NIST Neutrons and Z-Liquid Drop Theory



 Science > Physics > NIST Neutrons and Z-Liquid Drop Theory

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Douglas Eagleson"
Date: 30 May 2007 03:16:12 PM
Object: NIST Neutrons and Z-Liquid Drop Theory
Liquid-Drop as the model denotes a mass without mulitple energy state
levels. A single energy level is the quanta and the nuclues denotes a
kind of quanta.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/liqdrop.html
Listen. Nuclear theory is all rather binding energy effected right.
Why was the nucleus so caused?
Does it take a rocket scientist to infer the neutron standard as the
cause of binding energy. Is it correct or is it a security system? It
is admitted to only 9% absolute accuracy.
So why do people quote binding energy without error bars? A bad habit
is the nuclear data system and the absense of error bars was to be
understood. It is a laughable security system.
A term absolute calibration is defined differently in the nuclear
standards business. It actually means a relative size concerned with
NBS-1. A fifty year out of calibration standard. It is a secuirty
system so nobody wants it examined closely. Maybe go to Sandia for
quicker calibrations.
A standard was to be a relative error in all binding energy, but it is
not present for security reasons.
A 1% error relative to NBS-1 is quoted.
When I last looked all the equipment was sitting on the NIST loading
Dock. 2 tons of special shielding to make an elaborate detector for
true absolute calibration. NIST must loose the old relation with
nuclear security and walk into the modlern era. A brand new free and
open standard is to be the new age.
It would cost a researcher $40K to calibrate a single neutron
standard. That is how hard it is to do in an absolute fashion without
relative source strength as the reference. So the system is no hidden
it is open knowledge all over the place.
Liquid drop energy was discusses here and the Z as the theory was
commonly hidden as a theory in the old classified system. The new age
is here and open discourse in binding free quanta is arriving. To
calculate binding using Z? It is almost an insult.
.


  Page 1 of 1


Related Articles
A long-planned test of Einstein's theory is poised for takeoff
a (sketch of a) Unified Field Theory
If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes!
Is a Crystal-clear Theory Preferable to Dogmatic Riddles?
The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
STM theory
Introductory book on group theory, any suggestion?
Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
String Theory is Not Even Wrong: Hollywood Is Shooting Movie Starring David Duchovney as Brian Greene: Moving Dimensions Theory Will Rescue Jessic Alba, Not Michio Kaku nor Ed Witten
String theory, double slit experiment
A Category is Only Allowed Once in Physic's Physical Theory
New Conception of Time: Moving Dimensions Theory
The Theory That Will Replace Special Relativity
Unification theory for Geometry: Riem + Loba = Eucl
Research into high-temperature superconductors should focus on experiment,not theory
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER