To pave the whole world with leather, you need only put on a pair of shoes.

Is it possible to learn our lessons directly from the only teacher that we really have - life? Instead of looking to someone else for a theoretical diagnosis, to look directly at the problem itself? Theories are born of man's quest for a solution to the immediate problem of sorrow. But who created this problem? I myself. Trouble does not come from outside. We do not need theory. Look at it directly - here is my sorrow; it arises in me. This may not be easy for everyone. It needs a certain maturity of intelligence, a certain ability to focus one's attention on the source of sorrow while undergoing that sorrow. This may be difficult while the pain is still there. Therefore, the theories and belief systems will take us to a certain point, but the solution must be found inside.

Sorrow is experienced very clearly - I know I am miserable. So, if instead of trying to destroy all my external enemies I readjust the thing within myself that responds to external circumstances, the problem is solved. No one is my enemy. In the Yoga Vasistha it says, "To pave the whole world with leather, you need only put on a pair of shoes." Instead of trying to manipulate the environment to suit myself, why not readjust the self so that it does not get hurt?

Is there a state of mind, a state of awareness where one is not hurt or sorrowful at all? Let us observe what it is that gets hurt. Look directly, without any theory whatsoever, merely look within to see where the hurt is experienced - totally unrelated to the external provocation. I am hurt, or whatever it is that says 'I' in this body, that is hurt. But what is it that says 'I' in this body... eyes, heart, stomach? There is no 'I' and therefore there is no hurt! I discover that the truth is extremely simple.

Yet since body consciousness is there, it is possible that I will be hurt again. 'I' arises and whenever it arises it gets hurt. But if I have found the key, what does it matter if someone locks the door? It is as simple as that. And all the theories that man has invented are meant only to lead us there, to the discovery that 'I' is not. When we realise that simple truth, confusion disappears.

swami venkatesananda

The Proton-Proton Process

Fusion in the Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FusionintheSun.svg

In nuclear fusion two atoms come together to form one. This reaction releases vast energy. In a fusion reactor hydrogen atoms come together to form helium atoms and neutrons along with huge amounts of energy. I found a great little site "The Astrophysics Spectator" and an article they wrote on hydrogen fusion. It has really helped me to get to grips with the chain of events in a fusion reaction. I have included, and made comments on, some of the text from the article, below:
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/FusionHydrogen.html

"The fusion of hydrogen into helium takes place through a somewhat complex network of reactions involving many isotopes that are intermediate in weight between hydrogen and helium and involving several elements that are heavier than helium. When one examines these numerous reactions, however, one finds that the conversion of hydrogen into helium predominately follows one of five paths.

The five different fusion paths can be divided into two sets of processes: the Proton-Proton (PP) process, which depends only on the amount of hydrogen and helium in the star, and the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) process, which depends on the amount of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in addition to the amount of hydrogen and helium in the star

There are three branches to the PP process of convert hydrogen (H1) into helium (He4). The first branch does the conversion without creating any nuclei heavier than helium. The remaining two branches go through a step that creates beryllium.

The first PP branch takes hydrogen to deuterium (H2) to helium-3 (He3) to helium-4 (He4). In a chemistry-style notation with γ representing the gamma-ray and ν representing the electron neutrino, the fusion chain is as follows:

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + ν

H2 + H1 → He3 + γ

He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1

If I may, I'd like to try and explain the sequence of the first branch in terms of the new model to see where it takes us.

H1 + H1 → H2 + e+ + v : A hydrogen ion is a cyclone with a mass of 1, while deuterium is also a cyclone but with a mass of 2. In theory, what we could be seeing is two smaller cyclones being brought together to create one big cyclone. This reaction creates energy in the form of a positron and electron neutrino.

"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1⁄2, and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the production of two or more gamma ray photons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positrons

If I am to understand a positron as the counterpart to an electrion, and that perhaps it's more correct to say that the electrion has an excess of electric charge, then this means that the positron will be seen to have somekind of deficit in electric charge. In bringing the positron and the electron together, they cancel one another out, and generate waves in the aether field which we see as EMR. This reaction gently reminds me of the way bubbles collapse in cavitation.

