Patent Application
20180350477
For this filing, I, Eric Arno Vigen, declare that no federal funds were used in its development.
The challenge of nuclear decay, radioactivity, or other changes to atoms flows from the natural atomic structures with a nucleus surrounded by electrons. This electron natural barrier stops external particles, like protons and neutrons, from changing an atom's nucleus particle count. In most molecules, this makes an atom, once build, very stable. However, in atoms of large nucleus particle count, a percentage of the them have an ejection, specifically for the present invention radioactive ejections with related radioactivity. For radioactive elements, nucleus particles eject often enough a) that some pass other atom's electron shell barrier, and b) those trigger other atom's nucleus particle injection which in turn ejects another set of particles in an unending chain that can last millions of years. That radioactive radiation has both value and risks. Either the radiation can have uses of the radiation for power plants or medical diagnosis, or the radioactivity can cause mutation, organ illness, and even death.
At issue in the present invention is changing that radiation rate, especially in spent radioactive fuel, and the conversion of radioactive materials into non-radioactive material by access to those unconverted nucleus. Any process getting to the nucleus is exponentially difficult because the exterior electron ‘shell’ protection of one atom usually sits with a similar external electrons shell. In normal atoms, it is exponentially more difficult because both atoms have the protective electron shells. In that manner, without human processes, changes of atom's nucleus is rare. Radioactivity itself is rare.
For the purposes of commercial uses herein, the nucleus structure will remain a stable structure unless another nuclear particle (neutron or proton) changes the system, yet when the number of protons is very high any natural trigger begins the material regularly to eject these dangerous particles at a rate such that the next atom gets a particle to maintain a chain reaction of decaying, called radioactivity. In Elements after 082-Pb-Lead and 083-Bs-Bismuth, one electron ejection usually causes the next atom, in a chaining reaction, to absorb a particle, reduce the nucleus particle count by then re-ejecting even more particles. When such ejected particle hits living organisms, it can cause genetic mutation, and in heavy doses, radiation can cause organ illness, failure, and even death. The reduction of radioactive material to stability, and immaterial levels of radiation, is a critical requirement for society as well the companies that utilize radioactive material commercially, including medical, industrial and military institutions. And today there are tons of these dangerous materials simply buried because no commercially viable radioactivity reduction process exists. This filing and the present invention shall focus on one such various embodiments of the present invention to address that serious problem. The present invention focuses on this type of nucleus change, and does not address the other observed non-radioactive Element nucleus changes, including observed neutron particle decay. That type is not involved with the present invention, and not necessary to discuss in the present invention Background.
The rate of those ejections and re-injections in chains naturally is very small for Periodic Chart Elements until 084-Po-Polonium which decays at a half-life of about 102 years, and decay rates vary up and down the Periodic Chart of those radioactive Elements in which Element 092-U-Uranium at a special configuration which decays at a half-life of over one billion (1,000,000,000) years, and 087-Fr-Francium is only 1,302 seconds. A half-life is the time it takes for the half of the material to change from a high-Atomic Number element into a lower-proton-count Atomic Number element. The mathematics of the remaining material is determined with a factor in its exponent of the time elapsed. The base under that exponent is the ejection-re-injection-decay rate. The amount of unconverted material, the number of such atoms, decreases the decay rate over time as less material is radioactive—because the percentage of the material already changes decreases leaving less and less radioactive materials. The half-life is a scientific naming choice of an even longer decay process.
In each decay interaction proposed beyond the natural radioactive ejection-re-injection process, external nucleus particles, neutrons and protons, penetrate to the nucleus of the high Atomic Number atom. The basics of particle injection into atoms is known prior art. So, there are known injections to increase the Atomic Number of the material or decreases to reduce the Atomic Number.
So, in some cases, that injection works to increase nuclear particle count. That is how scientists, in prior art, have created the synthetic elements 093-Np-Neptunium to 118-Og-Oganesson by shooting neutron-proton bundles at a nucleus, and occasionally, after penetrating the electron shell, those bundles stick for a change (increase) of the atom's nucleus, and thereby the atom, with its half-live, of the new element. Only this injection process seems to change a nucleus in prior art to date. Without injection, these elements (093-Np to 118-0g) are not naturally occurring. It is a special case to get a nucleus to increase in proton count (Atomic Number), but it can occur. The use of the present invention to improve this prior art process by delivery of multiple atom groups, versus a single particle, gets covered in Claim 13.
Yet, the particle injections for reduction, their paths, and their frequency, are the focus of the main present invention. In the same way, when external particles hit the nucleus, more often that interaction creates a realignment which pushes a neutron out of the way, and leaves two protons too close to each other, and viola, powerful electrostatic force at extremely small distance (1/distance-square) between protons, such that the protons, often with some nearby neutrons or other protons, get expelled, or ejected. Given the strength of electrostatic repulsion proton to proton as such small distances, the acceleration and speed of the ejected particles is high. That expulsion particle stream is measurable (Geiger) in radioactive materials.
So, by external nucleus particles, entering a radioactive material nucleus and ejections triggered thereby in chains, 094-Plutonium reduces to 090-Radium, and 090-Radium reduces to 086-Rn-Radon, then to 084-Po-Polomium, and finally to a stable, non-radioactive 082-Pb-Lead. At each step, some protons (usually two or four) and related neutrons (usually at least as many as the protons) get expelled from the nucleus.
For the element 094-Pu-Plutonium, which is one of the present invention targets and major material in nuclear waste, has a half-life is E+7 years, 10,000,000 years. Effectively that is forever. However, an increase in the decay rate of 30× would change that half-life to 9.4 years. Further, if the increased ejections create further injections at that accelerated rate, that half-life is less than one year. That is the beneficial mathematics of exponential decay; a change in the rate exponentially changes the results because small changes compound and magnify over time.
Important to the present invention and the key challenge not addressed of prior work on the same challenge, the set of electrons around a nucleus in a ‘shell’ provides a barrier to these particles interactions. That is, at all ranges, the electrons in their field or ‘subshells’ repel each other by electrostatic charge. That electron-electron electrostatic repulsion makes atoms remain themselves as the outer shells repel the outer shells of other atoms. Atoms thereby bump off each other in substantially all situations. Further, those build for the radioactive elements of six or seven layers making the ability to penetrate substantially more difficult.
The approach of a neutron or proton, without electrons is already rare in nature. There are a few alpha or gamma particles observed in nature, but those were found as a few dots over extended exposures of X-Ray film. None of those are sufficient in frequency for commercial purposes. All such processes that would be commercially viable are developed by humans. That portion is a human-directed mechanical method for purposes of the present invention.
Geometry and Mathematics of AVSC
For reference, from my prior filing, a definition of newly created terms based upon my prior invention is required, in order to understand the present teachings and present invention:
1) NUCLEOMAGNETICS: Nucleomagnetics is the standing, permanent oriented force of subatomic particles under the teachings in my prior filings (15/256,865, 15/490,870) utilizing the Arno Vigen Scrunched Cube Atomic Model. This force decreases by 1/distance-cubed between the particles involved in the calculations. The strength increases in relation to the number of particles with nucleomagnetics, which takes into account both the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom or compound along with any related electrons. That is a particle's strength times the total number of particles involved times each particle's strength combined. The constant of the nucleomagnetics force is the opposite sign of electrostatic charge force. Unlike motomagnetics, (the commonly observed) macro-world related force defined below, nucleomagnetics forces are repulsive between nucleus-to-electron in both hemispheres, and attractive between nucleus-to-nucleus particles. Specifically, the force strength of the field varies by a factor of an integral including the cosine of the inclination angle relative to the particle's axis. This factor is the exposed surface integral of the particle, which in a simplified version can be expressed by (1+3 COS ̂2)̂(½).
