Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste
Ominous clouds of informed reason are darkening the skies over the environmental camp. The environmental shock troops, the warmists, opened a direct frontal assault on science with their ‘human caused’ climate change hypothesis. When true science began to examine these claims, a host of other ‘environmental science’ errors appeared.
To prop up claims of the mythical abilities of atmospheric carbon dioxide to determine climate conditions, the warmists fashioned a radiant energy balance sheet [google Earth energy balance]. To avoid long term heating or cooling the energy inflows must match the outflows. Just one problem, one heat source is completely ignored.
The AGW balance sheet shows ONLY solar input. The 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock that forms our planet is not melted, or maintained at present temperature by solar electromagnetic radiation. This planet is internally warmed by fission of the 700,000 cubic miles of fissionable material burning in our mantle.
This factor is ignored because it has never been quantified. Easy to ignore what you cannot measure, but a guaranteed error in any proper science analysis. The objective analysis sparked by the climate fraud is now having a ripple effect across a broad range of science thought. The unintended consequence is that more environmental group think cornerstones are being demolished.
For any science model to be correct it must include all variables and constants. The warmists have chosen to ignore the Earth’s internal fission heat flow. The Earth has a thin cool crust, floating on a molten cauldron of rock, strictly due to heat of fission of the heavy elements decaying beneath our feet.
To ignore the heat flow necessary to keep Earth molten is a serious error in the warmist heat flow balance chart. To ignore the obvious variability of this fission force is a serious error in the warmist’s predictions of climate change. We know that volcanoes, the most visible expression of Earth’s fission energy, are not constant. With no known quantity for the magnitude or variability of Earth’s fission, the warmists have simply chosen to ignore this climate changing factor.
When Alfred Nobel invented Trinitrotoluene (TNT), it was a quantum leap in pound-per-pound energy when compared to previous chemical explosives. Nuclear energy, the greatest force known in the Universe, can be either fusion of smaller atoms or fission of larger atoms. The force of energy from these reactions is so great that it is measured in megatons of TNT for each pound of nuclear reactant.
Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons and sub-particles. When a large atom is struck by a high speed particle it can split apart, releasing energy and an array of smaller proton, neutron and electron clusters that can be complete, individual atoms or most often isotopes of atoms. Most isotopes are unstable and undergo a further fission to reach a stable configuration. These secondary reactions are called daughter reactions and for Uranium, there are over a dozen.
This author’s article, “Motive Force for all Climate Change” covers this Earth science in more detail, but for now, the dilemma that the environmental movement faces stem from this existing Earth condition. The newly ‘liberated’ atoms from the fission reactions are in an environment of extreme heat and pressure. Some of these daughter atoms are stable, non-reactive inert gases, others quickly find a matching atom and form a stable diatomic molecule. For the remaining atoms, the heat and pressure force new molecular bonding.
Peak Oil and the Kola Hole
At the same time that Hubbert was fashioning his Malthus based “Peak Oil Theory”, Russian geologists were fashioning an abiogenic theory of natural oil generation. This fifties era debate was ‘finite fossil fuel’ vs ‘natural byproduct’ origins of Earth’s Hydrocarbon supplies. In the seventies, Professor Thomas Gold presented his version of the Russian theory.
Both of these abiogenic theories were disproven by actual drilled wells. The original Russian theory was that under heat and pressure ‘rocks decomposed’ into the molecules of Hydrocarbons that then rise into the rock bound reserve locations. Dr Gold then added that subterranean microbes created petroleum in these reserves.
Two, specially drilled wells, failed to find the Gold microbes in any samples, which Gold blamed on operator error. In the seventies there was a rush to drill down to the mantle/crust interface to determine actual Earth conditions. The deepest hole in this experiment was the Russian Kola drill site which provided a surprising Earth science clue.
The Russians were able to reach 42,000 ft deep against enormous heat and pressure, which required new drilling technology. Keeping 8 miles of drill stem working proved impossible, so the Russians developed a drill bit that was driven by drilling mud pumped from above.