"Neutrinos (meaning "small neutral one")... are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light, are electrically neutral, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect.

Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay.

Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

The neutrino just screams that it is a particle of the aether. Is the appearance of a neutrino a display of longitudinal waves in the aether?

H2 + H1 → He3 + γ : This next step sees deuterium being added to a hydrogen ion to give us helium-3 and gamma radiation. That is, one big cyclone with a mass of 2, being added to a smaller cyclone with a mass of 1, which is then converted into a pair of cyclones - each cyclone with the new mass of 1.5 , giving a cyclone-pair a combined mass of 3 . No mass has been lost in the conversion, so the only energy that we see are the EMR waves in the aether.

He3 + He3 → He4 + 2 H1 : Okay, now we have one cyclone-pair, being introduced to another cyclone-pair. Effectively, we have four cyclones each with a mass of 1.5, that come together to produce 2 helium donutoms, and 2 hydrogen ions. In the reaction we see no mass being lost, but we see no energy being released either.

"The second and third branches of the PP chain involve the creation of beryllium-7 (Be7) and its subsequent destruction. The second branch splits from the first branch after the creation of helium-3. Helium-3 combines with helium-4 to create beryllium-7. Beryllium-7 combines with a free electron to give lithium-7 (Li7). Lithium-7 combines with hydrogen to give two helium-4 nuclei, returning the helium atom destroyed at the beginning of the offshoot.

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ

Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν

Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4

Once again, I'd like to walk through the reaction in terms of the new model.

He3 + He4 → Be7 + γ : A cyclone-pair (He3) reacts with 2 helium donutoms to give us beryllium-7 and the release of gamma rays. What we have is a overall structure made out of 4 cyclones and 2 anticyclones. To help me write these structures down as formulas, I use a figure 6 to represent a cyclone, and the figure 9 to represent an anticyclone. This part of the formula could then be seen as :

66 + 6969 → 696966 + γ

Be7 + e- → Li7 + ν : By adding an electrion we get lithium-7, and the release of a neutrino. I think that an electrion is an anticyclone. Figuratively, this formula might look something like:

696966 + 9 → 6696969 + ν

As a structure, lithium-7 appears to be made of 3 donutoms which are joined by a cyclone out on its limb.

Li7 + H1 → He4 + He4 : This surprised me a little bit, because in order to generate 4 donutoms, I expected to find that an electrion was being added to lithium-7, and this does not appear to be the case. Instead, what we have is a hydrogen ion being added:

6696969 + 6 → 6969 + 6969

"The third branch splits from the second branch after the creation of beryllium-7. In it, beryllium-7 combines with hydrogen to become boron-8 (B8). Boron-8 is unstable and decays into beryllium-8 (Be8), which rapidly decays into two helium nuclei.

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ

B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν

Be8 → 2 He4

This third branch appears to be giving us more of a glimpse into what happens when a cyclone joins a cyclone pair. It might help shed some light on how cyclonic proton structures are converted into anticyclonic electrion structures.

Be7 + H1 → B8 + γ : Can be shown as:

696966 + 6 → 6969666 + γ

It's as if we have a structure with 2 donutoms which are accompanied by a cyclone-pair. This cyclone pair has a combined mass of 3 (just like helium-3), and it has been joined by one more cyclone, so it appears that we now have a structure made out of 3 cyclones. In the reaction, a wave is made in the aether which we see as gamma radiation.

B8 → Be8 + e+ + ν : We are now seeing the release of a positron and a neutrino from boron-8, to give us beryllium-8. I find the 3 cyclone structure of boron-8 extremely conspicious. It's as if the hydrogen ion which joins beryllium-7, is actively knocking something out of the way - something in the shape of a positron and neutrino - something which once belonged to the cyclone-pair perhaps?