MOTOMAGNETICS: Motomagnetics is the magnetics created by the movement of particles, especially in defined directions for multiple particles. The relay of magnetic energy from particle to particle as passed causes their nucleomagnetics fields to rotate which changes and/or pulses their strength in various directions. Motomagnetics with repulsion depending on like pole north versus south, and repulsion de-pending on opposite pole attraction is the “magnetic” macro-world of moving particles, the commonly observed form of magnetics.
NUCLEOMAGNETIC AXIS: For a particle or group of particles, such as the nucleus, the magnetic field is aligned in one direction along an axis and its opposite at 180 degrees opposed to the first axis, relative to that particle group, which accounts for its relatively weaker nucleomagnetics strength as is the case with the atoms of Hydrogen and Helium in the Periodic Table of Elements. In other calculations relative to the inclination angles with the nucleomagnetics axis in the teachings, the strength increases as the angle to that axis increases, according to the surface integral factor. By the right-hand rule, a magnetic axis may be created by particles in rings or other structures, at an angle perpendicular to the ring or structure.
EQUATORIAL: Once a nucleomagnetics axis is established, there becomes an equatorial inclination/longitude which at an inclination angle of 90 degrees to both poles of that particle group's nucleomagnetics force is also the strongest position (at the same distance) of the nucleomagnetics forces. Normally, (by conventional wisdom of motomagnetics observations), that would not be the lowest energy motomagnetics placement (or settling position) for electrons, yet the first three electrons of many sub-shells, and the equatorial subshell position of just one electron, or two electrons at 0 degrees and 180 degree positions of latitude from each other, or in the case of three electrons at 0 degrees, 120 degrees, and 240 degrees latitude from each other occurs as the lowest, energy, stable state in my prior filing herein disclosed.
NUCLEOMAGNETICS ANGLE: The angle between and the electron position or bonding position relative to the nucleomagnetics axis with the nucleus as the vertex.
BONDING ANGLE (According to the AVSC model) is the bonding angle between two bonding positions with the nucleus as the vertex.
NUCLEOMAGNETICS CONSTANT: For some calculations under the AVSC Model, the number of particles in each group, say contained in the nucleus (for example) in a group times the electron of one, is the constant. This comprises the gross strength before accounting for the inclination angle factor in the computation.
REDUCED NUCLEOMAGNETIC-ROOT CONSTANT: As the basis of the nucleomagnetics constant is the principal that a particle (either Proton, Neutron, Electron) has a magnetic strength. While for convenience, we teach the example of multiplying the particles in two groups, then multiply that product by the nucleomagnetics constant, the preferred constant which is required for other similar calculations of the two particles sets using the Square-Root of that constant, then multiplying those products by each other. This calculation is similar to that of the Planck constant and the Reduction-Planck logic, which is well understood and documented. Most people were taught that protons and electrons attract, by that same electrostatic force law, Coulomb's Law, but not the Newtonian opposite force of the present invention AVSC teaching.
The teachings of the present invention and my prior filings (15/490,870) is that the electron-proton interaction is the balancing of electrostatic versus nucleomagnetics forces; there are two forces with different shapes and strength profiles. Both are inherent in different ways in the known particles. Electrostatic charge is spherical and decreases at 1/distance-squared. Nucleomagnetics force reduces the faster rate of 1/distance-cubed, with a strength change based upon the inclination angle of the one particle relative to the nucleomagnetics axis of another particle.
Yes, at long distance, at 1/distance-squared for electrostatic versus 1/distance-cubed for nucleomagnetics makes the attraction of electrostatic much greater, so objects are attracted. At large distances, that combined force, because the nucleomagnetics changes by 1/distance-cubed, expresses as effectively the same as electrostatic charge force alone. At a distance, nucleomagnetics is immaterial to the calculation of force. That is the reason that few, if anyone but me, have focused on nucleomagnetics until my prior filings. The nucleomagnetics force is immaterial at distances beyond a few angstroms as it decreases exponentially faster. Yet, at subatomic distances, the electrons are repelled by nucleomagnetics more powerfully than the electrostatic charge force (attraction). That is the other end of 1/distance-cubed. At subatomic distances, that 1/distance-cubed force becomes the strongest. For example, at a distance of 1/2 the balancing point (Bohr) nucleomagnetics 1/distance-cubed (1/((½)̂3)=8 actually is greater than electrostatic 1/distance-squared (1/((1/2)̂2)=4. So, electrons repel from both protons and neutrons by a nucleomagnetics force, as discussed in my prior filing (15/490870). Approaching neutrons or protons are repelled by this electron-proton nucleomagnetics repulsion before reaching the nucleus. This 2nd level of repulsion at or inside the nuclear distances, balancing at a derivative of Bohr radius, is why the vast majority of materials in the universe remain as a same stable Element, with a nucleus of the same, stable Atomic Number, without change and with electrons in ‘shell’ settling positions relative to the nucleus and its nucleomagnetics axis according to my prior filing. The ‘settling’ is the place, the nucleomagnetics angle and the radius distance, of balance between nucleomagnetics and electrostatic force for the set of particles. The nucleus is protected even if free protons or neutrons exist nearby. It is my prior filing (15/490,870) teachings related to the present invention that:
Even if electrons, by electrostatic charge force, get attracted to nucleus protons, its Newtonian balance opposite, electron-nucleus nucleomagnetics repulsion forces creates a standard distance, essentially the Bohr radius outside the outer electron shell, where electrons stay in the shell and any protons stay beyond that shell by another Bohr radius. Thereby, free protons do not fall in mass into the nucleus, or importantly herein, do not fall into the electron shell. That balancing of electrostatic and nucleomagnetics is the basis of the ‘weak force’, and further leads to the electron positions, distances, bonding angles, and even quantum mechanics. See the prior filing for extensive details on those teachings required as part of the present invention.
The discovery and teaching of the present invention and my prior filing (U.S. Ser. No. 15/490,870) is that the electrons have settling positions relative to each other, and relative to the nucleus and its nucleomagnetics axis. Further, the nucleus and electrons move and rotate as a relative group except for separate movement harmonics of quantum mechanics whereby the particles bounce between the forces of surrounding particles, particularly getting unsettled by nearby electron movements, and then re-settle back into harmony.
So, for purposes of the present invention, that protective layer is six or seven layers thick. That is the number of electrons shells known in the radioactive materials that are the target in the present invention.
Background on Subshells Settling Angles
As described in my prior art filings, the combination of electrostatic attraction versus nucleomagnetics repulsions creates a separation of the nucleus from electrons. Further, because nucleomagnetics have that shape based of changing force based upon the inclination angle relative to the nucleomagnetics axis, and equal force at the same inclination (longitude) angle for all latitudes (azimuth) angles, electrons have sets of different distances for this balance. Those are subshells in two hemispheres growing from one (1), to three (3) in each hemisphere, to five (5), and to seven in each hemisphere for the target radioactive atoms of the present invention. That makes subshells 2 hemispheres by the count around the geometry. That is, 2×1, 2×3, 2×5, and 2×7. Traditionally, they have been called Subshell-‘s’ (2×1=2 electrons max), Subshell-‘p’ (2×3=6 electrons max), Subshell-‘d’ (2×5=10 electrons max), and Subshell‘f’ (2×7=14 electrons max). However, given my prior art AVSC teaching know the geometry, the inclinational angle, deterministic forces, and structure, the subshells are re-named in AVSC as Subshell-m (2×1) because it settles on the nucleomagnetics angle, Subshell-‘c’ ‘f’ or ‘t’ (2×3) because the layer of three (3) sits either at the corners (‘c’) of a cube, the faces (‘f’) of the cube, or in a tight endcap (‘t’), and the outer subshells towards the equator to continue alphabetically as Subshell-‘u’ (2×5) and Subshell-‘v’ (2×7).
