This is a fact I was taught on my M.Eng. No chemical reaction can produce light-that is the province of nuclear reactions! And we have no source of nuclear fission
Let's just ignore all three laws of thermodynamics, just for a second. You said you're working on cancer and global warming at the NIH? This is the National Institutes of Health, yes? What exactly do you do there? My father recently died of cancer, and being a future medical student, I'm interested in what you're researching at the NIH.
I am researching the cancer system from Salford, and talking to Harvard and the NIH: We have decided there is a way to make the humasn antibody ot cancer, and cure it, HIV and heart disease.
Can you elaborate a bit? Considering not all cancer is the same, it might not do with having just one antibody to cancer( my father died of liver cancer, which is apparently nearly impossible to cure once discovered, whereas there are numerous other types of cancer which can be treated with chemo). And why the mentioning of HIV and heart disease( heart disease being a very wide range of problems, most of them not cancer)?
All 200 cancers ot there make 6 common enzymes: So there are 6 common human antibodies to all cancers. We do not go for the specific genomne, but the common bits! Chemo works by causing cell damage. We just so straignt to the immune action.
Nuclear processes do have to conserve energy. The main reason nuclear processes are as efficient as they are is some of the product from the first reaction causes the next reaction. Nuclear processes aren't any more efficient without this, and it was one of the hurdles to using the energy in atoms to do anything useful. You've also got the problem of since these conversions are apparently useful as energy sources for us, they would be creating a large amount of heat.
Get a Geiger counter, check! Also your own beating heart, green crops in the light, water falls, IC and jet engines - they all do molecular nuclear fusion
I am getting a message an hour, and English was never my thing. I did my M.Eng in a lab whic hspecialized in gas spectrosocopy, so i should have taken more care. Burning candles do nuclear fusion. Do you think this is interesting, or are you dead?
What? Do you come from UK, right?I read some of your blog and it's written, at least formally, well.
So check the spelling before submitting your comments,they're sometimes difficult to read!
I was taught that, in order to get two nuclei smash, and therefore give nuclear fusion, the atoms must be completely ionized and must have a huge kinetic energy, which doesn't occur in a candle flame, right?
Also, all cold fusion experiments proved wrong, they didn't clean test tubes well.
I was doing a PhD into Global Warming in 2001, when Prof. Zimmerman started talking about nuclear fusion. He said that to get nuclear fusion, you wanted hydrogen in turbulent flow.
I was thinking about this in 2003, and found nature did loads of MNF, releasing He and O every where. Get my email from my profile page, and we will have a longer chat.
Candle flames occur when the carbon in the wax and the wick reacts with the oxygen in the air. This forms Carbon Dioxide. Hydrogen plays no part whatsoever in the reaction.
Anyway, do you have any idea just how much energy is released by nuclear fusion? If I were to fuse just 2 grams of hydrogen to form 2 grams of helium, the result would be an explosion large enough to wipe out an entire city!
sigh... If that is the case, try breathing in the gases that come from the candle. If your voice goes squeaky, then congratulations, you've proved that every scientific theory of chemistry and physics is wrong.
Make a video showing this and I will take you more seriously. Write a scientific paper about it and if it holds up to peer-review, I will be utterly convinced.
Candles produce CO2, H2O and He! So breathing in the gas would be fatal! A water fall produces He, O and gamam waves! MUch more healthy, except for the gammas!
No. Breathing in CO2, H2O and He is not fatal. Breathing in enough CO2 will give you a headache later, but H2O is in our breath anyway and helium just makes your voice squeaky.
Also, waterfalls do NOT produce He, O or gamma rays. Waterfalls are just water going off the edge of a rock. If waterfalls produced gamma rays, then taps should too.
8% CO2 is fatal. There si 0.00037% in the air. Water falls DO produce He, adn gamam waves. Adn teh O frosm O3, which everybody can smell at water falls, and in the country.
We need a certain level of kinetic interaction to get MNF. Your kettle does it as it boils, but the amount of O3 produced is just too low to detect. Boiler rooms do produce enough to smell though. As deo the sea ...
Here's a simple test. Get a basic spectrometer to measure the absorption lines from the flame, and see if there's a D3 bar that would be characteristic of helium. If helium is being produced, this would be a cheap, and easy way of proving it.