To remain liquid, drilling muds must have a boiling point above the ambient and drill friction generated boiling point. The ambient temperature for this 42,000 ft deep hole was approaching 350F degrees and high boiling point, oil based drilling muds were being destroyed by water from the rock structures. Water could not be produced from rock decay so it was declared as ‘elemental’ water.
This condition provides the missing clue for solving the “Abiogenic Oil Theory” that had not been included in the faulty Russian and Gold theories. The Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon atoms necessary for Earth’s natural Hydrocarbon production are from ‘elemental’ fission production. The molecular bonding creates a number of simple molecules including Methane, Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Dioxide (water).
These simple molecules then rise into stable rock reservoirs where heat and pressure, in a reverse fractional distillation process, form the longer Hydrocarbon chains. The solvent nature of these compounds then absorbs organic rock material, giving an organic fingerprint. Rising Methane and other Hydrocarbons which permeate into buried organic sediment layers can then convert this former biomass into coal.
With no way to quantify the fission rate or the byproducts ratio, we are left to guess at what the Earth’s average Hydrocarbon production rate actually is, but it is certain that OIL is a renewable resource. That is bad enough news for warmists and environmentalists, but it only gets worse.
The Meaning of Pismo and La Brea
California is blessed with interesting place names from its multicultural heritage. Pismo Beach is named after the Chumah Indian word for ‘globs of tar’ due to natural Hydrocarbon outflow found on this beach. The Spanish Portola Expedition in 1769 discovered “molten geysers of tar” at the present day La Brea tar pits in downtown Los Angeles. La Brea is Spanish for tar.
Tar still oozes from the ground at La Brea, down now to about 10 gallons per day. Globs of tar still wash up at Pismo Beach, but are now blamed on man’s failed drilling or shipping efforts. While Earths Hydrocarbon production does not appear finite in the near term, there is one thing that is FINITE. The Earth only has a finite storage capacity for this daily petroleum production.
This is a double blow to the Eco-wackos. Oil is a renewable resource and man’s harvesting of this resource, may be of actual benefit to the eco-system. As horrible as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster was, the total spill has been estimated at only four times the annual ‘seepage’ rate. The naturally occurring bacteria that are disposing of BP’s mess have been dealing with this natural outflow of Hydrocarbons for millions of years.
One interesting theory on the Bermuda Triangle involves sudden release of underground Methane. Water pressure increases with depth at the rate of one atmosphere of pressure for every 33 ft of depth. To remain a gas, Methane must compressed to the ambient pressure of the underground storage formation. A one cubic foot gas bubble released at 5,000 ft depth under the ocean, would swell to 1,500 cubic feet burst at the surface.
Huge bubbles rising under an unsuspecting surface vessel would break the hull and cause instantaneous sinking. Once above the surface, the lighter than air Methane cloud would disperse and rise into the atmosphere. At some point this cloud would reach optimum stoichiometric ratio and be subject to a massive explosion. Low flying aircraft are full of ignition sources and hitting this invisible Methane cloud would cause a massive explosion. Even formations of aircraft would disappear in an instant fireball, leaving no oil slick and little floating debris.
If a tree falls in the forest it matters not whether there is any sound. That fallen tree represents a potential resource. Man can fashion that tree into useful products or he can burn the cellulose material and recover chemically stored solar energy. Or man can chose to let that tree rot in the forest.
There is nothing inherently superior to the ‘rot in the forest’ option. Rotting wood provides a food source for disease and predatory insects. The outcome is exactly the same with regard to the wood. Portions are returned to the air as carbon dioxide and portions are returned to the soil. The question becomes, is the planet better off if humans ‘control’ the forest or if insects and disease control the forest ?
And so it is with humanity’s newly discovered renewable resource. Will humanity harvest and use this resource or will over-funded pressure groups and expanding government forces overwhelm reason and force unneeded control of this resource?
It is pretty obvious that to harvest this tree, humanity must confront some dreadful Eco-insects and mindless government microbes.