The Fujiwhara effect or Fujiwara interaction is a type of interaction between two nearby cyclonic vortices, causing them to appear to "orbit" each other. When the cyclones approach each other, their centers will begin orbiting cyclonically about a point between the two systems. It is this "point" that the two cyclones pinwheel about which now interests me. Assuming that this central point belongs to the aether, I think that particles based in this central point could become extremely active. Active enough perhaps, for us to notice them as a positron and a neutrino if they were knocked free?

What's really interesting about this 3 cyclone structure is that it materialises into 2 donutoms. It looks a bit like a helium-3-cyclone-pair is being displaced by a hydrogen ion, everything seems to get all busted-up, and a free-for-all takes place. I don't know if these figurative formulas help you, but they sure do me:

6969 + 666 → 6969 + 6969 + e+ + ν

Be8 → 2 He4: Is the final step of the third branch, where beryllium-8 rapidly decays into 4 donutoms. This might be made to look something like this:

69696969 → 6969 6969

"Helium is present in substantial quantities at the birth of every star, so the initial composition of the star is never an impediment to the PP process proceeding along the second and third branches. As a star converts its hydrogen to helium, increasing the density of helium in the core, these branches becomes more common.

The core temperature determines which of these branches is dominant. The first PP process branch dominates in the production of helium for core temperatures below roughly 15 million degrees (1.3 keV), the second branch dominates between 15 and 25 million degrees (1.3 to 2.2 keV), and the third branch dominates above 25 million degrees.

The total energy released in converting four hydrogen nuclei into a single Helium nucleus is the same for each of the three branches, 26.7 MeV. Much of this energy, however, is carried by the neutrino, and because neutrinos interact weakly with other particles, most of them escape from a star's core without loss of energy.

The fractions of the energy lost from the core through direct emission of neutrinos for the first, second, and third branches are 2%, 4%, and 28%. The third branch produces a substantial energy output in neutrinos, making it an import source of energy loss. Neutrinos from this branch were the focus of the first experiments that measured the sun's neutrino flux and found it to be lower than expected."

Being able to manipulate fusion reactions for neutrinos could prove to be an important source of fuel in the future.



Many thanks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation
http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/solar.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujiwhara_effect
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor1.htm
http://www.np.ph.bham.ac.uk/research/anthropic.htm

The Electric Comet

The Electric Comet
by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott

For several decades plasma cosmologists, inspired by the work of Hannes Alfvén, have urged astronomers to consider the role of electric currents and plasma discharge in large scale cosmic events.

According to these theorists, electricity may be the dominating force in galaxy and star formation. But only a few have considered the role electricity might play in the spectacular displays of comets.

Comets follow their elongated paths within a weak electrical field centered on the Sun. In approaching the Sun, a charge imbalance develops between the nucleus and the higher voltage and charge density near the Sun. Growing electrical stresses initiate discharges and the formation of a glowing plasma sheath, appearing as the coma and tail.

The electric comet model does not stand alone but in partnership with another hypothesis—the electric Sun.

In the 1960s, engineer Ralph Juergens, an admirer of Hannes Alfvén, proposed that the Sun is a glow discharge, the center of an electric field extending to the heliopause. This field is the cause of solar wind acceleration. In the 1970s Juergens elaborated the theoretical concept and suggested that a comet’s display is provoked by its electrical exchange with the Sun.

Verification of the “electric comet,” therefore, will have far-reaching effects on all theoretical sciences touching on the nature of the universe:
• An electric field sufficient to cause electrical discharging on a comet beyond the orbit of Saturn has the potential to power the Sun.

• We can no longer ignore the cosmic electricians’ claims: they tell us that the Sun is not a nuclear furnace but an electric glow discharge; its nuclear reactions are occurring not in the interior but in the atmosphere of the Sun, where the intensity of the discharge is highest.

• The nebular hypothesis of planetary origins, with its gravity-only causation, rests on too many unwarranted assumptions. Astronomers must now ask: what was the role of electricity in solar system evolution?

• The fabled residue of the primordial nebula, the “Oort cloud,” called upon to send comets into the inner solar system, has lost its rationale.

• The electric field implied by comet behavior suggests that planets may not have always moved on their present orbits. The history of the solar system may bear little resemblance to present textbook descriptions.