Finally, because, in my prior filing teachings, the electron—electron relationship has electrostatic repulsion does not have the balancing nucleomagnetics attraction, electrons do not bond, and also maintain settling position where each electron remains separate. Please note that I have not determined scientifically yet if the electron-electron interaction provides either a) no nucleomagnetics or b) a repulsive nucleomagnetics force. (That scientific distinction for my future work is not necessary for the Claims of the present invention.) I have tested and proven only that electron-electron nucleomagnetics force is not attractive. As such, electrons are always repelled from each other at all distances. By the way, that is a further reason why scientists failed to identify the nucleomagnetics force as it also remains unimportant to all current uses of electrons to electrons, including electrical resistance and electron behavior in ionization.
As depicted in
Yet, that representation in 2D is difficult. You can see that this view has some locations where electrons are front and back. This Figure shows two or three as a group at one distances and angle. However, these three are, in reality, separated in front and back or at space around the latitude positions at the same inclination/longitude. You can see some of the drawing in color in 3D in my prior art filing. For radioactive materials,
Current scientific thinking operates in an entirely different paradigm.
The original thinking of electrons is orbits, Bohr-Rutherford, has electrons moving. However, my AVSC teachings only have electrons in settling positions moving or rotating as a group. In that way the electrons can orbit around the nucleus, yet still keep their relative settling positions in the group in the rotating frame of reference. In this way, AVSC address the orbit observation of Bohr-Rutherford, yet maintains its AVSC settling position postulate.
In the last 100 years, the scientific community has concentrated on electrons in statistical clouds. Quantum mechanics focused on the interaction of the electrons for radio radiation spectrum, harmonics, and bonding strength. Yet, quantum mechanics does not predict specific locations or angles or structure for the nuclear particles of a particular element. In AVSC, the electrons settling creates distances and multiple forces, both electrostatic and nucleomagnetics, that create both electrostatic and nucleomagnetics forces moving another particle in the set as one particle gets changes. In this way, AVSC address the harmonics observations of quantum mechanics, yet AVSC maintains its settling angle, distance, and position postulate.
Further, in Pauli exclusion, the electrons operate in pairs, including bonding. In AVSC, electrons would tend to settle in 3D locations exactly opposite each other. In this way, AVSC addresses the spin observation of Pauli and others, yet AVSC maintains its 3D settling position postulate. This has significant application for all bonding creating three types of bonds in my AVSC atomic model with 3D geometry and deterministic force vectors, instead of current two options only for bonding of covalent or ionic in Pauli pairs only. Application of those AVSC features are not required for the current invention, and will get left to another patent application in progress by me. In this way, AVSC address the Pauli exclusion and spin, yet AVSC maintains its settling angle, distance, and position postulate.
That mathematical calculation, by my prior filing, of the angles relative to each atom's nucleomagnetics axis is the fundamental Claim of the present invention. It is the science that provides the basis why the systems and methods from Claim 1 onward operate successfully.
The concept of ‘1/2 spin’, used in calculating nuclear decay rates, initially discussed in my prior filing AVSC calculations (U.S. application Ser. No. 15/490,870), is a stable atom of an Element having one electron in one hemisphere without a corresponding electron in the opposite position has critical application to the present invention. It is the odd-numbered elements, like 91-Pa-Proactinium versus 92-U-Uranium. Spin creates a negative charge in one side of the element. As such, all 1/2 spin, odd elements have an electrostatic dipole. There is a direction with more negative charge versus positive charge, even though the proton and electrons are in balance (91 and 91). The orientation has the extra electron as the only-one-hemisphere filled inclination for a negative charge, and the extra proton in the nucleus as a positive charge. There is a permanent electrostatic directional difference.
The prior art connected these an electromagnetic dipole moment. However, in the teaching of the my prior art and the present invention, the inclination of that extra electron may not be on the nucleomagnetics axis. It may match; in the case of, 87-Fr-Francium, which, in the Shell-7 has only one electron, 7m1, which settles on the nucleomagnetics axis, this electrostatic dipole is the same as the nucleomagnetics axis. However, for 91-Protactinium, the extra electron is about 26 degrees off the nucleomagnetics axis. As such, 91-Protactinium does get good alignment, but not the near perfect of 87-Fr-Francium. However it is important to note that alignment of an inclination/longitude in multiple atoms does not align the latitudes, and thereby the nucleomagnetics axis can get in a range of azimuth (latitude) even if the bonding is electrostatic aligned by a nucleus-electron axis. As such, the other odd-count radioactive Elements do not express super-fast decay (compare 87-Fr-Francium—a half-life of 1,302 minutes being must shorter than 85-At-Astatine—29,106 minutes 89-Ra-Radium—87,197 minutes, or 91-Pa-Protactinium 118,000,000 minutes), yet the odd-count do exbit faster decay than the even-count Elements. That is strong evidence that supports the teaching of the present invention in that odd-count elements, where electrons settling calculated by my prior filing (15/490,870) is not on the nucleomagnetics axis like 087-Fr-Francium, have less decay, and its longer half-lives, and nucleomagnetics is a driving factor in that scientific difference. This natural process compares to the human induced process in Claim 10 where a electrostatic preference creates excellent nucleomagnetics for certain Elements, crystals of Elements, or similar methods.
It is the teaching of the present invention that the nucleomagnetics alignment is powerful in changing the decay rate, and thereby half-live, versus the natural standards. In fact, natural alignment actually does change the decay rate.
As depicted in
Specifically, the decay rates of Elements that have one-hemisphere-only electron filing (‘1/2 spin’) are not all the same. In fact, only the one that aligns on the nucleomagnetics axis, per my AVSC teachings, has the amazingly short half-life. The other odd-elements that are radioactive, with half-life shorter than their neighbor even-Atomic Number Elements, and thereby that align by electrostatic dipole, but for electrons at an inclination angle different that the nucleomagnetics axis. So, their decay does not get that immense boost of full nucleomagnetics alignment where ejected path angles match the injection path angles of 087-Fr-Francium.
Therefore, the science conclusions of the teachings of my prior filing and the present invention are:
However, before the teachings of my prior filings and the present invention, the scientific community focused on the electrostatic feature, and even called it ‘electromagnetic’ (see [0037]) to further make understanding almost impossible mixing the different force structures as if one. It is the teachings of the present invention, that electrostatic and nucleomagnetics are different forces, with difference profiles of expression. However, because both start from combinations of the same particles, protons, neutrons and electrons, the two are highly interlinked. Neutrons express only one of the forces, nucleomagnetics, and electrons only express the electrostatic repulsion without a magnetic attraction. Therefore, changing electrostatic features, can change the particles which thereby changes nucleomagnetics. The two are intertwined fundamentally.
The teaching of the present invention is a radical departure from any prior art as to the basic science underlying the basic atomic particles, and the fundamental forces of nature. The present invention is just one set of embodiments and use of the nucleomagnetics calculation of my prior art and the present invention. The present invention delves deeper via the multi-atom nucleomagnetics alignment (versus electrostatic dipole), and applications of methods based upon the determined nucleomagnetics axis and inclination angles determined from it.
Background on Nucleomagnetics Orientation
The closest prior art is NMR which uses a combination, including magnetics, as a method to orient and stabilize atoms such that measurement of bonding distances for various bond lengths of a compound molecule can occur. Its goal is to get the particles of an atom not moving at all, so the particles distances can get measured by radiation harmonics. The magnetics align them so the measurement of multiple atoms all express in one direction so the measurements are linear and additive. NMR uses the name magnetic, but magnetics is just a way to get close to no movement, zero Kelvin; the NMR embodiments relate to the harmonics of different bonds in molecules in one dimension, the ‘z’ dimension. It does not have the repulsive towards both poles of my prior art (Ser. No. 15/490,870) or the application of particles at angles of the present invention.
The NMR alignment process has challenges. The coldest temperature in use at present only get to 8 Kelvin, and gets used in NMR. However, that is not quite zero Kelvin (no movement). In NMR, the purpose and use of the strong magnet is to get the particles not moving in two of three directions (called ‘x’ and ‘y’ with ‘z’ being my nucleomagnetics axis direction for standardization throughout this filing). If NRM cannot get zero Kelvin, it, at least, isolates the movement to only the ‘z’ magnetic axis direction. At any temperature above zero Kelvin, the atomic set continues to move. However, by the addition of a very strong magnetic, that slow movement gets pressed, like a spinning top, only along the magnetic axis. In that manner, the movement is only around the ‘z’ magnetic axis direction. Further, any remaining movement is consistent based upon the strength of the magnetic field applied. The application of traditional magnetics field to achieve better nucleomagnetics alignment in the present invention is part of Claim 5.
Further, and important background to the present invention, because NMR uses a solvent, the material can move in any direction. In the case of NRM, that movement becomes twisting until it has magnetic alignment. Without the liquid feature, different layers of a solid would have different orientations, such that all particles would not create the same expressed profile. That the present invention target radioactive material is solid is a difference, and addressed by the various Claims of the present invention.
So, the NRM method requires a) cold temperature, b) very strong magnet, c) non-expressing solvent, and d) radiation generation and measurement. It does not have the added feature of particle delivery of the present invention. Further, here and my prior art describes the mechanics and science why and how NMR works better than the inventor's filing.
Further, for the purposes of the present invention, the use of the non-expressing solvent, required in NRM, creates a secondary challenge of its disposal. In that manner, one of the features of NMR prior art likely cannot apply to the present invention. That makes NRM excellent background, yet not the same. The science, when understood by using my AVSC atomic model, has similarities in both forces and processes. Both are based upon science closer to my AVSC postulates in the teaching of my prior art and the present invention. As such, the present invention does not require near zero Kelvin, as required for NMR.
Background on Material Preparation
The present invention focuses on material of solid rods. However, a solid rod has millions of layers of particles that are laying as best they can. That means the material generally is not aligned by nucleomagnetics. At that range of layers, getting sufficient alignment remains a huge challenge. We will discuss various areas to address that challenge, to reduce the number of layers or to assure that layers self-align.
Grinding is a method to reduce the size of materials. The original patents on grinding start with Dickinson in 1945 and from searches limited to 1975 forward start with Hopkins (U.S. Pat. No. 4,018,012) and continuing to thicknesses of 350 microns (3.5E-4 meters) in Kato (U.S. Pat. No. 4,662,124). However, a radioactive molecule is in the range of 10 Angstroms (E-9 meters). This compares to techniques that Claim E-5 to E-6 meters of material after grinding in a search of current providers. That means there are at least one to ten thousand (1,000 to 10,000) (E+3 or E+4) layers of molecules in fine ground solid by current models. Even when applying the reduction, the number of layers will have orientations as a solid diverse. As such, grinding is not the preferred embodiment of the alignment method.
For one of the most likely use, energy production, the dissolving process already occurs for other material preparation reasons. As such, the dissolving is a) already in service, and b) reduces material to singular atoms or a few atoms in combination. Claim 9 includes the live integration with production uses of radioactive material of the present invention. Claim 1 is the use either before, during or after without specification.
For enrichment, nuclear fuel already is dissolved, and then a centrifuge is used to segregate U235 from U237, the lighter from the heavier materials. After that, the separated, high-value material is dried (solvent removed) before actual production use. Therefore, including the Claims of the present invention as an added method and system with the existing process is the most natural course. The cost is already being incurred.
In the third option, magnetic alignment during dissolve/drying, the present invention does not change the dissolving process or the drying, or the enrichment process. However, the present invention can get applied in the drying process. Instead of simply drying the radioactive material, by the use of a) seed crystals and/or b) a strong magnetic during the drying process (or electrostatic charge field if the radioactive material has a 1/2 spin electrostatic dipole to drive the magnetic alignment). There are documented in Claim 15 and Claim 16.
The challenge in application for the electrostatic procedure is that the target Element is often 092-U-Uranium, which is not 1/2 spin. Therefore, electrostatic methods of nucleomagnetics alignment are not likely effective; there is no unbalanced electrons, so that options will be ineffective.
Further, 092-U-Uranium does not have electrons in a stackable structure. The outer shell has six electrons filled 7m2:2,7t4:6, in AVSC (7p2,6d4 in the prior art nomenclature). That is geometric not as likely to align because:
So, a solidifying profile of the target radioactive Elements atoms creates a ready explanation why their decay rates are low, and half-life large. The natural solidifying profile leads to different nucleomagnetics orientation from atom to atom, and better alignment leads to the calculation of the decay rates and half-life specific to each Element. Finally, it is altering that natural rate that are the Claims of the present invention. It is the geometric calculation, like solidifying structure and shape, derived from my prior filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870), which defines a different science at the core of the present invention. The logic path, my AVSC atomic model science, is revolutionary and unique.
Through that alignment logic, the crystallization process does not need to be a material all the radioactive material. Another material in with 90 or 180 degrees preference in crystal may work; any semi-cubic crystal includes 90 degrees in combination which then aligns materials. Since commercial grade radioactive fuel can get achieved at 5%, then aligning the material does not need complete alignment to increase productive output. The doping process of silicon wafers with Boron or Phosphorus is one example of a doping the active agent into a crystal of another Element. The structure of silicon crystal is cubic-tetrahedron (half-cube). That makes the angle every other round of 90 degrees which produces alignment 180 degrees. The challenge is that the bonding angles of the Subshell-7t are not in alignment, but the same. Uranium may not line up with the silicon, but may line up with each other, which is the critical factor so ejections, at 90 degrees, arrive at 90 degrees, the channel for substantially better injections from one atom in the structure into another.
Present Invention Background
All the embodiments of the present invention are systems and methods to introduce, or return, nucleus particles past the electron field at an increased delivery rate to speed the nuclear decay by focusing them upon these entrance channels angles which are between electron settling positions. It overcomes my nucleomagnetics repulsion of the surrounding electrons by approaching where the electrons are not settled. Those are angles, or directions of attack, occur relative to the nucleomagnetics axis where the electrons are substantially less dense, or even empty.
The teachings of the present invention is that if you can send particles into nuclear waste at the correct angle (say +/−90 degrees for 094-Pu-Plutonium in one embodiment of the present invention), which has a nucleus-delivery rate at least 1,000× greater than approach at an angle of say zero (-0-) degrees or seventy-one (71) degrees which will get repulsed or deflected by one of the six of seven layers of electron subshell sitting direction in the path to the nucleus. That focus method would increase the delivery rate by at least 90×, past at least six electron shell layers, as the prior 1/90 random delivery with 89as a much lower rate gets replaced with 1/1 degree of a present invention process. That 90× improvement is greater than the 30× required to make nuclear waste processing commercially viable (less than ten years).
