Here’s a chance for you to ask away at things you aren’t clear on from my writings, things you thing I should write on, or any topic you want to introduce. Doesn’t even have to be about climate change!
(Blog rules still apply, though I might be a bit more lenient.)
Wandering Words
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
Watching Those "Who watch the Deniers" 
I checked out Tallbloke’s Talkshop. The whole mess is probably due to the fact that both those who believe and who do not believe are subject to human vices. Skeptics have become enthralled with being “top blogger” and are careful to avoid controversy. The “Sky Dragons” have been banned on blogs for not believing co2 is a greenhouse gas. Now apparently WUWT is running amok over the journal cancellation. Admittledly, I stopped reading WUWT because the poster Willis is just flat out rude.
Yes, we need reliable energy for the planet. However, until someone can figure out how to make a “safe” reactor and demonstrate it, I’m thinking that nuclear may not be coming soon. Actually, current nuclear is not terribly dangerous, except for the weaponizing. As far as I can tell, there’s no really good way around that. Once people know how to do something, we can’t really get them to “unknow” the knowledge. We can limit access to the fuel and the technology, but even if we stopped with conventional nuclear tomorrow, there would still be so much fuel and knowledge out there the threat would exist for centuries.
Thanks for alerting me to the links on Chiefio and Tallbloke. It’s interesting reading.
The owner of Tallbloke’s Talkshop just posted a revealing comment on authors of the Planetary Solar Theory in the now defunct, Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics.
“Although the various proponent authors of the Planetary Solar Theory have different ideas about viable mechanisms we came to the same conclusions via different phenomenological methods: that an imminent solar slowdown is upon us, and it is likely to be deeper than the Dalton Minimum, possibly stretching until the latter decades of this century.“
If an imminent solar slowdown is upon us, it is imperative to correct well-known flaws in nuclear and solar physics – ASAP – so that nuclear reactors can be built to safely harvest basically the same form of energy here on Earth in order to sustain human life during the solar slowdown.
Yes, we could build and operate nuclear power plants more safely if engineers and technicians had valid information on nuclear forces and nuclear structure.
The main purpose of government deception was to hide the powerful source of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of
1. Heavy atoms like uranium
2. Some planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
The consequences may be fatal to millions if the Sun enters a prolonged quiet period.
http://divineanarchy.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/do-we-face-a-disastrous-century-due-to-global-cooling-washingtonexaminer-com/
Okay, then we are on the same page. Yes, if the scientists are wrong, and that appears likely, and the weather turns cold, there will be much needless suffering because politicians and the like refused to deal with the idea that the world could turn cold. They believe in “consensus” and “climate by vote”, which, being that they are politicians, one can hardly be surprised.
I am writing up a post today on this–a satire/not funny look at what happens when people listen to the “experts”. Currently, there is a “fuel emergency” in multiple states due to the lack of LP available. I can personally attest to the fact that the price went up 48% in less than 3 months. How much of an emergency it is I don’t know–you know how exaggerated things get. However, my cost of home heating just went up 48% for now. Cold is far more dangerous than heat, yet heat is what everyone is afraid of, at least in the climate change arena.
I noticed in researching via Google, that Wikipedia makes the following comment:
Nuclear binding energy can be computed from the difference in mass of a nucleus, and the sum of the masses of the number of free neutrons and protons that make up the nucleus. Once this mass difference, called the mass defect or mass deficiency, is known, Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc² can be used to compute the binding energy of any nucleus. Early nuclear physicists used to refer to computing this value as a “packing fraction” calculation.
That would mean Wiki considers the values to be the same, would it not?
Wiki wants you to think they are the same. They are not.
Aston’s nuclear packing fraction always correctly indicates nuclear stability.
von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy is often wrong. E.g., it is greater for tritium (H-3) than for its stable decay product (He-3).
I have been following the discussion on Chiefio. If I understand correctly, p.g. sharrow’s comment on the “Rich Neutron core of heavy atoms” means if we understood correctly the atomic forces at work, we could build a safer power plant. I was kind of hoping you could explain further. I am still having trouble wrapping my head around the physics. I understand your wanting the correct information to get out there, but if people are having problems understanding the bigger picture, that makes it tough. I will continue to follow and to research, however. I really am interested in your thinking and science. Thus far, it seems that everything ties to an Iron Sun and the fact that the reactions occuring there produce energy. That process would produce a safer power than the uranium and thorium we currently use (after enriching). The waste would also be stable? It sounds very promising.
