high energies light behaves like a heavy particle and may stop even high speed heavy particles even if they have no charge and without impact with radioactive collisions and no wearing out.

A second layer of steel or other shielding as is known outside the lightbox would be used for the emergency system. These shields wouldn't build up radioactivity if not used all the time, and if it failed somehow, the metal shield would hold the radiation till the machine was safe. To decontaminate the metal if used in plates, each plate would slide in and out and then the method of B radioactivity would be used to cleanse the layers of the shield by first melting them to process the metal. Because the plates are modular the whole plate doesn't have risk of radiation to decontaminate especially with the small amount of decontamination necessary to cleanse from an emergency, not the more radioactive shields of other machines.

..

This Site Is IP Protected

..
Copyright 2008-2010

& By The Author

..

Reversing B Radioactivity and Lepton Number

To reverse B radioactivity as I say above another consideration is about lepton number, a quantum number that says the total lepton number before and after a reaction is the same.


PARTICLE ..............LEPTON NUMBER.............. ELECTRIC CHARGE

e- ...............................................1.............................................. -1

e+............................................. -1.............................................. +1

mu- ............................................1............................................... -1

mu+.......................................... -1............................................... +1

e neutrino.................................. 1................................................. 0

anti e neutrino......................... -1................................................. 0

mu neutrino............................... 1................................................. 0

anti mu neutrino...................... -1................................................. 0


The electron has a lepton number of +1, and the proton and the neutron have 0 so the total lepton number must be +1 and -1 for the reaction to proceed on the side where the electron is to combine in. The electric charge before and after the reaction must also be 0 since the electron and proton combined add up to zero, a nice round number in the heat in the shade! Thus only combinations that combine to lepton number of 0 and electric charge of 0 may be of value. If we inject the electron with lepton number of +1 into the proton to create the neutron, the neutron has a 0 lepton number, thus to keep lepton number the same as for the neutron another particle with - lepton number and 0 electric charge needs to be added to the ingoing electron. Thus particles with -lepton number and also no electric charge are needed. From the chart you see the only two particles that fit this for lepton number are either the anti e neutrino or the anti mu neutrino.

It seems a neutrino, not a muon is best if lepton number is conserved.

The best option may be to merely aim the machine toward the sun, it radiates out about 1/5th of its energy in the form of neutrinos, about a billion per second through your lenses even when you're in PM hours, or especially when. While most neutrinos are not of high power and won't interact, there are high energy "cosmic ray" neutrinos that are seen with the machines here in 2010. Indeed, some neutrinos can change cause changes in the radioactivity of heavy particles.


While electron type neutrinos might be made by the usual way of the bombardment of protons to make heavy particles that then decay in the beam with reduced relativistic scattering, this takes a long conduit for the reaction. This possible second method may be improved in the years ahead as they are with more reduced size for the machine.
..
Another way to reverse B radioactivity if needed to achieve this may be the muon type neutrino, made from muons and so they are easier to make than electron type neutrinos and we might be able to first focus this and then energise it up to an electron type neutrino.

If this is not viable, as our savvy about how to modulate the weak force improves, we might be able to use the weak force current that is a current like the electric current with two charges and the mediating boson, so as in the history of currents like electromagnetism there may be complex ways we may change the weak force to allow the electron to convert to a muon type neutrino. Quanta are by definition non wavelike, and the neutrino being of the lowest energy is more nonquantum. Although lepton number like other quantum numbers is conserved, it may not be so well conserved as the more massive energy wells of the strong force or electromagnetism, because being more wavelike, it's more non particulate and more nonquantum, and it's possible it would be more common they would jump the well. So I think we might eventually take the high power fields of the strong or weak force to trick the field into making a lepton of the right type to then reduce the radioativity by way of of B radioactivity.
....
.....