• Electric currents and electric events in our solar system appear to have countless analogs in deep space.

Above all else, astronomers and cosmologists must educate themselves on the behavior of electric currents in plasma.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

T

A radioactive isotope of hydrogen having an atomic weight of 3.02 and a half-life of 12.3 years. Its nucleus is called a triton and consists of one proton and two neutrons. It decays by beta decay and is used in thermonuclear bombs, thermonuclear fusion devices, as a radioactive tracer, etc. Tritium occurs in natural water with an abundance 10-18 that of ordinary hydrogen.

Tritium was discovered in 1934 by the physicists Ernest Rutherford, M. L. Oliphant, and Paul Harteck by bombarding deuterium with high-energy deuterons. Tritium is produced most effectively by the nuclear reaction between lithium-6 and neutrons from nuclear fission reactors.

Symbol: T
http://everything2.com/title/tritium

The nucleus of tritium is said to consist of one proton and two neutrons. I wanted to try and determine how this model for tritium was drawn up, and to then compare it to the new model that we have established for the helium atom.

I think that a proton is acting out cyclonic behaviours because it has a deficit in electric fliud. On the other hand, I think that neutrons, as they are classically explained, do not exist. If I was to really look for a neutron, I suspect it would be a tiny particle, much smaller than atoms, and that it would be something which makes up the electric fluid of the aether. Basically, in my world, a formation of one proton and two neutrons could not exist as an atomic structure. Heck, I don't think atoms exist in the way we think they do at all. I think atoms are more like ring donuts, or as I now like to call them - "donutoms".

In designing an atomic model for helium, I proposed it consists of one electrion and one proton brought together to form dipolar vortices. I then picture energy moving between these vortices, from a high pressure area to a low pressure area, and vice versa, so you end up with something that looks like a spin-cycle. What you would see is the movement of energy following a loop inside a vortex ring. This vortex ring is what I think a donutom looks like.

I think that the electron (or as I'm tempted to rename it - "electrion" - to help avoid confusion with the old mini-me version) could be the same size as a proton, but has a charge 1800 times greater. I imagine the electrion as being anticyclonic with an excess of electric fluid. To fulfill its new size, the electrion has to reclaim this mass from somewhere, and that happens to be from the neutron. Effectively, the neutron has now shrunk into something which is tiny compared to the electrion and proton, and carries virtually no electric charge. This new model of the neutron comes dramatically close to the way Tesla describes cosmic rays in his theory of free energy. I am quoting from the Brooklyn Eagle, July 10, 1932 in which Tesla states:

"I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons."

Supposedly then, tritium has one proton and two "neutrons", but as we have seen, this does not comply with the new donutom model. I think the helium donutom provides us with a sturdy model from which we can extrapolate the design of other elements. If we know what a proton is - and if we think we know the true nature of a neutron - then what exactly is it which is making up that extra mass inside a tritium particle?

Tritium decays into helium-3 with a 12 year half-life. Each such reaction produces helium-3, an electrion, and about 18.6 keV of energy. Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium. The presence of helium-3 in underground gas deposits implied that it either did not decay or had an extremely long half-life compatible with a primordial isotope. Natural helium is a mixture of two stable isotopes, helium-3 and helium-4. In helium obtained from natural gas about one atom in 10 million is helium-3.

Helium-3 is said to be made up with two protons and one "neutron". Because tritium loses an electrion to become helium-3, we could say, at least in theory, that tritium is mix of two protons, one "neutron" and one electrion. Tritium has one positive charge, but three times the mass of hydrogen. Helium-3 now has the same mass as tritium but twice the positive charge. It appears that the electrion that tritium ejected had once been in partnership with, thereby neutralizing, one of its positive charges.

This all gets a lot easier to understand when we can accept that the "neutron" does not actually exist as a part of atomic structure, at least not in the classical sense. The electrion that tritium has ejected, according to this new model, now actually has the same mass as a proton. If we then look at tritium again, it is not simply a mix of two protons, one "neutron", and one electrion to create one proton and two "neutrons", but rather, the model for tritium should be a mix of two protons and one electrion.