Redelivery—Squaring the Results—Reflection Creates More Particles for Delivery
The ratio of particle delivery and radioactivity is very small. If a half-life is 10,000,000 years for dispose of 1/2 of the material. That mean in any middle year say 1/10,000,000 of the material gets a particle delivery and decay reaction.
However, more important in radioactivity, is that the volume of outputs becomes the source of further decay reactions. That is the nature of the mathematics of exponential decay over time. It takes years just to get half of the stuff to convert. It will take another 10,000,000 years for the half of the remaining, or 1/4 of the stuff. As less atoms decay, there are less particles creating new decay.
Experimental evidence already showed that reflection, by encasing the radioactive material instead of leaving in the open, increase the decay. That is, a few particles are reflected back, so that is more particles for injection.
It is the teaching of the present invention that as successful particle inject gets improved, then reflection, if done at the correct angle of the teaching of the present invention, will increase correspondingly.
In that manner, some of the later Claims that include reflection added, are a method to make the increase operate by squares. The increase in delivery times the increase in output particle re-delivered again. In that manner, combination envisioned here can achieve more than the 30× commercial viability level by a combination of increasing particle delivery by 6×, and then the resulting ejected particles redirecting back into the process to cause a further 6× in downstream, secondary decay reactions. In that way, a successful embodiment of the present invention would achieve 36× decay rate improvement, more than enough to achieve commercial viability.
Background Challenges
One of the challenges of the present invention is the orientation process before or during delivery. Molecules do not line up without external methods. If we send particles, but the target atoms are moving or rotating, the process is back to random, and will not improve delivery. Those target orientation methods are in various embodiments of the present invention. In a solid material, these large atoms have all orientations as they fit against in each other, in many direction. That means that one layer might lay at the needed magnetic orientation as any of the millions of other layers of the material. Without the thoughtful process of the present invention, the orientation of molecules is random. Further, in liquid and gaseous states, the atoms or molecules are rotating themselves such that the axis is constantly changing, further hampering orientation efforts.
So, the target atoms do not naturally align. To get extremely strong alignment, other patents in nuclear magnetic resonance (“NMR”) (U.S. Pat. No. 4,051,429 and others) have identified methods and system that combines a) low Kelvin, and b) very strong Telsa magnetic fields create an alignment of particles that specific atoms and configurations show measurable differences in frequency. That method creates nucleomagnetics field alignment such that the same element delivers the same electron energy outputs in only one dimension, and as such measurable or comparable, which relate to the same inclination angle and distance of electrons relative to the nucleus. In some cases, those orientation methods are added to the present invention to create that path for decay for a new combination system in various embodiments of the present invention. However, existing NMR equipment does not provide launching of radioactivity into stable nucleus results, and certain not the present invention Claim of orientation, specific angles, and launching together. While
Second, the alignment of approaching particles is part of existing university equipment. A person experience in nuclear research at the university would know as common knowledge the functions using that equipment Claimed herein. We will discuss later why the approach with neutrons has better success rate than an approach with protons, we consider the functionality as existing prior art, and subject to whatever rights apply to that method. This patent will always use approach particle accelerators in combination with present invention methods for a more complex complete system. So, while a patent search of ABST//(neutron AND accelerat) returns no results, a search of ABST//(proton AND gun) returns a use (U.S. Pat. No. 5,020,411) not related to the present invention.
Therefore, the present invention in various forms and Claims contains a) methods of orienting the target, b) methods of orienting the approaching particles, as c) systems applying parts of both those methods. It is the combination of those variants that are the Claims herein.
Prior Art Reflection as a Method to Increase Particle Delivery and Increase Decay
The increase of decay by using reflected particles is covered in prior art. One existing prior-art method (Claus Rolfs, Ruhr University, DE) is to place the target radioactive material in a heavy metal, such as 082-Pb-Lead. In that manner, the scientists have created more electrons surrounding the target and thereby ejected particles increasingly reflect back from hitting that increased count of electrons, and some reflect and penetrate.
One documented method simply adds material by encasing the radioactive material. That method shows marginal increases in the decay rate versus radioactive material sitting in the open. This process is still random; it only increases the number of random interaction in a linear fashion. The experimental evidence is strong that the decay rate increase when target material gets encased in metal. Yet, the Claim 7 related to
However, the experience of those prior art re-delivery even close to the 30× potential needed for a commercial disposal process. General reflection, without the orientation and approach angle of the present invention, is not sufficient for the commercial purposes.
The teachings of the present invention is that when, using the preferred embodiment, nuclear particles, including protons or neutrons, get sent (independent Claim 1, independent Claim 6, and all others), reflected (Claim 7, 8 and independent Claim 19, and Claim 20), or both in combination, into nuclear waste, other radioactive material, and/or other physical materials, at the correct angle (say for 92-U-Uranium +/−90 degrees relative to the target atom's nucleus, as vertex, and its nucleomagnetics axis, other leg), particle delivery and thereby decay rates increase dramatically. It includes both orientation methods, and delivery methods, and others, such as control systems.
The critical feature is getting particles past the electron field into the target nucleus. If a particle is sent close to an electron settling position, that particle does not penetrate, but is reflected or deflected. However, if a particle is sent in the channel between electron settling positions at sufficient speed, then the particle will penetrate the shell, and deliver it for reaction into the nucleus. The present invention Claims the system and the specific angles for improved delivery of particles given the target has its magnetic orientation stabilized. This is the basis of independent Claim 1, independent Claim 6, independent Claim 19 and all others.
Part 1—Orientation
One of the challenges of the present invention is the orientation process which is required to get delivery rates at that angle. Molecules do not line up without external methods. The delivery may not naturally align with the correct angle of the oriented target. Those methods are in various embodiments of the orientation method and the delivery method.
Further, atoms and molecules constantly change orientation a) by their inherent heat energy, b) when in liquid or gas state, or c) even in solids, by subatomic interaction of moving particles, including electricity, magnetic fields, or other interactions. A static molecule, the obviously preference, would require zero Kelvin, and that has not been commercially achieved.
Finally, particular to many embodiments of the present invention, molecules in solids have different orientation of magnetics. Atoms fit into each other as best they can, and thereby have differences, in 3D, so exponentially more complex. Given the nucleomagnetics axis on one atom, the axis of the next atom in any direction may be both at a different inclination/longitude and at a different latitude/azimuth.
However, the science behind the present invention, my prior AVSC filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870) Claims that the electrons in all atom themselves have settling positions that can be calculated. Those are generally stable, within the frame of reference of the atom's particles as a set, around a nucleomagnetics axis of the nucleus with electrons at various inclinations and distances, the electrons shells.
I Claim (Claim 1) a number of ways to get more atom orientation alignment and stability by a) less temperature (Claim 3), b) standard crystallization (Claim 15), c) crystallization in the present of magnetics (Claim 16), d) strong magnetic fields without crystallization (Claim 16), and even e) strong electrostatic fields create magnetic orientation (Claim 15), and f) a method of adding the target Element into a crystal structure of another element (Claim 18). The various embodiments includes delivery to targets that are Elements pure and aligning nucleomagnetics, Elements not aligning (Claim 15, and Claim 16), compounds (Claim 14) that are not pure. The preferred embodiment of the present invention will improve or regulate the radioactivity of any number of options, and by various specified combinations of methods.
