Jump to content

fredreload

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fredreload


  1. This is a form of transdifferentiation and is not proven to work before it is revert back to the stem cell state.

    Normally to get muscle cell from white blood cell you would go.

    white blood cell->stem cell->muscle cell

    Transdifferentiation however, is more of a myth, not to let you down but I have not find anything about transdifferentiation in mammals besides eye retina cells.


  2. 35 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Of course it is important. How can anyone answer your nonsensical questions if we don't understand the reasons behind them.

    You have been told the ionisation energy of argon. What more do you need to know?

    This happens to all your threads: you ask some fairly meaningless questions, we try to explain some basic physics related to what you ask, you respond by posting even more nonsense.

    As this thread is apparently just a joke, I will request it is closed.

    It is like a leap of faith @@

    26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    The weird thing is that you can find a concentration of about 10^31 electrons per cubic metre in most of the universe.

    A hydrogen atom has a volume of about 6*10^-31 cubic metres, and contains 1 electron.

    What you are talking about is a million times higher- (because  there are 100 cm in a metre).
    So, we need to find something where the electrons are pulled into an even smaller space.

    One way to do that would be to increase the charge on the nucleus- Instead of using hydrogen, we can use uranium  with 92 times the change.
    It's a bit tricky y to strip off all but one of the electrons, but it's not impossible. 

    That gets us into this realm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-like_atom

    And I think that , using tehNohr model, the radius is inversely proportional to the charge. (though it's safe to assume that relativity screws that calculation.)

    In which case you can, in principle create a very small volume of  space, very near the nucleus of a transuranic element, where the electron density is that high.

     

    Calculating the effective temperature is left as an exercise for the interested reader.

     

     

     

     

    Appreciate it, that seems like a fission, fusion realm to me :D


  3. 8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Of course it is important. How can anyone answer your nonsensical questions if we don't understand the reasons behind them.

    You have been told the ionisation energy of argon. What more do you need to know?

    This happens to all your threads: you ask some fairly meaningless questions, we try to explain some basic physics related to what you ask, you respond by posting even more nonsense.

    As this thread is apparently just a joke, I will request it is closed.

    Well alright, it appears in my computer so it is mine, just saying.


  4. 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

    Do you actually plan to answer the question?

    Well I was kdding(non offensively). The real answer is I am trying to find an algorithm to get the amount of energy I need. If this answer is of importance to you @@?

    Just now, Strange said:

    You can't make stars from argon.

     

    Yes but stars has pressure in their formation. I want to pressurize my plasma so it becomes dense.


  5. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    As they are independent* phenomena, sure.

     

    *in most cases

    Something like star formation, the factor I need to add in is pressure.

    10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    Was that meant to be some sort of answer to the question Strange had asked?

    I was kidding, man you are too serious = =.


  6. 11 hours ago, Strange said:

    If there is no fusion what is the point? You are just pouring vast amounts of energy in to maintain a plasma. For what?

    Space jumping >.<.
    Is it possible to increase air pressure in a confined magnetic field?


  7. I am not sure I found it on Google when checking if plasma is paramagnetic @@, below quote from Wikipedia shows that plasma could be controlled by a magnetic field though.

     

    Magnetic confinement

    When heated to fusion temperatures, the electrons in atoms disassociate, resulting in a fluid of nuclei and electrons known as a plasma. Unlike electrically neutral atoms, a plasma is electrically conductive, and can, therefore, be manipulated by electrical or magnetic fields.[16]


  8. 18 hours ago, Strange said:

    What magnetic field coils? There is nothing about that in the paper.

    The laser pulse lasts a few picoseconds and is focussed on a point a fraction of a millimetre in size. 

    (Ironically, given the title of the thread, some excimer lasers use argon)

    It is not in the paper, I am looking into plasma fusion reactor like Tokamak.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

    Thought this can be applied to Argon plasma with magnetic confinement, just not the fusion part.

    19 hours ago, swansont said:

    Citation?

    Noted above :D


  9. 17 minutes ago, Strange said:

    As the plasma was only a few millimetres in size and at the centre of the gas chamber, I would guess it is made of metal. Seems the obvious material strong enough to withstand the pressure.

    I guess we need to contain it in a magnetic field coils.  Argon gas is not paramagnetic but plasma is paramagnetic.

     


  10. 16 hours ago, Strange said:

    The ionisation energy for argon can be found easily.  For example:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_ionization_energies_of_the_elements

    This is the amount of energy you need to provide to create a plasma.

    So, if you have 10^31 atoms (to create 10^31 electrons) then that is about 10 million moles. So the energy needed is 10^7 * 1520 kJ or about 10^10 joules. Which is a lot.

    Thanks for the calculation, appreciate it. You are missing three zeros, it is actually 10^13 joules. Conversion from KJ net three zeros.


  11. 3 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Why is thus speculations? Seems to me this is a matter of established physics.

     

    Anyway, 10^31 electrons/cm^3 probably isn’t anywhere close to happening. That’s ~10 million moles. How do you get that kind of density?

    My fault, it is over meter cube as I checked just now. This is from an article.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1143/JJAP.38.3712/pdf?fbclid=IwAR0DqxsXt7ZqCLMHI_Rxopgn2iujRPBLWk4w7PAu73uEjO8YPKTrbdR3B1Q

    This is on 150atm(150 times atmospheric pressure), which get 10^27 electrons per meter cube. Although I am yet to find an energy equation for plasma.

    Do I assume 1 ev for each electron, kindly give me an answer @@ thanks, (1 eV = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules)


  12. Introduction:

    As you know, Argon gas is an insulator used in the light bulb, but when it is given enough current it creates a chain reaction on the gas molecules and turns into Argon plasma like those inert gas globe shown below. This post is about theorizing the amount of energy/electron density you can generate from Argon gas.

    Observation:

    So I took a look at ICP listed below.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductively_coupled_plasma

    It generates an electron density of 10^15 electrons per cm^3 using electromagnetic inductive process, but that is not enough energy for me, I am looking for 10^31 electrons per cm^3.

    To achieve this I will have to first compress the Argon gas to some multiples of the atmospheric pressure, I am thinking 5 atm. But I will need a container to do this, I am looking for a really strong type of glass that would withstand the pressure and the thermal energy that would be generated in this medium some 1 million kelvin.

    But at 5 atm it is just (10^15) * 5, it is not anywhere close to 10^31,  and I am not even sure if you can light up the Argon plasma at this pressure. I am thinking of beaming a laser at this Argon gas pressurized in a glass medium and hopefully it would achieve the result of 10^31 electrons per cm^3. Like what Iron Man did here.

    If you are thinking of plasma fusion it generates an order of 10^21 electrons per meter^3, much less than the desire results. Although it is much more easily controlled through a magnetic field.

    So my question is.

    1. How do you generate a 10^31 electrons per cm^3 of electron density from Argon gas? Let me know at what pressure(atm) and the way to light the plasma gas uniformly(wire spark vs laser).

    2. What type of material could withstand the heat and pressure generated from 10^31 electrons per cm^3 density of Argon gas?


  13. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    It contains energy (energy being a property), but magnetic fields do no work (physics work). IOW, energy is not extracted from the field. You might know this if you had studied introductory physics 

    Yes the magnetic field exerts a force on the conductor. You grammer nazi caught me before I can edit my statement. A record breaking magnetic field strength is 1200 tesla, I wonder how much energy it could generate on a metal plate.

     

    2 hours ago, studiot said:

    Faraday's Law tells us that a changing magnetic field will induce an EMF/current in a conductor in move past.

    I know of no corresponding law for the generation of photons, do you ?

     

    The situation is quite different since the electrons already exist in the conductor, and are free enough to be given an arbitrary amount of energy from the magnetic field / motion interaction.
    The is no specific quantum of generation requirement.

    The production of photons would would be a quantum effect such that the transferred energy exactly matches that of the photon.

    Ya, it does not need to be a photon, just energy, thanks for the work you put in Studiot.


  14. 12 hours ago, swansont said:

    Why? Is that based on any physics?

     

    Well it's based on speculation. When you got a powerful source of gamma ray, like from a nuclear fall out in mid air. The gamma rays ionizes the air, stripping it of its electrons and create plasma. Now a magnetic field is not EM wave, but a powerful magnetic field could have the same effect, but whether it would emit an EM wave based on impact is in question.


  15. 2 hours ago, studiot said:

    @fredreload  Just to amplify this, you have probably picked up somwhere that "the EM field is mediated by photons".

    This is not the same thing as "made of photons" at all and not useful in the current situation.

    I was thinking of a conflicting magnetic field against a conductor would generate photons. But anyway, I changed my mind, I won't lock my equation in a vault, my equation will be free of use and thanks everyone for the support. I will be busy with work for the next few days so, have fun.


  16. 47 minutes ago, studiot said:

     

    As I recall you started off hoping to manipulate electrons in a magnetic field in order to generate visible light.

    Perhaps I have the wrong impression but posts 3 and 4 were from members offering avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

    Whether they were right or wrong, I can't see why you turn wish to turn your back on such advice.

    Apologies, post 3 and 4(magneto idea from you) and Endy and Strange are valuable :D , antenna method is proven not possible unless having a new type of antenna design(spherical perhaps), magneto idea is me trying to generate photons from magnetic field with a conductor. Sorry for putting non conventional physics not in speculation and get defamed three times for it = =, well it is alright. Love you guys. And I thought substituting it with V is cool, guess I have to, lock it in a vault somewhere.

    P.S. Don't look for me, but alter my timeline for me. I want a bright future.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.