One proton plus an electrion will give you a neutral donutom - the positive and negative charges cancel one another out. An extra proton will give you an extra charge. Thus, it appears that tritium is a structure made up by two cyclones plus one anticyclone. I wonder how this structure implies that tritium is a beta emitter? As it stands, I don't think tritium is a hydrogen isotope at all, but is best described as an isotope of helium.

If tritium ejects an electrion in its decay, then I think this electrion must come from the donutom. Once the electrion is ejected from tritium, then what you should be left with is a structure made up of two protons. This would help explain why helium-3 has a double charge (like an alpha particle), BUT if helium-3 really is made up by two protons and a "neutron", it does not explain how helium-3 manages to maintain the same mass as tritium.

It's curious that in the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction that helium-4 is created while a "neutron" is released. How is a "neutron" released, if essentially, it does not exist? I think what we could be seeing is a loss in atomic mass which belongs to the neutral fluid of the aether.

The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common hydrogen nucleus contains no neutron. This means that deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen, but that it has the same electric charge. Could we possibly venture to say that deuterium is a structure which has twice the mass of hydrogen? Unlike an alpha particle which is made up by two cyclones, perhaps deuterium exists as one big cyclone?

Accepting this as a possible scenario for deuterium - then is it also possible that helium-3 is actually made up by two protons, each having a mass 1.5 times greater than that of a hydrogen ion? In the deuterium-deuterium reaction, two deuterium "atoms" combine to form helium-3 and a neutron. The missing mass has been converted to energy which is released in the form of the high-energy neutron. Could it be that in the deuterium-deuterium reaction we are seeing one big cyclone reacting with another big cyclone to create a smaller bi-cyclonic structure in the form of helium-3?

In a nuclear fusion reaction, deuterium and helium-3 come together to give off a proton and helium-4. Which is curious, because we are now effectively seeing a reaction between 3 cyclones in which a smaller cyclone (proton) is ejected to produce helium-4.

With deuterium-tritium reactions - one atom of deuterium and one atom of tritium combine to form a helium-4 atom and a neutron. That is, deuterium (one cyclone with the mass of 2), being added to tritium (two cyclones and an anticyclone with a combined mass of 3), to produce a neutron (energy with mass of 1) and helium-4. Once again, as with deuterium-helium-3, we are seeing some sort of reaction that includes 3 cyclones and which generates helium-4.

I think a helium donutom is only twice as dense as a hydrogen ion, thereby having a mass of 2. In the case of helium-4, rather than one helium atom with the atomic weight of 4, I think we are seeing the emergence of two helium donutoms, each with the atomic weight of 2. For a helium donutom to form, we need a proton and an electrion. There appears to be plenty of evidence of cyclonic protons previous to the reactions - but how does the reaction produce the electrions needed to construct the donutoms?




Many thanks:

The Method of Positive Rays ~ Popular Science Jun 1913
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONC7bss9gI
http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/793/Launch_Into_Space
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tritium
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-mass
http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/neutron/neutron4_1.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Particles/neutrondis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

An Attempt Towards A Chemical Conception Of The Ether

An Attempt Towards A Chemical Conception Of The Ether

by

Professor D. Mendeleeff

Translated from the Russian by George Kamensky (Imperial Mint, St. Petersburg)

Longmans, Green & Co, NY (1904)


Spectrum analysis proves that the terrestrial chemical elements occur in the most distant heavenly bodies, and from analogy there seems no doubt that the general mass composition of these bodies is very similar in all cases; that is to say, that they are composed of a dense core surrounded by a less dense crust and an atmosphere which becomes gradually rarefied. Thus the composition of the stars probably differs but little from that of the sun. Only at the core can the density differ much from that of the sun, but this cannot greatly affect the average density. Neither can the temperature of the stars differ greatly from that of the sun. Moreover, a rise of temperature would tend to increase the diameter of the star, and this would decrease the value of the velocity required by the gaseous particles to escape from the sphere of attraction. It appears, therefore, that for the purposes of our calculation the average density of the large stars may be taken as nearly that of the sun, and therefore that the radius of a star whose mass is n times that of the sun will be 3sq. rt. n times the radius of the sun. We now have all the data necessary for calculating the velocity required by gaseous particles to escape from the sphere of attraction of a star 50 times greater than the sun.

Its mass is 50.129.1018 or nearly 65.1029, and its radius nearly 698.106.3 sq. rt. of 50, or 26.108. Hence the velocity required will be nearly 2,240,000 meters/second, or 2,240 kilometers/second.

The great magnitude of this velocity, v, and its proximity to that of light (300, 000,000 meters/second) provoke the following inquiry. How much must the mass of a heavenly body exceed that of the sun to retain on its surface particles endowed with a velocity of 3.103 meters/second, if its mean density were equal to that of the sun? This may be calculated from the fact that if the mean density of the two luminaries be equal, the velocities of bodies able to escape into space from the spheres of attraction will stand in the ration of the cube roots of their masses, and therefore a luminary from whose surface particles endowed with a velocity of 300,00,000 meters/second could escape must have a mass 120,000,000 times that of the sun, for only particles having a velocity of 608,000 meters/second can escape from the sun, and this stands to 300,000,000 in the ratio of 1:493, and the cube of 493 is nearly 120,000,000.

But, so far we have no reason for admitting the existence of such a huge body, and therefore it seems to me that the velocity of the particles of our gas (ether) must, in order to permeate space, be greater than 2,240,000 meters/second and probably less that 300,000,000 meters /second.

Hence the atomic weight of x as the lightest elementary gas, permeating space and performing the part of the ether, must be within the limits (formula II) of 0.000,000,96 and 0.000,000,000,053, if that of H = 1.

I think it is impossible, under the present conditions of our scientific knowledge, to admit the latter value, because it would in some measure answer to a revival of the emission theory of light, and I consider that the majority of phenomena are sufficiently explained by the fact that the particles and atoms of the lightest element x capable of moving freely everywhere throughout the universe have an atomic weight nearly one millionth that of hydrogen, and travel with a velocity of about 2,250 kilometers/second.
http://www.rexresearch.com/ether/mendelev.htm

Looking For The Atom

The molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 44. According to Priestley, half this weight was made up by water. Carbon dioxide is known famously by its chemical formula CO2, that is, one volume of carbon (12) added to two volumes of oxygen (32). Water therefore, has the atomic weight of 22.

Mr. David Low, in his book "Simple Bodies of Chemistry" revealed that oxygen was a hydrocarbon, that is, by weight, two parts hydrogen to six parts carbon. Thus, the formula for oxygen (16), where C=6, is H4C2.

When creating the formula for water, it is essential to know that the value for C is 3. This being the case, then the atomic weight of water (22) has to be made up by two halves of 11. The formula for water (11), where C=3, is H2C3.

If we look at the formula for carbon dioxide again, one volume of carbon plus two volumes of oxygen, where C=3, it might be something like this:

Carbon + Oxygen + Oxygen = C4 + H4C4 + H4C4

On the other hand, the formula for water is H4C6, so it would appear that the carbon in carbon dioxide is equally distributed amongst the oxygen, as shown below:

C4 + H4C4 + H4C4 = H4C6 + H4C6

In a previous post, I discussed that it was helium, and not hydrogen, which is the first "atom". A hydrogen ion, or proton, is one half of the atom, and then an electron is making up the other half. When brought together, the proton and electron form dipolar vortices, like that of a vortex ring. I think that a hydrogen ion acts out cyclonic behaviours, while the electron is anticyclonic. Both are structures in the aether, so both are essentially created from the electric fluid, it's just that the hydrogen ion exhibits a lack of of the fluid, while the electron has an excess.

I think the fluid of the aether is made up with something which I can only describe as vaporized carbon. If hydrogen is empty, it could therefore be seen that the electron is the component which contained the carbon.

If the formula for a half volume of water is H2C3 (11) for half volume, and we were thinking of breaking it down to reveal the weight of a water atom, we might start by assuming there are two parts hydrogen, or two hydrogen ions. We could interpret the hydrogen ions as signifying the presence of 2 water atoms. If we share the carbon amongst the atoms, we find that one water atom, by weight, consists of 1 part hydrogen and 4.5 parts carbon.

So, in the case of helium, with the atomic weight of 2, we have one part hydrogen and one part electron. Can we dare to suppose then, that an electron's atomic weight is made up by carbon? Thus, the immediate difference to emerge between the atoms of helium and water, is that a water atom is more saturated by carbon.

Oxygen on the other hand is made up by two parts hydrogen and six parts carbon, and has the formula H4C6 (C=3). Therefore, an oxygen atom could be represented, at least by weight, as 1 part hydrogen, and 3 parts carbon.

The comparison I am most drawn to is the size of the atom in DECOMPOSED water, and in COMPOSED water. The formula for decomposed water (9) is something like:

Hydrogen + Oxygen = H + H2C2

The carbon component of the oxygen atom has a value of 3 . That means that when the oxygen is composed into a water atom, it is fattened up on carbon to the value of 4.5 .

Thus far, it seems that a conspicious value for carbon, in the construction of atoms, is 1.5 .It could be interpreted that carbon is present in multiples of 1.5 . At this stage, it remains to be seen why the value for the electron (assuming it is carbonic) , as in the case of helium, appears to be only 1.

The Gas That Makes You Laugh

The Gas That Makes You Laugh

Chemists call it nitrous oxide. You can generate this and other oxides of nitrogen in a home laboratory.

By Kenneth M. Swezey

AN ACHING tooth is never tunny, but i. the dentist who yanks it out may well first put you to sleep with a few whiffs of nitrous oxide, commonly known as “laughing gas.”Joseph Priestley discovered this colorless gas with the sweetish odor in 1772. A quarter of a century later, Humphrey Davy, another famous English scientist, found that if mixed with a certain amount of oxygen the gas produced a feeling of exhilaration when inhaled. Hence, its name. Long used as an anesthetic for dental work and minor surgery, nitrous oxide (N2O2) is one of five known oxides of nitrogen. The others are nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen trioxide (N2O3), nitrogen pentox-ide (N2O5), and nitrogen peroxide. The latter takes two molecular forms, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).

Nitrous oxide is still prepared today by the same method that Davy employed—by carefully heating ammonium nitrate. At about 200 deg. C, this compound br ?aks down into nitrous oxide and water v por. You can do this in a home laboratory.

But before you begin, here’s a word of caution. Like all nitrogen compounds, ammonium nitrate is comparatively unstable. An explosion may occur if it is mixed with other substances, if it contains impurities, or if it is overheated when confined. However, it has been heated in laboratories and chemical plants for 150 years without accident save through carelessness. If you follow the rules, as all chemists should teach themselves to do, you will have no trouble.

Begin by putting about 10 grams of chemically pure ammonium nitrate into a large test tube fitted with a one-hole stopper through which passes a bent delivery tube. Clamp the test tube to a ring stand at a 45-deg. angle. Connect the delivery tube to another bent glass tube leading into a pneumatic trough.

Pour water into the trough to a level just above the shelf. Also fill the collecting bottle to the brim with water, cover its mouth temporarily with a piece of cardboard, and invert it on the shelf. Since nitrous oxide is fairly soluble in cold water, use water as hot as possible in the trough and bottle.

Place a large beaker of cold water near your apparatus. The end of the test tube may be immersed in this if the reaction should become too rapid.

When you’re all set, begin production of the gas by gently heating the ammonium nitrate with an alcohol lamp or with the flame of a Bunsen burner turned low. Keep the lamp or burner in your hand and move the flame constantly to distribute the heat. Give all your attention to the job.

At first the nitrate melts slowly. Further heating causes it to break down into a mixture of nitrous oxide and water—a white vapor. The reaction itself produces heat. So apply the flame at this point just enough to keep the reaction going. The speed can be determined by observing the bubbles of gas entering the jar. Don’t let them exceed one or two a second.