(If I’m way off base, please say so.)
Additional empirical facts about nuclear forces and nuclear structure are posted on
Thanks for allowing me to share the information here.
Yes, this act of desperation is, in fact, an encouraging development to one who has watched this game since 1960.
I only wish my research mentor were still alive to watch this live confirmation of the ancient scriptures in the Upanishads.
In what can only be described as a religious book burning, Pattern Recognition Physics has been discontinued. It seems one cannot poison the sacred texts without punishment. Meanwhile, download the articles before they are gone.
Thanks, for recognition of this act of desperation.
They fight hardest before they finally surrender to reality, whether reality be
1. The water the drowning man could float in, or
2. The source of energy that is the creator and destroyer of every atom, life and world in the solar system.
That is probably why many different religions have the same basic truths.
“Truth is victorious, never untruth!”
It’s kind of sad that you call what you do an “act of desperation”. I would just consider it sharing what you believe in the hopes that people will understand and being willing to discuss and explain your beliefs. I agree with your statement that many different religions have the same basic truths–I love to study varying religious views and look for similarity. Right now, climate science is definately demonstrating the “fight hardest before they surrender to reality”, as seen in the completely unjustified “burning” of a journal that dared question the science. It’s both encouraging and problematic, because we can’t stop until the AGW crowd give up, no matter how tempting.
Modern science has failed to recognize the common truths from science and spirituality. That is the new frontier that will bring the most benefit to all mankind.
E.g., Dr. Nicola Scafetta has an excellent new paper on “The complex planetary synchronization structure of the solar system.”
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
“You haven’t really explained how we should work together and what the “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” are.
I am not a moralist or a religious fanatic, but . . .
How to work together: Be rigorously honest, I.e., rigorously adhere to the basic principles of science; Do NOT cherry pick data to support your preferred conclusion.
What are these “powers beyond the dream of scientific fiction”? Einstein discovered them in 1905 (E = mc^2); Aston measured them in every atom except iron-56 (Fe-56): Mass that can be release as energy by fusion of light-weight atoms or by fission of heavy atoms.
Fe-56 has minimum mass per nucleon (M/A), but it does not have the maximum value of “nuclear binding energy per nucleon.”
I agree that you and I cannot solve all the problems facing mankind, but I am very grateful to you for allowing us to openly discuss the problem here so future generations will have a better chance to do so. Oliver
I’m really not into “morbid news”. There are too many nuances and factors in human behaviour (much like in climate) to make accurate predictions. While currently, the direction is not looking like a good one, there’s really no way to know for certain where it ends. That being said, human civilizations have risen and fallen since the beginning of time (yeah, same argument that angers climate change advocates–climate has always changed). There is no reason to believe that human civilization rising and falling will change in the future. The fact that we learned to split atoms terrified people and brought about the apocalyptic predictions we now see. Historically, however, these predicitons occured along side other “new and terrifying” developments and we’re still here. This is not to say that we should not continue to stand up for what is right and to promote truth, just that we may or may not be successful. Nature has a way of straightening things out when humans can’t be bothered. Nature’s lessons are always tougher than if we used our heads. That’s just way it is.
You haven’t really explained how we should work together and what the “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” are. What makes Aston’s calculations different from von Weizsacker’s “nuclear binding energy” as far as nuclear energy goes? Does Aston’s allow us to have a controlled reaction that can be shut down right away? Aston’s does not take away from our current talent for building nasty weapons of very mass destruction, does it? I’m failing to understand where you’re going with this. (As noted, I ‘m not familiar with a lot of this, so I suppose we have to go with baby steps for understanding. I am trying.)
Joe Lalonde posted an excellent video on propaganda, alias public relations.
The successful promotion of cigarette sales among women by calling them “torches of freedom” to protest man’s inhumanity to women” is an excellent analogy to AGW.
Manipulation of the masses will ultimately destroy the masses and the manipulators if my research conclusions are correct:
Click to access Chapter_2.pdf
WE WILL WORK TOGETHER TO USE “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction” OR WE WILL DIE SEPARATELY.
There will be no winners.
We will all lose if humans continue to deceive about the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.
I regret to be the bearer of morbid news, but that is exactly where we are today as the result of several decades of selfish manipulation of the public.
“Cherry-picking” data was one of the first indications of deception in the AGW story.
Likewise, cherry-picking of data in the textbook on nuclear physics that Robley Evans published in 1955, and I studied in 1961, was my first clear indication that something was wrong in nuclear physics and in von Weizsacker’s “nuclear binding energy.”
