Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect

Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

A REVOLUTIONARY VIEW TO THE CHRONIC ENERGY PROBLEM

&

MITIGATION OF GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PUMPING AND PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCES DEMAND-DRIVEN SCARCITY: AN ATHERMAL APPROACH TO NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Copyright ©2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet. All rights are reserved. This short proposal was complete on June 23rd, 2009, significantly revised June 5th, 2010, and intended for strictly individual personal use. It may not be reprinted, reproduced or otherwise electronically republished without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Dobson Mequet. It may not be altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed, or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution. Patents are pending for the technology described herein.

i

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

ii

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect
by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

CONTENTS PAGE SECTION

1 3 6 12 18 22 30 32 35 36 37 41 43 48 51

Executive Summary Introduction Electromagnetism and the Energy Grand Staircase Solar System Survey Geophysics and an Athermal Possibility for Geomagnetism The Earth’s Interior Architecture A New Athermal Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-Modeled Core This is Nice, but How Do We Get Electricity Out of It? Next Steps Acknowledgements Endnotes Appendix A: 12 Cognitive Traps Appendix B: The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau Appendix C: Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System Appendix D: Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of Our Solar System

ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE FIGURES

9 10 25

Fig’s. 1–3: The Hubbertian Petroleum & Fissile Fast Neutron Curves Fig’s. 4 & 5: US Energy Consumption by Source & Energy Grand Staircase Fig’s. 6–11: Thermal/Density Gradient Convection, Convection Cells Cross-sections, Density Gradient Instability Development & Mantle/Core Convection Model Fig’s. 12–14: Horizontal Component Vector Movement, Spherical 3-Axial Relative Movement, Orthographic Core Schemata Diagrams Fig’s. 15–17a-f: Core Fullerene Geodesic Geometry/New Core Armatures, 3-Axial, New Core Single Stage Architecture Sequential Isometric Diagrams Fig. 18: Full Integration Electricity Generation Diagram

26 27 26

iii

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

iv

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable Athermal Nuclear Generator
by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thermal nuclear power cannot effectively replace oil, natural gas and coal. The need for a radical breakthrough in rethinking fissile nuclear power is universally acknowledged. This paper presents just such a breakthrough. In order to reach a viable fusion economy we must master a viable fission economy first to successfully transition off hydrocarbon fuels. I propose moving fissile interactions closer to the actual generation of electricity, cutting out the thermal cycle entirely. I further propose retiring the single-through-put fuel cycle in favor of a design that makes use of the nearly 560 times the conventionally usable naturally-occurring fissile nuclear materials, opening the way to full utilization of the remaining now unusable fissile nuclear materials. This can be done safely with a design that is intrinsically unweaponizable. My idea is to generate electricity without burning nuclear fuels to boil water into steam and turn turbine electricity generators. Instead, I propose generating the electricity directly from a rotating spherical core with entrained stable and nuclear elements. Naturally, the question is how can this be accomplished? Look to the oldest example sitting right below our feet. The earth has been generating and maintaining its magnetic field for at least 4 billion years. If there is an athermal alternative to the wellestablished thermal model this would be the place to look for it. Magnetohydrodynamics is a fancy word for the magnetized hot fluid rocks of the earth’s interior. It is in complex motion. Somehow it’s generating the earth’s magnetic field but we don’t currently know how. I’m convinced I have figured it out; perhaps not entirely, but substantially enough to make a key insight into the solution. My hypothesis is that the nuclear interactions themselves are directly producing the earth’s magnetic field, due to the rotation and motions of the planet. This is derived from a key insight Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann made in 1957 that each nuclear interaction also produces a spontaneous tiny magnetic field which, until now, we’ve overlooked. The earth’s interior is filled with nuclear materials that work in a manner similar to leavening in bread, illustratively speaking. The iron and silicates comprise most of the flour in the bread. The nuclear materials comprise the yeast and the entrained composition could be said to be similar to bread. It is the interaction of both the iron and silicates and the nuclear materials that gives rise to the earth’s magnetic field. If we

1

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

miniaturize this model, then we can construct a dynamic core that mimics what the earth is doing naturally, and we can harvest electricity from the magnetic field surrounding the dynamic core. This paper explains in detail my hypothesis and proposal, and it draws from a number of distinct scientific disciplines. Any misrepresentation of standard scientific nomenclature in specific subdisciplines is unintentional. Look past them to the possibilities that are proposed. Development of this technology will make investment in a National SuperGrid®, not only viable, but a practical necessity to the United States’ future domestic and international interests. Not to mention the massive employment opportunity this would promote. More work and experimentation is needed, but this proposal constitutes radically new thinking towards an alternative approach to nuclear energy, and a huge step forward in reconceptualizing and resolving our current energy and economic crises. Here is a preliminary scenario for proceeding to test and develop this project: 1) Test and verify my hypothesis about earth’s magnetic field. 2) Test and verify nuclear dynamic core concept. 3) Make a mechanical test-prototype dynamic core. 4) Make a nuclear test-prototype dynamic core. 5) Full integration nuclear test-prototype dynamic core and electricity generation operating regimes. 6) Safety test-prototype of commercial/industrial applications and governmental oversight certification. 7) Production fabrication, certification, and deployment for commercial/industrial grid application. Contact Information: Kevin Dobson Mequet 605 Watkins Street Conway, Arkansas 72034 (501) 327-9470 v & f k_mequet@hotmail.com

2

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen®1 Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect2
by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

INTRODUCTION

We need to make a successful transition off petroleum-bituminous fuels as the primary energy resource running our global economies, both to mitigate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels driving global chaotic climate change and chronic global demand-driven scarcity leading to the primary energy resources’ certain future exhaustion. I propose this can be done using a special consequence of the Feynman/Gell-Mann Theory of the Fermi Interaction, linking the weak nuclear interaction to the electromagnetic forces. As we shall see, an athermal approach to a radical reconceptualization of fissile electricity generation can open a new possibility, not only for a nonhydrocarbon-dependent future, but a vastly increased capacity for electricity generation. For 54 years, M.K. Hubbert’s call for a viable replacement to hydrocarbon-dependent infrastructure has been open.3 Seemingly, either no one has heard or taken it seriously. However, to assume this negligence has validity is not born out upon careful examination. In political, economic, and even some academic circles, this might have seemed justifiable, but in scientific circles, it was not. Several competent scientists had come to the same conclusions as Hubbert; notably, Andrew Flower in 1978,4 and Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère in 1998.5 More importantly, Hans Bethe supported and conferred his imprimatur upon Hubbert’s 1956 conclusions 20 years later in 1976.6 The general populace could continue to ignore this reality as long as hydrocarbon fuels remained plentiful and increasing in their cheap availability. Neither is the case anymore. To quote Ken Deffeyes: “It’s done. It’s past. I’m no longer a prophet looking forward to the peak. I’m an historian looking back at the peak.”7 We have neither the luxury nor the convenience of continued procrastination. We must act. The question is how to proceed—not whether we ought. Jerome Ringo, a self-proclaimed ecological evangelist, travels the entire country speaking the gospel of sustainability, consistently telling his audiences: “The pollution-based economy is the past—the green-based economy is the future.” Yet it has been 21 years since Scientific American magazine’s special topical edition: “Managing Planet Earth,” September 1989 issue, calling for … exactly the same thing.8 Visiting Al Gore in Nashville the summer of 2008, Ringo asked Gore if it

3

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

was too late to mitigate catastrophic runaway climate change and Gore responded: “It’s broken, Jerome. Honestly, we’re beyond the point of no return.” In January of 1978 Scientific American magazine published an article sounding the alarm that not only anthropogenic hydrocarbon combustion but also widespread anthropogenic sylvan destruction was conclusively contributing to pervasive global atmospheric increases of entrained CO2.9 How did the general populace respond? Universal denial, defensiveness, and avoidance. Ringo lent Van Jones his rallying call: “Green jobs as a pathway out of poverty for millions of Americans.” Author of The Green Collar Economy and former president of Green For All, Jones advocates for community awareness of global climate change and the opportunity of entrepreneurial environmentally sustainable commerce. This is useful to be sure, but will it move us as a complex industrial society to the promise of its vision; can we navigate reliably away from continuing to contribute to climate change quite possibly prompting a catastrophic greenhouse event before also exhausting the current primary energy resource at the same time? Sadly, no, as Bethe made plain in 1976. Does this mean it’s futile? Again, no, absolutely not. Yet, an exclusive devotion to global sustainability will not move us appreciably toward our goals. A certain hardnosed pragmatism thus demands acknowledging that conservation efforts in one group only makes room for increased consumption in another, giving rise to increasing consumption overall—not decreasing. Known to ecological economists as “Jevons’ Paradox,” I take exception to this appellation. It trivializes the importance of Jevons’ observations in Britain, 1864. A better characterization would be Jevons’ Theorem: conservation leads—not to overall decreasing, but the opposite—overall increasing consumption.10 To better appreciate this principle it is important to understand the underlying basis of economic activity in the first place. It is not monetary instrumentation—as seductively attractive as this easy answer may be—but useful conversion of energy resources that provides for that very monetary instrumentation and on to productive innovation and increasing economic activity. The mistake of more than hundred years ago was not only the perpetuation of a thermal view but also the embrace and promotion of irrational consumption as the basis for economic success. As long as the available primary energy resource is increasing in its abundance for consumption, there’s not a problem. But when this physical condition no longer prevails, nor does the increasing environmental harm of its increasing use hold a rational imperative for continuation, then something must be done. A revolution is at hand and it must be pursued.

4

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

I say revolutionary change because the time for incremental change is long past. Incremental change by its definition is a longterm minute accrued amortization that upon its maturity a new direction is firmly in place, having averted the potential disastrous course by competent analysis long before that outcome would present itself. The proof of its success is the fact of never having come close to encountering those disastrous consequences. The main problem is that antecedent clues are so subtle and innocuous as to be unobvious by normal observation. Only diligent and relevant analysis points unwaveringly towards policy implementation. That’s when incrementalism is an effective and practical tool in producing desirable future outcomes. But when adverse consequences become so obvious as to be undeniable, that is far too late for incrementalism. Think of it this way. Several of our upcoming space probes will be fitted with ionplasma drives. These drives use tiny sips of hydrogen or nitrogen fuel with attendant diminutive thrust factors, but they can operate for fantastically long periods of time. They are practical studies in effective incrementalism coupled with precise and well-executed analysis. Upon their first half of travel distance, the accrued amortization of their thrust acceleration reaches extraordinary velocities. At the midpoint of transit, these crafts will then rotate 180 degrees and the thrust deceleration second half of their journey begins. To achieve successful orbital insertion at their destination the reverse accrued amortization of deceleration must match perfectly the outward first half of their voyage. Long before orbital insertion, this incremental change must be implemented and assiduously maintained. Miscalculation or failure of precise implementation would result in disastrous overshoot and loss, or destruction upon unavoidable impact. There is no difference between this scenario and the one playing out right now. That one might think there is a difference is a primary source of the problem. It’s a very human attribute to get caught up in cognitive traps. Of course it would be foolish to propose to stop being human. I am proposing, though, to stop assuming ourselves to be merely the sum total of our human fallibilities—to take responsibility for our collective humanity and leap beyond it to new frontiers. A necessary step towards this is to understand and fully accept those traps as our very own. There are at least 12 cognitive traps that we all to one degree or another are unwittingly ensnared.11 12 A “failure of invariance” is the only result of being ensnared in any one or all of these traps without awareness of entrapment. Or put another way by Einstein: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.” The ability to not only consider but also take action in