[The above article first appeared in Canada Free Press in September, 2010]
About the author: Joseph A. Olson is a co-author of the ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory. Retired Texan engineer and impassioned science writer, Joe Olson PE is a respected innovative thinker with over 100 major civil engineering and climate-related articles to his name. Olson has been a guest on many radio shows including coasttocoastam.com where he is an adept advocate of the traditional English scientific method, impressing listeners/viewers with his wide-ranging knowledge.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
MattH
| #
Hi Joseph.
I found your article interesting and stimulating. Thank you.
If the center of planet earth is a nuclear reactor why do we not have dangerous radiation levels expelled during volcanic eruptions?
Thanks again.
Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
The reason there is no radioactivity expelled in the magma of a volcanic eruptions because the magma never comes in contact with the radioactive material.Think of it as the water being cooled by the condensing towers at nuclear plants.
In a reactor the nuclear fuel is in a pressure reactor surrounded by water. This water absorbs the heat from the fission (and radioactivity) then transfers that heat through a heat exchanger to other water where it is converted to steam to drive turbines. The fuel rods, reactor, reactor water, and heat exchanger all become contaminated with various levels of radioactivity but the water transferring heat to the turbines does not.
The radioactive furnace for the Earth is the inner core which transfers the generated heat to the outer core. This heat is then transferred to the molten rock in the mantle which can then radiate the heat into space during eruptions.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Thank you for taking the time.
I have never been to the core of the earth but comprehend the concept of density.
I guess if I was there I would be crushed to smaller than an ant and possibly not functioning normally.
I was wondering how come radioactivity could not permeate and percolate about and enter molten rock which circulates and “sloshes about” due to earth’s rotation under the influence of the gravity of external bodies.
Anyway, thankfully people say there is no such thing as a “dumb” question.
That JaKo knows a thing or two. I thought it could be because he married a doctor but he clearly has way more substance than a jelly fish.
Cheers. Matt
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Matt,
I think Joseph answered your question, but I’d like to add a little sliver to that answer:
There were many instances of radioactive “volcanoes” and other phenomena of this sort in Earth history and there’s nothing suggesting this couldn’t happen again — just CLICK THIS FYI…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jako.
Thank you for that. I hope my satire gave you a light chuckle.
Cheers. Matt
Reply
Richard Cronin
| #
The concept of the terracentric GeoReactor was introduced by J.M. Herndon in the early 1990s. Any heavy metallic radioisotopes like Strontium 90 remain deeper inside the planet although small amounts may be found in lava or volcanic ash. I am trying to find any information on gaseous radioisotopes in volcanic emissions — say Carbon 14 in CO2 or Chlorine-36 or Iodine-129. In any event, the concentrations would be greatly dispersed.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard and PSI Readers,
Richard wrote: “the concentrations would be greatly dispersed.” And I have been considering this likely possibility and the fact that a ‘little’ radioactive decay produces a ‘lot’ of energy. Hence, the amount of matter involved is not much and went products are greatly dispersed one arrives at what MattH questioned: ” why do we not have dangerous radiation levels expelled during volcanic eruptions?”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
“Thousands have flocked to a volcano in Iceland which erupted near the capital, Reykjavik.
Lava started to burst through a crack in Mount Fagradalsfjall on Friday evening,[March 19] in the first eruption of its kind in more than 800 years.
The site was initially blocked off, but from Saturday afternoon people were allowed to make the trek.
“It’s absolutely breath-taking,” Ulvar Kari Johannsson, a 21-year-old engineer, told the AFP news agency.
“It smells pretty bad. For me what was surprising was the colours of the orange: much, much deeper than what one would expect,” he added.
Scientists at the foot of the volcano were filmed cooking sausages on its lava as they studied the eruption.” Recent New
My question from the beginning is that this is a common, normal, eruption by which most of the volcanos have been formed. Within less than of mile of our cabin in southern there are repeated lave flows on which it seemst people could have cooked sausages, it they had been round at the time of this ‘eruption’ without any great burst of pressurized smelly gases.
And the lava rimrock about 50ft from the cabin properly had properly been more cooled to a more viscos
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Somehow my comments get submitted before I have completed them as I attempt to edit (or compose, spell correctly) as happened in this case). I will allow you to imagine that which I did not complete.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
“Water pressure increases with depth at the rate of one atmosphere of pressure for every 33 ft of depth”
Actually, seawater is denser than fresh water and it is 30 feet of seawater per atmosphere of depth. It makes a difference.
“Huge bubbles rising under an unsuspecting surface vessel would break the hull and cause instantaneous sinking.”
No, a bubble could not “break” a ship. If you have been scuba diving, you would know that large bubbles break up into smaller bubbles as they rise. A large bubble would break up into millions of bubbles on the way to the surface. The effect is that the bubbled water rising around the ship would produce a much lower overall water density than normal and the ship would not float and drop under the surface, sink. The bubble region would probably be deep enough, from the long trip to the surface, and long enough for the ship would fill with water before it could bob back to the surface in normal density water. It takes a specific torpedo charge of enormous power, detonated under the middle of a ship, to lift the ship and break it. Do not give bubbles that kind of credit.
“Low flying aircraft are full of ignition sources and hitting this invisible Methane cloud would cause a massive explosion. ”
No, there would be no fireball of methane as it would be too concentrated, displacing air more than mixing with it. What likely happens is the planes fly into anoxic air and their engines fail altogether. The air density would also be half of normal and the planes would drop like rocks, a true air pocket—try to recover from that. Particularly, if the planes are low altitude or doing an ocean search, there would be no recovery of flight.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If there is an organism with air vibration sensors, yes, it makes a sound. That is to say the tree makes vibrations in the air that would be perceived as sound. Easy. It is, however, not clear how this relates to the real renewable abiogenic gas and oil we need to recognize as incredibly useful and beneficial. More CO2 is also a plus as it is greening the planet.
We also have to recognize that the chemistry of the ocean is toward carbonate deposition and Earth surface conditions are constantly trying to lower CO2, which starts to kill life on the planet at lower than 200 ppm CO2. We live in a CO2 desert and should be glad to see higher concentrations. The alarmists want to lower CO2 while ignorant of the fact that natural forces are constantly working to lower CO2. So, death is their goal, of the whole planet? Wow.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Charles,
I beg to differ about the bubbles and ships. A strong, relatively short vessel (e.g. a destroyer) would sink without breaking (just take a “cruise” in a boat under the Niagara Falls to see the effect of buoyancy difference) and a huge, e.g. a supertanker, ship would crack and break when running over a region with “millions of bubbles”… Further, a liddle bubble from a SCUBA gear has a bit different rising dynamics than a huge, several cubic km release from the methane deposits. I suggest watching French UW nuke testing videos for comparison.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Folks,
Somewhere, sometime, I have questioned what is one’s definition of a volcanic eruption? And I cannot remember anyone answering this question.
I live in a state which has several mountains formed by what I could classify as volcanic activity but only two which blow their top or sides out with a huge explosion of gas like Mount St Helens across the Columbia River in Washington State did a few decades ago. I own property in southern Oregon where an extruded vertical rimrock about 30 feet high extends southward for about two miles. Howerve there is mountain about 13 miles to the east for which there is a great amount of evidence that a gas eruption blew out its side and the ash collected on the west side of the rimrock like would drift. And there are head sized stones with former gas bubbles lying so thick on the ground that one could step from the top of one to the next if one could keep one’s balance. And the curious thing is that not many tourists come to see Gearhart Mtn because only about 60-70 miles away is Crater Lake. The result of a volcano which really blew its top–actually erupted.
Charles and JaKo, I never considered the obvious fact that tiny bubbles in water must reduce the water’s density. This proves the value of being able to discuss ideas as Galileo had his characters do. And I have read, as translated by someone, the Galileo stated: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.” Hence there is no one who is totally ignorant so we shouldn’t treat anyone as if they were totally ignorant. Maybe I failed here when I did not initially read what Joseph had written.
But we do have to get rid of wrong ideas as proven so by observation (experimental result). Good discussion folks!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry.
Here are a couple of examples of a volcanic eruption. Taupo. New Zealand.
The Oruanui eruption of the Taupo Volcano was the world’s largest known eruption in the past 70,000 years, with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8. It occurred around 26,500 years ago and generated approximately 430 km3 (100 cu mi) of pyroclastic fall deposits, 320 km3 (77 cu mi) of pyroclastic density current (PDC) deposits (mostly ignimbrite) and 420 km3 (100 cu mi) of primary intracaldera material, equivalent to 530 km3 (130 cu mi) of magma.
The Taupo eruption (also known as the Hatepe eruption) represents the most recent major eruption of the Taupo Volcano, and occurred about 1,800 years ago. It represents the most violent eruption in the world in the last 5,000 years.
Chat that over with your favourite caldera.
Cheers Jerry Matt
Reply
Moffin
| #
Ooops. Source. Wiki
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
Click on this: Definition.
I rather avoid wikipedia when I can — and I used to even support them; times are a-changin, eh?
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
I will be discussing the Abiotic Oil Theory and the false peak oil hypothesis tonight on CoastToCoastAM, 615 radio stations with 2 million listeners, from 10:00 pm to midnight Pacific Daylight Time. Check their website for local stations and iHeart podcast information.
Reply
Richard Cronin
| #
A very good reference regarding abiotic hydrocarbons is “Deep Carbon, Past to Present” published in 2019 by the Deep Carbon Observatory consortium. More precisely, the production of methane and oil derive from Fischer-Tropsch reactions (methanation of CO) or Sabatier reactions (methanation of CO2). The feeds for F/T and Sabatier reactions are as follows: Hydrogen is produced by serpentinization of olivines. CO and CO2 are derived from thermal decomposition of carbonate minerals like dolomite and calcite.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
Thank you for the information!!! And I was reasoning sure that you know more about this than Joseph because you are chemical engineer and probably have a little more experience with chemical matters than Joseph, a civil engineer. This is not to belittle civil engineers, or other engineers. But unless you are chemical engineer, few engineers have an academic background in chemistry (the central science chemists believe) beyond a year of an introduction to chemistry.
And chemists cannot be of any direct help to your problems because most chemists have not even had an introduction to this or that engineering. And I must admit that I have no knowledge of the definition of abiotic, Sabatier reactions, serpentinization of olivines even though you do attempt to a reader (me) some clues.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and Charles and PSI Readers,
MattH is diplomatically avoided making a critical comment by simply stating “I found your article interesting and stimulating” and illustrated this stimulation by asking a question. Good going MattH. Charles attempted to correct some of Joseph’s statements which I find, as a chemist, to be too frequently incorrect. Hence, I am reluctant to even read Joseph’s articles. So thank you MattH and Charles for encouraging me to read Joesph’s artical after reading both your comments.
First I admit I frequently make mistakes. I have written essays posted here at PSI but now primarily only write brief comments which will inform the general reader of something they might not know for lack of experience. This is what I consider Charles did. For it would be unfortunate if you accepted everything which Joseph wrote as ACCEPTED FACT.
There are some unquestionable facts if authors writing about history do not change these historical facts. So I consider it a deadly error if one fails to accurately to report what are historical facts. Joseph wrote: “When Alfred Nobel invented Trinitrotoluene (TNT),” Nobel was a manufacturer, an inventor, a philanthropist; but he was not the chemist who synthesized the molecule TNT. Which had great explosive energy potential but was also very unstable and needed only a slight bump (jar) to set-it-off. Nobel invented dynamite whose explosive component was TNT but dynamite needed a blasting-cap to set-it-off.
To Joseph’s credit, he introduced the word-FINITE and its consequence as he reviewed another historical fact: “The Spanish Portola Expedition in 1769 discovered “molten geysers of tar” at the present day La Brea tar pits in downtown Los Angeles.”.
Finally I conclude with a quote of Buckminister Fuller about the concern about running-out of a finite resource (maybe a praprase): “We will never run out of a finite resource because man has always done more with less.” And there is another fact: One can never throw anything away; for there is no away.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
D. Boss
| #
C’mon guys – get your facts and history straight!
1) Nobel did NOT invent TNT, nor did he invent nitroglycerine.
2) Dynamite, which Nobel did invent, was comprised of nitroglycerine as the unstable compound.
3) Nobel found a way to stabilize nitroglycerine with diatomaceous earth, and sticks of this wrapped in waxed paper were used as “dynamite”.
4) TNT or trinitrotoluene was discovered in Germany in 1863 by Joseph Wilbrand.
5) TNT is even more insensitive to shock and heat than dynamite, and can be melted and poured into shapes.
6) TNT and Dynamite are not the same thing, far from it.
Nitroglycerine dynamite is no longer produced, as while it was rendered stable enough to handle, it could deteriorate to the point where nitroglycerine droplets would “sweat” out of the wax paper covering forming glistening beads – and then if you look at it the wrong way, kaboom – you become a spray of pink mist and a memory.
TNT is still used, but primarily as a “booster” charge when setting off even more powerful and stable explosive compounds. (because they are ever more insensitive to shock, you need a bigger initial shock to set up the chain reactions of the modern explosives) (example is bore holes at an open pit mine, filled with ANFO – which is powerful, but extremely insensitive – you may have a chain of initiators as follows: blasting cap, attached to the end of a long line of PETN detonation cord, which is literally tied to a small booster charge of TNT adjacent to the ANFO in the borehole)
( in conjunction with my lawful occupation some time ago, I was licensed to store, transport and use high explosives)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D.,
Thanks for finally getting through my dense mind. I thought somebody had reminded me of this before you did but as I review what others wrote I cannot find this. But I well know I can look at something and not see it.
But I have a question; you wrote: “TNT is still used, but primarily as a “booster” charge when setting off even more powerful and stable explosive compounds.” How is this ‘booster’ stabilized so that it does not prematurely ‘boost’?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Jerry:
TNT is relatively insensitive (to heat and shock) which is why it was so widely used for munitions. Most of the bombs in WW2 were TNT.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4860395
From the above paper:
“2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a molecular explosive that has experienced widespread use in munitions applications due to its high performance, comparatively low shock sensitivity, low melting temperature of TM = 353–354 K (80–81 °C), and chemical stability in the molten state.”
HOWEVER, one must treat ALL explosives with extreme care and respect for their inherent instability and potential for severe destruction if mishandled!
Blasting caps have extremely sensitive and unstable compounds as the source of their “umph” and as such need to be handled with extreme care. (don’t hit or drop them, keep them cool, and do not handle them by their body, only by the wires or wire crimp end to keep all your fingers)
Nitro Dynamite is (was) pretty darn stable and insensitive (as long as it is not sweating or showing crystallization on the outside), but you still never do stupid things with it. (like hitting it with a hammer, and only using brass or non sparking tools to work it – ie you have to poke a hole in it to insert a blasting cap, or some detonating cord)
Same applies to TNT, PETN or RDX. PETN is used for detonating cords and sheets and is even more insensitive than TNT – but still don’t be a dumbarse – there is a case you learn about when getting a “blaster” ticket, of a dunce who took the end of a 1,000 foot roll of det cord and put it on an anvil and hit it with a hammer to show how insensitive it is – and he and the people next to him were vaporized! (duh if you want to do a stupid demo like this, cut off a 1″ piece of it to test)
I had an occasion with a pucker factor of 100 on a scale of 1 to 10, where we had a leftover case of nitro dynamite in our magazine and we were going to dispose of it by going to local farmers and blowing out stumps for them… And my associate was opening the magazine and I was 10 feet behind him and as he opened the door he said in a cold firm voice ” don’t move” and I instinctively knew what he meant – the top layer of the 144 sticks were glistening with nitroglycerine sweat beads!
