[FirstClassSkeptic]

The scientists/magicians tell us that matter converts to energy, by the equation E=mc^2.

They tell us that in a fission reaction, one big atom splits into two smaller atoms, and the two smaller atoms have less mass than the single one big atom, and that difference in mass converts to energy.

But what about the neutrons that escape, and hit other big atoms, in order to sustain a chain reaction? Aren't those extra neutrons the reason that the two smaller atoms have less mass than the one bigger atom?

So where is the lost mass? There doesn't seem to be any.

[mooninquirer]

Oh no, when they claim that a U 235 atom loses mass when it fissions, they very much are taking into account the neutrons as well as the fission fragments. There are between 2 and 4 neutrons released, with an average of 2.4, in the case of U 235, and the fission fragments could be nuclei of elements such as krypton and barium, but also there are other possible pairs of fission fragments ( but of course, the atomic numbers, or number of protons, of these fission fragments have to add up to the atomic number of uranium, 92 ).

I admit that mass converting into energy might be an onerous and unnecessary concept. One could just think of it as POTENTIAL energy. Think of a rubber band wound up, that will propel a toy airplane when you take your finger off the propeller and let it go.

There is no dishonor to Gentiles in the equation E = MC^2, because it was worked on by Gentile scientists. There was Henri Poincare, before Einstein's 1905 paper. Poincare and Lorentz were independently considered for the Nobel Prize in Physics for the theory of relativity. Also, see Jesse's post under " Proof Einstein stole E=MC^2"

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I admit that mass converting into energy might be an onerous and unnecessary concept. One could just think of it as POTENTIAL energy. Think of a rubber band wound up, that will propel a toy airplane when you take your finger off the propeller and let it go.

It sounds like what you are saying is the binding energy of the nucleus.

The neutrons come out fast, and are slowed by the moderator. This heats the moderator, and that might be the only energy that is produced. That is, the energy given up by the neutrons as they are slowed down. Like the brakes on an automobile get hot.

[rerevisionist]

It's curious how, simply by repetition, e=mc squared has become accepted as a sort of mantra. Especially as the derivations come from Euclidean geometry of a right-angled triangle, which is part of a world-view which geometers of the time were supposedly modernised. I've had discussions, usually with people who aren't even remotely describable as physicists, in effect with tears in their voices as they repeat this formula as though it's obviously true. Come to think of it, Dawkins is this type - he ridicules the absurdities of the Christian Trinity, but refuses to consider absurdities in physics (or for that matter in Judaism). I remember the probably-more-or-less-forgotten professional philosopher A J Ayer saying airily on a TV interview that he believes in the theory of relatitity.

[NB It's worth noting that Einstein is NOT credited with inventing or helping with atomic weapons. C P Snow for example in his essay on Einstein clearly states this. This is part of the 'Saint Einstein' outlook held by many people - Bertrand Russell was another. The formula however obviously had and still has an important supporting part in the mythology of nuclear weapons. Incidentally maybe also worth noting is how high a proportion of books purporting to explain Einstein are by Jews, including Feynman. None of them of course come to grips with the core problems.]

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Oh no, when they claim that a U 235 atom loses mass when it fissions, they very much are taking into account the neutrons as well as the fission fragments.

"They" who? The physicist/magicians? Why should I believe them when they tell me this?

Can you weigh an alarm clock, explode it, then gather the pieces and weigh them together? Will it be the same, or might you lose some little pieces?

[mooninquirer]

Well, "they" includes everyone who brings up E=mc^2 in connection to nuclear fission. They include a lot of conduits or transmitters of the notion that E=mc^2 somehow facilitates understanding of the energy release in nuclear fission. In fact, I think it may make things more confusing. E=mc^2 may be true, but there is no reason to bring it up in discussing nuclear fission.

This might be part of nuke bomb propaganda --- it is EASIER to sell the idea that nuke bombs explode with an awe-inspiring force, with E=mc^2, because the energy is multiplied by a very large number, the speed of light, which is squared, making it even larger.

Mass is something that can be measured by either a gravitation force, or by its inertial resistance ----i.e. derived from Newton's second law, F = ma. If a very great force causes little acceleration, then the mass must be very great as well, etc.

But UNLESS they ALSO show evidence of these measurements having been made, there is NO POINT in bringing up E = mc^2 in the context of nuclear fission.

A very funny thing is that Philip Morrison, who produced educational documentaries called "Ring of Truth," seems to admit this. It is only in cases of the decay of particles, like the collision of an electron and a positron, resulting in annihilation of matter, and the production of a gamma ray of "pure, massless energy " His opinion is that E = mc^2 could be made much more simple, in the form of just E = M. This program is not one you would want to watch, because Philip Morrison was involved in the Manhattan Project, and his scientific adviser was Robert Oppenheimer.

I do NOT dispute that E = mc^2, nor nuclear fission. However, I think the reason that it is always mentioned in the context of nuclear fission is just educators mindlessly repeating nuke bomb propaganda ---- it really gives a lot of "OOMPH" to the nuclear bomb. If you just use the analogy of a wound up rubber band for a toy airplane, the public is not going to think nuke bombs are so powerful. Further, there is the implication that ALL of the mass or even a substantial portion is claimed to have been lost. But on hyperphysics, in the section of nuclear fission, it is only a mass of one fifth of a neutron. Shame on them for referencing that, WITHOUT a citation of how that mass was measured.

I misspoke before ---- MOST of the energy released in nuclear fission is NOT in the fast neutrons, but in the kinetic energy
of the much more massive fission fragments. It is THEY that have to fly apart because when the strong force is overcome, the coulomb force of repulsion of like charges causes them to fly apart ( if they were in a vacuum ). But in the lattice of the fissile metal, it just results in the vibrational kinetic energy of other atoms of uranium or plutonium, which most likely have not fissioned, because of the extreme spacing between nuclei.

In the NOVA documentary "E = mc^2 THE BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION " ( which can seen on youtube ), there is a scene where Lise Meitner and her nephew are discussing the energy released in nuclear fission, but they are puzzled by where that energy came from. And then, Lise Meitner says it is E = mc^2. But I do NOT understand WHY there should be ANY puzzlement over where the energy comes from. It was the stored potential energy in the binding energy of the nucleus. No one asks "where does the energy come from" and invokes E = mc^2 when talking about the rubber band unwinding on a toy airplane.

Sometimes we mindlessly repeat things that serve the propaganda interests of other people. Just using the analogy of comparing a disastrous event or something that is overkill to " dropping a nuke bomb" is doing that as well.

Another much more harmful example is bringing up evolution when it is NOT necessary. Even the late, great biologist George C. Williams, who influenced Richard Dawkins, said that adaptation was an ONEROUS concept, and should not be invoked unless absolutely necessary. The Jews CLEARLY benefit from the public's belief in Darwinism, and that is why the mainstream media pushes it so strongly, why there is such a furor over the teaching of intelligent design, why there is such an intense protest over vouchers so that parents can send their kids to religious schools, and why the Protocols of Zion says that Atheism and Darwinism will be promoted.

[TVOW]

I say again as i think it got deleted it should be cubed, E=Mc3 and a bit , its superseded by 0=1 anyway, which a child can prove but they never bothered to tell the public or they dont want them to know , well not for a few thousand years anyway.

You're right - I deleted it as it's nonsense. We're keeping this a serious site - rerev

[FirstClassSkeptic]

In the NOVA documentary "E = mc^2 THE BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION " ( which can seen on youtube ), there is a scene where Lise Meitner and her nephew are discussing the energy released in nuclear fission, but they are puzzled by where that energy came from. And then, Lise Meitner says it is E = mc^2.

She may have never said that in real life.

There was a letter she wrote, and was published in Nature, or some such place. She never mentions E=emceetwo. i don't think she mentions matter converting to energy. She used some sort of bubble theory, as i recall.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1 ... 471a0.html

i found a copy of that letter once, but can't find it now.

[mooninquirer]

@ FisrtClassSkeptic ---- thanks. That clears up a lot. In the documentary "E=mc^2 A BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION," it is quite startling the see the facial expression of Lise Meitner's nephew as he says with such indignation, " that energy cannot come from nowhere !" The producers and directors committed an error in having this scene over-acted ---- it is too obvious that they REALLY want to insert that E=mc^2. Of course, later this documentary, with a narrated voice, discusses nuke bombs, showing an explosion. I'll have to watch it again, but I think I remember that the nuke bomb explosions they show are very yellow, with a billowing look to them ---- meaning they look more like fuel bombs.

The nuke bomb propagandists are just shamelessly recruiting Lise Meitner to sell nuke bombs, because E=mc^2 strongly emphasizes a great release of energy, that the public would not feel from a discussion about rubber bands or springs of potential energy. Lise Meitner is valuable to sell this idea to women, especially career women.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

In the documentary "E=mc^2 A BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION," it is quite startling the see the facial expression of Lise Meitner's nephew as he says with such indignation, " that energy cannot come from nowhere !"

Just at exactly what point in time is he supposed to have said this? In the early fission experiment, there is no mention of any energy being released, or the amount, or any attempt to measure the energy.

I found this very interesting post.

This post does say that Meitner used eequalsemceetwo, but says that Meitner didn't really know the mass accurately enough.
I thought I had better grab this while I could.

January/February 2010 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 13
Some Experiments that Shook the World
Sankar Hajra
Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake, AC -54, Sector-1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
e-mail sankarhajra@yahoo.com
It is generally believed by the physicists that various experiments/demonstrations/applications –
experiments of Hahn-Strassmann, Walton-Cockroft, Fermi’s Chicago Experiment, the explosion of the Little
Boy and the Fat Man, the commercial reaction of nuclear fuel – prove i) conversion of gravitational mass
into energy, and ii) usability of Uranium and other radioactive elements as proper fuels. We argue that
these assertions have not been proved in any of those experiments/demonstrations/applications.
Introduction
To know whether a fuel is proper fuel or not is to determine
whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is
used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw
natural materials. A huge amount of energy is obtained when
Hydrogen or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and
oxide of iron) is burned. But energy obtained from combustion
of those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them
from natural resources. Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot
be treated as proper fuels. Electricity could be readily generated
from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made
from those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made
from coal or petroleum. According to Einstein’s E = mc2 formula,
1 Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give
9 ´ 1016 joules, or 2 ´ 1016 calories, of heat energy through
complete nuclear reaction. [ E = mc2 = 1 ´ (3 ´ 108 )2
joules = 20 ´ 1012 kilocals = 20 t rillion kilocals .] If that
would be true, then powerful states around the world would
not compete for oil in the deserts of Arabia. If one ton of Uranium
of some-ton ‘Little Boy’ bomb could take part in the socalled
nuclear reaction, then some million of square miles of the
world would burn, instead of only 1.7 square miles of Hiroshima.
It not at all possible to give supply of electricity to the
people from so-called nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossilfuel
electricity for the reasons stated above. However, it is possible
to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to
earn immense money from so-called nuclear projects.

The Hahn-Strassmann Experiment
In 1938, Curie and Savitch exposed Uranium to moving neutrons
and found that exposed Uranium had then the half-life
period of 3.5 hours. They thought that some Uranium atoms
had been converted to Thorium isotopes (which were two
places below Uranium in the Periodic Table) by this method.
Strassmann tried to separate Thorium from that irradiated Uranium
using Iron as carrier, and being unable to do so, maintained
that there was no Thorium in 3.5-hour substance.
Curie and Savitch carried out further tests which showed
that 3.5 hour substance could be precipitated out of the solution
with Lanthanum as carrier. Lanthanum is a rare earth element,
and its atoms were believed to be the half of the size of the
atom of Uranium. So, he hesitantly concluded that 3.5-hour
substance might be Actinium- a transuranic element of the same
chemical group as that of Lanthanum, but of much higher
atomic weight than Lanthanum. [1,2].
Hahn and Strassmann believed that 3.5-hour substance was
either Barium or Radium [3]. They made a solution of 3.5-hour
substance and mixed barium chloride with it. They were unable
to separate radium from mixture by fractional crystallization.
Moreover, they found that radioactivity was uniform amongst
the various Barium fractions at every stage of crystallizations.
So, they concluded that 3.5-hour substance was not Radium, and
no other element but Barium [4,5,6].
The conclusion of Hahn and Strassmann could clearly be disputed
from many angles. In their micro analysis, they had used
very Curie techniques. These techniques are interesting, beautiful,
and elegant. But were these techniques dependable to the
extent needed to demonstrate a few hundred atoms of an element
in some grams of another element, especially when Curie
and Savitch had been hesitant over the method to the extent
whether the element was Lanthanum or Actinium? To prove
Barium in irradiated Uranium, Hahn and Strassmann should
have irradiated a good amount of Uranium for a long time and
isolated some Barium from it, just like Madam Curie had isolated
some amount of Radium from pitch blende.
But no one disputed over the techniques adopted or the conclusion
drawn by Hahn and Strassmann, since the conclusion
was in tune with the dream world of the then physicists. The
then physicists did not question either the doubtful techniques,
or over the reasoning of Hahn-Strassmann. On the contrary,
they began to confirm the conclusion, even extend the conclusion,
and began to report incessantly and quite enthusiastically
the creation of any set of elements from another set of different
elements. [7]
Lise Meitner [8] took the conclusion of Hahn-Strassmann
Experiment to base her fission theory. According to her, in the
3.5-hour Curie-Savitch mixture, neutrons have divided Uranium
into two parts. One part is Barium and the other part is possibly
Krypton.
Then Frisch calculated classically the energy of motion imparted
to the supposed parts of uranium atom on the basis repulsion,
and Meitner calculated relativistically the liberated
energy per Uranium atom from the so-called loss of gravitational
mass [8,9,10] which according to her was equal to ( ¢ U -
Ba -Kr) where ¢ U was the gravitational mass of the Uranium
atom with the absorbed neutron and 56Ba145?and 36Kr94? were,
Hajra: Earth Shaking Experiments Vol. 21, No. 1 14
respectively, the gravitational masses of Barium and Krypton
isotopes.
According to Meitner and Frisch, in both the calculations,
the released energy in such a process should be 200 Mev per
Uranium atom, which was a relief of both the classicists and the
relativists. Frisch and others [11] were said to have succeeded
also in demonstrating the ‘burst of ionization’; i.e., the release of
high-energy in the so-called fission process.
To demonstrate Barium in the Curie-Savitch solution mixed
with barium chloride is hardly justifiable, and the Frisch’s observation
on of burst of ionization when related with Meitner’s
calculation of the so-called differences of gravitational masses
of ¢ U and (Ba+ Cr) crosses the limit of any standard of scientific
knowledge.
The atomic masses of the Uranium atom with the absorbed
neutron, of the Barium isotope, and of the Krypton isotope were
unknown to Meitner, so in her calculations, she first assumed
that the mass defects of an element is a measure of its binding
energy, and then she calculated the expected available energy
per Uranium atom from difference in packing fractions between
Uranium and the elements in the middle of the Periodic Table
using the results obtained from Aston’s mass spectrograph.
There can be no physical theory that could match the theoretical
values with experimental values exactly. To determine
the atomic masses of the nuclei, Aston’s mass spectrograph uses
many parameters whose measurements certainly varied at that
time within 0.1 percent accuracy, or within a more wide range.
Consequently, a mass defect of 0.1 percent should not be considered
as experimental proof for the destruction of
gravitational mass. So, it was useless to explain the so-called
mass defects by imagining that the mass defect has been
converted into energy as per Einstein.
If the gravitational mass of Curie-Savitch substance is less
than the masses of the absorbed neutrons and the Uranium
lump, then Meitner should verify that loss of mass by proper
weighing at source. How is it possible to ascertain the loss of
gravitational mass in the Curie-Savitch substance from Aston’s
assertion that there is difference in packing fractions between
uranium and the elements in the middle of the Periodic Table?
