# Reduced FTE Density

Finally I managed to get some time for explaining the experiment concerning reduced FTE density. I’ll draw few clarifying pictures as soon as possible but now let’s focus on the qualitative description.

Due to physical spinning phenomenon an electron inside FTE generates  incoming FTEP vortices towards its spinning axis poles and those incoming FTEPs are ejected away from the electron when those vortices encounter. This is the basic mechanism related to electrons in TOEBI. Basically this means that electrons are capable of redistributing FTEPs around them and we can amplify this phenomenon with magnets.

Only possibility (in TOEBI) which prevents hadrons from decaying must be so much greater outer FTE density than the inner FTE density that it compensates the FTEP momentum received by quarks, otherwise those quarks would fly away from each other. How come outer FTE density is able to bound the quarks receiving constant impulse (in form of FTEPs) from each other?

If we have an electron in an environment where its other side has a smaller FTE density than the other side then what would happen? Obviously electron’s outward FTEP flux experiences lesser resistance in the direction of smaller FTE density, meaning also that the outward FTEP flux towards the other direction experiences greater resistance. In practice it means that in the direction of greater resistance ejected FTEPs push electron into the opposite direction more than ejected FTEPs on the other side do. Hence greater outer FTE density is capable of preventing hadrons from decaying.

What will happen to hadrons if we manage to reduce outer FTE density enough? They will decay. Surely before noticing anything special about hadrons we should notice some effects concerning larger atoms and that’s the target of the experiment.

So we only need a test material surrounded by a bunch of magnets in a specific pattern in order to generate something measurable, right? Not so fast, we have to take into the consideration few other things, like Earth’s movement around Sun, the biggest FTE density distributor to the experiment after Earth. Earth itself can be ignored due to the fact that its FTE moves along us, hence provide a static FTE circumstances for the experiment. Naturally phenomena, like external magnetic fields, on Earth can interfere with the experiment.

Blueprint for the experiment is following. We indeed enclose a test material with magnets in certain pattern… Every magnet pair (pair of magnetic poles facing each other) should be N-S pairs in order to maximize the local FTEP redistribution. Putting up the setup might require few trials and errors before it’s stable and here’s how it should look alike.

At left there’s a test material sitting in the middle of the “magnetic walls” and at right it’s fully covered. It doesn’t need to be a air tight configuration and surely it leaks magnetic field lines but that’s not too damaging. The point is that the volume surrounded by magnets is going to experience a reduced FTE density. How’s that happening?

Well, because those unpaired electrons inside the magnets, which are responsible for magnet’s properties, do the trick. They “suck” in nearby FTEPs through their spinning axis poles and eject them (mainly) on their spinning plane, in our experiment it means following FTEP flow pattern.

But that’s not enough. In order to create reduced FTE density we have to something about the FTE provided by Sun. Earth orbits Sun which is the second greatest FTE provider after Earth. Every atom bound to Earth experiences Sun’s FTE(Ps) and because we are orbiting Sun it means that the atoms are constantly receiving “new” FTEPs along our journey around Sun. These new FTEPs go through our magnets and maintain the normal FTE density in our volume. That must be eliminated.

One simple method for eliminating those FTEPs would be a stack of magnets (next to our setup) magnetic field pointing to the direction of Earth’s orbital movement. Such a stack receives incoming Sun provided FTEPs and ejects those FTEPs away perpendicularly to the magnetic field. The question goes how big stack of magnets is sufficient?

That I must somehow calculate, at least if we aren’t selecting the trial & error approach. I’ll try to calculate the exact stack size at some point, at latest when I’m trying out the experiment by myself. Nevertheless, trial & error is an option, I just need more N52 grade magnets.

What would be a suitable test material then? Obviously radioactive substances qualify, measured increase with their radioactive decay rate works as the proof of concept. Americium-241 from smoke detectors is the easiest choice for test material, after positive outcome, some heavy elements as well as hydrogen gas are next to go.

What else interferes with the experiment? Naturally anything capable of redistributing FTEPs effectively can interfere, in most cases this means that we have to make sure that there won’t be large amounts of electrons (other than those involved with the experiment) next to our setup. Not used magnets and unnecessary objects (i.e. electronic devices, wires, metals, static electricity sources) should be cleared around the setup.

With above instructions we should achieve (based on TOEBI) increased radioactivity of Americium-241 and if that happens the sky’s the limit.