Of course, equal or exceeding our human-induced methods of prior art or the present invention is natural nucleomagnetics orientation. Natural orientation works to change the decay rate in ways important to understand for the present invention. For example, by electrostatic fields, in electron subshells imbalance across hemisphere, called, in prior art, 1/2 spin, atoms with odd-counts of electrons (odd Atomic Number). The electron-nucleus electrostatic dipole creates atom alignment, and some of that alignment is nucleomagnetics.
This natural alignment process for 087-Fr-Francium drives the half-live down to 1,302 seconds, compared to 092-U-Uranium's half-life of millions of years. The raw power of nature is awe inspiring. An extra electron with both nucleomagnetics and electrostatic forces working together as such small distances creates exponential changes in the decay rate. The present invention cannot achieve that amazing power of nature, but it should achieve commercial viable methods to orient enough material of an Element a) to improve nuclear material production life, b) to reduce substantially nuclear waste, and c) provide paths for other safe uses of these heavy Elements. This ties into Claim 9. Further, the preferred embodiment of Claim 12, which varies the magnetic inducement method or the angle element changes to change the radioactive decay rate over a production life. As the percentage of radioactive material decreases, the method the present invention can change setting (as in Claim 9), such that output levels remains strong. That makes fuel more useful, and waste less radioactive.
The orientation desired is magnetics, and magnetics are created from nature materials from iron to neodymium, as well as induced from the movement of electrons through a wire wrapped multiple times in the same way. Magnetic alignment also can also be a by-product of electrical charge fields. As the charge aligns, certain nucleomagnetics get a consistent inclination (which is a partial nucleomagnetics alignment). This is the basis of Claim 10 of the present invention.
However, that alignment is not certain. For 89-Ac-Actinium or 91-Pa-Protactinium, there is still electrostatic alignment, a dipole from the odd, lone electron in one hemisphere. However, the unbalanced electron, per the teachings in my prior filing AVSC method (Ser. No. 15/490,870), is not on the nucleomagnetics angle. However, that aligns at the same inclination, and as a result, there is some improvement in the nucleomagnetics alignment, but not nearly as complete as the double electrostatic-nucleomagnetics convergence of 87-Fr-Francium. As a result, these odd-Atomic Number elements have faster decay rates from partial inclination alignment, and thereby short half-lives. However, none come close to the 1,302 seconds half-life of the 87-Fr-Francium.
The most powerful human-made method of atom orientation today is the combination of low temperature and strong magnetics for material in liquid suspension so the target atoms can move and orient without restrictions their own bonding which is used in NMR analysis. However, fine grinding can also break bonds that interfere with alignment. Strong ph dissolving can also break layers of materials. Further, crystallization, when created under the correct magnetic environment, also creates a material of multiple layers that may have some nucleomagnetics alignment.
In the present invention, this orientation improvement is usually done by magnetics. However, there are enhancements of temperature or sequencing of ranges (Claim 6 of the present invention) as the operations occur a) at temperatures above zero Kelvin, and b) materials that are in solid and so layer will hold atoms within a restricted range of angles different for different layers of atoms. That means that not every atom aligns. However, we can get a greater range of them. Further, by combining the orientation with the delivery, we can impact a subset.
When applying the present invention induced magnetic field, it works against any solidifying position torque for nucleomagnetics alignment. It will likely not move all particles, yet it should move solid atoms with +/−5 degrees. If so, then particle delivery should increase tenfold (5+5). If the resulting increase in radioactivity decay are similarly re-directed, the results square, so 10×10=10×, which exceeds commercial viability.
Further, high temperature increases the movement of the particles, even in solids. That movement creates its own self-induced magnetic field, which further creates torque against the present invention alignment. In that manner, the reduction of the temperature for the environment (Claim 3) will decrease that force, the required torque, and widen the range of solidifying orientation within the success zone.
On the downside, as the layers move, an entering particle may get deflected, and take a non-preferred angle at any layer. The optimal level, from preliminary calculations, is that for layers less than 100-1,000, deflections will not occur at a significant reduction to impact the commercial value unless those layer are highly aligned in nucleomagnetics. At layers greater than 10,000 the random orientation and deflections make the target delivery angle inconsistent at deep penetration into the material.
As such, the present invention has embodiments with:
Part 2—Delivery and Even Re-Delivery
Further, delivered or return particles do not naturally align, and streams of neutrons or protons are rare naturally. Known natural penetrating particles, like gamma rays, were discovered by a few dots on film exposed over a period. That rate is not enough for commercial application. Therefore, the present invention includes a method of injection of particle—of course, at the calculated nucleomagnetics angle (Claim 1). The methods of that process are mostly well established. Electrons guns, and particle accelerators have been in operation in university for over 50 years. Re-direction and concentration is another. Specifically, we Claim the calculation of a preferred angle, within tolerance in Claim 1, and a specific angle in Claim 2, as support by
The output of the present invention is to change the half-life of target materials as shown in
If the approach path of a neutron or proton or combination thereof is near an electron, at some point the approaching particle gets closer to the electron than the target nucleus, and the nucleomagnetics repulsion become 1/distance-cube of a tiny distance, and thereby extremely large; larger than electrostatic 1/distance-square. At the Bohr radius, these are generally equal and counterbalancing (ignoring, for simplification here, the inclination strength factor of my prior filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870)), so at 1/4 the Bohr radius from the electron, the distance to the nucleus is probably 1-1/4 the Bohr radius. As a result, the nucleomagnetics force is 1/4-cubed which is 64× and the nucleus attraction is 1/(5/4)-cubed which is 0.51. So, the electron protection is 128× more repulsive in any arc of an electrons shell 1/4 the Bohr distance, and the neutron or proton does not penetrate. See my prior filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870) for more on how at subatomic distances nucleomagnetics is a) stronger and b) repulsive.
At 1/2, that ratio is the nucleomagnetics force is 1/2-cubed which is 8× and the nucleus attraction is 1/(1+1/2)-cubed which is 0.30×. So, the electron protection is 27× more repulsive in any arc of an electrons shell 1/2 the Bohr distance, and the neutron or proton does not penetrate. That 27× is about the 30× required for commercial viability.
Further, if you have five or six layers of subshells, the overlap radius of 1/2 for blockage, 97% of the surface will likely poor results, a reduction at 1/27× or worse because electron nucleomagnetics repulsion. As a result, the focus on the better 1-3% channels will have 128×, and thereby better decay rates. That 128× definitely exceeds the 30× commercial use requirement.
The mathematics of this is shown in prior art
At a result, any slow-moving proton will stay outside the electron shell as a positive ionization at a further separation of the about the Bohr radius. Any neutron, with only nucleomagnetics force will get repelled to beyond that Bohr radius distance. Neutrons will not settle near the electron in the shell.
Therefore, the further analysis assumes the approaching particle has speed towards the atom and nucleus.
The calculation method of those forces is covered in my prior filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870). Those apply here to calculate properly the angle of attack and the speed of delivery. As shown in
It is further shown in
Therefore, in a narrow range where the approach path has balanced forces between two or move electron settling positions provides a likely path for particle injection into the nucleus. In the case of 92-U-Uranium, the path between 77 degrees in one hemisphere for one sub-shell set of electron and 77 degrees in the other hemisphere becomes 90 degrees, the equator.
It also helps that the equator is the largest area for approach. Other inclinations have a smaller area by the max of the sin-squared of the inclination angle starting at zero degrees at the nucleomagnetics axis.
It further helps that the equator has a delivery area that operates for the full circumference. If the atom rotates on the magnetic axis, the particle application works. Unlike other openings, if the atom, nucleus and electrons as a set, continues to rotate on the nucleomagnetics axis (part of any situation above zero Kelvin), that rotation still provides a clean, balance challenge for particle delivery for every latitude.
Material Preparations
The present invention includes Claims of operating the system in conjunction with another production use of the radioactive materials. This option is specified as dependent Claim 11. The use does not need to be post- or pre-production.
However, there are additional options that might occur pre-production use to either increase the productive life or make the de-activation process work better. For example, by preparing the material, in the presence of a magnetic field or an electrostatic field to induce a magnetic alignment such as:
All three of these are ‘breaking bonds’, then ‘causing reconnection of atomic bonds’ as described in Claim 4.
In the liquid state, atoms and molecules move freely, so the ratio of nucleomagnetics alignment will be poor. However, if the process includes a strong magnet in the back end, the ratio of alignment, and thereby success of the other elements of the present invention improves.
Comparison of Delivery Success Ratio for Protons versus Neutrons
In the calculation of tolerance ranges, there are two important factors. First, given radioactive materials all have at least six shells. In that way, a deflection from Shell-7 can get magnified such that the particle path and angle moves more in Shell-6, then Shell-5, and so on until the particle does not penetrate. This deflection is follows the momentum physics calculation, so increased speeds will increase the penetration depth of target corridor and widen it. The change must act upon the momentum, the mass times the velocity. So, with more velocity, the deflection will decrease.
In this manner a range that would fail at 1/3 Bohr radius, can get extended to over +/−1/2 Bohr radius over six layers, by an increase in speed of (3/2)̂(6) or about 11 times. A person knowledgeable in physics can create the entire table of speeds required for each Element based upon the number of layers as required. For practical purpose, the embodiments of the present invention, will increase particle speed until delivery ratios do not increase in a cost effective manner.
Now, let us review the dynamics of the closest shell, the Subshell-s, or 1m1, and 1m2 in AVSC nomenclature. The distance is very small. In the case of radioactive materials, evidence says that the 1s2 electrons are at the same distance as the radius of the nucleus itself. In AVSC, that is because the 1m2 electrons sit in the multi-layer cylinder structure of the nucleus.
At a distance of E-13, the nucleomagnetics of 235 Uranium particles (protons plus neutrons) at 1/1,000 the distance of the Bohr radius balancing point, creates 1,000 times the attraction. 235×1,000=235,000. The 92 protons repulsion is just that: 92×1=92. And the 1×1 electron is entirely immaterial. Almost anything, unless at extreme speed, like the speed of light, getting inside the electrons shells, and inside the Bohr radius, will get overwhelmed with nucleus attractions.
The only divergence is if that particle is a proton, and then hits a proton, without the neutron between. In that case, the distance can be near zero, which makes the proton repulsion going to infinite. That is the case, when these deliveries are when nuclear decay occurs.
However, in other cases, a neutron can get delivered and will get absorbed. That would be found as initially non-reactive. However, if that nudges the nearby nucleus structure to push a neutron out from between existing target protons, which is likely with a high impact neutron approach pushed lots of existing particles into different spaces, then those protons will repel near infinite force, and decay the 092-Uranium to a lower Element, say 088-Radium.
Therefore, while most people think that proton delivery is the better option, generating very high likelihood of nuclear decay, there is another factor. At the approach points, that proton-proton electrostatic repulsion is material. For approaching neutrons, we only have the nucleomagnetics attraction. Neutrons delivery much easier, and substantially more often than protons.
This prediction of the AVSC mathematics matches experimental evidence that neutrons delivery to the nucleus substantially better than protons.
Pre-Production, In-Production, Post Production
Various embodiments of the present invention would apply these systems and methods at every stage of use.
In pre-production, nucleomagnetics alignment will like increase its output in the actual production. Further, better aligned can apply the present invention.
In production, the systems and methods in various embodiments, may increase the output, as in decay rate. This can extend the life of these heavy elements. This has a further benefit that the final material once not usable, should be in a further decay state making the radioactivity less, and decreasing the required processing of for stability.
In post-production, unused materials needs steps to move from the radioactive state, now at lower, but still dangerous radioactivity levels, to levels with mostly stable Elements, and immaterial radioactivity.
Reflection and Concentration
The ability to use existing or created radioactive ejection particles better is covered in Claim 7 and Claim 8. As much as we Claim a method to direct particles, there is both existing particles that cause decay, and the additional particles from the Claim 1 target delivery.
First, some of these hit other particle inside the multi-atom material, and may cause. That is the natural decay rate. However, it occurs based upon the direction of ejection versus the high-success target angle.
Second, we can potentially focus those to other target materials, again at the preferred angle. In this way, by reflection or concentration, we can get the material outputs to create another round of decay increases.
Because particles are reflected by electrons, the ionization of the medium used should increase, as in Claim 8, reflection or concentration of ejected particles.
However, particles at the target angle delivery more reactions. In that way, the ability to reflect and/or concentrate in Claim 7, and reflect and/or concentrate using both materials. Now, the actual reflection and concentration may have multiple element, the
Relationship of Decay Creates Opportunity for Present Invention to Replace Centrifuge Current Procedure
The main table compares radioactive Elements, and target Uranium isotopes, for number of protons, the Atomic Number, total nucleus particles, the Atomic Weight, and thereby calculates the number of neutrons by subtraction. It adds the change between Elements for each other those, protons, total nucleus particles, and neutrons. The table further adds the natural decay rate of each Element or, and a ratio comparison of neutrons versus protons. The results of that table compares the Subshell-7t Elements in an x,y graph of excess ratio versus the decay rate to show and calculate the correlation. The view indicates an exponential relationship, and the calculation shows a 96% R-squared correlation predictive rate.
It is important teaching of the present invention to understand that significant threshold at 210 nucleus particles. The next Element above 85-At-Astatine, the 210 Atomic Weight elements, jumps by ten (10) neutrons, but the four below has zero change in the neutron count. Remember the normal pattern is every two protons (avoiding the unbalanced-electron 1/2 spin odd Atomic Number Elements) gets either 2 if the structure is relatively open or 3 if the nucleus substructure is full. This pattern works from 86-Rn>88-Ra adds two (2) neutrons. This pattern works from 88-Ra>90-Th adds two (2) neutrons. This pattern works from 90-Th>92-U adds four (4) neutrons. That is ten (10) neutrons added for four (4) protons, the same 2.5 ratio as throughout the periodic chart.
The threshold is very obvious. The Atomic Weight changes almost zero change in neutron count over four elements—82-Pb (125.2), 83-Bi (126.0), 84-Po (125.0), and 85-At (125.0) as shown in
In the AVSC model, the alignments include two Elements from one and two electrons on the nucleomagnetics axis, 7 m. Those apply to 87-Fr-Francium and 88-Ra-Radium. 87-Fr-Francium atoms are special because the protrusion helps align on the nucleomagnetics. In the AVSC model, the alignments move from to ‘partial’ filling of three endcap electron settling positions, in Subshell-7t. That makes the Elements in that range comparable, as all have no nucleomagnetics alignment and endcap of protrusions. The endcap protrusions tilt molecules as they solidify. This makes decay rates naturally lower.
It is the teaching of the present invention that strong alignment at 90 degrees from the nucleomagnetics axis creates substantially higher decay rates. However, that does not apply to any Elements in this range, Subshell-7m (7s) and Subshell-7t (7d). That means, a secondary factor drives decay rates within this range. It is the teaching of the present invention that the secondary factor, after nucleomagnetics angle alignment, in decay rates is the arrangement of protons versus surrounding neutrons in the outer nucleus layer. In case of Subshell-7t, a low ratio makes decay faster exponentially. It is easier for an injection particle a) to get to protons upon delivery which is then ejected or b) displace neutrons such that existing protons get too close to each and electrostatic proton-proton repulsion overwhelms the situation so that creates ejection particles. Either path needs to radioactivity.
This is natural science better defined by my AVSC atomic model; however, it has significant impact on the target of the present invention, radioactive materials. The current, prior art methods for using nucleomagnetics 92-U-Uranium, includes the separation via centrifuge to get the ratio of U-235 up to 5%, which is above the normal level. You can also note that the change of delivery rate of 6× creates a commercially viable fuel. This reinforces the 6×-square discussed earlier makes.
That means when the present invention increases decay rates for not just U-235, but also for U-237, it could achieve commercial viability of U-237, without the costly, difficult centrifuge process. By small changes bringing +3/−3 degree range of angles into AVSC alignment, the natural 1 degree preference, we can get the 6× improvement directly. U-235 would become 30× better, and U-237 would become 30× better making it as commercial usable as unmanaged U-235. Instead of centrifuges, the question is then the strength of magnetic fields, and temperature, and related magnetic torques in solid 92-U-Uranium. The Claims of the present invention provide method to achieve not just increased decay, but also eliminate difficult, costly existing requirements.
Mapping of the Claims—Dependency Trees, Source Paragraphs, and Figures
The Claims of the present invention include three (3) independent Claims, and 17 additional, dependent Claims for a total of 20 Claims.
Shown by groupings:
Specifications and Support Summaries for the Claims
Claim 1 includes the combination of magnetic alignment with the angle of attack of particle delivery. The
Claim 2 identifies that angle using my calculations of my prior filing (Ser. No. 15/490,870) for radioactive Elements; that an angle of 90 degrees relative to the nucleomagnetics axis would apply to certain radioactive elements, but not others. The ones identified at not useable contain equatorial subshells, putting blocking electrons in the 90 degree path. The issues are discuss at [0035] in background, and [0096] in the Specification.
Claim 3 includes the basic process, but adds the low temperatures, after a period in liquid state, such that atoms in solid form have more magnetic alignment. The cooling unit additions are shown in
Claim 4 includes the basic process, but adds increasing nucleomagnetics orientation by solidifying the material in the presence of a strong magnetic field, such that atoms in solid form have more nucleomagnetics alignment. This is discussed at [0115] of the Specification.
Claim 5 includes the basic process, but adds increasing nucleomagnetics orientation by solidifying by crystallization the material in the presence of a strong magnetic field, such that atoms in solid form have more nucleomagnetics alignment. This is discussed at [0046] in the background and [0078] of the Specification.
Claim 6 includes the basic process, but allows the segmentation in time and angle because solids may have atom arrangement that cannot be completely aligned. However, in a strong magnet, direction can get worked for a range, making the challenge manageable and financially viable. The critical aspect of this Claim is that the use of Claim 1 works in tandem, the orientation with the particle approach at the chosen inclination angle. If the material has atoms of different orientations, then we can change both the magnetic feature and the particle delivery feature as a group to group atoms in groups of angles. This segment work and partial alignment is depicted in
Claim 7 is the standard process adding the re-delivery of particles as a method in increase that radioactivity creates its own cause. However, from random direction, the output would only get the natural decay rate. An increase by Claim 1 would only be linear. However, when ejected particles get reflected using the same angles determined, and re-delivered, the increases in radioactivity can increase by the square of the increase. That way an improvement of 10 becomes 10×10=100×. The system is depicted in
Claim 8 is the basic system plus Claim 7, reflection, concentration, or re-delivery at the preferred angle of ejected particles where the reflection is enhanced by ionization. It is discussed in [0132-137] in the Specifications.
Claim 9 is the basic system with the addition of control system for the magnetic methods and particle delivery method that would be common for safety.
Claim 10 is the basic system with electrostatic fields as the method to induce nucleomagnetics.
Claim 11 is the basic system when integrated with another live production system, such as a nuclear power plant.
Claim 12 is the basic system applied at a changing rate to fuel, such that the production can remain more steady as the fuel depletes in its decay exponential rate. It further can use depleted materials to still achieve production that both increase useful life, and reduces the radioactivity danger level of the waste product. It gets discussed at [0086].
Claim 13 is the basic system applied with particles as a group. Currently, direct addition of particles has been done to create the synthetic elements from 93Np-Neptunium to 118-Og-Organesson. Buy delivering cations of protons plus neutrons, and proton repulsion, the neutrons arrive first providing a better ratio of enrichment reactions versus decay reactions. It gets discussed in [0006] in the Background, and in [0096] in the Specification.
Claim 14 is the basic system applied to materials that may not be purely aligned or even pure itself. This may be more complex in both orientation, as their solidifying structures may create complex directions and torques for the nucleomagnetics axis, and particle delivery, as different Elements may be different target angles. However, it is clear than many combinations remain feasible, and the effort to only work with pure materials in unnecessary, allowing for a commercial savings. It is discussed in [0084]. It is important to note that, for energy production, the preferred embodiment of Claim 9, may eliminate the need for the whole centrifuge process because the U-237 can also reach productive decay rates.
Claim 15 is the basic system applied when material has some natural alignment in a crystallized structure. Note that often the nucleomagnetics angle of a crystal is not the bonding angle of the atoms. For example, silicones bonds at 90 degrees in a cubic-tetrahedron structure, but the nucleomagnetics axis is offset from the bonding angles by 53 degrees. A similar calculation is available for every element to get applied to the present invention. It is discussed in [0084].
Claim 16 is the basic system where the crystallization process is further enhanced with magnetics. While the crystals might form, the nucleomagnetics still might not align. For example, in cube-tetrahedron, the magnetics can build out of any corner of the cube. However, if build in a strong magnetic field, the growing crystal adds atoms that more often do have the same magnetic alignment. As such, the multi-particle result will exhibit much more magnetic alignment for the basic Claim 1 process. It is discussed in [0084].
Claim 17 is depicted in
Claim 18 is referenced at [0059] in the Background, and at [0084] in the Specification. It applies to the basic Claim 1 the stability of crystallization, especially with the cubic structure that adds 90 degree angles. The angles get some nucleomagnetics alignment, although that may still vary by latitude or different frames of the crystal.
Claim 19 depicts an embodiment of the present invention which was an additional Claim 7 can operate without new particle delivery method. This is a system where the source of particles is the output from existing radioactive decay of the target material. The concept is covered in
Claim 20 depicts an embodiment of Claim 19 with the addition benefit of ionization of the reflection and/or concentration surfaces. This is the same relationship as Claim 8 to Claim 7. The concept is covered in
Table 6 depicts the two outer electrons subshells configurations for the element 092-U-Uranium. This was
For
It is important to note for
Table 6 depicts the two outer electrons subshells configurations for the element 092-U-Uranium. This was
For
U.S. application Ser. No. 15/245,326 VigenU.S. application Ser. No. 15/256,865 VigenU.S. application Ser. No. 15/490,870 Vigen, et al.U.S. Pat. No. 4,051,429 Inanari, et al.U.S. Pat. No. 5,020,411 RowanU.S. Pat. No. 4,018,012 HopkinsU.S. Pat. No. 4,662,124 Kato