Destructibility of gravitational mass should be well demonstrated
by destruction of a good amount of gravitational mass at
source. It is not logical to search for the loss of mass in Curie-
Savitch substance in the lines of the photographic plates of Aston’s
mass spectrograph.
Moreover, neither Hahn-Strassmann nor Meitner-Frisch
demonstrated the loss of 0.218 of gravitational mass per Uranium
atom and consequent evolution of 200 Mev energy in any
of their experiments. To consider the Curie-Savitch experiment
to be an example of nuclear reaction for getting a greater
amount of energy, Meitner and Frisch must prove that ¢ E > E ,
where E is the energy spent to make Curie-Savitch substance
and the moving neutron and ¢ E is the energy given off by the
reaction. They made no such effort. Thus neither the destructibility
of gravitational mass nor the usability of Uranium as
proper fuel could be verified by the Hahn-Strassmann Experiment.
Experiments re Mass-Energy Equivalence
In text books, it is said that one atomic mass unit (1a.m.u.) is
equal to 1.66 ´10-27 kg (approximately). The rest mass of proton
(the nucleus of Hydrogen atom) is 1.00731 a.m.u., and that of
the neutron is 1.00867 a.m.u. A deuteron (nucleus of heavy Hydrogen)
is known to consist of a proton and neutron. The rest
mass of the deuteron is found to be 2.01360 a.m.u. Hence the
rest mass of the deuteron is less than the combined rest masses
of neutron and proton by .00238 a.m.u., which is equivalent in
energy units to 2.22 mev, is called the binding energy of the
deuteron which somehow cited as the proof of mass energy
equivalence principle of the relativists.
The mass of a proton (a Hydrogen ion) was determined by
the following method. First of all, the value of
e / m0 where e
is the charge and
m0 the rest electromagnetic mass of an electron
is determined by Thomson’s method, which is possibly a
sufficiently accurate physical method. Still, that value depends
upon the proper determinations of E, B , and r (radius of curvature
of the path of the moving electron) and probable errors
in the determinations of those quantities are not known.
Butherer (1909) performed the experiment with accuracy within
the range of 8 per thousand. But it is said, its latest value
1.75921 ´ 1011 coulombs/kg contains standard error of
0.000258 ´ 1011 coulomb/kg; i.e., .16 per thousand, calculations
being made on the averages of various workers, but neglecting
the calculations on propagated errors in fundamental measurements
[13].
Then by passing a definite amount of electricity ( Q in coulombs)
in acidulated water, the amount of evolved Hydrogen
( M in kg) is determined. Determination of a definite amount
of electricity passed through acidulated water depends on the
determinations of many parameters and the standard errors of
such determinations are not generally known. Moreover, to
measure the mass of evolved hydrogen, a scale pan is to be used
in the long run, which is also another source of inaccuracy.
Consequently, the standard error of determining Q / M electrochemically
is high. Edmund C. Potter comments that an accuracy
of 1 part per thousand is attainable under carefully controlled
condition [14].
The determination of the magnitude of the charge on the
electron again depends on many parameters e.g., h (viscosity
coefficient of air inside the chamber), d (distance),
r1 (density
of oil), and
r2 (and density of air), and also on the exact validity
of Stokes’s law. It contains a high amount of standard error.
Millikan’s own value is half a percent less than the modern,
tacitly adjusted, value 1.6021917 ´ 10-19 coulomb [15].
Now, the mass of a proton is determined in substance by the
following equation combing Faraday’s laws of electrolysis with
Arrheneus’ notion of electrolytes: W = eM / Q – e / A where W
is the mass of a proton in kg, e is the magnitude of electronic
charge in coulomb, M is mass of hydrogen evolved by passing
Q coulombs of electricity in acidulated water, and
A = e / m0 ,
January/February 2001 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 15
being the ratio of the charge to rest electromagnetic mass ( in
coulomb/kg) of an electron.
The measure of fundamental constants (including c ,
e / m0
or e ) measured by different measurer are all different and the
range of variation is wide (even 5 per thousand in some cases)
and statisticians correlate the results and shorten the range of
variation with desperate mathematical analysis.[cf. i) R.T. Brige,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 1 (1) (1929); ii) R.T. Birge and D. H. Menzel,
Physics Rev. 37, 1669 (1931); iii) R.T. Birge , Report in Progress
in Physics 8, 90 (1941); iv) R.T. Birge, Supplement to Nuovo Cimento
6, 39 (1957); v) E.R. Cohen and J.W.M. Du Mond , Rev.
Mod. Physics 37, 537 (1965); vi) B.N. Taylor, W.H. Perker and
D.N. Landenberg, Rev. Mod. Physics 41, 375, (1969).] Thus we
see that in determination of the mass of a proton, there is always
an error of much more than 1 part in a thousand.
The masses of nuclei determined by mass spectroscopy are
based on the mass of a Hydrogen nucleus. Hence, the determination
of the mass of deuteron nucleus contains an error of
much more than 1 part in a thousand, even considering that the
error in determining the required ratio in the mass spectrograph
is 0 part per thousand. The position remains unaltered
with the replacement of the Hydrogen standard by the Oxygen/
Carbon standard, or any other standard.
Chadwick determined the mass of neutron by using a collision
method based on Newtonian mechanics. He also used
some parameters whose degrees of accuracy are not known.