## 30 thoughts on “Reduced FTE Density”

1. Berry says:

To put it in a nutshell, you claim (completely without proof, as usual) that
Toebi predicts an increased decay rate of Americum-241 in the presence of a
suitable magnetic field. Right?

2. Right, but there is very strong emphasis on word suitable.

3. Berry says:

Sure. If the experiment’s outcome is negative, you can (and will) claim that the magnetic field just wasn’t suitable. And you can do this ad infinitium because you’ve got no mathematical basis at all to calculate any suitableness. That’s Toebi style, what else?

4. There’s no ambiguity about the shape of the magnetic fields, only their strength in various directions (especially the “blocker” field strength) is a bit of question mark. This is a make it or break it experiment for TOEBI. Another make it or break it experiment concerns one way speed of light, but that’s another story.

One more thing… if I can’t pull this off I’m done with TOEBI. That one way speed of light experiment requires too much equipment and expertise so I won’t do it by myself.

5. Berry says:

> There’s no ambiguity about the shape of the magnetic fields, only their strength in
> various directions

But this does change the overall shape of the magnetic field.

> if I can’t pull this off I’m done with TOEBI.

What’s that supposed to mean in detail?

6. But this does change the overall shape of the magnetic field.

Sure, so I should have been more accurate. My point was that the greatest uncertainty comes from the needed size of the “buffer” stack.

What’s that supposed to mean in detail?

If I can’t significantly increase the radiation from Americum-241 sample I’ll stop investing my time in TOEBI.

7. Good news, ordered stack of N52 grade magnets have arrived. Now I need to purchase new smoke detector then I’m good to go.

8. Berry says:

> If I can’t significantly increase the radiation from Americum-241 sample
> I’ll stop investing my time in TOEBI.

The if-part was clear, I meant to refer to the then-part: Will the stop include a conclusion?

9. Conclusion, sure, but let me do the experiment first. I have now all the needed ingredients, next step is to build the setup.

10. Berry says:

> My Americium-241 was too heavily covered hence detecting gamma-rays
> was at poor level.

How do you detect them? The smoke detector already contains an ionization chamber, can you use that?

> But anything fancy didn’t show up.

I’m not surprised.

11. How do you detect them? The smoke detector already contains an ionization chamber, can you use that?

I use my Radex (Geiger tube based) gamma ray detector and I’ve taken that radioactive piece (which is still partially covered with metal and I won’t trying to remove it due to the risk of accidentally getting small pieces off the radioactive material, inhaling alpha emitting particles is pretty harmful) out of the smoke detector.

The problem is that it’s not emitting enough gamma rays which I could detect outside the setup. Even in normal situation (Americium inserted to the setup but not covered totally with magnets) those emitted gamma rays get absorbed by the frame material, by the metal partially covering the radioactive piece and by the magnets attached to the frame.

I’ll try couple of tweaks in order to solve this threshold issue.

12. Berry says:

> I’ve taken that radioactive piece (which is still partially covered with
> metal […]) out of the smoke detector.

Does it happen to have three or four cables/connectors to it?

> those emitted gamma rays get absorbed

Sure? The $$\gamma$$-amount is quite low in the first place, about 1%.

13. This metal covered radioactive piece was originally attached to a container which had three wires coming out of it.

Yes, the amount of gammas is low but clearly detectable. I measured well over 1 $$\mu$$S/h from the piece after detaching it from the container.

14. Berry says:

> This metal covered radioactive piece was originally attached
> to a container which had three wires coming out of it.

Two chambers, one air-flooded, one sealed (your perfect reference). You could have learned working voltage and zero current, and could have checked the (non-)impact of a magnetic field on this current. You would have used the factor 100 stronger ionization of the $$\alpha$$-decay directly.

> the amount of gammas is low but clearly detectable.

Yeah? I was told “The problem is that it’s not emitting enough gamma rays which I could detect outside the setup.”

15. Berry says:

air-flooded: ambient air
working voltage and zero current: the current w/o smoke

16. Yeah? I was told “The problem is that it’s not emitting enough gamma rays which I could detect outside the setup.”

Communication is an art hard to master 🙂 Gamma ray detection isn’t a problem when the piece is next to the detector, only when I put the piece inside the frame then I can’t detect those gamma rays.

You could have learned working voltage and zero current…

Sure thing… hindsight is the best.

17. Berry says:

>> You could have learned working voltage and zero current…
>
> Sure thing… hindsight is the best.

The removal of the radiation source and container is irreversible?

18. Berry says:

On the other hand, your approach is cleaner in the sense that it doesn’t expose the measurement device directly to the magneic field.

19. The removal of the radiation source and container is irreversible?

Based on used force and created damage I’m afraid that’s the case. It’s definitely easier to buy a new smoke detector.

On the other hand, your approach is cleaner in the sense that it doesn’t expose the measurement device directly to the magneic field.

True, although static magnetic field should not affect the measurement. Here’s one hilarious example of dynamic magnetic field (one of my earlier ‘discoveries’).

20. Berry says:

> static magnetic field should not affect the measurement.

Sure? $$\alpha$$-particles and ionized air molecules are forced onto circular orbits.

21. But those ionized molecules are so heavy that they will get thrown out of the magnetic field, right? Circulating alphas shouldn’t be a problem, they will interact with air molecules in any case.

22. I’ll continue experimenting this reduced FTE density idea in near future. I have few ideas for enhancing the effect which should enable better gamma ray detection.

23. Berry says:

> I’ll continue experimenting this reduced FTE density idea in near
> future.

Yeah, sure, I know this phrase… “to be continued”. With that, also any answers regarding the topic over there are on hold, right?

> I have few ideas for enhancing the effect which should enable better
> gamma ray detection.

I doubt that, and maybe it’s not necessary, after all. If I read that mumbo jumbo above correctly, the job of the magnet is to compensate the flux of FTEPs allegedly coming from the sun, right?

24. Berry says:

Or let’s have it this way: Far away from any planets, the FTE density $$\rho$$ is essentially provided by the sun and $$\rho\sim F_{Sun}$$, where $$F_{Sun}$$ is sun’s gravitational force. Right?

25. the job of the magnet is to compensate the flux of FTEPs allegedly coming from the sun, right?

To be precise, those FTEPs are not coming from the sun per se, it’s more like Earth is moving through the FTEPs surrounding the sun. And yes, those magnets should push those incoming FTEPs, as much as possible, away from the radioactive sample.

On the other hand, those magnets should “pump” away FTEPs surrounding the radioactive sample. These two functions combined should cause a reduced FTE density for the sample.

(Regarding your latest comment/question) Right.

26. Berry says:

> These two functions combined should cause a reduced FTE density for the sample.

… leading, according to you, to an increased decay rate, right? But any other means of reducing the FTE density should also do the trick, shouldn’t it?

27. … leading, according to you, to an increased decay rate, right? But any other means of reducing the FTE density should also do the trick, shouldn’t it?

Right and yes. Actually, I remember reading an article about radioactive decay rates having annual variations (decaying faster when the Earth-Sun distance was increasing), although the effect was very small and needs further confirmation.

28. Berry says:

> Actually, I remember reading an article

Source?

> about radioactive decay rates having annual variations (decaying
> faster when the Earth-Sun distance was increasing), although the
> effect was very small

Hmm, 3% variation in sun/earth distance, which corresponds in TOEBI world to less than 0.004% variation of $$\rho$$. This is meek to begin with. One can do better!

> and needs further confirmation.

It doesn’t need further confirmation, it would need confirmation at all. Many people are interested in increasing the decay rate (in order to get faster rid of nuclear waste), but up to now nothing sensible has worked.

But regarding TOEBI’s alleged predictions, we can do better: In TOEBI world, the Pioneer and Voyager space probes have experienced a drop of $$\rho$$ to about 0.04% of its initial value. That’s quite a drastic loss of FTE density, but the wear of the probes’ RTGs didn’t show any speed up. Once more, TOEBI is flatly contradicted by experiments.

“Wait”, you’ll say now, “I haven’t told you the whole story. Now that you mention it, there is this one Kimmo-factor taking care of such a situation and compensating the $$\rho$$ drop, because…”
Or something along these lines…

29. Source?

Actually that last paper is pretty interesting because it handles also the intra solar-day fluctuations.

… but the wear of the probes’ RTGs didn’t show any speed up. Once more, TOEBI is flatly contradicted by experiments.

But you forget that those spacecrafts are moving in relation to the source providing the surrounding FTE. In practise, the drop of FTE density is compensated by their movement in it. In fact, this phenomenon relates very much with (special) relativity phenomena.

30. On the other hand, the proximity of other (than Sun) stellar objects and possible velocity increases during the spacecraft’s mission affect the decay rate of the material in RTG.

Also, check this out. Reduced FTE density originated loss of power is more than easily hid under the rug named “degrading properties of the bi-metallic thermocouples”