• Home
  • Current News
  • Naturally Occurring Fission, Plate Climatology and the Georeactor

Naturally Occurring Fission, Plate Climatology and the Georeactor

Written by Richard R Cronin

Much information can be gleaned from the accumulated works of J. Marvin Herndon (the GeoReactor), Thomas Van Flandern, Robert J. Tuttle (The Fourth Source, Effects of Natural Nuclear Reactors) M.A. Padmanabha Rao (solar flares caused by U-235 fission) Vasily D. Rusov (fission cycling) , Ewald Hejl (fission tracks as the original site for complex biochemicals) as well as James Edward Kamis ( plate climatology).

Recent work by Dr. Nicole Vassh provides us with the knowledge that the production of the heaviest elements (fissile and fertile) is far greater than previously thought. See “Fission and Lanthanide Production in r-process Nucleosynthesis” (GW170817 – Neutron Star Mergers)

The accretion of the heavy and abundant r-process elements to produce natural fission reactors at the core(s) of major celestial bodies is very feasible and should not be dismissed so lightly. In fact, the New Horizons mission has determined that Pluto has an mysterious internal heat source which cannot be explained.
Herndon and Tuttle describe the GeoReactor as a type of Soliton Breeder Reactor which operates in zero gravity. Soliton reactors are used to power deep space probes.
Moreover, in another demonstration of fission, the left hand twist carved by “fission tracks” in metamorphic rocks are the logical sites for the origin of Life. Biochemicals have a bias for left hand chirality. The genes are left hand chiral, while the outer polysaccharide double helix is right hand chiral. This is why DNA unzips for perfect replication of the genes.
The GeoReactor fully explains the cyclic nature of the Ice Ages and Warm Interglacials as well as the fact that all of the ice core data from Antarctica shows that in past epochs a warm-up period preceded the uptick of CO2 coming from within the planet.
The determination of Earth’s internal heat production is quite unsettled and is only now being probed by the nascent techniques of antineutrino detection.
I am afraid that climate change due to human activity may have some trouble. The IPCC Assessment Reports all acknowledge that water is  the greatest heat trapping molecule but for purposes of calculation or “modeling” they ignore it.
The effects of  water moving thru the atmosphere in all its phases is impossible to treat mathematically. The Earth’s biome is a multi-variate, open, dynamic control system. Predictions of its behavior are impossible.
It would appear that the  worship of computer modeling has eclipsed Empiricism and the Scientific Method.  To even qualify as a Science, the hypotheses must be testable and falsifiable ( the Null Hypothesis).
Summary Item:
 “No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change”
J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi
University of Turku, Finland
July 2, 2019
Key Statement:
Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature
****

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.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com

    In addition to millions of cubic miles of fissionable elements, the Bridgeman Effect causes fission decay of all metallic series elements above 50,000 psi. This pressure occurs everywhere below 140 miles. We are standing on a variable rate nuclear reactor.

    • Avatar

      Richard Cronin

      |

      Thanks, Joseph.
      I will have to follow up on your insights. I’m certain the we are in alignment.
      Thanks again
      Dick Cronin

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    And yet there people who deny geothermal emission, preferring to pretend there’s “Downwelling” IR.

    • Avatar

      Richard Cronin

      |

      Zoe –

      I’m certain that we agree on the basics. Good to have your comment,

      Dick Cronin

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        Hi Dick!
        Curiously, are you familiar with the Heat Flux fallacy?

        https://i.ibb.co/YhNq3Jq/postmafallacy.png

        I use a fictional planet to make an extreme case seem obvious.

        Have you noticed the prevalence of rejecting geothermal due to looking at the wrong number (q vs. Tcold)?

        It’s a severe mental problem. I can’t believe an economist (me) figured it out before the relevant scientists.

        Good luck in your research 🙂

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Who better to process an audit then an economitht

        • Avatar

          lifeisthermal

          |

          Finally someone else pointing this out! We´re standing on a red hot rock with a crust less than 1% of the volume, it´s like walking on eggshell floating on magma. To say that there´s no heat, or only ~90mW/m^2, coming from below is ridicolous. All of the ~385W/m^2 comes from within, and then solar heating is balanced to that.

          Planck agreed with Prevosts principle: the emission from a body depends only on the internal state, in all cases.

          Page 6, last paragraph:

          https://archive.org/details/theoryofheatradi00planrich/page/6

          I can´t understand why these basic truths have been overlooked.

          • Avatar

            Richard Cronin

            |

            Aaahh !! More stuff to study. You’re killing me. Heh. Heh.

            Thanks for the reference !!

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Indeed. My theory is a little different, though. It doesn’t require an equilibrium between Earth IR and Solar Energy.

            Why should there be one?

            There’s no mutual thermal equilibrium between the Earth and Sun.

            In normal thermal equilibrium, two objects are at the same temperature, and there is no heat flow between them – or their mutual radiation towards each other is of the same power.

            But when scientists speak of thermal equilibrium between sun and earth, what they really mean is that all the solar energy entering, eventually leaves.

            That’s not quite the same thing.

            The reason Venus is hot is not due to GHGs or even atmospheric pressure, but due to the fact that it’s just geothermally hot.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            If you place two containers of water at different distances from a heat source they will absorb heat from the source. They will both heat up until the amount of heat they radiate is equal to the heat they receive from the source. Since they are at different distances from the source they will have different temperatures and contain different amounts of heat when they reach equilibrium with the source. One side of the container will have heat being added to it by the source while the other side will be losing heat by radiation. The Earth is in equilibrium with the heat radiated by the sun while the night side radiates any excess heat from the sun, any excess heat from geothermal energy, or any heat produced from the conversion of stored solar energy into heat.
            The reason the Earth’s crust is so thin after 4 billion years is because the equilibrium point of the energy from the sun and the energy produced in the Earth is close to the surface of the Earth and the Earth has only been able to lose a small amount of the heat it produces.
            The reason there are ice ages and warm periods is because the output from the sun changes and the equilibrium point changes depth in the crust. The heat produced in the Earth’s interior is constant so if it were heating the surface of the Earth there would be no climate change or permafrost.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            I can see you already confused steady-state equilibrium with thermal equilibrium.

            “The heat produced in the Earth’s interior is constant so if it were heating the surface of the Earth there would be no climate change or permafrost.”

            Let’s assume no atmosphere at first. Here’s one theory:

            Sun provides us with 165 W/m^2 global average

            Geothermal provides us with 235 W/m^2

            That makes for a total of 390 W/m^2

            Sun’s 165 W/m^2 varies with Malkovitch cycles and other perturbations, etc. And it varies from Equator to poles.

            Now you have an explanation for both why there is climate changes and permafrost.

            Since we have an atmosphere, we have to account for the energy it takes away from the surface. This boosts geothermal to about ~340 W/m^2.

            Basically, the energy budget makes perfect sense when you flip 340 W/m^2 “backradiation from GHGs” back to where it came: geothermal.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Zoe,
            One of the container is heated to 20C by the heat source. I place another container of water at the same distance from the heat source but the water is already 25 C. The heat source will not add heat to this container because the equilibrium point is between the container and the heat source. The container will radiate heat away from the heat source causing it to lose heat. As it loses heat the equilibrium will shift towards the container and eventually the container will have a 20 C temperature, just as the container heated by the heat source and then they will behave identically.
            The Earth was once a lot hotter from geothermal energy and not in equilibrium with the sun. It has cooled allowing for liquid water to form and now is in equilibrium with the sun. Geothermal heat is radiated away just as excess heat from wildfires.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            The sun is not in equilibrium with Earth’s surface. It is in equilibrium with 5km above earth surface.

            Yes, I imagine Earth will cool down in the remote future and the surface temperature will match what it receives from the sun. The atmosphere will also shrink.

            The problem with the water example, is that water doesn’t generate energy (as internal earth processes do), and so its tempetature is set completely by external environment. Yes 25C water will cool rapidly towards 20C.

        • Avatar

          Richard Cronin

          |

          An economist. Hhhmm. I minored in economics for my undergrad. After a few years, I obtained my MBA in night school.

          No doubt you are aware of the concept: “Velocity of Money”. As the movement of money picks up, there are more transactions and the economy gets better.

          You can look at water as the currency of the planet. As things warm up, more water is winging around the planet and plant life takes off. Green stuff is expanding everywhere.

          Why would we want to put the climate in stasis just as it’s getting better ??

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Richard,

    In your opening paragraph you referred to ‘James Edward Kamis ( plate climatology)’ and I didn’t rush to see who he was and what ‘plate climatology’ was about. This was because I knew nothing about what you and the others to whom you referred had studied and had possibly ‘learned’. While I have only read about whom Kamis is, I know that this failure was a serious mistake.

    I make this commit in hopes that there are others like me who might profit from taking a look at his ideas of ‘plate climatology’. We have nothing to lose by doing so.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Richard Cronin

      |

      Although we quibble about the details of Kamis’s work, I am pretty sure that the variable heat source comes from within the planet. Herndon does not speak of Plate Tectonics which has many problems. Herndon’s hypothesis is of Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics. It appears to fit with many observations — including C-14, Be-10, and Chlorine 36 in deep Earth diamonds a marine sediments from the end of the last Ice Age Carbon 14 anomaly in marine sediments East Pacific Ridge

      The “Seuss Effect” was formulated around the claims that man’s burning of carbonaceous fuels was changing the isotopic ratios of carbon in the atmosphere. It was built around the premise that no Carbon 14 should exist in coal beds because C-14 decays to undetectable in 50,000 years or so.

      Charles Keeling took his measurements of carbon isotopes on the side slopes of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. He also collected his data right in the middle of open air atomic testing which blasted C-14 all over the place. Finally, he changed his measurement technique from wet chemistry to infrared monitoring.

      Talk about sloppy data !!

      Now we’re seeing an “anomalous” presence of C-14 in marine sediments. Again and again, it only points to Herndon’s Georeactor.

      “We document late glacial and deglacial intervals of anomalously old 14C reservoir ages, large benthic-planktic foraminifera 14C age differences, and increased deposition of hydrothermal metals in marine sediments from the eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP) that indicate a significant release of hydrothermal fluids entered the ocean at the last glacial termination. The large 14C anomaly was accompanied by a ∼4-fold increase in Zn/Ca ….. “

      That is, as the planet heated from within, hydrothermal vents were more active.

      Title: “Hydrothermal carbon release to the ocean and atmosphere from the eastern equatorial Pacific during the last glacial termination”
      Authors:
      Lowell D Stott, Kathleen M Harazin, and Nadine B Quintana Krupinski Institute of Physics. Environmental Research Letters
      Feb. 15, 2019

      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafe28/pdf

Comments are closed