Chadwick’s calculation was at first 1.15 a.m.u. But later he calculated
the figure to be between 1.005 to 1.008 units. Therefore,
it could be concluded that the masses of nuclear particles as determined
by physicists are not absolute.
Consequently, the mass difference if really exits in the cases
of any so-called nuclear processes as in i), or any nuclear experiments
as in ii), are well within the experimental errors, and
the explanations given by the relativists as E = mc2 does not
seem to be an example of reasonable analysis.
Modern physicists cite another nuclear reaction as proof of
mass-energy conversion. Walton and Cockcroft, two students
of Rutherford bombarded 3 Li7 nucleus with protons [of energy
ranging (.5-1) mev] i.e.,
3 Li7 + 1H1 = 2 2He4
Mass difference of both the sides is .01864 a.m.u., which is
equivalent to an energy (.01864´ 931.1=17.35 MeV, which is
said to be equal to the experimental value.
From those examples, modern physicists insist on the conversion
of mass into energy.
In 1919, Rutherford bombarded gaseous nitrogen with moving
alpha particles and demonstrating the creation of protons
by this bombardment, he declared that he has been able to convert
nitrogen to oxygen through nuclear transmutation. To
declare such a tall claim he should produce some good amount
of oxygen and should demonstrate this new element as oxygen
through proper chemical analysis, which he avoided.
In 1932, he again declared that his students have been able to
create Helium by bombarding Lithium with Hydrogen. They
seemed to demonstrate alpha particles by this bombardment
but did not demonstrate by proper chemical analyses that the
alpha-particles are really Helium.
Fermi’s Chicago Experiment
Enrico Fermi is said to have set first nuclear chain reaction
to get continuous release of energy from U-238 in a ‘pile’. The
experiment was performed at the end of 1942 in Weststands at
the campus of the University of Chicago. It is said that after
having been operated there for a few months, the pile was
moved to the Aragonone laboratory near Chicago.
Fermi described the so-called chain reaction in this experiment
in two famous articles, one in Science (Jan. 10, 1947) and
another in Am. J. of Physics (June 27, 1952). It is known from
the articles that the pile was constructed in the shape of a flattened
ellipsoid having the equatorial radius of 388 cm and the
polar radius 309 cm. Six tons of uranium were distributed
through the graphite mass in lumps partly of metal and partly
of metal oxide arranged in a cubic lattice array with about 21
centimeters in cell side. According to Groueff [17], one commentator
on the production of nuclear bombs, the Chicago pile
(CP-1) required 500 tons of graphite and 50 tons of uranium.
According to Hewlett and Anderson [18], the pile required 400
tons of graphite and 50 tons of uranium oxide.
The controlling of the reaction was obtained by inserting in
the pile some strips of neutron absorbing materials (cadmium
and in one case boron steel). When the pile was not in operation,
several of such cadmium strips were inserted in a number
of slots so as to bring the effective reproductive factor considerably
low. According to Fermi, the pile could be operated indefinitely
at a power of 2 KW, and was often operated for the
periods of order of 1hour or 2 hours up to about 100 KW.
It is not clear from the articles what types of radiation was
used in the irradiation hole to initiate the nuclear reaction. Energy
expended to extract and to cast 6 tons of uranium and uranium
oxide from their natural sources were not tabulated. Energy
stored in the huge amount of carbon used in the pile was
also not considered. Energy expended to make cadmium rods
and other neutron absorbing materials were not recorded.
Thus, in this experiment Fermi did not demonstrate that
¢ E > E , where ¢ E is the energy obtained from the pile and E
is the energy spent to make the ingredients of the pile from
their natural sources, plus the energy of any chemical reactions
ongoing in the pile during the experiment, plus irradiation energy
to initiate the reaction.
The Chicago pile experiment of E. Fermi is a secret defense
experiment of the U.S.A. Ingredients used in this experiment to
initiate the reaction as published by American war officials
were expected to be doubtful. Thus we may conclude that there
was nothing in the Chicago pile experiment to prove that gravitational
mass was converted into energy, or that Uranium-238
acted as proper fuel in the experiment.
What was more interesting is that the experiment was not at
all intended to do so. The experiment was intended to show
that Fermi was able to make in the laboratory a huge amount of
gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is a form of energy like
many other forms of radiation originating from chemical reac-
Hajra: Earth Shaking Experiments Vol. 21, No. 1 16
tions. Therefore, it could not be out of expectation that he had
converted such energy out of chemical reactions.
We know that chemical reactions of certain substances liberate
heat energy, which could be transformed to a ready supply
of electricity. This electricity could again be stored as chemical
energy in batteries, and could be transformed again as heat /
electricity at a controllable / uncontrollable rate by suitable
methods.
Similarly, by combustion of fossil fuel, electricity could be
generated. This electricity could, when passed through appropriate
substances, make billions of negatively-charged highenergy
particles, and billions of high-energy Hydrogen ions,
which could be arranged to combine to create high-energy neutral