Ok. I tried it this morning with a handheld diffraction spectroscope. Looking at a candle flame, I picked up carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and a touch of silicon.
I then used a second candle as a light source. With the smoke of the first candle inbetween the spectroscope and the second candle, to detect anything in the smoke. Again carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, but no helium.
The amuonts of He you get from a candle are very low. Go and take an air sample from a water fall, and smel lthe ozone foremd by O reacting with O2. With no electrical gear about.
Thanks: We get 2 H1/2/3 -> He 2/3/4 - so we only require two Hs. I have now got a periodic table, but thanks for the O16/18 stuff. It has 8 protons, but 8/10 neutrons. Hence the O 16/18 atomic weights.
You're confusing molecular reactions with nuclear ones. You might want to read a beginner's chemistry book before you post any more. You're making quite a fool out of yourself.
Not all Geiger counters can detect Gamma Rays. Candles don't produce enough energy to create Gamma radiation. Nuclear reactors can produce it, an exploding star can create it, but if a burning candle could produce a measurable level of gamma radiation, then all the people who burn tea lights in their homes would have radiation poisoning.
Did you actually point a Geiger counter at a candle? If you did, it's pretty clear you didn't understand what was and was not being measured.
You neeed a sensitive Geiger counter, but I was TAUGHT this in 1982, on my M.Eng. In 2003 I thought up molecular nuclear fusion, which explains why. THe turbulence of the flame turns H2O into He and O.
"He" is the abbreviation for Helium. Helium is not a component in water. I'll assume you meant "H" for Hydrogen.
Are you claiming to have a device that can split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen using less energy than is yielded when the resulting Hydrogen is burned? Your comments make it sound like you have a method for doing this that uses "turbulence" instead of heat, electricity or any other commonly used method. What tests have you done to demonstrate this method?
No, by He, I mean Helium. THe turbulence of the flame does molecular nuclear fusion, turning H2O into He, O, gamma waves and a lotr of heat. THius is why the flame is so white! This was from my Me.Eng in 1982.
And you didn't know that a burning candle consumes oxygen? How in God's name could someone get a postgraduate engineering degree in engineering without knowing that fires consume oxygen? Did you get their Urban Water Engineering degree? They list Data Communications as an engineering program. I suppose you could get that without remedial chemistry knowledge.
If you read my last post, you wouls see that the amount of O produced is very small! But the amount of heat and light the nuclear fusion gives off is useful! Candles do nuclear fusion.
If a stable, repeatable form of fusion was actually happening in a burning candle, then why aren't there any commercial applications of this alleged process? Why isn't anyone using it as the basis for a nuclear power plant? You're talking about heat and light from a candle, but that's generated by a chemical reaction, not a nuclear one. Do you have ANY sources for your claims about nuclear candles? Repeating your absurd claim doesn't make it more believable.
Candles would take in energy, if it was nto fro the moleculasr nuclear fusion they do. So every candel on Earth only gives out white light, because of MNF.
Upon your advice I spoke with a chemist about your fantasy land physics. After he stopped laughing he explained that it would require a nuclear reactor to do what you;re claiming happens in a burning candle.
According to Prof Zimmerman, fluid turbuelnce is enough to over come the strong atomic force in molecular hydrogen, and do nuclear fusion. He told me this in 2001.
Best proof of my ideas, use a sensitive Geiger counter on a burning candle. My M.Eng. included metallurgby, so see my video on 'cold fusion'. Which the US Military says now works!
What, exactly, does holding a Geiger counter to a burning candle prove? It won't prove your claim that a burning candle is producing Helium.
It's typical of quacks to run around waving scientific devices in the air, claiming that results they don't really understand "prove" their baseless claims. All you've proven during this discussion is you don't understand basic chemistry and have no experimental proof of your claims. Have you ever actually collected helium from a burning candle?
This was from science taught ot me on my PhD at Sheffeild University. It took my two years to accept it. THe world does fusion, includiong your own blood system. You asre nuclear.
Let me get this straight. Your ENTIRE theory is based upon something someone told you in a coffee bar. You have no sources, no experiments and no actual data to back you up, except a conversation in a coffee bar when you were at university. Am I missing something or does that just about sum it up?
It is on suspecsion, while Sheffeild gave me up for the NIH, who will nto release me. I do immunolgoy as well as engineering. With Harvard medical school.
I have done teh work to warent a PhDm btu Sheffeidl released me to go to thwe NIH and study cancer. THe NIH wanted me here worknig on GW. Sob, so no PhD yet! still clever than Prof Zimmerman though. But he onyl has a double first from Columbia.
Do you have some more details about this Prof Zimmerman? I'd love to write him and find out what HIS sources were, assuming your claims about his teachings are accurate.
I'm still waiting for some evidence for your "turbuelnce did nuclear fusion" claim.
You're dedicating all this time to making and posting youtube videos and yet you can't be bothered to get hold of a Geiger counter and test the theory yourself. That tells me you don't actually believe it will work. I think you're just seeking attention and this is the only way you can think of to get it.
Maybe you should first do some blank measurements (hundreds), then measure the nuclear activity of the burning candle (again, hundreds of times): I think you should obtain the same exact result within the error, unless you use 14C-enriched wax; this is the metodology used in undergraduate freshman physics courses.
I was taught on m y M.Eng, that burning candles give off gamam radaition. As does all the burning of fossil fuels, which produces steam in turbuletn flwo and gives us MNF. Get my email from my profile page.
You are right. A hydrogen flame can heat tungston red hot in seconds. Thats over 6000 degrees. Water only needs 2500 to split into hydrogen and oxygen.
I have a device installed on a small engine at the exhaust port. It creates a lot of steam when water is passed thru it. The steam comes out a small pipe. If I add a larger pipe that narrows to a small pipe do u think this will create enough turbulence? Also what would the results be from this fusion? Would the gas work in a engine or would it just generate a lot of heat. Thanks
Prof. Zimmerman told me you want to adjust a Ti helix. Thsi will super heat the steam, You need to feed 10% of the steam back, t okeep the boiler in a state of boiling, with no fuel burn. Surround the plant in FeO shutters to block the gamma waves coing off.
That's a molecular reaction, not a nuclear one. Besides, generating that much heat will take far more energy than you could get from burning the resulting hydrogen.
Candles CONSUME Oxygen. Specifically they combine it with Carbon to produce Carbon Dioxide. If a burning candle produced Oxygen, then why would a candle run out of oxygen when burned in an airtight container?
You keep making absurd, unsupportable claims that are are easily refuted by a high school chemistry education and the only evidence you can offer for your claims is "go ask a chemist". Do you have any evidence or sources?
The amount of O produced in very low! B ut the amount of nucl;ear fusion a candle does is not negligible. And it shows us how to do nuclear fusion on Earth. I was told this stuff in the first year of my M.Eng.
I have an idea, how about you produce a source other than "first year of my M.Eng."?
Right now all you're doing is making a vague appeal to authority. You expect people to believe you because some unnamed professor supposedly taught you this back in the early 1980's. Fine, give us some more sources, give us data other than the recollections of a man making claims that violate basic principals of chemistry. Link to SOMETHING other than your own thought experiments.
The turbulence of a flame is much greater than the force from Brownisn motion by just heating steam. Water falls form O and He from water, below 25 C!
This is a fact I was taught on my M.Eng. No chemical reaction can produce light-that is the province of nuclear reactions! And we have no source of nuclear fission
JonThm 1 month ago
Oldest troll I've ever seen
SirPranc3lot 1 month ago
Candles do nuclear fusion from steam in turbueltn flow. SAy something useful, and your comment stays!
JonThm 2 years ago
Let's just ignore all three laws of thermodynamics, just for a second. You said you're working on cancer and global warming at the NIH? This is the National Institutes of Health, yes? What exactly do you do there? My father recently died of cancer, and being a future medical student, I'm interested in what you're researching at the NIH.
Cyrathil 2 years ago 5
I am researching the cancer system from Salford, and talking to Harvard and the NIH: We have decided there is a way to make the humasn antibody ot cancer, and cure it, HIV and heart disease.
JonThm 2 years ago
Can you elaborate a bit? Considering not all cancer is the same, it might not do with having just one antibody to cancer( my father died of liver cancer, which is apparently nearly impossible to cure once discovered, whereas there are numerous other types of cancer which can be treated with chemo). And why the mentioning of HIV and heart disease( heart disease being a very wide range of problems, most of them not cancer)?
Cyrathil 2 years ago
All 200 cancers ot there make 6 common enzymes: So there are 6 common human antibodies to all cancers. We do not go for the specific genomne, but the common bits! Chemo works by causing cell damage. We just so straignt to the immune action.
JonThm 2 years ago
And the heart disease? What anti-body could work on heart-disease? Wouldn't you want to build up the damaged areas?
Cyrathil 2 years ago
IL-2 and IL-4 produce the human antibody, that clears teh bacterial rump whic bhis stopping the heart from repairing.
JonThm 2 years ago
Good luck with the Rheumatic heart disease.
Okay, remember the three laws of thermodynamics? Please explain how this doesn't violate all of them?
Cyrathil 2 years ago
WE do e=mc2. So we convert mass into energy. The 3rd law conserves energy, but does not apply to nuclear processes.
JonThm 2 years ago
Nuclear processes do have to conserve energy. The main reason nuclear processes are as efficient as they are is some of the product from the first reaction causes the next reaction. Nuclear processes aren't any more efficient without this, and it was one of the hurdles to using the energy in atoms to do anything useful. You've also got the problem of since these conversions are apparently useful as energy sources for us, they would be creating a large amount of heat.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Cancdles prodcue steam in turbueltn flow, whic hdoes molecular nuclear fuysion. Producing He, O, heat and gamam waves. So nuclear fusion is so easy!
JonThm 2 years ago
dont ever say the word impossible
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 years ago
Get a Geiger counter adn check it: It is fact. Get over it.
JonThm 2 years ago
I was taught on my M.Eng, that candles give out gamma rays. So do water falls and breaking waves. And they form O3 in the dark!
JonThm 2 years ago
"I was taught"
You like that phrase.
Too bad it's worthless in providing "proof" of anything.
halleyscomet 2 years ago
Get a Geiger counter, check! Also your own beating heart, green crops in the light, water falls, IC and jet engines - they all do molecular nuclear fusion
JonThm 2 years ago
I guess you deactivated rating because you were getting half a star!
I also think you write replies too fast and carelessly, I've never heard about Spectronomy, maybe Spectrosocopy.
Finally, post some links to some good works that prove your theory.
xja85mac 2 years ago
I am getting a message an hour, and English was never my thing. I did my M.Eng in a lab whic hspecialized in gas spectrosocopy, so i should have taken more care. Burning candles do nuclear fusion. Do you think this is interesting, or are you dead?
JonThm 2 years ago
What? Do you come from UK, right?I read some of your blog and it's written, at least formally, well.
So check the spelling before submitting your comments,they're sometimes difficult to read!
I was taught that, in order to get two nuclei smash, and therefore give nuclear fusion, the atoms must be completely ionized and must have a huge kinetic energy, which doesn't occur in a candle flame, right?
Also, all cold fusion experiments proved wrong, they didn't clean test tubes well.
Bye.
xja85mac 2 years ago
I was doing a PhD into Global Warming in 2001, when Prof. Zimmerman started talking about nuclear fusion. He said that to get nuclear fusion, you wanted hydrogen in turbulent flow.
I was thinking about this in 2003, and found nature did loads of MNF, releasing He and O every where. Get my email from my profile page, and we will have a longer chat.
JonThm 2 years ago
Candle flames occur when the carbon in the wax and the wick reacts with the oxygen in the air. This forms Carbon Dioxide. Hydrogen plays no part whatsoever in the reaction.
Anyway, do you have any idea just how much energy is released by nuclear fusion? If I were to fuse just 2 grams of hydrogen to form 2 grams of helium, the result would be an explosion large enough to wipe out an entire city!
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
Candles for steam and CO2: The turbulence of the flame turns some of the steam into He and O.
JonThm 2 years ago
sigh... If that is the case, try breathing in the gases that come from the candle. If your voice goes squeaky, then congratulations, you've proved that every scientific theory of chemistry and physics is wrong.
Make a video showing this and I will take you more seriously. Write a scientific paper about it and if it holds up to peer-review, I will be utterly convinced.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
Candles produce CO2, H2O and He! So breathing in the gas would be fatal! A water fall produces He, O and gamam waves! MUch more healthy, except for the gammas!
JonThm 2 years ago
No. Breathing in CO2, H2O and He is not fatal. Breathing in enough CO2 will give you a headache later, but H2O is in our breath anyway and helium just makes your voice squeaky.
Also, waterfalls do NOT produce He, O or gamma rays. Waterfalls are just water going off the edge of a rock. If waterfalls produced gamma rays, then taps should too.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
8% CO2 is fatal. There si 0.00037% in the air. Water falls DO produce He, adn gamam waves. Adn teh O frosm O3, which everybody can smell at water falls, and in the country.
JonThm 2 years ago
Waterfalls do NOT produce gamma rays! I have been to several! There is no smell in the air, either.
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claims.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
Water falls produce O3, as do breaking waves or crops in the country side. If yuo can't smell this, go see you medics NOW!
JonThm 2 years ago
Sigh. By that logic, I should be able to smell Ozone when I'm in the shower, or if I splash about in water. However, I don't.
I think it is you that requires medical help, my friend.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
We need a certain level of kinetic interaction to get MNF. Your kettle does it as it boils, but the amount of O3 produced is just too low to detect. Boiler rooms do produce enough to smell though. As deo the sea ...
JonThm 2 years ago
Here's a simple test. Get a basic spectrometer to measure the absorption lines from the flame, and see if there's a D3 bar that would be characteristic of helium. If helium is being produced, this would be a cheap, and easy way of proving it.
ExeFBM 2 years ago
Correct! Gas spectronomy will prove MNF.
JonThm 2 years ago
Great, do it and let us know if you detect the characteristic He pattern.
ExeFBM 2 years ago
Annoyingly nuclear power got my PhD in engineering materials put on hold, so I am away from my lab.. Tell youi what, why not do it yourself.
JonThm 2 years ago
Ok. I tried it this morning with a handheld diffraction spectroscope. Looking at a candle flame, I picked up carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and a touch of silicon.
I then used a second candle as a light source. With the smoke of the first candle inbetween the spectroscope and the second candle, to detect anything in the smoke. Again carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, but no helium.
This experiment does not support fusion.
ExeFBM 2 years ago 5
The amuonts of He you get from a candle are very low. Go and take an air sample from a water fall, and smel lthe ozone foremd by O reacting with O2. With no electrical gear about.
JonThm 2 years ago
At water falls, and breakimng waves, there are no electric fields, or novel reagents to form O3. We also get He fromed, from 2 Hs.
JonThm 2 years ago
Query: The He produced: is that 4/2He (Stable 2N + 2P Helium)?
Fordi 2 years ago
We should get He2/3, plus O16/18
JonThm 2 years ago
Two things...
First, conventional hydrogen fusion goes, 2/1H + 3/1H -> 4/2He + Neu + energy
3/2He would require fusion of at least three 1/1H (common Hydrogen) atoms, plus beta decay - something that simply doesn't happen.
Second, Oxygen, by definition, has neither 16 nor 18 protons; it's got eight. You'd write it 16/8O or 18/8O.
(Honestly, the /n isn't required, but I can never remember the proton count for the heavier elements, so I got into the habit of writing it out).
Fordi 2 years ago
Thanks: We get 2 H1/2/3 -> He 2/3/4 - so we only require two Hs. I have now got a periodic table, but thanks for the O16/18 stuff. It has 8 protons, but 8/10 neutrons. Hence the O 16/18 atomic weights.
JonThm 2 years ago
You're confusing molecular reactions with nuclear ones. You might want to read a beginner's chemistry book before you post any more. You're making quite a fool out of yourself.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Use a Geioger counter! A lit candle gives off gamma waves.
JonThm 2 years ago
Not all Geiger counters can detect Gamma Rays. Candles don't produce enough energy to create Gamma radiation. Nuclear reactors can produce it, an exploding star can create it, but if a burning candle could produce a measurable level of gamma radiation, then all the people who burn tea lights in their homes would have radiation poisoning.
Did you actually point a Geiger counter at a candle? If you did, it's pretty clear you didn't understand what was and was not being measured.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
You neeed a sensitive Geiger counter, but I was TAUGHT this in 1982, on my M.Eng. In 2003 I thought up molecular nuclear fusion, which explains why. THe turbulence of the flame turns H2O into He and O.
JonThm 2 years ago
"He" is the abbreviation for Helium. Helium is not a component in water. I'll assume you meant "H" for Hydrogen.
Are you claiming to have a device that can split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen using less energy than is yielded when the resulting Hydrogen is burned? Your comments make it sound like you have a method for doing this that uses "turbulence" instead of heat, electricity or any other commonly used method. What tests have you done to demonstrate this method?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
No, by He, I mean Helium. THe turbulence of the flame does molecular nuclear fusion, turning H2O into He, O, gamma waves and a lotr of heat. THius is why the flame is so white! This was from my Me.Eng in 1982.
JonThm 2 years ago
Sorry, bored: I have a Master's in Engineering from Sheffeild University, UK.
JonThm 2 years ago
And you didn't know that a burning candle consumes oxygen? How in God's name could someone get a postgraduate engineering degree in engineering without knowing that fires consume oxygen? Did you get their Urban Water Engineering degree? They list Data Communications as an engineering program. I suppose you could get that without remedial chemistry knowledge.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago 2
If you read my last post, you wouls see that the amount of O produced is very small! But the amount of heat and light the nuclear fusion gives off is useful! Candles do nuclear fusion.
JonThm 2 years ago
If a stable, repeatable form of fusion was actually happening in a burning candle, then why aren't there any commercial applications of this alleged process? Why isn't anyone using it as the basis for a nuclear power plant? You're talking about heat and light from a candle, but that's generated by a chemical reaction, not a nuclear one. Do you have ANY sources for your claims about nuclear candles? Repeating your absurd claim doesn't make it more believable.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Candles would take in energy, if it was nto fro the moleculasr nuclear fusion they do. So every candel on Earth only gives out white light, because of MNF.
JonThm 2 years ago
Upon your advice I spoke with a chemist about your fantasy land physics. After he stopped laughing he explained that it would require a nuclear reactor to do what you;re claiming happens in a burning candle.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
According to Prof Zimmerman, fluid turbuelnce is enough to over come the strong atomic force in molecular hydrogen, and do nuclear fusion. He told me this in 2001.
JonThm 2 years ago
Best proof of my ideas, use a sensitive Geiger counter on a burning candle. My M.Eng. included metallurgby, so see my video on 'cold fusion'. Which the US Military says now works!
JonThm 2 years ago
What, exactly, does holding a Geiger counter to a burning candle prove? It won't prove your claim that a burning candle is producing Helium.
It's typical of quacks to run around waving scientific devices in the air, claiming that results they don't really understand "prove" their baseless claims. All you've proven during this discussion is you don't understand basic chemistry and have no experimental proof of your claims. Have you ever actually collected helium from a burning candle?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
This was from science taught ot me on my PhD at Sheffeild University. It took my two years to accept it. THe world does fusion, includiong your own blood system. You asre nuclear.
JonThm 2 years ago
Again I'll repeat my main question:
Where are your sources?
Can you link to ANY experiments or peer reviewed papers on the topic?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
This stuff was told to me in the coffee bar in the 1980s, so no sources were given. Go use a Geiger counter. Unless you don't know how!
JonThm 2 years ago
Let me get this straight. Your ENTIRE theory is based upon something someone told you in a coffee bar. You have no sources, no experiments and no actual data to back you up, except a conversation in a coffee bar when you were at university. Am I missing something or does that just about sum it up?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago 2
Did you actually GET that PhD?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
It is on suspecsion, while Sheffeild gave me up for the NIH, who will nto release me. I do immunolgoy as well as engineering. With Harvard medical school.
JonThm 2 years ago
So you never actually GOT a PhD. That says a lot about your alleged PhD work, doesn't it?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago 2
I have done teh work to warent a PhDm btu Sheffeidl released me to go to thwe NIH and study cancer. THe NIH wanted me here worknig on GW. Sob, so no PhD yet! still clever than Prof Zimmerman though. But he onyl has a double first from Columbia.
JonThm 2 years ago
Do you have some more details about this Prof Zimmerman? I'd love to write him and find out what HIS sources were, assuming your claims about his teachings are accurate.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Prof Z has a double first from Coulbia, and works in Chemical Engineering. He stopped believing in GW in 2003 - two years after I told him.
JonThm 2 years ago
I think I found him. I e-mailed him about some of your nuclear claims. I'm interested to see what he has to say in response.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
If he's the one who taught you these things, why does he call you theories "fantasy"?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
He told my turbuelnce did nuclear fusion in 2001, but he did not think of molecular nuclear fusion, hence his problem with my idea!
JonThm 2 years ago
I'm still waiting for some evidence for your "turbuelnce did nuclear fusion" claim.
You're dedicating all this time to making and posting youtube videos and yet you can't be bothered to get hold of a Geiger counter and test the theory yourself. That tells me you don't actually believe it will work. I think you're just seeking attention and this is the only way you can think of to get it.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
If I was still at university I would have Geiger counters at hand, which is why nuclear power were so keen on my PhD ending early.
JonThm 2 years ago
Maybe you should first do some blank measurements (hundreds), then measure the nuclear activity of the burning candle (again, hundreds of times): I think you should obtain the same exact result within the error, unless you use 14C-enriched wax; this is the metodology used in undergraduate freshman physics courses.
xja85mac 2 years ago
I was taught on m y M.Eng, that burning candles give off gamam radaition. As does all the burning of fossil fuels, which produces steam in turbuletn flwo and gives us MNF. Get my email from my profile page.
JonThm 2 years ago
Couldn't understand a word, sorry.
JonnyB16902 3 years ago
Click on 'JonThm' and I give you my address op my written blog. Read, enjoy!
JonThm 3 years ago
Happy for you
JonThm 3 years ago
You are right. A hydrogen flame can heat tungston red hot in seconds. Thats over 6000 degrees. Water only needs 2500 to split into hydrogen and oxygen.
cheesefighter 3 years ago
Turbulence will set off molecular nuclear fusion in steam: We do not need H gas. Nature does loads of nuclear fusion, from water on the earth.
JonThm 3 years ago
I have a device installed on a small engine at the exhaust port. It creates a lot of steam when water is passed thru it. The steam comes out a small pipe. If I add a larger pipe that narrows to a small pipe do u think this will create enough turbulence? Also what would the results be from this fusion? Would the gas work in a engine or would it just generate a lot of heat. Thanks
cheesefighter 3 years ago
Prof. Zimmerman told me you want to adjust a Ti helix. Thsi will super heat the steam, You need to feed 10% of the steam back, t okeep the boiler in a state of boiling, with no fuel burn. Surround the plant in FeO shutters to block the gamma waves coing off.
JonThm 3 years ago
Use a steam plasma to split water int oH and O unpowered, the nburn the gas back to water! Free power.
JonThm 2 years ago
That's a molecular reaction, not a nuclear one. Besides, generating that much heat will take far more energy than you could get from burning the resulting hydrogen.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
I was taught on my M.Eng in 1982 that candles give off radaition: As the do molecular nuclear fusion.
JonThm 2 years ago
Visible light is a form of radiation and that is NOT the same thing as a Gamma Ray.
What elements are being fused in a burning candle? What heavier element is being produced?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
Candles produce gamam waves, Helium and Oxygen. Go ask a chemist/physics bod.
JonThm 2 years ago
Candles CONSUME Oxygen. Specifically they combine it with Carbon to produce Carbon Dioxide. If a burning candle produced Oxygen, then why would a candle run out of oxygen when burned in an airtight container?
You keep making absurd, unsupportable claims that are are easily refuted by a high school chemistry education and the only evidence you can offer for your claims is "go ask a chemist". Do you have any evidence or sources?
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
The amount of O produced in very low! B ut the amount of nucl;ear fusion a candle does is not negligible. And it shows us how to do nuclear fusion on Earth. I was told this stuff in the first year of my M.Eng.
JonThm 2 years ago
I have an idea, how about you produce a source other than "first year of my M.Eng."?
Right now all you're doing is making a vague appeal to authority. You expect people to believe you because some unnamed professor supposedly taught you this back in the early 1980's. Fine, give us some more sources, give us data other than the recollections of a man making claims that violate basic principals of chemistry. Link to SOMETHING other than your own thought experiments.
flakingnapstich 2 years ago
The turbulence of a flame is much greater than the force from Brownisn motion by just heating steam. Water falls form O and He from water, below 25 C!
JonThm 2 years ago