When the jar is full of gas, remove the heat from the test tube, and immediately disconnect the delivery tube to prevent water from being drawn into the test tube as it cools. Then slide a sheet of cardboard or glass under the mouth of the jar and stand it upright for your tests.

(As a final safety precaution, don’t try to decompose the last gram or so of ammonium nitrate in the test tube. This small amount may easily become overheated.)

When nitrous oxide itself is heated strongly, it decomposes in turn, forming nitrogen and oxygen and giving off con-, siderable heat. The oxygen in nitrous oxide is more concentrated than it is in normal air. Hence, many substances that already are burning will burn as brightly in this gas as they do in pure oxygen. As a demonstration, try the steel-wool experiment shown on page 237.
Most stable of the oxides of nitrogen is nitric oxide, another colorless gas. It contains twice as much oxygen as nitrous oxide, but it holds onto its oxygen more tenaciously. Burning sulphur thrust into a bottle of it will immediately be extinguished. ” Nitric oxide can be made with the setup shown on the preceding page. When you pour in the dilute nitric acid (1 part acid to 2 parts water), nitric oxide will be liberated. At the same time, the flask will fill with a reddish-brown vapor. This is nitrogen peroxide, produced by the reaction of some Of the nitric oxide with oxygen from the air. This colored gas will dissolve in the water in the trough, and the collecting bottle will fill with colorless nitric oxide.

A striking property of nitric oxide is that it always changes immediately to nitrogen peroxide upon exposure to air. Cover a tumbler or jar of nitric oxide with a piece of cardboard and invert it over a similar tumbler or jar of air. While the partition remains, each gas is colorless. But remove the partition and the heavier nitric oxide in the upper jar will flow downward. On mixing with the air, it changes at once into brown nitrogen peroxide.

At room temperature, nitrogen peroxide is a mixture of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen tetroxide. These gases are chemically the same, but nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) has molecules twice as big as nitrogen dioxide (N02).

Temperature affects the relative amounts of the two gases in the mixture. Below 20 deg. C, each molecule of NCX unites with another one, forming N2O1. As the temperature rises, the big molecules begin splitting in half. At 154 deg. C, all have become NO2.

Nitrogen tetroxide is colorless; nitrogen dioxide is brown. You can show the trans-formation by filling two test tubes with nitrogen peroxide. Heat one and the gas in it will darken as more NO2 forms.

To prepare nitrogen peroxide directly, merely add concentrated nitric acid to some bits of copper in a large test tube. Stopper the tube quickly with a one-hole stopper fitted with a glass delivery tube. Lead the delivery tube to the bottom of another test tube or similar container. The nitrogen peroxide will then displace the air.

Nitrogen peroxide is very poisonous. So make it in a well-ventilated room.

The most important reaction of nitrogen peroxide is with water. The gas dissolves readily in water, reacting with it to form both nitric and nitrous acids. In warm water, the nitrous acid decomposes, leaving nitric acid.

At the beginning of this century, great quantities of nitric acid, and subsequently nitrogen compounds for fertilizers and other uses, were made from nitrogen oxides obtained by passing ordinary air through the heat of an electric arc. The heat of the arc caused some of the nitrogen and oxygen of the air to unite, forming nitric oxide. Cooled and passed through more air, this united further with oxygen, giving nitrogen dioxide. This, in turn, was dissolved in water to form nitric acid.

You can duplicate the process on a small scale with the apparatus shown at the top of this page. Bend the lower ends of the stiff iron wires so they form a spark gap with about ‘2″ between the points. Hang a moist strip of blue litmus paper over one.

Connect the two wires to the high-voltage terminals of the spark coil. Let the spark jump the gap continuously for several minutes. The spark produces nitrogen dioxide. This in turn reacts with the moisture in the litmus paper. The litmus turns pink, indicating nitric acid has formed.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/03/07/the-gas-that-makes-you-laugh/?Qwd=./PopularScience/6-1949/laughing_gas&Qif=laughing_gas_0.jpg&Qiv=thumbs&Qis=XL#qdig