We VERY carefully removed the sweaty sticks and put them into a pit and burned them. (and the remaining non sweaty sticks well we had some fun removing farmer’s stumps and got rid of an annoying beaver dam on the property)
Doesn’t matter how “insensitive” explosives are, you must always consider the worst case in handling them and treat them with the utmost respect!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D.,
Thank you!!! I am very sincere as I write the following. I do not write satire; I speak (write) plainly.
You clearly are a walking example of what Einstein stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience.”
However you are walking example of a contradiction. You risked your life working with explosives at the same time you strived to protect your hearing. This assumes you are probably retired and this assumption could be wrong. From my initial assumptions have often been wrong as you know.
It is good to have met you and I invite you to watch for my next comment after this which will be about an article which has had only 2 comments when I last looked.
For I trust only comment that you might make relative to a novel idea I will present. I want your peer review.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi D. and People,
My objective was to keep this discussion going by alerting you to a previous article which I consider to be quite important. I now see I made a serious mistake by not providing a link (https://principia-scientific.com/astronaut-explorer-sets-record-dive-to-deepest-point-on-earth/) to this previous article which is now on page 6 and now has two of my comments and the first comment of Mervyn, Which was ”Rich boys and their toys… accomplishing nothing of significance and relevance.” With which I obviously disagree.
Have a good day, Jerry
JaKo
| #
Hi D.Boss,
May I ask you: “How is your hearing?”
I can attribute a percentage of my hearing loss to what I did as a teenager — many kabooms — some deliberate and some ‘purely accidental’ (testing rockets)…
After I saw the movie “Le Salaire de la peur” (Wages of Fear) I never touched TNG again 😉
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
D. Boss
| #
My hearing is just fine…. I’ve always been very careful with sound, wearing eye and ear protection religiously – for any bangs or pops, and even using power tools.
I learned and heeded the wisdom when very young that EVERY loud noise, even hammer blows case small, cumulkative and irreversible hearing damage!
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Joseph,
Great article again! However, I have a couple of quarrels with your statements here and there. One is a typo, I hope: “… fissionable material burning in our mantle.” while you surely meant “Core.” Likely the Inner Core at that.
Another must be a typo as well:“… Hydrogen Dioxide (water).” Should have been Di-Hydrogen Monoxide, right?
And the most striking is the denial of German chemical inventiveness (are you listening Jerry?): TNT was invented by a German (J. Wilbrand) in 1863 as … as a yellow dye!
And TNT’s “other” properties were identified by another German (C. Häussermann), a bit later, in 1891.
BTW, Mr. Alfred Nobel invented Dynamite ~ a stabilized Nitro-Glycerin absorbed in sorbent (originally Kieselguhr ~ diatomaceous earth).
I would also object to the description of fission: it can be spontaneous or initiated by collision of a slowly moving particle (i.e. neutron — remember moderators in reactors?) up to a high energy particles, cosmic rays or gamma radiation…
Further, direct products of fission, and the chain of elements (daughters, byproducts) still able to split tends to end by Nickel. Many things has changed since I studied this, but I still think that Carbon has been product of fusion in a previous generation(s) of stars rather than of fission in the Earth Core…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
good points, all, JaKo. Plus, does the core and its liquid surrounds necessarily need nuclear reactions to stay hot? I can accept it slowly cooling as it ran out of potassium 40 first then others, and perhaps heavy fissionable stuff sank to critical concentrations somewhere. It even happened nearer the surface, in Gabon.
But there are things like the tidal effects of the moon and the enormous pressures down there to keep things hot.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi JC,
I recall a lesson where the prof noted some leading scientists from the Industrial Revolution era calculated that the Earth should have been dead cold by now.
Your African example may be a smoking gun, but science is NEVER SETTLED, as most readers here know.
That Gabon example may also suggest what propels the “Earth Dynamo” — asymmetrical reactor.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jako and TomO,,
First, I finally see that you (JaKo) did mention nitroglycerin but D. beat you by 7 minutes but you didn’t know this because you were still composing after he had submitted his comment.
