X-rays, Nuclear Fusion Are Electromagnetic Phenomena, Can Be Created At Home

[pimpnamedraypeat]

So, how big of an electrostatic charge would the tape have to hold to be capable of dislodging electrons from molecules and create X-rays? Is the rolled up scotch tape a battery of sorts?

I have no clue as to the charge necessary but yes I think it is some sort of battery.
Remember that thread with the bucket of flour being shaken back and forth producing charge seperation...I think the physical act of rolling the adhesive tape onto itself creates a chemical reaction.

Maybe the glue sticks due to a shared electron maybe an ion bond or an electrostatic bond and when you unroll the tape you break the chemical bond and release energy.

This has implications for lots of things. There's nothing special about 3M tape if unrolling it can create x-rays then so can many other things...

I have 3m tape and the glue has the consistency of gelatin or boiled tendon...

That reminds me of something.

I was reading on louis hissinks blog how ice (a form of structured water) stores more energy than hot water or steam and the reason ice is cold is because it draws energy out of its environment to maintain it's ordered crystaline state.

Lick something metal in winter (metal = highly conductive = quick flow of electrons) and you'll see how the concept works. The metal is cold because it lacks electrons (i think) leading it to draws electrons from your saliva causing your saliva to bond to both your tongue and the metal.

I wonder if this isn't the same way adhesion works.

Glue is gelatanous liquid-crystal that draws in and bonds with other material in attempt to electron steal.

If so maybe the glue is not holding energy but is lacking energy and is trying to steal it from the tape and when you unroll it (no easy feat) it sends the electrons it was attempting to steal flying off into space



If so I bet breaking ice or tearing a tendon or wripping your tongue from a metal pole creates x-Ray.

It certainly hurts like it does

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Oops almost missed that. Yes, it would. When I said not on the ball I meant more the qualitative approach a lot of them take (and what's with the trademark symbol?) without hitting the math. But clearly there are lot of good researchers who do/did work supporting that like Alfven, Birkeland, and Peratt more recently.

I think with the tape creating x-rays, a chemical bond is broken when the tape is pulled up and that bond has an energy on the order of soft x-rays so an x-ray is emitted to conserve energy.

I swear I only say this after I posted.

Anyways I still think it's interesting that glue (and sap, and honey, and mollases) is gelatinous

 

[haidut]

No, and that what was what confuzzled them when they were studying beaming light at things to create electrons. They figured they could just turn up the intensity (photon flux) and finally get some electrons to pop out. But it didn't work how they thought it 'should.' I think a big thing that's not really understood, though, is what sort of effect a, say, GHz frequency EM wave has on polar molecules in the body (like water). It seems pretty plausible that 'wagging' something around a cell or somewhere in your body at high frequencies may have negative consequences, and that would fall under the field induction pathway.

So, where would you guess the missing energy goes from irradiating the cell with EMF? I have to find the studies that did that but I am pretty sure it was with 2.4Ghz frequency and sub 1W power at 1-10 feet distance to emulate WiFi exposure. Some of it turned into heat, some of it sped up glycolysis (and some other enzymes) as the Reddit AMA explained, but about 20% could not be accounted for. Could it be just static charge?
As far as the photoelectric effect, it is far from settled and Einsteins himself thought it is incomplete explanation as he did not believe in matter/wave duality. Apparently, a number of explanations that do NOT require photons have been proposed and accepted as valid.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680009569.pdf
Can the photoelectric effect be explained without photons?

Finally, can you please take a look at the discussion below and let me know what part of the argument user "Worlov" makes is wrong?
Incorrect interpretation of the photoelectric effects

 

[DrJ]

So, where would you guess the missing energy goes from irradiating the cell with EMF?

Without seeing the study and beyond the 'loss pathways' you have already mentioned, at least one other pathway that would need to be accounted for is the work (the physics quantity) of moving charge in a field. For example, when I was mentioning the wave "wagging" polar molecules (dipoles) or even ions (behaving more like a point charge) those dipoles/charges would be moved by the field of the incident EM wave, and those dipoles/charges would exist in some field already, so quite clearly work is being done, so energy is being used. It would show up as a change in the potential energy of the system, which could be extremely difficult to account for experimentally in non-simple systems. Was an attempt made to account for that in the study?

As far as the photoelectric effect, it is far from settled and Einsteins himself thought it is incomplete explanation as he did not believe in matter/wave duality. Apparently, a number of explanations that do NOT require photons have been proposed and accepted as valid.

Yeah, seems straightforward to see that. You could replace the 'quanta term' in the equation with another term or series of terms as long as they produced the same output of the equation, satisfying the math and experimental results and providing another explanation/interpretation. However, the threshold term f_0 in the equation would still remain (and was itself experimentally derived).

Finally, can you please take a look at the discussion below and let me know what part of the argument user "Worlov" makes is wrong?

Unfortunately the links to the images/figures in the post are not provided, but he seems to be wrong right out the gate saying "in the saturation the photocurrent depends on the intensity of the light, but not its frequency. This is in conflict with the light quantum hypothesis of Einstein." Which is really not true. First, it does depend on frequency as the frequency threshold has to be met. I'm not sure why the post-saturation depending on intensity "conflicts" with the light quantum hypothesis because it doesn't. As I was saying in the previous paragraph, the quanta term in the equation matches the experimental data, but you could substitute another term in there that also matched the data.

Einsteins himself thought it is incomplete explanation as he did not believe in matter/wave duality.

Probably doesn't really matter what Einstein believed, but more what we observe in experiment. By far one of the most mind-bending experiments I know of regarding wave/particle duality and one of the central experiments to the development of quantum mechanics is the electron beam 2-slit defraction experiment in which they shoot a beam of electrons through two slits which creates an interference pattern (indicating wave behavior, and that the electron behaving as a wave goes through both slits) which is a pretty standard experiment. But in this incarnation, they install a particle detector on one of the slits that they can turn on/off to see which slit the electron goes through. LEAVING ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN PLACE the beam produces an interference pattern when the particle detector is turned off. Once they turn the particle detector ON (so they can tell which slit the electron went through) the interference pattern disappears and the pattern becomes one of random particle events. The huge implication of this being that by simply observing the event you change the outcome. It's really quite wild, but has to be explained. Wave/particle duality does this. If I recall, Bohm's pilot wave theory can explain it without the duality, but it's been a while.

 

[haidut]

Probably doesn't really matter what Einstein believed, but more what we observe in experiment. By far one of the most mind-bending experiments I know of regarding wave/particle duality and one of the central experiments to the development of quantum mechanics is the electron beam 2-slit defraction experiment in which they shoot a beam of electrons through two slits which creates an interference pattern (indicating wave behavior, and that the electron behaving as a wave goes through both slits) which is a pretty standard experiment. But in this incarnation, they install a particle detector on one of the slits that they can turn on/off to see which slit the electron goes through. LEAVING ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN PLACE the beam produces an interference pattern when the particle detector is turned off. Once they turn the particle detector ON (so they can tell which slit the electron went through) the interference pattern disappears and the pattern becomes one of random particle events. The huge implication of this being that by simply observing the event you change the outcome. It's really quite wild, but has to be explained. Wave/particle duality does this. If I recall, Bohm's pilot wave theory can explain it without the duality, but it's been a while.

Yes, the "duality" has to be explained and here is a recent study at MIT explaining the double-slit experiment through pilot-wave self-interference.
Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics?
When fluid dynamics mimic quantum mechanics
Pilot-wave hydrodynamics: A review
"...It then reviews theoretical descriptions of this hydrodynamic pilot-wave system that yield insight into the origins of its quantum-like behavior. Quantization arises from the dynamic constraint imposed on the droplet by its pilot-wave field, and multimodal statistics appear to be a feature of chaotic pilot-wave dynamics. I attempt to assess the potential and limitations of this hydrodynamic system as a quantum analog."

We have posted about stochastic electrodynamics (mentioned by the last MIT link above) before on the forum. I think it provides the most common-sense explanation of the dreaded "ether".
Friction In Absolute Vacuum - Possible Confirmation Of Ether Existence