Hydrogen particles. As a store of high energy, these highenergy
neutral Hydrogen particles could be absorbed/adsorbed
in small volumes of heavy metals through physico-chemical
process, and could again be liberated at controllable/ uncontrollable
rates by suitable methods, as had been demonstrated
first by Fermi in the December of 1942. There was nothing
against the classical physics/chemistry in the demonstration.
There was nothing to conclude that what was demonstrated was
a fission reaction that converts mass into energy.
In the Chicago pile experiment, Fermi demonstrated before
the American war officials and war technologists the conversion
of formal forms of energy into gamma radiation. Nothing else
was done by him.
Atomic Bombs
Journalists generally consider the explosions of the “Little
Boy” and the “Fat Man” as a definite proof of the usability of
Uranium as a proper fuel and the instance of the conversion
gravitational mass into energy. We do not know the ingredients
used in those bombs. Nor do we know the amount of energy
spent to make those ingredients.
Both the bombs radiated a huge amount of gamma radiation
in the area of explosions. The Hiroshima bomb destroyed only
1.7 sq. miles of the town. 30 tons of gasoline bombs [24 tons of
Petroleum / 8 tons of Hydrogen) could destroy such an area.
Therefore, the Hiroshima bomb is not so powerful as publicized
by war officials of U.S.A.
Usability of uranium as a proper fuel and conversion of
gravitational mass into energy have not been proved from
those explosions.
Nuclear Power
Everything in the nuclear engineering industry is mysterious.
According to Einstein’s E = mc2 formula, 1 Kg of any
materials (preferably Uranium) will give through complete
nuclear reaction heat energy of 9 ´ 1016 joules, or 2 ´ 1016 calories,
of. [ E = mc2
= 1 ´ (3 ´ 108 )2
joules = 20 ´ 1012kiloca ls =
20 t rillion kiloca ls .]
But according to Fermi, the electrical energy available (considering
the overall efficiency of conversion of heat into electricity
30%) is 6,000,000Kwh /Kg i.e., total heat energy is 20 billion
Kilocalorie / Kg of Uranium. With the same consideration,
Hoyle [21] describes that the minimum electrical energy available
from 1 Kg of enriched Uranium = 30,000 KWH. But according
to one nuclear man in India, minimum electrical energy
available from 1 Kg of enriched uranium = 60, 000 KWH.
According to ERDA, available electrical energy from 1 Kg of
enriched Uranium is 2,58,200 KWH. But, Miller [23] has
strongly doubted over the value. According to him, available
energy is hardly over the half of the publicized value.
Nuclear physicists insist that the nuclear fuel, viz. so-called
‘enriched uranium’, is a mixture of Uranium-238 (96%) and Uranium-
235 (4%). According to them, Uranium-235 is a natural
isotope of Uranium-238. Nobody till this day has been able to
release energy from Uranium-235 in open experiments. Therefore,
fuel viability of the isotope is doubtful. It is more probable
that fuel element of the so-called ‘enriched Uranium’ is
made artificially by the procedure given in the penultimate
paragraph of Fermi’s Chicago Experiment.
However, if the enriched Uranium is a mixture of Uranium-
238 (96%) and said natural Uranium-235 (4%), still then it may
not act as proper fuel.
According to Hyett [24], 2000 kilograms of ore (0.1-0.5 %
Uranium content as used by recent Uranium producers) are required
to make 1 kilogram of natural Uranium. Natural Uranium
-238 contains only .7% Uranium 235 which is said to be
used as fuel. Therefore, 12000 kilograms of ore are required to
produce 1 kg of enriched Uranium (with 3%-4% Uranium-235)
After preliminary concentration to remove sand and clay,
the ore is leached with sulphuric acid and the solution is treated
with an excess of sodium carbonate to precipitate Iron, Aluminum,
Cobalt and Manganese. The filtrate is then treated with
hydrochloric acid and saturated with hydrogen sulphide to precipitate
Lead and Copper. The filtrate then is treated with an
excess of sodium hydroxide to precipitate uranium as ammonium
diurate which is strongly ignited to prepare U3O8. This
U3O8 is reduced to UO2 by Hydrogen. The di-oxide is converted
into fluoride by heating it strongly in gaseous hydrogen fluoride.
The fluoride is then reduced to the metal by means of pure
metallic calcium.
Sulphur, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen sulphide,
ammonium hydroxide, hydrogen and calcium are not
available in Nature. In the ultimate analysis, fossil fuel or energy
from fossil fuel is needed to prepare those things.
The quantity of energy needed to extract a metal from its ore
is directly proportional to the purity of metal and the poverty
of the metal in the ore. It is seen that to extract Iron from its
80% rich ore, the minimum quantity of coal required is equal to
the quantity of ore by weight. To produce highly pure Uranium
from an ore with 0.1%-0.5% Uranium, the minimum energy
must be 10 times that needed in the iron extraction. Thus, to
extract 6 kg Uranium-238, fossil fuel equivalent to the energy
content of 24000 kg of coal may be required. This amounts to
96 ´ 1010 calories of heat energy. It is said that to make 1 kg of
reactor quality enriched Uranium, 12,250 KWh electrical energy
( 3.57 ´ 1010 calories of heat energy) in some 1400 stages is
spent [25, 26] (Enrichment is a secret technology. Therefore,
truthfulness of the datum is doubtful).Therefore, to make 1kg of
reactor quality of enriched Uranium, a minimum of 100 ´ 1010
calories of fossil-fuel energy seem to be required (the fossil fuel
January/February 2001 GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 17