TomO, I question Wikipedia explanation revolving around ‘pumice’. Earlier, I referred to “head sized stones with former gas bubbles”. I have read and reread the Wikipedia account. Especially that about ‘carbonated’ beverages and the solubility of gases.
I am sure I have seen pumice and know that that it did not look like the stones to which I referred. But I do not know if I threw this pumice stone into water that it would float. That could be because significant volume of water had ‘soaked’ into the bubbles of gas surrounded incompletely by the solid matter.of the stone.
For an explosive eruption of a volcano there needs to have been a huge volume of gas under pressure when the solid containing this gas under pressure burst the gas’s solid container. I hope Robert Beatty might be reading this and come to my aid. For I remember asking what was the major component of this pressurized gas. And I believe he told me that it was carbon dioxide. I know I have read how much carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere during a volcanic eruption.
And I asked him from where this huge volume of carbon dioxide (under pressure) come? His answer was that heat (temperature) had decomposed the carbonate minerals to form oxide minerals and carbon dioxide gas.
Now I ask: Are we forgetting that that violent eruption occurs very rapidly and there is little time for solid matter to cool? We have to keep coming back to the definition what is one’s definition of a volcanic ‘eruption’?
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
I hope you had the chance to read my link:
https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=volcanodef
You can see that nothing is just as clean and pure as Mr. Galileo presumed. And no, you can’t learn anything useful from an ignoramus, that is, beside the validity of someone’s theorem about universe, infinity and stupidity…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Jako,
I read your link. Did you read what I have written? I have clearly defined what my ‘observable’ eruptions which cannot be questioned because what I define clearly can be seen. Galileo saw with his telescope the phase of Mercury and Venus which can only be explained by the fact they are orbiting the sun and not the earth. These planets were not a satellite of the earth like the moon was and is.
Have you risked your life by challenging authorities with the power to have you put to death? Yes, Galileo,like us all, made a mistake when he refused (according to the history I have read) to accept the carefu quantitative measurements of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler’s equally careful analysis of Tycho’s data. Which results proved the the orbits of the planets about the Sun were not perfectly circular (circles).
You did not state what Galileo presumed. Why? Was that which I just reviewed? I have no idea because you did not accurately define to what you were referring.
And please, do not try to tell me what I can or cannot do. What you stated about an ignoramus is your problem, not anybody else’s.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Surely evidence of gas build-up in some volcanoes is that they form pumice when they blow.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi People,
Have you ever asked yourself: Who taught Galileo about ‘Two New Sciences’? Or, What were these ‘Two New Sciences’?
During my 10 years of formal undergraduate and graduate schooling as a chemistry major, it had never been assigned (or even suggested) that I should read ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ as translated to English by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio (1914). In these two translators preface they reviewed that Archimedes had been made available by Heath; that Huygens’ ‘Light’ had been turned into English by Thompson, and that Motte had put the Princplia of Newton back into the language in which it was conceived.
It had never been suggested that I, as a physical scientist, might profitably read these other ‘classics’ about physical science. And as an instructor of chemistry for 20+ years, Ihad never suggested that my students might profitably read even one ot them. For I had never read Two New Sciences or the Principlia until the near the end of my teaching career.
And I had never read that Galileo had stated, as translated by someone: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it in within themselves.” Which by calling attention to certain information and asking good questions I hope to help you better understand what this thing termed SCIENCE actually should be.
For it is my opinion, that the current mess, about which we read and comment, is to due to a general lack of fundamental knowledge about what SCIENCE actually should be.
I read that the first historical teacher of notable achievement was Socrates; whom I read only asked questions. With the result that no one really knows what his opinions actually were.
How do we know his teaching was effective? My answer: He so corrupted the youth whom he taught that the city fathers (authorities) sentenced him to die.
What were the two new science? I have read that the publisher, Louis Elzelvir, titled Galileo’s classic and I know he wrote, as translated, in his preface to the reader of Galileo’s book: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” These are my two answers.
Let us have a discussion. If you cannot agree with my answers, what are your answers?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply