h/t to Andy DC
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
Recent Comments
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Gordon Vigurs on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Jack the Insider on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
Wow. Crushed them.
Steven,
1. Events like these were anticipated by glorious leaders of the scientific community. That is why Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) became Global Climate Change.
2. Do you have any idea why two other bright climate bloggers – E. M. Smith at Chiefio wordpress.com and Jeff Condon at Air Vent – are recently silent?
3. Like you, they were bright enough to appreciate the message sent to the Space Science & Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives last week:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Creator_Destroyer_Sustainer_of_Life.pdf
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver, I have a question for you, since I have thus far been unable to decode the answer from an inspection of your paper.
When you write about neutron repulsion power, you are clearly suggesting that there is a lot more energy available in the nucleus of (just for example) a uranium atom than is publicly acknowledged by government. (And I know there are issues of political collusion across national and ideological lines. For the moment I’d like to focus on the physical side of this matter.)
You have previously suggested (and presented some photos and eyewitness testimony in support of this) that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were observed to produced nuclear-energy-fed fires that would not extinguish for some extended period of time, and that the longevity and power of these fires was suppressed by government, thereby contributing to the condition wherein your nuclear-repulsion concept finds difficulty in gaining acceptance.
Given the above, then, my question for you is as follows. Is it your contention that what we know as conventional uranium fission reactors are not actually using fission to produce energy? Or, is it, rather, that they use fission in somewhat the way we’ve been told, but that the reaction is dampened in some way so as to produce less energy than is actually available, while remaining within the bounds said to be possible by prevailing physics?
Thank you.
Richard
Richard asked, “Is it your contention that what we know as conventional uranium fission reactors are not actually using fission to produce energy? Or, is it, rather, that they use fission in somewhat the way we’ve been told, but that the reaction is dampened in some way so as to produce less energy than is actually available, while remaining within the bounds said to be possible by prevailing physics?”
Fission is the result of neutron repulsion in the cores of heavy atoms like U or Pu.
Fragmentation of stars and galaxies are probably powered by neutron repulsion.
Radioactive nuclear waste is a concentrated form of energy that should be used.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Cool news!
Apparently there is one old tree in upper Wisconsin that has unusual characteristics!