energy spent for fluorination before enrichment, fabrication,
preparation of Zirconium alloy and cladding of fuel elements is
not considered). But, it is said that 1 kg of enriched Uranium
burns to give some 100 ´ 1010 caloriesof heat energy [27, 28].
Similarly, to prepare Plutonium, 9.793 ´ 1013 calories of
heat energy are required [29]; but, it is said that plutonium
gives 1.88 ´ 1013 calories of heat through fission [30]. Therefore,
either uranium or plutonium does not seem to be proper fuel.
When there will be no fossil fuel to burn, it appears that there
will be no nuclear fuel to kindle. Nuclear reactors must need, as
it is said, things such as heavy water, Cadmium rods, and many
other ancillary materials. Energy spent to make such things is
also not known.
Lastly, to trigger the so-called chain-reaction in the reactor,
it is said that some irradiation techniques are necessary. We do
not know the amount of energy spent for making such initial
radiation in the reactor.
So, for want of required data, it is not possible for us to
judge the proper fuel viability of enriched uranium. Any reactions
of the so-called nuclear reactors could hardly prove that
gravitational mass converts into energy or that uranium could
be used as proper fuel.
References:
[.1.] O. Hahn, New Atoms, 19-24 (Elsevier Publishing, New York,
1950).
[.2.] G. Irving, The German Atomic Bomb (Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1967) 20-31.
[.3.] O. Hahn, op. cit., 20.
[.4.] O. Hahn, F. Strassmann, i) Naturwissenschften 27, 11-15 (Jan.
6, 1939); ii) ibid, 27, No. 6, (1939).
[.5.] R.W.L., Nature, 143, 3615, Feb.11, 1939.
[.6.] O. Hahn, A Scientific Autobiography, Appendix I (Charles
Scribner’s Sons, U. K. 1966).
[.7.] H.D. Smith, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, pp. 24-26
(Princeton University Press, 1946).
[.8.] i) L. Meitner, O.R. Frisch, Nature, 143 (3615) (Feb. 11, 1939); ii)
L. Meitner, O.R. Frisch, Nature, 143 (3620) 471-472 (March 18,
1939); iii) L. Meitner, Nature 143 (3624) 637 (April 15,1939).
[.9.] A.H. Compton, Atomic Quest, p. 18 (Oxford University Press,
London, 1956).
[10] Ibid, 18.
[11] i) O.R. Frisch, Nature 143 (3616) 276 (Feb. 18, 1939).
ii) H. Von Halban, F. Joliot, F. Kowarski, Nature, 143, 3620,
March, 18, 1939, 470-71.
iii) R. D. Fowler, R. W. Dodson, Nature, 139, 3615, Feb. 11,
1939,233. ibid,41-42.
[12] Robert Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity (Wiley Eastern
Limited, New Delhi, 1989),128.
[13] S.K. Muthu, Probability and Errors for Physical Sciences, p.
385 (Orient Longman, New Delhi, c. 1982).
[14] Edmund C. Potter, Electrochemistry: Principles and Applications
[Cleaver-Hume, London, 1961), 16.
[15] S.K. Muthu, op. cit., p. 342.
[16] G.E. Bacon, Neutron Physics, p. 8 (Wykeham Publications Limited,
London, 1969).
[17] S. Groueff, Manhattan Project, p. 90 (Collins, London, 1967).
[18] Ed., R. G. Hewlett, O. E. Anderson Jr., The New World, p. 112
(Pennsylvania State University Press, 1962).
[19] L.A., Groves, Now It can be Told, pp. 48, 52, 54 (Andre Deutch,
London, 1963).
[20] E. Fermi, Collected Papers (1939-1954), Vol. II, pp. 87, 554
(University of Chicago Press, 1965).
[21] F. Hoyle, G. Hoyle, Common Sense in Nuclear Energy, p. 67
(Heinemann Educational Books, London, 1980).
[22] Raja Ramanna, Future of Nuclear Technology, pp. 8-9 (Bangalore
University, 1975).
[23] S. Miller, The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power, p. 163
(Fraeger Publisher, New York, 1976).
[24] Ed. L. G. Brookes, H. Motamen (The Economics of Nuclear
Energy, p. 163 (Chapman and Hall, 1984).
[25] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 6, 325 (Elsevier
2004).
[26] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 4, 390 (Elsevier
2004).
[27] R. Ramanna, & L.V. Krishanan, Elements of Nuclear Power, p.
57 (Gandhi Centre of Science, 2002).
[28] R. Ramanna, Future of Nuclear Technology, 8-9 (Bangalore
University, Bangalore, 1975).
[29] Ed., Cutler J. Cleveland, Encyclo. of Energy 4, 435 (Elsevier
2004), ..
[30] Encylo. Brita. 18, 92A, [1959].
Lalit Vadher says:
July 13, 2010 at 3:11 am

Special theory of relativity is wrong.
You can check it on
http://checkmodernphysics.blogspot.com/
le Van Cuong says:
November 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

Einstein’s Special Relativity must correct the invariability of the light velocity. Because the light velocity changes as space and time change. A proof for this is in:
http://www.wbabin.net/feast/cuong27.pdf
and http://www.wbabin.net/science/cuong25.pdf
Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (optional - for gravatar and/or subscriptions)







Notify me of follow-up comments via email subscription (you must provide an email address)

(c) CollegeTimes 2007-2011 - About Us - Guest Post - Advertising - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright & DMCA - Contact Us

http://collegetimes.us/emc2-is-wrong-ei ... ly-flawed/

[FirstClassSkeptic]

A small picture of the guy.

http://conf18.worldnpa.org/index.php?tu ... sition=9:5

[mooninquirer]

@ FCS --- you know, I am rethinking nuke reactors. It really seems that they are NOT cost effective. THIS might be the reason that China is not building them. I maintain that fission is possible, and nuke reactors can produce electricity, but factoring all of the costs of refining the uranium, the moderator, etc., it is not worth the cost. I think the reason the US has them at all is to subsidize an industry that is thought to be very important for the future. It is similar to wind mills to generate electricity, or solar panels.