More later when I get to my computer.
While I agree that there is some “cherry picking” in climate change data, I find the term is overused. Actual “cherry picking” would imply deliberate manipulation. All scientists limit data and “adjust” data. It’s virtually impossible not to. And those choices very muchly determine the outcomes of the calculations and predictions. I am very hestitant to accept much of climate change because the raw data is not available in many cases. Plus, at the moment, it looks like the data is being “adjusted” by NASA. One must keep all printouts and files from reports, dated, so these adjustments become clear. It’s problematic, to say the least. I am more concerned with the altered data than the “cherry-picking”.
Somewhere I think I have an old physics text. If I can locate it, I will look up what it says about “nuclear binding energy”.
I am reading through the information and it’s starting to make some sense. I’ve been following the conversation on Musings of Chiefio. I appreciate your taking the time to explain. As I said, this is a totally new area for me.
In contrast to von Weizsacker’s theoretical model of “nuclear binding energy,” Lord Francis William Aston was an experimentalist who might have measured the exact mass of the 238 nucleons in U-238 and found that they were each on average exactly 1.00021338 times more massive than were each of the 12 nucleons in C-12.
Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” ( f ) for uranium-238 is:
f = 1.00021338 – 1.00000000 = 0.00021338
It does not matter what path was taken to produce the uranium-238, whether by combining:
a.) 92 Hydrogen atoms with 146 neutrons,
b.) 46 Helium-4 atoms with 54 neutrons, or
c.) 04 Vanadium-51 atoms with 34 neutrons
d.) etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum
The 238 nucleons in U-238 are dancing around (exchanging charged pions that bind neutrons and protons together continuously by changing them into each other) at energy level that is exactly 1.00021338 times higher than the energy level at which the 12 nucleons in C-12 are dancing around (exchanging charged pions that bind neutrons and protons together).
– – – – – – – –
The mass defect ( delta ) for U-238 is
delta = (1.00021338)(238) – 238 =
delta = 238.050784 – 238 = 0.050784
Thanks for the reply and for your patience as I try to explain a problem that has survived in the scientific community – without detection – since the end of WWII.
My last posting on the Chiefio thread stresses thermodynamic difference between
1. “Path functions” and
2. “State functions.”
Nuclear stability is a “state function,” as is Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction.”
von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy” is a “path function” that cannot indicate nuclear stability because there are several possible paths to the same product.
I will try to use the most abundant isotope of uranium, uranium-238, to illustrate the problem. U-238 contains a total of 238 nucleons (neutrons and hydrogen atoms continuously dancing around exchanging charged pions that bind these two together by changing them into the other). U-238 could be made by combining
a.) 92 Hydrogen atoms with 146 neutrons
b.) 46 Helium-4 atoms with 54 neutrons
c.) 04 Vanadium-51 atoms with 34 neutrons
von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy” is just the energy released by path (a).
Okay, that helps. I fully agree that nuclear energy of any kind was lost to the building of the atomic bomb. I’ve mentioned that repeatedly in discussions of energy, especially “renewables”. We would not need nearly as much fossil fuel if we weren’t so terrified of nuclear energy.
Your second point is going to take me a bit more time to understand. I had not heard of neutron repulsion before your posting. As some of my readers would jump in and point out, nuclear physics is not an area I am well versed in.
NEUTRON REPULSION [1-4] is the source of energy that
1. Causes cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies to fission or emit neutrons that spontaneously decay to hydrogen (H) atoms.
2. Offered “the human race powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction“ in 1922.
Click to access aston-lecture.pdf
3. Caused cores of uranium and plutonium atoms to explode and destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945, respectively.
4. Enhances the potential energy (rest mass) of neutron-rich atoms (atoms with low charge density, Z/A) in Figures 1a, 1b and 1c of Chapter 2 of the autobiography.
(Any well trained physicist or nuclear engineer will see this as the cause of excess mass in the most neutron-rich atoms represented by blue dots on the front panel of Figure 1c.)
5. Was obscured from the public by replacing Aston’s valid “nuclear packing fraction” in textbooks* with Weizsacker’s deceptive “nuclear binding energy” after the Second World War.
*Nobody knows if nuclear accidents were caused by the decision to train engineers and technicians that designed and operated nuclear reactors after WWII with textbooks in which Aston’s valid “nuclear packing fraction” had been replaced with Weizsacker’s deceptive “nuclear binding energy.”
References:
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy” http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
2. “The Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy”
Click to access lpsc.prn.pdf
3. “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”
Click to access 0501441.pdf
4.”Neutron Repulsion”
Click to access V19N2MAN.pdf
E. M. Smith has a discussion on this same issue: The need for textbooks to be rigouously honest on nuclear energy, E = mc^2.
I have been reading the Chiefio thread. If I understand your last response, what you are actually angry about is the government changing terms (which I still can find a great deal of information on both nuclear binding energy and nuclear packing fraction on the net. I really don’t understand what makes the whole thing deceptive.
Nuclear packing fraction is “potential energy per nucleon”
Nuclear binding energy is “energy required to break down a nucleus into its component nucleons”
We now use binding energy and you are saying that is wrong. Can you explain the difference say with a Uranium atom?
Thanks for the message.
I am not a good writer. My mentor was P. K. Kuroda.
You suggest I am “writing about nuclear fission and the energy it could have supplied had we not built a bomb.”
It might be more accurate to say I am writing neutron repulsion in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies and the benefits we might have reaped from that energy if not
1. First used in atomic bombs, and
2. Then hidden by false models of stars and nuclear binding forces.
Omanuel: It really helps if your synopsis and Chapter 1 links are included. I got them from one of your postings on another blog.
Click to access Synopsis.pdf
Click to access Chapter_1.pdf
Also, I have been researching Prof. Paul Kudora in an effort to understand his philosophy and science. To be honest, your writing style is not easy to follow. It’s quite conspiratorial. Having read and researched many areas considered “conspiratorial”, I have found it best to wade through the language and find the theory and asses that, not the writing style. The writing style may be a turn-off to many people, however, and does not enhance the probability of people understanding your ideas. That is not a criticism–just an observation.
Your question on Jo Nova’s blog made more sense after I researched Kudora and read your synopsis. If I understand correctly, you are writing about nuclear fission and the energy it could have supplied had we not built a bomb. That’s put very simplisitically, so forgive me if it doesn’t sound very scientific. Kudora predicted to presence of natural fission–which was verified in the very distant past (millions of years past). From there out, I’m still reading what you have written.
What a deflection! That’s okay–I’m just here for entertainment anyway, right? 🙂
If you want to see the masters of deflection at work, ask leaders of the scientific community to give their interpretation of the experimental data tabulated in Figures 1-3, in Chapter 2 of my autobiography, “A Journey to the Core of the Sun – Acceptance of Reality”
I read what everyone posts here and evaluate it. Even a “crank” can be right. Perhaps his idea has little merit, but to dismiss it without first understanding it would be basing my decision on hearsay and other people’s interpretation. Even if in the end I don’t agree with his ideas, I learn a great deal from reading through and trying to understand his ideas.
Maybe you could explain why the theories are wrong? That would be more helpful.
“Maybe you could explain why the theories are wrong?”
I could do but I wont because the prospect of you coming back expressing your ‘understanding’ of this is just too good to miss! 😀
Figures 1-3 contain many precise experimental measurements that have been published and debated in the open literature. These two publications may help youkipper find like-minded scientists at the University of Chicago, the University of Bern, etc.
1. “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science195, 208-210 (1977): http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
2. “The neon alphabet game”, Proceedings of the Eleventh Lunar Planet Sci. Conf. 15, 879-899 (1980): http://tinyurl.com/2944m9 or http://tinyurl.com/36zvrt
Click to access Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
I am short on time at the moment, but I am looking over your writings.
Thank you for the reply. There is no hurry. I started researching this issue in May 1960, as explained in the first chapter of my autobiography:
Click to access Chapter_1.pdf
This material is being published on-line, as written, because I am nearing the end of life and I want to make certain the conclusions to the research assignment I received from the late Paul Kazuo Kuroda in May 1960 are available to as many members of the public as possible.
Kuroda was allowed to immigrate to the United States in 1949, and probably already knew in 1960 (or perhaps 1945) the answer I would find if I rigorously followed the scientific method.
How much ‘looking over’ will it take you to realise this guy is a crank?
Thank you, Sheri, for your effort to identify the validity of information that may be rejected by BOTH sides in an issue that is as hotly debated as global climate change.
I am now in the process of adding an Addendum and Final Conclusion to Chapter 2 of my autobiography, “A Journey to the Core of the Sun”, pp. 35-36.
Click to access Chapter_2.pdf