5

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

new directions of thought demands breaking free of these impediments. The stakes couldn’t be higher. We find ourselves in this predicament precisely because of a 50-plus-year-long failure of invariance. 1956 was the moment of midpoint effective incrementalist intervention as far as the current energy crisis in which we find ourselves is concerned. The first energy crisis of 1973 wasn’t solved at all, but merely a first act in prelude to subsequent events: rampant inflation of the late ’70s, wildly cycling economic swings, Gulf War I, and our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Had we heeded the warning prudentially and acted accordingly we’d be in much different circumstance now. We were warned not to embark upon the importation of petroleum from foreign sources to augment our economic expansion and yet we began this practice in 1958. We were warned that domestic sources would plateau and begin inexorably declining in 1970 or so and yet we increased our importation of foreign sources right at the moment this plateau occurred, beginning a secured and inexorable overdependence upon those sources. Now we have entered a terminal phase of worldwide plateau and inexorable global decline in petroleum extraction with no viable alternatives firmly ramping up to replace the global loss of the primary energy resource. Had we embarked upon new energy technological approaches to augment our economic expansion, and planned for the certain eventuality of domestic plateau and inexorable decline in the extraction of petroleum resources with replacement of them during this phase, then a more amenable current circumstance would face us. This was not the case. Now some, perhaps, would lament this unfortunate result. Or many might continue to be entrapped in one or more cognitive traps, ignoring reality and refusing to face it. I would not recommend this, but instead, exhort embarkation upon a revolutionary course of action. So, bear with me and allow me to build a case. —————

ELECTROMAGNETISM AND THE ENERGY GRAND STAIRCASE

The basic principles of the electromagnetic binary have been known and exploited for some two centuries. Simply stated a classic dynamo does one of two things: either generate electricity or make an electromotor/electromagnet. Rotate a suitable conductor at right angles to a magnetic field and that angular motion will induce an electric current. Conversely, run an electric current through the conductor and an associated magnetic field forms around the conductor at right angles in a counterclockwise direction. So a magnetoelectric construct will generate electricity by magnetic induction

6

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

and an electromagnetic construct will generate a magnetic field by electric current flow that can be used to make an electromagnet or electromotor. For a little more than 150 years we have used the burning of fuels, first wood, coal, natural gas, then radiologic decay to heat a fluid thermal transfer medium to turn water into steam, passed it through, first reciprocating engines, then turbine engines to turn magnetoelectric-dynamo generators to make our electricity. It’s known as thermal electricity generation and it is well understood. That’s the primary problem. It is too well understood, as this is a result of several cognitive traps at work. Now is our opportunity to think the problem anew. Rather than continue to predominately burn fuels to do useful work, can we conceive and construct a technological system that mimics a natural one from which the electricity we need may be harvested on a far greater scale than the current hydrocarbon-fastoxidation model allows with which we are so familiar and utterly dependent? I think so and the following is concerned with accomplishing this goal. It is also well understood that nuclear thermal electricity generation in its current form is pitifully impractical and inefficient, not to mention prohibitively expensive to implement pervasively. The community of nuclear academic and industry experts is agreed: what’s needed is a radical breakthrough. What would be an efficient use of fissile resources? Where might we look for a clue? How might we use heavy radiologic elements to, not merely get a good energy return on energy investment, but an order—or several orders—of magnitude improvement over hydrocarbon thermal technologies? A thoughtful reinvestigation of Einsteinian electromagnetism, planetary astrophysics/ cosmology, and quantum electrodynamics just might hold those very clues. David Goodstein, Distinguished Professor of Applied Physics and former Vice Provost at Caltech, claimed that:
There has always been the hope we would conquer the problem of nuclear fusion— thermonuclear fusion. That promise has been 25 years away for the past 50 years and it’s still 25 years away. It’s an extremely difficult technical problem to solve. But if, ultimately, we were to solve it, we would able to burn just deuterium from seawater, then every gallon of seawater would contain as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline. So, for our longterm future that’s our best hope.13

7

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

While a significant boon in the future, the short-term prospects are not encouraging at all. There’s a very logical reason for this. I call it the Energy Grand Staircase. A very good way to visualize this is found in the Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau from Colorado River level at the bottom of Grand Canyon to the hoodoo pinnacles of Bryce Canyon the stratigraphic geologic timeline, spanning some 2 billion years which has a prescient name: The Geologic Grand Staircase.14 From the Vishnu Schist at approximately 2 BYA15 with Zoroaster Gneiss intrusions amalgamation at approximately 1.7 BYA to the Claron Formation at approximately 60 MYA16 the landscape stairsteps somewhere around 2,500’ ASL17 to 9,500’ ASL.18 In the same way The Geologic Grand Staircase is helpful in understanding the western US Four Corners’ topography and geology, The Energy Grand Staircase is a way to visualize the classification of natural energy resources into broad categories related to their ability to provide energy return on energy investment (EROEI) in both their transportation for end-user consumption and utilization. The lower an energy class resides on the Staircase the smaller will be its EROEI; conversely, the higher a class ascends the greater will be its EROEI [see Fig’s. 4 & 5]. The lowest tread comprises the myriad non-fuel sources of work accomplished by humankind, animal husbandry, wind and water harnessing which doesn’t even register on the scale for a single unit of output but must be amassed in huge numbers for sufficient output to benefit a very small privileged few: x>0:1 EROEI. The second step is the exploitation in the 17th century of natural forestry—sylvan—lumber and wood waste byproducts for thermal output to benefit whole communities and nation states: 4:1 EROEI. The third step is the discovery and exploitation in the 1750s of coal for thermal output to benefit even greater communities and nation states giving rise to the Industrial Revolution: 10:1 EROEI. The fourth step is the discovery and exploitation in the 1850s of petroleum and natural gas for thermal output giving rise to the explosive innovation and prosperity we take for granted today: 100:1 initially for the former, 20–40:1 currently for the former, and 10–15:1 for the latter EROEIs. The fifth step is the discovery and exploitation of nuclear fission in the late 1930s for thermal output electricity generation as a replacement for thermal hydrocarbon technologies: 4:1 EROEI. The sixth step is nuclear fusion in the next 25 years— maybe—for virtually unlimited thermal electricity generation to replace all the current hydrocarbon/fission thermal technologies: x<1:1 EROEI—we have not yet achieved scientific breakeven.19 Arranged in this way the problem becomes obvious. The thermal approach for nuclear fission achieves no better the 17th century thermal wood performance. Continuing down the thermal path

8

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Fig. 1: Hubbert’s Curve for oil extraction from the 1956 paper.

Fig. 2: Hubbert’s Curve for oil extraction from the 1971 paper.

Fig. 3: Hubbert’s Curves for oil extraction & nuclear fission from the 1956 paper. Note that Hubbert attempted a rational estimation of conversion of U238 and Th232.

9

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Fig. 4: Note the successful transitions from nonfuels to wood, from wood to coal, and from coal to petroleum/NG when the new curve overtakes the old curve. This didn’t happen for hydroelectric and nuclear electric power. The steps in the chart below occur at those transition points.

Fig. 5: The Energy Grand Staircase—when EROEI by source is arranged this way the observable economic disruptions, not to mention the difficulties in embarking upon viable replacements to hydrocarbon-dependence, become obvious.

10

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

for nuclear fusion is even worse. This is unworkable. It’s also a check on thinking through the problem. It turns out the sustainable alternatives do no better than thermal nuclear fission. True, solar thermal and photovoltaic, and wind generation are renewable and non-exhaustible—which is very good—but they are also too intermittent and diffuse, requiring an infrastructure breakthrough in storage20 21 and/or SuperGrid®22 transmission to be functional replacements for hydrocarbon technologies; not to mention they perform no better than 17th century thermal wood fuel exploitation. The delicate fragility of the collection devices is extraordinarily vulnerable to severe storm damage and harsh environmental conditions require expensive maintenance and replacement on a regular basis. The real point here is this. Well before the peak of a previous energy resource category we made such efficient use of it that a viable transition to the next step was successful spurring greater innovation and prosperity benefits from embarking upon the new energy resource exploitation—that is, until nuclear fission. For 350 years we have been on an expansion juggernaut that reliably provided unimaginable and unprecedented human innovation and prosperity by the successful ascent of The Energy Grand Staircase. However, we have not made efficient use of nuclear fission—far from it— and so we cannot successfully transition from hydrocarbon fuels as a result, let alone get to nuclear fusion. The reason we will not leapfrog nuclear fission to nuclear fusion is that the available space of energy conversion capacity by hydrocarbon fuels is insufficient to make fusion viable. Only when we make efficient use of nuclear fission can sufficient available space be made for embarking upon fusion. We can’t get to a viable nuclear fusion technology until we successfully solve the nuclear fission problem. We have made ill-suited thermal nuclear fission technologies that are lacking in their usefulness, highly vulnerable to illicit terrorism, not to mention their inviability as a suitable hydrocarbon replacement. We need to make a well-suited nuclear fission technology that will move us off hydrocarbon fuels and facilitate a successful embarkation upon nuclear fusion technologies. What would that well-suited nuclear fission technology be? One that mimics Earth, as we shall see. Attempts at conceiving just such an approach have been made. One physicist takes the notion of a discrete mechanical view too literally. He postulates that a pure uranium deposit at the centroid of the planet within the solid iron core functions as georeactor. The main problem with this is that it doesn’t explain how a georeactor generates a planetary magnetosphere.23 While at the same time avoiding the unfortunate reality that if it operated similarly to terrestrial thermal nuclear generators the accumulated heat generated to produce the observed

11

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

geomagnetosphere would be in the hundreds of thousands of degrees which is highly implausible. Furthermore, its chief liability lies in confining the georeactor inside the solid iron core. Disregarding for a moment the work of George Cowan, Alex Meshik and Charles Hohenberg on geologic naturally-occurring fission reactors—chiefly the Oklo phenomenon—which reveals that a naturally moderated fission chain reaction requires a self-regulated water fluid/vapor cycle that would not be present in the core,24 the stunningly obvious situation of extraordinary pressure compressing the hot liquid iron into a metallic solid would also compress the uranium beyond a supercritical mass threshold producing a spectacular thermonuclear detonation. Since the Earth and human life continue to exist, this hypothesis is highly improbable, but I shall defer to the critique of this physicist offered by David J. Stevenson of Caltech:
… “[he] is a solid and knowledgeable person when it comes to (nuclear) reactors. But the amount of attention this (georeactor) idea has received is out of proportion with its plausibility. … It’s not complete nonsense, but it’s highly unlikely. There are many instances in science where this happens. This one has merely received more attention than most. “The idea is based on two very dubious propositions: (a) That uranium (or any heavy element) would naturally go to the center of the Earth. This is almost certainly untrue. It is a misunderstanding of chemistry and statistical physics at a very fundamental level. (b) That there is something about Earth’s heat flow or helium that is so wildly discordant with our usual ideas that it requires an outrageous hypothesis to explain it. This is incorrect.”25

I suggest that the planet Earth does indeed function as a natural georeactor that generates a planetary magnetosphere, but in a far more holistic, complex, and nuanced manner, which addresses Stevenson’s critique, and better fits the available evidence. At this point, we need to examine the planets of the solar system to understand how this might work. —————

SOLAR SYSTEM SURVEY

A thoughtful examination of the known data regarding stellar and planetary magnetism uncovers a surprising set of conclusions:26 27
1) 2) The sun has the strongest magnetic field, driving the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). The 4 innermost planets are solid rocky bodies within 1.5 AU28 from the sun in the terrestrial zone.

12

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

3) 4)

The outermost planets are gas giants comprised of lighter gaseous elements between 5–30 AU from the sun in the jovian zone. The asteroid belt is concentrated between 2–4 AU. Though no local asteroid magnetic fields have been detected by space probe transits to the gas giants, MIT has recently disclosed a hypothesis that many, if not most, did in the primordial nebular past.29

5) 6) 7) 8)

Mercury has an extremely tenuous magnetic field; Venus and Mars have no magnetic fields. Earth has a powerful enough magnetic field to protect both its atmosphere and biosphere from cosmological energetic charged particles and harmful radiation. Jupiter has the most powerful magnetic field, Saturn has the 2nd, and Uranus and Neptune each have the 3rd. Although Earth’s moon has no magnetic field now, it did in the primordial nebular past,30 and Jupiter’s Ganymede has a magnetic field 22 times stronger than Mercury’s. Saturn’s Titan, nearly a twin to Ganymede, has no magnetic field.

The solid body planets hold a dearth of magnetic fields. The gas giants hold an abundance of magnetic fields. The sun generates the IMF and it is extraordinarily strong. Why? If we go back to the electromagnetic dynamo model, then we see that it is well understood that massive, complex plasmas are moving in the sun’s mantle—the majority interior known as the Convection Zone—with a net effective common direction of electric current flow. Keep in mind that plasmas are by definition piezoelectric gaseous fluids not constrained by the Curie temperature—some cold but most hot, very hot in fact. Two things are going on at once to draw this conclusion. First, the rotation of the sun moves its entire mass in a counterclockwise direction, and second, the equator is moving far faster than the Polar Regions—11 days’ differential, 25 at the equator and 36 days at the Polar Regions giving rise to a torsional differential fluidic autorotation. By far a net equatorial angular moment in electric current flow is producing the IMF. At Earth’s orbit, our space probes detect the IMF as 100 times stronger than our terrestrial magnetosphere at the magnetopause. None of the other solar system’s bodily magnetospheres are detectable near Earth’s space. It is well understood that the inferred plasmatic electric currents are massive, complex in their structure, and pervasive in the sun’s interior. A complex interaction between the Convection Zone, the Photosphere, and the Corona interchanges electricity flows with magnetic fields and back in a most chaotic way. Magnetic field tubes rupture and reconnect dynamically; magnetic induction superheats hydrogen/helium plasmas heating the Corona sending out light and the solar wind.31

13

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

From these phenomena we can conclude that fusion, heat, plasmas, electricity flows and magnetic field generation makes for a perfectly suited fusion reactor electromagnetic stelleodynamo.32 I suggest that the gas giants function similarly to the sun except they are preignited imperfectly suited proto-fusion reactors. While I’ll grant that they may well possess fission georeactors in parallel with plasmatic processes, I question that proposed architecture as Davidson makes its deficiencies plain. My point is that gravity-induced compression heating would give rise to similarly viable plasma flows as in the sun but at greatly reduced effectiveness. Plasmatic electromagnetic quasistelleodynamo processes would explain their magnetospheres; magnetic induction, magnetic tube rupture, and reconnection in their mid atmospheres would explain the observed net excess heat dissipation, when contrasted with the solar radiation input. Jupiter, being the most massive and fastest in autorotation, has the most massive magnetosphere—20,000 times stronger than Earth’s. It’s no wonder Jupiter has the strongest magnetosphere in the solar system, 2nd only to the sun. This is why it is predominately accepted that Jupiter is the sun’s almost-ignited binary. Saturn, being the second most massive and second fastest in autorotation, has the second most massive magnetosphere— nearly 35 times weaker than Jupiter’s, yet 580 times stronger than Earth’s. Uranus and Neptune, being nearly twins in that they are each the third most massive with Neptune the third and Uranus the fourth fastest autorotations, have the third most massive magnetospheres—400 times weaker than Jupiter’s, yet nearly 50 times stronger than Earth’s. Clearly, there’s a distinct process going on that differentiates the innermost terrestrial solid planets from the Jovian gas giants. What might that be? Mercury is the only other solid body planet with a magnetic field, albeit a tenuous one. One of the primary functions of the current MESSENGER33 mission is to determine whether Mercury has its own magnetic field, has a remnant “frozen” magnetic crustal effect after its mantle/core cooled, or is at the effect of its close proximity to the sun. Regardless, we know there’s an associated equatorial magnetic field 40,000 times weaker than Earth’s, courtesy of Mariner 10 more than thirty years ago. What will be interesting to find out is whether Mercury continues to generate its magnetic field or not.34 Venus has no magnetic field. Mars has no magnetic field with the exception of transient magnetic “umbrellas” that rhythmically pinch its tenuous remaining atmosphere into interplanetary space. Rather than an intrinsically Martian phenomenon, this is an effect of Mars’ transit through the IMF, disturbing it in turbulent eddies that manifest the “umbrellas” on the surface of Mars.35

14

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Our moon is an interesting enigma. It has no magnetic field, but it has perennially residual magnetic crustal effects due to its passage through the Earth’s magnetotail for 6 days out of every 27.3.36 37 MIT recently confirmed a surprising longstanding controversy that 4.2 BYA it had a thermally-induced electromagnetic dynamo—or geodynamo—magnetosphere 50 times weaker than Earth’s. While more than 20 years before a Scientific American magazine article asserted that wildly fluctuating rotational and magnetic effects due to orbiting debris impacts swung the poles dramatically and may have produced periods of geomagnetism twice the Earth’s intensity.38 With the cooling of the moon’s mantle/core, the magnetosphere disappeared in the intervening time. This revelation followed a similarly interesting disclosure: many, if not most, planetesimals and remaining asteroids had geodynamo magnetospheres 4.2 BYA. Like our moon, as their interiors cooled their magnetospheres dissipated. What interests me is not that their magnetic fields are gone, but that they once had them and it seems to be regardless of size; therefore, there seems to be a scalable characteristic to planetary magnetism. We’ll return to this in a moment. Why does the Earth have a strong magnetic field? Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth’s moon don’t, yet Earth does. A great deal of investigation and theorization has transpired and yet this mystery is far from solved. The following overview by Tony Phillips, resident investigator and prolific public outreach author for Science@NASA illustrates how complex and elusive the endeavor is:
Earth’s magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has “hurricanes”—whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth’s rotation. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect. Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, [Gary] Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth’s interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens. What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they’ve learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. “It’s chaotic down there,” notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet’s surface are a sign of that inner chaos.39

15

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

The problems with this line of reasoning are manifold—not with the dynamics, but with the geodynamo. As resistance impedance increases the conductor increases in heat, losing electric current energy to heat energy within the conductor which in turn increases resistance impedance—to a point where current flow is eventually reduced to nothing. This is a reverse feedback loop that is greatly magnified with additional heat provided from geologic processes. More importantly, though ferrous elements—iron—are highly ferromagnetic, they are not correspondingly as piezoelectric, or good conductors of electricity—being 4 times more resistant than cuprous elements. Cuprous elements—copper—on the other hand, while nonferromagnetic, are 6 times more piezoelectric— electrically conductive—than ferrous.40 Interestingly, cuprous elements are also 5 times more thermally conductive than ferrous.41 Meaning that not only is copper a better conductor of electricity but it’s 5 times better at conducting it in the presence of resistance impedance heating than iron! The coup de grâce is this: the mantle temperatures exceed the Curie temperature for ferromagnetic ferrous elements,42 and perversely, also for piezoelectric cuprous elements, negating a plausible induced ferromagnetism to such an extent that a geomagnetic effect is rendered implausible; which explains why it is now universally accepted that the classic dynamic view must be retired in favor of a newer view: magnetohydrodynamics. Yet the Curie temperature also precludes electrical conductivity in the very fluids comprising magnetohydrodynamics. This is problematic enough to give pause, but then in the very same article the supporting parallel reference material blunts Glatzmaier and Roberts’ magnetohydrodynamic view with this:
Although the details of the dynamo effect are not known in detail, the rotation of the Earth plays a part in generating the currents which are presumed to be the source of the magnetic field. Mariner 2 found that Venus does not have such a magnetic field although its core iron content must be similar to that of the Earth. Venus’s rotation period of 243 Earth days is just too slow to produce the dynamo effect.43

In apparent contravention of the so-called Blackett Effect44 to which this alludes, Mars’ autorotation is very near Earth’s yet has no magnetic field either, and Ganymede’s rotation is tidally locked with Jupiter yet has a magnetic field 22 times stronger than Mercury’s. Mercury’s autorotation is 1½ times its orbital period, giving it a full 2 rotations for every 3 complete orbital periods; yet its magnetic field is the strongest after Earth’s in the terrestrial zone.45 While the replacement of the classic dynamo/ rotation theory has been supplanted by the magnetohydrodynamic view, it now seems to be pushed much too far in the Earth’s case for a very simple reason. Arguably, tunnelvision has led these

16

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

investigators astray. I propose that an overdependence upon computational modeling without seeking broader multidisciplinary collaboration and utility of practical physical modeling is the source of the conundrum.46 Let’s suppose cuprous elements are entrained with the ferrous in such a way that electricity flows and further suppose it can do so beyond the Curie temperature to the point geomagnetism is produced, then where is the electricity coming from? This gets nebulous too:
Convection drives the outer-core fluid and it circulates relative to the earth. This means the electrically conducting material moves relative to the earth’s magnetic field. If it can obtain a charge by some interaction like friction between layers, an effective current loop could be produced. The magnetic field of a current loop could sustain the magnetic dipole type magnetic field of the earth. Large-scale computer models are approaching a realistic simulation of such a geodynamo.47

The problem with this is most glaring. Ignoring for a moment the tautological contradiction with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, anyone who has shuffled their feet on a carpet during a dry day, touched someone else or something metallic and received a resulting shock of static electricity knows that, while surprising, it is unharmful. Or, recall an electric machine in introductory physics class powering an unharmful Tesla “Jacob’s Ladder.” Because in both examples, while a high voltage is generated, an extremely miniscule current is also generated. Laypersons not conversant with electrodynamics often mistake high voltage for correspondingly high current, interchangeably. Which is understandable, given that the everyday experience of just such a person is associated with the electricity coming from a convenience outlet. This is not the case here. A minuscule current is generated but at very high voltage which would be insufficient to power an electromagnet. Consequently, the geomagnet requires massive current flow with high voltage, not miniscule current flow with massive voltage—as would be the case with supposed geologic differential, frictional motions— to make the magnetohydrodynamic model plausible. There is no current. Or certainly such a miniscule current that the observed geomagnetism is not possible. What’s going on? The magnetohydrodynamic view now appears to be just as teleological as the older classic dynamo view. We have now arrived at the crux of the problem stumping experts the world over. Let’s examine a plausible resolution of these difficulties. —————

17

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

GEOPHYSICS AND AN ATHERMAL POSSILIBILITY FOR GEOMAGNETISM

It is well understood for quite some time that the Earth’s interior has remained hot and in dynamic motion due to a superimposition of its autorotation and radiologic decay of heavy unstable elements, namely the fissile isotope U235 and the conversion of fertile isotopes Th232 and U238 into fissile U233 and Pu239, respectively.48 The fast neutron radiological decay heats the predominately ferrous elements driving the dynamic motions of the upper/lower mantle and core, producing three macro phenomena: maintenance of autorotation, crustal tectonics/volcanism, and the geodynamo magnetosphere, now known as magnetohydrodynamics. As previously shown, we can now make an important distinction: there is the helio- or stelleodynamo-induced IMF, quasistelleodynamo-induced magnetospheres for the gas giants and a geodynamo magnetosphere for the Earth. We have discussed the basic principles for the stelleodynamo and quasistelleodynamos. While the Earth possesses the only geodynamo-induced magnetosphere other than Mercury—maybe—and Ganymede, the other planets, moons and most if not all the asteroids, although long ago once did, no longer do today. What happened? They cooled over the elapsed 4 billion years. Why did they cool? It can’t be that gravitational tidal forces have changed all that much because whatever changes have occurred have happened to the Earth as well as to all the others except Jupiter’s moon Io whose interior is being driven by tidal resonance geologic flexure/compression-induced heating.49 The inescapable conclusion is that their mantles do not proportionately possess as much heavy radiologic elements as the Earth’s to maintain their dynamic molten mantle/cores. Ganymede apparently does, or at least far more than the others—the discovery of its rather strong magnetic field came as a complete surprise courtesy of the NASA’s 1996 Galileo mission surveys.50 While Galileo’s surveys of Io and Europa have yielded provocative observations, new missions will be required to elucidate whether they are at the effect of Jupiter’s magnetic field alone, possess their own intrinsic magnetic fields, or encompass an intertwined combination of both.51 52 Is there evidence that the Earth could have accumulated the lion’s share of available heavy radiologic elements in the primordial solar nebula? In fact, there is. For more than 30 years Stuart Weidenschilling has been investigating and elucidating the mechanics of the evolution of the solar nebula into the contemporary solar system we observe today. By reverse engineered forensic analysis he has made some striking headway. Collisions of small solid planetary embryos accreting into larger protoplanets predominately drove planet formation until gravitation took over in furthering accretion. The process is nonlinear, incredibly complex, chaotically turbulent, and iteratively manifold. The

18

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

current relative scarcity of computational resources has disallowed superfine scale modeling, but relatively coarse scale modeling implies that heavier elements are predominately self-distributed to the 0.2–1.0 AU terrestrial zone. Weidenschilling’s conjecture is that random planetary embryo accretion reached a transition point to gravitationally-driven accretion that then progressed into a runaway chain until the available materials were swept into the growing gravity well in the eventual planets’ orbital paths.53 54 The point is that Earth appears to be somewhat unique and I wish to answer the question as to why. It was the first of the inner solid rocky planets to reach its gravitational accretion threshold that allowed it to accumulate the lion’s share of available heavy radiologic elements in the terrestrial zone of planetary formation. Radiologic heating and autorotation appear to be associated with its geodynamo magnetosphere. Radiologic heating and a fortuitous dynamically self-replenishing thermallyinsulative lithosphere has maintained our active mantle/core over the elapsed 4 billion years until the present and will continue to do so well into the far future by a preponderance of radiologic elements having been swept into the forming proto-Earth, leaving a dearth of such elements for the other terrestrial zone solid body planets and moons. It is interesting to note that Ganymede’s diameter is a third greater than both Io and Europa— following the terrestrial zone’s pattern in a miniature expression. What relatively little remaining heavy radiologic elements that existed in Jovian space appears to have been swept up by Ganymede, similar to the case for Earth and its neighbors. I have dismissed, at Davidson’s compelling insistence, the existence of a discrete mechanistic georeactor embedded within the Earth’s solid iron core. There are a couple of simple reasons why this may confidently be done. First, the georeactor hypothesis requires that the early primordial nebula was very hot and the molten heavy radiologic elements be entrained in the ferrous elements such that as the early proto-Earth formed the heavy elements would migrate under the influence of nascent gravitation into the centroid of the molten iron and be encased before the iron core solidified. Second, it requires that those very same heavy elements must defy thermally turbulent convective motion in the forming proto-Earth mantle as the process of formation proceeded. Interestingly, though it was long assumed the primordial solar nebula must have been quite active and hot, in the million-degrees-Kelvin range, recent computational modeling indicates this might not have been the case at all. It now appears to have been less than “519°K, half the

19

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

condensation temperature of lead”55 in the vicinity of Earth’s formation and ultimate orbit. Weidenschilling concurs with this assessment, putting the temperature at ~320°K. So this means that the Earth system hasn’t “cooled” from the primordial period, but heated up. This also means that the other solid bodies didn’t “cool” either but heated up initially from planetary embryonic collision/ gravitationally-driven accretion heating with relatively scant radiologic fissile-driven decay, which then allowed them to cool over the 4-billion-year elapsed time to the present. This precludes the first criterion for the discrete georeactor hypothesis. The second is dealt with rather elegantly if somewhat pedestrianly. A simple experiment rules out the core-heavy radiologic-element-migration hypothesis and demonstrates thermal turbulent mixing of both lesser and greater density elements in the same system. We’ll model them in a simple physical setup. The molten ferrosilicate mantle is a far less dense fluid than the entrained heavy radiologic elements. So, water will do nicely to represent the molten ferrosilicate mantle material; bring the water to a boil in a 2-litre beaker with one egg and cook it for 5 minutes. Once the time has elapsed, remove the beaker from the flame, and remove and peel the egg. Save the shell pieces and membrane, break them into tiny bits and put them back in the beaker. This is important: notice all the shell and membrane pieces sink to the bottom of the beaker—the shells admirably represent the heavy radiologic elements, Th232, U235, U238, and the membranes represent lighter fissile byproduct radiologic elements, such as Sr90, Sn126, Cs13756—because they are significantly denser and heavier than the water. Now bring the beaker back to a boil, but watch carefully the phase changes. You’ll notice that the shells jitter and chatter while the membranes convect quite noticeably. They allow you to see the turbulent thermal fluid convection currents well before the phase change progresses into vigorous boiling. When the water is boiling notice that all the shells are quite well mixed in the far less dense water turbulent thermal fluid convection flow. This rules out the second discrete georeactor criterion. 33 years ago D.P. McKenzie and Frank Richter did the first physical modeling investigation of plastic thermal convection characteristics simulating processes purported to be analogous to the Earth’s mantle.57 What’s striking is the apparent geometric structure in the models. Simpler patterns at highest viscosity and lowest temperature form elongated parallel cylinders. Lower viscosity/higher temperature patterns superimpose two sets of elongated parallel cylinders at right angles to each other forming a chessboard geometry. Lowest viscosity/highest temperature patterns form amorphous pentagonal/hexagonal cells with descending ridges ½ wavelength horizontally offset with

20

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

similar patterned ascending fins[see Fig 6]. That such deterministic-seeming order would arise from simple-rule nonlinearity was surprising at the time, but rather expected now. Christopher Talbot and Martin Jackson have been studying salt tectonics for well over two decades now and one of their more important discoveries is that the basis of convection flow is not temperature gradient, primarily, but density gradient and the crucial element of variable timescale. Thermal gradients produce density gradients in homogenous element systems giving rise to convection. All elements are fluids even “solid” rocky elements when considered as very large structures. All elements convect due either to the interaction of 2 elements of differential relative density or a single element of thermally-induced differential relative density.58 Density-gradientgravity-instability convection geometries are strikingly similar to thermal convection cell geometries and may competently be thought of interchangeably [see Fig 7]. This is successfully modeled in our experiment above. We now have the necessary principles to understand what’s transpiring in the Earth’s mantle/ core interior. Less dense lighter molten ferrous ferromagnetic elements have much denser heavy radiologic fertile/fissile elements entrained throughout them convecting in turbulent fluidynamic motions and are coupled to an autorotation which produces a geodynamo magnetosphere. The radiologic decay process is driving the heating and the heating is driving a system of density gradients which in turn drives the chaotic turbulent convection/coriolis motions of the active mantle, which in turn drives a relative differential motion of radiologic fast-neutron and ferromagnetic system that in turn drives the geodynamo. The Earth operates as a system to produce the geodynamo magnetosphere in a novel way that is not shared with the solar/gas giants’ plasmatic stelleo/quasistelleodynamo magnetospheres. The gas giants imperfectly model preignited nuclear fusion reactors with Jupiter possessing the most successful preignited nuclear fusion quasistelleodynamo leaving the remaining gas giants in descending order of efficiency, proportional to their distance from the sun. The sun models the perfect nuclear fusion reactor. The Earth, therefore, models the perfect nuclear fission reactor. We have only to figure out an efficient way to harvest electricity from this architecture. Let’s spend a bit more time elucidating the Earth’s interior architecture so we may then proceed to formulate a hypothetical architecture for a viable generator model. —————

21

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

THE EARTH’S INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE

First, we need to define our terms and specify the known architecture of the interior of Earth. The mean diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km, giving a mean radius of 6,378 km from the surface of the lithosphere—crust—to the centroid of the solid metallic iron core. The crust is a quite diverse cool tectonic rocky peel of Earth, approximately 30 km in thickness, giving a mean distance of 6,348 km from the crustal/mantle interface to the centroid. The mantle is a hot plastic zone of manganese, ferrous, aluminum, silicates, and oxides elements with a thickness of roughly 2,900 km, giving a mean distance of 3,448 km from the mantle/core interface to the centroid. The core is a hotter liquid zone of ferrous and sulfurous elements with a thickness of roughly 2,300 km, giving a mean distance of 1,148 km from the core/inner core interface to the centroid. This leaves the hottest solid ferrous inner core with a mean radius of approximately 1,148 km. The reason the measurements are approximate is that the interfaces are chaotically turbulent mixing zones between the members above and below. Although heat is giving rise to the convection and mixing, as we have seen, it’s not the primary driver.59 The density differential gradients are the primary driver of convection and mixing by the mechanism of heating. The heating is caused by the radiologic decay and conversion of fertile elements entrained in the stable elements by convection mixing. This may seem like splitting hairs but it only seems so—it’s an important distinction as we shall see. At the crustal/mantle interface the temperature has increased from a mean surface temperature ranging from 0°–50°C to 1,000°C, supporting the notion that the crust is a very efficient thermal insulator. Descending through the plastic mantle materials to the mantle/core interface the temperature has increased to 3,700°C. Passing deeper into the liquid core materials to the core/inner core interface the temperature increases to 4,300°C. The inner core is a nearly pure ferrous ball of the hottest terrestrial solid metallic material. The intense gravitational pressure is what’s compressing it into a solid mass. How this might be useful is to realize that an inverse density gradient between two differential density members gives rise to gravitational instability between an upper member that is more dense and plastic overbearing a lower member that is less dense and fluidic. This is exactly the situation with the cooler more dense plastic mantle materials overbearing the hotter less dense liquid core materials. Now we have something concrete to work with in understanding the Earth system as a geometric construct. What Talbot and Jackson have done is elucidate a 3-dimensional geometric expression that can be applied to mantle/core dynamism. They have formulated a system in which

22

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

underlying buoyant less dense materials are gravitationally unstable interacting with overbearing submergent more dense materials, causing them to rise/sink in intertwined deterministic-seeming geometric patterns. The interesting thing is that if the overbearing submergent materials are more stiff—more viscous—than the buoyant underlying materials then the resultant upwelling diapurs—or bulbs—will be balloon-shaped; if more viscous thumb-shaped; and if similarly viscous mushroomshaped. The upwelling diapurs and downwelling troughs crowd into a geometric pattern resembling thermal spoke-patterned vigorous convection cells with diapurs having ridges in 3- or 5- spoke configurations and the troughs being formed into irregular pentagonal and hexagonal shapes laterally offset by ½ the cell or ½ the wavelength. Now recall that McKenzie and Richter did the same for thermal-induced convection in hot plastic materials with much the same results. To an architect this is striking and exhilarating. There’s a famous geometric system that neatly fits this pattern, but we’ll get to that in moment. The computational modeling done at Harvard Seismology and LMU—Geophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences60 indicates interesting common features with salt tectonic behavior as expected by confirming evidence from McKenzie and Richter. When we examine both research seismological institutions’ approaches to modeling, the mantle convection imaging shows strikingly analogous congruence with the Talbot– Jackson salt modeling, and thermal plastic McKenzie–Richter modeling. There appears to be a remarkable symmetry from which a rational architecture points towards a new well-suited nuclear fission architecture. Thus, allowing us to form a workable geometric approach to a new geonuclearmodeled nuclear fission core. But before we explore this we need to look at radiologic fast neutron decay and ferromagnetic stable ferrous elements binary in the mantle/core. The so-called weak nuclear force is implicated here. It is this force that moderates electron binding to the nucleus and nuclear fission decay. It is related to the electrons because piezoelectricity is a result of the interactive binding state—freedom of electrons to provide for current flow or restriction of electrons to not provide for current flow. The reason the strong nuclear force is not implicated is because it binds the nucleon subparticles and the residual interaction binds the nucleus. In the case for very heavy radiologic elements their nuclei are so unstable that the shifting interactions between bound neutrons and protons, further influenced by the vibrating energy state delta levels of their electrons, overcome the strong nuclear force binding state, spontaneously splitting the nucleus and releasing one or more neutrons. Heavy radiologic elements whose nuclei strong nuclear force binding state is equal to or greater than the collected neutron/proton kinetic

23

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

motion will not spontaneously fission; they require outside stimuli to fission, and so, are known as radiologically fertile elements. Heavy radiologic elements whose nuclei strong nuclear force binding state is lesser than the collected neutron/proton kinetic motion will spontaneously fission and are known as radio-logically fissile elements. Lighter radiologic fissile elements are not naturally occurring, but byproducts of heavy radiologic fission/decay processes. The conversion of fertile elements to fissile radioisotopes produces over time a net increase of over all radiologic fissile elements. The fission chain is the released energy which drives the Earth’s mantle/core function. But is there another process co-occurring in such a way that a net aggregate magnetism would give rise to a macro magnetic effect that is nonclassic dynamically, nonferromagnetically or nonpiezoelectrically generated? That’s the key question. Because as we have seen, the Earth’s magnetic field cannot be a result of the electro-magnetohydrodynamic effect because of the absence of sufficient electrical current flow, yet it exists. Is there a theoretical basis for supposing another process at work? Indeed, yes, there is. This is exactly the predicted state of affairs in the Theory of the Fermi Interaction by Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann.61 In beta decay a released neutron decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino via strange subparticles, giving rise to a net magnetic effect. As Feynman and Gell-Mann state the process is net neutral, producing a proton +1 charge, an electron –1 charge and a neutrino moderating a nonparity effect of a “strange subparticle” electric current release with its attendant magnetic field. It is the “strange subparticle” current effect that led physicists at that time to call this collaboration between Feynman and Gell-Mann the “Strange Theory” and also caused them to view Feynman and Gell-Mann as a shining example of modern theoretical investigation.62 They along with a great many investigators would go on to formulate these “strange subparticles” into the myriad pantheon of quarks and their manifold combinations which eventually gave rise to the Standard Model generalization of elementary particle physics. Subsequently, high energy theorists took the “Strange Theory” further leading to new insights producing quantum chromodynamics and investigating more deeply the relationships between electromagnetism and the weak interaction which in term led to the gauge theories deepening understanding of strong interactions. Why haven’t investigators already applied the Feynman/GellMann Radiomagnetic Effect to the problem of elucidating the mechanics of the Earth’s magnetic field and thereby the conception of athermal nuclear fission electricity generation? I assert that it is

24

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Fig. 6: McKenzie–Richter high Rayleigh plastic thermal gradient convection pattern.

Fig. 7: Talbot–Jackson density gradient gravity instability convection pattern. [Rönnlund model]

Fig. 8: McKenzie–Richter high Rayleigh plastic thermal gradient ½-cell flow cross-section.

Fig. 9: Talbot–Jackson density gradient instability full-cell flow cross-section.

Fig 10: Talbot–Jackson density gradient instability convection progressive development models.

Fig. 11: LMU mantle/core 3-d computer model. Note congruent tile-mapping with fig. 10.

25

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Fig. 12: Horizontal component of convection cell motion may be modeled successfully.

Fig. 13: Translation of horizontal relative motions into a spherical 3-axial geometry.

Fig. 14: Orthographic Core Schemata diagram of a 3-axial arrangement—x/x’, y/y’, z/z’. One stage comprises 6 whole spheres halved at their equators into 2 hemispheres providing for the motions shown in Fig. 13. 3 stages are shown. Each hemisphere pair spins opposing its companion half, allowing for mechanical design flexibility in mounting and maintaining stable operation.

26

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

—Image is Pending—
Fig. 15: Fullerene geodesic tile-mapped fenestration. Fig. 16: 3-Axial arrangement isometric diagram.

Fig. 17a: Stage 1–F/F’.

Fig 17b: Stage 1–E/E’.

Fig. 17c: Stage 1–D/D’.

Fig. 17d: Stage 1–C/C’.

Fig. 17e: Stage 1–B/B’.

Fig. 17f: Stage 1–A/A’.

27

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

—Image is Pending—

Fig. 18: Fully integrated Nuclear MagnetoElectric generator—or NuMEgen®. A tamping neutronreflecting protective enclosure secures the core. Electromotors, fully controllable, driven by thermocouple piezoelectric power cells, use the surplus byproduct heat to drive the spinning armatures. The fast neutron reactions heat the interior below the architecture’s melting point but beyond their Curie temperatures. Therefore the interior is not magnetized; the geomagnetospheremodeled field manifests externally surrounding the core. Nonlinear wobble is introduced into the fully-variable spin rates to stabilize the geomagnetic-modeled field and autorotate it for electroinduction coil harvesting by the surrounding spherical wedge coil assemblies. Control rod damping of the core radiologic fast chain reaction is moderated through the 6 driveshafts transecting the core architecture on the 3-axial arrangement.

28

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

an unconscious entrapment within a Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelian ever-diminishing atomic materialism, Newtonian classicism and mechanistic manifest destiny, and an overdependence upon the thermodynamic view which has stood in our way. Something strange is happening in the mantle/core. Contrary to the accepted view, the above experiment indicates that not only is the discrete georeactor precluded but it is plausible radiologic elements are rather thoroughly mixed in the mantle/core. That the observed temperature gradients are far lower than this view might postulate doesn’t preclude its validity, but offers an alternate explanation. The relative amounts of radiologic elements are far lower to make the earth’s interior system operate than was previously known. Estimating the aggregate number of decay chain interactions becomes quite important. It is now unknown. But it is being aggressively investigated. John Learned at University of Hawaii and several colleagues are promoting a global collaborative effort to quantify this.63 They’re looking for geoneutrinos which are interior-earth-produced antineutrinos. Feynman/Gell-Mann’s theory predicts one antineutrino and one tiny magnetic field for each decay chain interaction. If Learned and company could get their geoneutrino detectors running around the globe and arrive at an aggregate total of decay chain interactions in the Earth’s interior, then an aggregate paramagnetism of the magnetohydro-dynamic fluids could be adduced as well. If it matches with the distributed geomagnetosphere field flux of 0.5 gauss, then my hypothesis would be confirmed, elevating it to the status of a plausible theory of radio-magnetohydrodynamics—or a Feynman/GellMann Radiomagnetic Effect Geomagnetism—correctly explaining the Earth’s geomagnet. The last piece of our puzzle is that the mantle/core radiologic processes with their attendant radiation effects are insulated from the biosphere by the thin crustal lithosphere, effectively acting as a tamping reflective/absorptive shield protecting it. The continuous motions of the Earth’s interior are the result of accumulating the lion’s share of heavy radiologic elements in the terrestrial zone during primordial nebular formation. Those elements are thoroughly entrained within stable ferrous elements by density gradient convection and mixing. The interaction between radiologic and ferrous elements in motion produce a net Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect paramagnetizing the hot plastic/liquid mantle/core materials, circumventing the Curie-temperature-limitation of the classic dynamo/elctro-magnetohydrodynamic views. The lithosphere protects the biosphere from lethal radiation effects of the mantle/core processes and conversely preserves those very processes by its inherent insulative properties. The geomagnetosphere also protects the biosphere from lethal

29

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

extraterrestrial electromagnetic radiation, high energy particle bombardment, IMF assault of its atmosphere, and other deleterious threats. This overall construct is beautiful. While not analytically rigorous, this view must not be dismissed. A Feynman and Penrose principle with which I resonate is an attenuation to aesthetic concern associated with creative inspiration.64 If it looks beautiful, then it is quite likely correct; and conversely, if it looks ugly, then more than likely it is in error. Now, we have arrived someplace useful. We can competently postulate the basis for a very straightforward new revolution in electricity generation. An athermal approach. A nonhydrocarbondependent approach. A method of harvesting electricity from a fast neutron fission architecture that will convert the remaining unusable 99.3% of fertile uranium radioisotopes over time into fissile radioisotopes, convert 3-fold the uranium radioisotopes of fertile thorium radioisotopes into fissile radioisotopes, intensify the core magnetosphere by the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect; and therefore, produce more electricity over operating time until the radiologic doubling time requires reprocessing of the core into two or more new cores, and dramatically increase our electricity generation capacity worldwide in a virtually nonexhaustive way.65 —————

A NEW ATHERMAL RADIOLOGIC FISSILE GEOMAGNETIC-MODELED CORE

I said earlier that an architect would be most excited about this turn of events. Why might that be? Buckminster Fuller never thought of himself as an eccentric architect; he thought of himself as a designer. His cumbersome self-appellation aside, he called himself a “comprehensive anticipatory design scientist.” This may well prove to be more correct than anyone had thought. The density/ thermal gradient convection geometry autocatakinetizes into amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal tiled geometry. The globe of the Earth maps this same geometric tile-pattern spherically. Fuller deduced that the shortest path to least action expended in materials, effort, and expense was to map pentagonal and hexagonal tiles to construct a spherical dome. The Principle of Least Action underlies mathematics and all the physical/biological sciences.66 It is the basis of autocatakinesis. We see it turn up everywhere; even in a tiny molecular world of the 60-atom carbon molecule, which when elucidated was dubbed a “Buckminsterfullerene” or fullerene for short due to its geodesic spherical construct.

30

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

How might a mechanical architecture of a new dynamic nuclear core mimic planet Earth’s architecture? An architecture that simulates density/thermal gradient convection motions. In answering this question an architect’s eye is helpful. Circular convection cells squeezed into a bounded area has an interesting design format, or fenestration. Looking from above in both the McKenzie–Richter [see Fig. 6] and the Talbot–Jackson [see Fig. 7] images an amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal tiled fenestration is obvious. If we map this tile-pattern on a hemispherical dome we have an amorphous eccentric Buckminsterfullerene geodesic structure that uncannily coincides with the LMU spherical 3-D computational modeling of the Earth’s mantle/core convection image [see Fig. 11]. In the McKenzie–Richter [see Fig. 8] and Talbot–Jackson [see Fig. 9] cross-sectional convection cell analyses we see an oblate circular motion pattern wrapped 360° about the cell vertical centroid axis forming cells that self-organize, or autocatakinetize67 into amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal tiling. What’s important is not the slavish reproduction of the thermal/density gradient convection physical motions, but taking the useful portion of the full physical motion and adapting it to a mechanical architecture that provides for the salient relative motions—horizontal vectors—and an analogous approximation of density gradients—vertical vectors. So, we will model the horizontal relative motions with design mechanical motions, and not model the vertical relative motions, but treat the density gradient as a necessary design feature of our core [Fig. 12]. If we design a core architecture that provided for the horizontal relative motions—opposing and oblique to right angles top-to-bottom then we have a schematic basis for designing our dynamic core [see Fig 13]. We will think of the density changes as somewhat associated with altitude which we could then approximate by stratification of the discrete shells which would translate nicely to nested concentrically arranged spheres. How might we accomplish making motions of relative opposing and oblique to right angles topto-bottom? If we spin the spheres about 3 axes of rotation arranged 90° to 90° to 90° in 3-d space we run into a problem [see Fig’s. 16–17a-f]. Each sphere rotating about one of 3 axes would be cut in half at its equator by the other two axes [see Fig 14]. So, we’ll make this a feature of our construct. One sphere is comprised of two hemispheres gapped so that driveshaft assemblies for the other two axes and a driveshaft assembly on the axis of this hemisphere pair attach their poles to the driveshaft. Now we may make the necessary relative motions of the nested hemispheres approximate natural physical convection. 3 nested hemisphere pairs make the top half of a convection stage and 3 more rotating opposite the first 3 make the bottom half of a stage , totaling 6 hemisphere pairs to complete a single stage.

31

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

The use of a fullerene geodesic lattice architecture for the hemispherical domes accomplishes three important goals [see Fig. 15]. First, this fenestration strengthens and increases rigidity while also minimizing the material required for it to maintain its shape and integrity. Second, the openings provide mechanical anchoring for the plasma electroplating of the radiologic fertile/fissile recipe coatings to the hemispheric armatures. And third, this fenestration is flexible in its execution so that the outermost hemispheric armatures are lacier than the innermost armatures, distributing the same finished mass for each hemisphere, realizing a mass accumulation, modeling that found in the Earth’s interior, of least apparently accumulative for the outermost hemisphere pair to most apparently accumulative for the innermost hemisphere pair, distributed by the spherical area rule: 4πr2. This is the basic schematic design proposal for a new athermal dynamic Earth-like Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled core. —————

THIS IS NICE, BUT HOW DO WE GET ELECTRICITY OUT OF IT?

It’s time we make a paradigm shift. Evolutionarily and biologically we are profoundly predisposed to a heat-related bias. Until 1905 no one seriously questioned this bias. It worked so very admirably up till then. We’ve had 105 years to think differently about this. Up until the peak we really didn’t have to think differently; those days are now over. Lamenting their loss is at best overly self-indulgent; at worst narcissistic. Einstein opened a new way to approach the thermal view—not denial of it, but a new view, an electromagnetic particular view.68 Currently, thermal nuclear fission electricity generation is merely a heat-source substitution for coal/NG-fired plant architecture which fundamentally has remained intact since the mid 19th century. It’s an overly complex multitier approach to spin turbine magnetoelectric dynamos of a maximum 750 mw capacity with no room for further improvement in unit capacity and only incremental enhancement in thermal efficiency. It strikes me that an order—or more—of magnitude improvement in performance would result if the electricity generation capability were moved upstream closer to the actual radiologic fission process. Would there be a way to harvest electricity directly from the radiologic fission process? There would be if we reversed our thinking and took an Einsteinian electromagnetic view and built upon this with a practical application of the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect.

32

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Let a Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled core which produces a magnetosphere many times greater in gauss density than the maximum moment of the largest conventional magnetoelectric dynamo be the center of a new nuclear fission magnetoelectric generator architecture. Then assemble a surrounding construct of neutron-reflecting-tamping enclosure, static electroinductive coils about this core, and then, harvest electrical current from the external-affect, fully-controllableautorotating magnetosphere up to the capacity limit of the generator. To be sure, a great deal of modeling, theoretical mathematics, and electromechanical engineering needs to be preformed, but conceptually, this is achievable [see Fig. 18]. Why am I pursuing this line of inquiry? It represents a radical departure from the past and that’s just what is called for because a sequential derivation from the past will not get us to a revolutionary solution for the future. We need a clean break and new direction for a successful transition from hydrocarbon primacy to fissile. Since 1941 we’ve had only 2 thermally-driven options for the practical use of radiologic elements: bomb or boiler.69 Nuclear academic, research and industry experts know the track we’re on will not replace current hydrocarbon-dependence. They know a radical breakthrough is required. Goodstein stated that nuclear fission as it’s currently conceived and if used to replace hydrocarbon thermal electricity generation is a bridge solution at best with a life expectancy of no more than 10–20 years. That’s it—and the available crustal U235 will be exhausted effectively forever in the process. The much touted Generation IV designs being researched at this time only incrementally improve thermal performance.70 71 They are somewhat better scaled miniaturizations of the past technology, but by no means are they fully scalable. And what will be done about the additional single-through-put thermal radiologic wastes?72 To continue this course is irrational. We must embark upon a radical new approach: a scalable harvester-type Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled Generation V Nuclear MagnetoElectric Generator (NuMEgen®) technology. There’s 139 times more naturally occurring U238 than U235. There are 3 times as much naturallyoccurring Th232 than the uranium isotopes. It is profoundly wasteful and irresponsible not to make unweaponizable use of these resources. NuMEgen® will make responsible, prolific use of them. This is the breakthrough that has been long anticipated. We can disregard the fact that primordial planetesimals have lost their geomagnetism due to their dearth of radiologic elements because that was the reason for their dissipation over the last 4 billion years. The NuMEgen® Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled architecture renders this detail

33

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

moot. What’s important to focus upon is that they were operating in a wide range of sizes from the comparatively small to planetary scales, indicating a scalable Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic effect. The NuMEgen® architecture, by definition and design, is fully scalable in the same manner. The implications of this feature are manifold and extremely diverse. Literally, everything will change. Our approaches to land, sea, and air transportation will transform dramatically. The RMS QM2 is the newest state-of-the-art luxury ocean liner accepted for service 5 years ago by the Cunard Line. It has no conventional rudder. It has no oil-fired steam boilers, drive turbines, or screw-driveshafts. It uses diesel-fired thermal electricity generation plants to electrify its 4 fully-automated tractor propulsion pods mounted outboard under its stern.73 2 are fixed for motive power, and 2 are fullyazimuthing through 190° of rotation for motive power and nimble maneuverability. How nimble? In conjunction with its forward transverse thrusters, it can spin about its centroid, left or right, indefinitely with no external assistance. We could decommission its diesel-fired thermal electricity generation plants and reconstruct its fuel bunkers into additional shipboard useable space. Then install an appropriately-scaled NuMEgen® unit, run the ship anywhere in the world indefinitely without ever having to refuel again, and by the way, also not emitting any combustion CO2. Oh, wait, there is one problem. In about 20 years the ship will have to be serviced. The old power unit will have to be removed and replaced with a new one so that the old one can be reprocessed into 2 or more units for deployment elsewhere. What we most need to do right now is make real Amory Lovins’ prescription to embark upon the implementation of a decentralized and pervasively diffuse electricity generation approach.74 My contribution to his thinking is that it should also be nonhydrocarbon-dependent. The increase and diffusion of this technology to a great many other applications can then be sought in parallel with the conversion of our existing hydrocarbon thermal electricity generation systems to a well-suited nuclear fission technology. Then the next step in The Energy Grand Staircase will naturally flow to an implementation of a well-suited nuclear fusion approach. —————

34

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

NEXT STEPS

A great many things need to be done. Breaking it down into achievable steps is essential. Here’s a schematic framework for moving forward: 1) Computational modeling of fast neutron decay of radiologically fissile elements and their effects upon radiologically fertile and stable paramagnetic ferrous elements in the mantle/core matrix to prove the efficacy of the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect to prove the primary mechanism of a Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-derived athermal nuclear electricity generator. 2) Test experimentation of core architecture proof of concept. Special investigation regarding efficacy of stage assembly multiplexing—does appreciable improvement of concept occur if 2, 3, 4, or more stages are incorporated? Is 1 sufficient? What should the centroid architecture be? 3) 4) Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping the core assembly without radiologic elements to prove apparatus function and methods of production. Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping methods of chemical/mechanical bonding via plasma/electroplating of radiologically fissile and fertile elements to ferrous Buckminsterfullerene hemispheric armatures. 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping spherical radiologic fast neutron reflector protective enclosure and induction coil assemblies surround. Partial integration of core assembly and radiologic hemispheric armatures for testprototyping proof of concept operating regimes. Full integration of total assembly for test-prototyping proof of operating regimes. Safety test-prototyping proof of commercial/industrial applications and governmental oversight certification. Production fabrication, certification, and deployment for commercial/industrial grid application. Research of diverse manifold applications and deployment.

Thank you for your kind attention. —————

35

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Two colleagues and valued interlocutors have contributed to this effort, without whose generous outpouring of time, discussion, criticism and encouragement it would have not have progressed as well as it has; a special thank you goes to Clayton Crockett, Associate Professor and Director of Religious Studies Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Central Arkansas, and Aaron Simmons, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Hendrix College. Jonathan Gilligan, Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at Vanderbilt University made a significant contribution to the evolution of this hypothesis. Although he may not have intended it as such, I’m deeply indebted to him for correcting my misconstrued use of a Scientific American article published in 1995 that started this odyssey.75 Mason Brothers has steadfastly supported and encouraged this effort with timely wit, a swift kick to the fundament when needed and thoughtful criticism. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the authors referenced above; without their invaluable contributions to their respective areas of expertise I could not have synthesized this hypothesis. Lastly, the following scholars graciously endured my first public presentation of these ideas in an academic conference setting—their insightful, Socratic questioning contributed greatly to the development of this hypothesis: Clayton Crockett, Donna Bowman and Jay McDaniel, organizers and facilitators of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Theology and Energy 2009 a Joint Conference at University of Central Arkansas and Hendrix College; Whitney Bauman, Matthew Creswell, Wilson Dickinson, Daniel Finer, Sara Harvey, Luke Higgins, Catherine Keller, Jeff Kelley, Oz Lorentzen, Jeffrey Robbins, Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Malik Saafir, Andrew Saldino, Aaron Simmons and Aaron Youmans, contributors and conferees. —————
Copyright © 2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet. All rights are reserved. This whitepaper was complete on June 23rd, 2009, significantly revised June 5th, 2010, and intended for strictly individual personal use. It may not be reprinted, reproduced or otherwise electronically republished without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Dobson Mequet. It may not be altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed, or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution. Patents are pending for the technology described herein.

—————

36

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

ENDNOTES Nuclear-driven MagnetoElectric generator. Feynman, Richard and Gell-Mann, Murray of Caltech; “Theory of the Fermi Interaction” or also known colloquially as the “Strange Theory,” a whitepaper published in Physical Review scientific journal, #109:193, ©1958a. 3 Hubbert, M. King; “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels,” a whitepaper published in Publication No. 45, Shell Development Company, Exploration, Production Research Division, Houston, Texas, June, ©1956. First presented publicly at the Spring Meeting of the Southern District, Division of Production, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas, March 7–9, ©1956. 4 Flower, Andrew; “World Oil Production: There is only a finite amount of oil and there are limits to the rate at which it can be recovered. Sometime before the year 2000 the decreasing supply of it fail to meet the increasing demand,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, March ©1978 Issue, Vol. 238, No. 3. 5 Campbell, Colin J.; Laherrère, Jean H.; “The End of Cheap Oil: Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, March ©1998 Issue, Vol. 278, No. 3. 6 Bethe, Hans A.; “The Necessity of Fission Power: Over the next 25 years there is no major alternative to fossil fuels but uranium,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, January ©1976 issue, Volume 234, Number 1. 7 Interview contribution to Crude—the incredible journey of oil, an Australian Broadcast Corporation Science/History Channel motion picture documentary, ©2007. Retired Professor of Geophysics, Princeton University. See: http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/. 8 Volume 261, Number 3. 9 Woodwell, George M.; “The Carbon Dioxide Question,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, January, ©1978 Issue, Vol. 238, No. 1. 10 Jevons, William Stanley; The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines, ©1865. 11 Ferguson, Niall; The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, ©2008. “Afterword: pp. 345–6. 12 See; Appendix A: 12 Cognitive Traps, pp. 41. 13 Interview contribution to A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash, a motion picture documentary by Basel Gelpke & Ray McCormack, ©2006. Former Vice Provost Caltech, Applied Physicist, founder of Condensed Matter Physics, Frank J. Gilloon Distinguished Teaching, and Service Professor. See: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/. 14 For a fuller explanation, see; Appendix B: The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau, pp. 43. 15 BYA—Billion Years Ago. 16 MYA—Million Years Ago. 17 ALS—Above (average) Sea Level. 18 Having explored these terrains extensively, it has profoundly informed this fundamental rethinking of the energy problem now confronting us. 19 EROEI values and explanation: Visalli, Dana; Getting a decent return on your energy investment, published on 11 Apr © 2006 by Partnership for a Sustainable Methow. Energy Bulletin online resource—Archived on 12 Apr 2006. Accessed: March 10th, 2008. See: http://www.energybulletin.net/14745.html. 20 Krupp, Fred; Earth: The Sequel—The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, “Chapter 3: Harnessing the Sun, Part II,” ©2008. 21 Chandler, David; MIT tests unique approach to fusion power: Mimicking Earth’s magnetic field in a thermos bottle, article in TechTalk: Serving the MIT Community, Campus Weekly Periodical, Volume 52—Number 20, Wednesday—March 19, ©2008. Thomson, Elizabeth; PSFC fires up novel plasma fusion experiment, article in TechTalk: Serving the MIT Community, Campus Weekly Periodical, Volume 49—Number 12, Wednesday—December 8, ©2004. While the point is to test-prototype this technology into a future viable thermal-fusion-electricity-generation technology, what has really been proven is a massively efficient magneto-capacitor-type electricity storage device. If this is coupled with a SuperGrid® then a massively efficient transmission and storage system for not only America but world wide could put several tens of millions to work, fulfilling Ringo & Jones’ vision for green pathways out of poverty. 22 Grant, Paul M.; Starr, Chauncey; and Overbye, Thomas J.; “A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy: Cryogenic, superconducting conduits could be connected into a “SuperGrid”® that would simultaneously deliver electrical power and hydrogen fuel,” article in Scientific American magazine, July ©2006 Issue, Vol. 295, No. 1. 23 Smith, Wayne; The Nuclear Heart of the Earth, The science behind The Core including an interview with J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D., SpaceDaily—Your Portal to Space, Brisbane—Mar 31, ©2003. Accessed: March 6th, 2009, 22:15 CST. See: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html. 24 Meshik, Alex P.; “The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor: Two billion years ago parts of an African uranium deposit spontaneously underwent nuclear fission. The details of this remarkable phenomenon are just now becoming clear,”
2 1

37

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Article, Atomic Physics, Naturally-Occurring Fission In-Situ Geologic Reactors—Scientific American magazine; October ©2005 Issue, Vol. 293, No. 4. Accessed: March 8th, 2009, 16:26 CDT. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor. 25 Davidson, Keay; Scientific maverick’s theory on Earth’s core up for a test: Controversial view sees vast uranium field that serves as natural reactor, article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, November 29, ©2004. Accessed: March 30th, 2009, 15:59 CDT. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/29/MNGPIA17BL45.DTL&type=printable. 26 The controversial planetary status of the Pluto/Charon binary precludes them from consideration. There just isn’t enough direct, close empirical observation to contribute significantly to this investigation. 27 For a comprehensive overview with references, see; Appendix C: Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System, pp. 48. 28 AU—Astronomical Unit, the average distance from the earth to the sun, 150 million km. 29 Chandler, David; MIT News Office October 30, 2008; Magnetic fields record the early histories of planets, article in TechTalk— Serving the MIT Community campus weekly periodical publication, Volume 53, Issue #8, November 5th, ©2008. Accessed: March 3rd, 2009, 08:26 CST. See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/planetevolution-1030.html. 30 Chandler, David; MIT News Office January 15, 2009; Astronomers crack longstanding lunar mystery: Ancient rock’s magnetic field shows that moon once had a dynamo in its core, article in TechTalk—Serving the MIT Community campus weekly periodical publication, Volume 53, Issue #14, February 4th, ©2009. Accessed: March 3rd, 2009, 08:13 CST. See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/moonrock-0115.html. 31 Phillips, Tony; Cartwheel Coronal Mass Ejection, online article posting on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, May 27th, ©2008. Accessed: May 28th, 2008, 15:32 CDT. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/27may_cartwheelcme.htm?list1079386. 32 The accepted convention is “heliodynamo” but is here too narrowly focused. The author suggests this description is true for all stars, hence the use of the more universal term “stelleo” pertaining to stars in general. 33 MESSENGER—MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging NASA/JSC/APL spacecraft mission. See: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/index.html. 34 Minkel, JR; Mercury Flyby Reveals Active (but Shrinking) Core: Cracks in the planet’s crust imply a contracting world, online article posted on Scientific American magazine online—News; Space; Core, Mantle & Crust, July 3rd, ©2008; Accessed: July 7th, 2008. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mercury-flyby-reveals-act. 35 Phillips, Tony; Solar Wind Rips Up Martian Atmosphere, online article posted on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, November 21st, ©2008. Accessed: November 21st, 2008, 06:42 CST. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm. 36 Russell, C. T.; Coleman, Jr., P. J.; Schubert, G.; Lunar Magnetic Field: Permanent and Induced Dipole Moments, originally published in Science, 186, p. 825-826, ©1974. See: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/lunar_magfield/. 37 Phillips, Tony; The Moon and the Magnetotail, online article posted on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, April 17th, ©2008. Accessed: April 17th, 2008, 14:43 CDT. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/17apr_magnetotail.htm?list1079386. 38 Runcorn, S.K.; “The Moon’s Ancient Magnetism,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, December, ©1987 Issue, Vol. 257, No. 6. 39 Phillips, Tony; Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field: Our planet’s magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why, online article posted on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, December 29, ©2003. Accessed: February 7th, 2008. 11:20 CST. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm. 40 Cuprous electrical conductivity: 59,600,000/ohm m @ 20°C. Ferrous electrical conductivity: 9,931,000/ohm m @ 20°C. Argentous—silver—electrical conductivity: 63,010,000/ohm m @ 20°C. Expressed as the inverse of impedance (ohm) per meter—may also be expressed as Siemens (S) per meter-1. 41 Since we are dealing here with the relationship between thermal conductivity and electrical resistance impedance the relative values for each are compared. Of course electric conductivity is important too. Due to ferrous isotopes’ greatly secured electrons, contributing to its high tensile strength, reduced ductility, and brittle nature, these qualities make them very poor electric conductors. Due to cuprous isotopes’ greatly unsecured electrons, contributing to its low tensile strength, high ductility, and resilient nature, these qualities make them very good electric conductors—2nd only to silver. This is the reason why silver/lead alloy is used for electric/electronic soldered connections, low melting point for convenience of utility and higher electric conductivity then the copper conductors for unimpeded connection. 42 Named for Pierre Curie—Marie’s husband—the Curie point (Tc) or Curie temperature is the point above which ferromagnetic elements will give up their ability to become and/or remain magnetized (768°C or 1,414°F for iron) and piezoelectric elements will give up their ability to conduct an electric current (380°C or 716°F for copper).

38

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Phillips, Tony; Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field: Our planet’s magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why, online article posted on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, December 29, ©2003. Accessed: February 7th, 2008. 11:20 CST. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm. Sidebar: The Magnetic Field of the Earth. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html. 44 The Blackett Effect was postulated by Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett (1897–1974) in his published paper: “The Magnetic Field of Massive Rotating Bodies” in the science journal Nature, #159, 658-666, May, 17th, ©1947. The following was quoted in Saul-Paul Siraq’s (ISSO) Notes on the Blackett Effect, October 12th, ©2000: “The Blackett Effect is the (proposed) law that a rotating body generates a magnetic field analogous to the magnetic field generated by rotating electrically charged body.” It has been discredited—he later recanted it—and is considered thoroughly implausible today. Accessed: April 13th, 2009, 11:11 CDT. See: http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/blackett1.pdf. 45 For a comprehensive overview with references of planetary mechanics, see; Appendix D: Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of the Our Solar System, pp. 51. 46 Gleick, James; Chaos: Making a New Science, ©1987, pp. 210–1. See the Albert Lidchaber He3 Experiment description and lead investigator conclusions. 47 Phillips, Tony; Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field: Our planet’s magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why, online article posted on Science@NASA—Inform Inspire Involve, December 29, ©2003. Accessed: February 7th, 2008. 11:20 CST. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm. Sidebar: The Magnetic Field of the Earth. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html. 48 Th: Thorium. U: Uranium. Pu: Plutonium. 49 Io’s circumstances are very interesting, but definitive differentiation between supposed radiologic mantle/core thermodynamism and exclusive tidal thermodynamism is impossible at this time. This doesn’t preclude following the line of reasoning in this paper. 50 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Discovery of Ganymede’s magnetic field by the Galileo spacecraft, paper published in the scientific journal Nature, Volume 384, pages 537-541, December 12, ©1996. 51 Kivelson, M. G., el al; A Magnetic Signature at Io: Initial Report from the Galileo Magnetometer, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. 16 April ©1996; accepted 2 July 1996. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:52 CDT. See: http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/doc/sci273/text.htm. 52 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Europa’s Magnetic Signature: Report from Galileo’s Pass on 19 December 1996, Science 23 May 1997: Vol. 276. no. 5316, pp. 1,239–1,241. DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5316.1239. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:44 CDT. See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/5316/1239. 53 Weidenschilling, Stuart J.; The distribution of mass in the planetary system and solar nebula, contribution to Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 51, no. 1, Sept. ©1977, p. 153-158. DOI: 10.1007/BF00642464. See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Ap&SS..51..153W. 54 Weidenschilling, Stuart J.; Formation of Planetesimals and Accretion of the Terrestrial Planets, paper published by the Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85705, USA. Received: 12 August ©1999; Accepted: 6 March 2000. 55 Calderwood, Arthur; The Distribution of Niobium, Uranium, Cerium, and Lead in the Earth and its Constraint on the Mass of the Depleted Mantle and Solar Nebula Temperature, paper published in Goldschimdt 2000, September 3rd–8th, 2000, Oxford, UK, Journal of Conference Abstract, Volume 5(2), 281, ©2000 Cambridge Publications. 56 Sr: Strontium. Sn: Tin (Stannum, Lt.). Cs: Cesium. 57 McKenzie, D.P. and Richter, Frank; “Convection Currents in the Earth’s Mantle: Both large- and small-scale currents play a role in plate tectonics,” article appearing in Scientific American magazine, November ©1976 issue, Volume 235, Number 5. 58 Talbot, Christopher J. and Jackson, Martin P. A.; “Salt Tectonics,” Article, Earth—Geophysics—Tectonics, Scientific American magazine, August, ©1987 Issue, Vol. 257, No. 2. 59 Phillips has done a good job of presenting Glatzmaier and Roberts’ magnetohydrodynamics work noted earlier. The current mantle/core dynamism is well conceived and presented by them, and corroborated by Bunge, Hagelberg and Travis of LMU—Ludwig-Maximilians-Univerität München—Geophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. My contribution to their work is to connect it to Talbot and Jackson’s work preceded by McKenzie and Richter’s. 60 Bunge, Hagelberg and Travis; “Mantle Convection with Variational Data-Assimilation,” GJI (2003), 152, 1-22, LMU— Ludwig-Maximilians-Univerität München—Geophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Last modified 07 Sep 2006 21:53 EU WDT—GMT+1. Accessed 21 Nov 2008 19:27 USA CST—GMT-6. See: http://www.geophysik.lmu.de/research/geodynamics/data-assimilation.
43

39

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

61 Feynman, Richard and Gell-Mann, Murray of Caltech; “Theory of the Fermi Interaction” or also known colloquially as the “Strange Theory,” a whitepaper published in Physical Review scientific journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, January 1, ©1958; received September 16th, 1957. 62 Gleick, James; Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, pp. 335–341, ©1992. 63 Learned, John G.; “Detection of Geoneutrinos: Can We Make the Gnus Work for Us?” published in Journal of Physics: Conference Series 136 (2008) 022007; doi: 1088/1742-6596/136/022007, The XXIII Conference of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics; ©2008 IOP Publishing Ltd. 64 Ibid, pp. 176–7. And see also: Penrose, Roger; The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics, pp. 421, ©1989. 65 I say “virtually nonexhaustive” to indicate a new paradigm of energy conversion. Until all the available naturallyoccurring fertile U238 and Th232 are converted this is a technology that doesn’t consume the primary energy resource as a consequence of its utilization. When all the available fertile elements are converted then this technique will consume those fissile elements until they are exhausted … in say, several centuries. But by the time of that eventuality we will be well past the transition to a well-suited athermal nuclear fusion technology. 66 Gleick, James; Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, pp. 57–61, ©1992. 67 Swenson, Rod, “Autocatakinetics, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production: A Principled Foundation Towards the Study of Human Ecology,” paper appearing in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6, pp. 1–47, ©1997. Refer to the detailed description of the etymology of “autocatakinesis.” See link: http://rodswenson.com/humaneco.pdf. 68 Einstein, Albert; Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement, Part II, 3rd Annus Mirabilis Paper doctoral dissertation on a physical & mathematical explanation of the thermodynamic view of molecular random motion due to heat—Brownian Motion, in the original German, May 11, ©1905; English translation, ©1926. 69 UIC; Outline History of Nuclear Energy, Briefing Paper #50, September ©2005. British MAUD (Military Application of Uranium Detonation) Committee ©1941 reports: “Use of Uranium for a Bomb” & “Use of Uranium as a Source of Power.” Accessed: March 23rd, 2007, 19:13 CST. See: http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html. 70 Six Generation IV designs are being researched by Western governments (now), evaluated (5 or so years away), prototype test-proved (10–15 years away), and production unit constructed and certified (20–25 years away): 1) Pebble Bed heliumcooled, graphite-moderated reactor whose extremely high outlet temperature (1,650° to 1,830° F) is best suited to hydrogen production, replacing the current hydrocarbon feedstock/processing method; 2) Fast Neutron Reactor Gas/Plasma thermal electricity generation; 3) Fast Neutron Reactor Molten Sodium thermal electricity generation; 4) Fast Neutron Reactor Molten Lead thermal electricity generation; 5) Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor thermal electricity generation; and 6) Supercritical Molten Salt Reactor thermal electricity generation. 71 Russia has embarked upon their own proprietary Gen IV technology development program that appears much further along in research moving into implementation and production roll-out, called a Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor or SVBR-100 Modular Nuclear Reactor. See: Babb, Christopher; Russia’s Unique SVBR-100 Nuclear Reactor, a guest posting on The Oil Drum website, May 17th, ©2009, 10:54 am. Go to: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5383#more. 72 3 of the 6 research design concepts. Although the pebble-bed single-through-put seems to be the leading design concept. 73 Rolls-Royce’s MermaidTM tractor propulsion pods are a brand new technology offering by RR in competition with ABB’s well-proven Azipod® systems propulsor technology. Litigation over the manufacturer’s performance claims and the steamship line’s service experience has tainted RR’s reputation. It seems both parties’ expectations regarding a brand new product’s actual service and test-prototype-break-in-proving standards of practice appear to be the source of conflict. 74 Dubner, Stephen J., Lovins, Amory B.; “Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?” A Guest Post, on Freakonomics, Blog—Dubner & Levitt—The New York Times newspaper. Posted: February 9th, ©2009, 3:49 pm. See: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/does-a-big-economy-need-big-power-plants-a-guest-post/. 75 Mukerjee, Madhusree; “The Mystery of the Missing Dynamo: Astronomers Cannot Explain the Galaxy’s Magnetic Field,” article published in Scientific American magazine—Science and the Citizen, Dynamo Theory—Cosmic physics/Galaxies— Magnetic Fields; January, ©1995 Issue, Vol. 272, No. 1.

40

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

APPENDIX A:

12 Cognitive Traps

Niall Ferguson’s latest book does an admirable job of succinctly exploring 10 of 12 of these traps:1
1. 2. 3. Availability Bias, which causes us to base decisions on information that is more readily available in our memories, rather than the data we really need [see Cognitive Trap 11]; Hindsight Bias, which causes us to attach higher probabilities to events after they have happened (ex post) than we did before they happened (ex ante); The Problem of Induction, which leads us to formulate general rules on the basis of insufficient information [and then prevents us from revising those rules when new relevant data comes to light, see Cognitive Trap 5]; 4. The Fallacy of Conjunction (or Disjunction), which means we tend to overestimate the probability that seven events of 90 per cent probability will all occur, while underestimating the probability that at least one of seven events of 10 per cent probability will occur [see Nassim Nickolas Taleb’s The Black Swan, ©2007]; 5. 6. 7. 8. Confirmation Bias, which inclines us to look for confirming evidence of an initial hypothesis, rather than falsifying evidence that would disprove it; Contamination Effects, whereby we allow irrelevant but proximate information to influence a decision; The Affect Heuristic, whereby preconceived value-judgments interfere with our assessment of costs and benefits; Scope Neglect, which prevents us from proportionately adjusting what we should be willing to sacrifice to avoid harms of different orders of magnitude [AKA The Double-Down Effect]; 9. Overconfidence in Calibration, which leads us to underestimate the confidence intervals within which our estimates will be robust (e.g. to conflate the ‘best case’ scenario with the ‘most probable’) and; 10. Bystander Apathy, which inclines us to abdicate individual responsibility when in a crowd [herding behavior, e.g. inactivity—waiting for someone to initiate, spontaneous group activity or flight].2

41

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

While not appearing in Ferguson’s book the following 2 are powerful drivers that also must be considered seriously:
11. “Flashbulb” Phantom Memory, whereby we assume our memory to be fixed, static and permanent, when in reality it is plastic, dynamic and highly impermanent, subject to evolution over time especially when the memory of shocking, psychologically traumatic events wildly degrade over time and the original facts are often lost and;3 12. Patternicity Bias, whereby we are driven to arbitrarily ascribe meaning and pattern-fitting interpretations upon data when it may have no bearing at all and the actual inherent information may be missed entirely.4

—————
APPENDIX A NOTES Ferguson, Niall; The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, ©2008. “Afterword,” pp. 345–6. Yudkowsky, Eliezer; “Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks,” in Bostrom, Nick and Circovic, Milan (eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 91–119. See also Mauboussin, Michael J. More Than You Know: Finding Financial Wisdom in Unconventional Places (New York/Chichester, 2006). 3 Pritchard, Evan, Prof., PhD; Long Term Memory (LTM), Lecture Notes, Subsection “Flashbulb memory,” December 8, ©2000. Accessed: August 11th, 2007, 12:38 CDT. See: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~epritch1/ltm99.htm. Also see Neisser, Ulric; Hyman, Ira E.; Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts, “Chapter 9 Phantom Flashbulbs,” Analysis Challenger disaster memory recall study by Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch, pp. 75–89, ©1999. Accessed: June 2nd, 2009, 16:15 CDT. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=yf1F1c8oAB4C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=ulric+neisser+and+nicole+harsch&sour ce=bl&ots=LKHucia3Yn&sig=_EKiTOct5ldPiwE0fOdOCek42f0&hl=en&ei=WJUlSqfFCpXMMdrV9LEF&sa=X&oi= book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA75,M1. 4 Shermer, Michael; Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise: Why the brain believes something is real when it is not, Scientific American magazine—Op-Ed Columnist—Skeptic, December, ©2008 Issue | Accessed: January 22nd, 2009, 12:21 CST. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns.
1 2

42

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

APPENDIX B:

The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created. —naturalist, Charles Darwin

T

he Geologic Grand Staircase shown here has been simplified for illustrative purposes. The Colorado Plateau comprises an area spanning across four states; so obviously, the comprehensive inclusion of all local variations as well as overarching large-scale variations would be too distracting. This stratigraphy gives a reasonably expansive overview, ranging from highest altitude, youngest geological time to lowest altitude, oldest geologic time.

Bryce Canyon Stratigraphy:
Claron Formation—60 million years ago the area where Bryce Canyon now stands was not the highest point, but rather it was the lowest and the bottom of a seventy-mile long lake. As time passed, more changes occurred until sand, gravel and sedimentary deposits filled the ancient lake. The lake dried over and over again for a period of about twenty-five million years and each time the cycle resulted in laying down more layers of material. These materials compressed and hardened into sedimentary rock. The rock "rusted" when iron, oxygen and water combined, giving the coral color to the sediments. It's these sediments that became the siltstone, sandstone and limestone of the Claron formation. Pink Hallow Formation—Information unavailable. Caanon Peak Formation—Caanon Peak Formation is a Paleocene-age unit described in the Bryce Canyon National Park region. Kaiparowits Formation—Cretaceous, Late Campanian. Wahweap Formation—Cretaceous, Late Campanian, late. Sandy agglomerates. Straight Cliffs Formation—The Straight Cliffs consist of Late Cretaceous-age sandstone and shale. Tropic Shale—Cretaceous, Late Cenomanian, late Turonian, early Turonian, middle.

43

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Zion Canyon Stratigraphy:
Dakota Formation—Cretaceous, Early (local) Albian, late (local) Cretaceous, Late Cenomanian. Dakota Sandstone forms the remnants of upper Zion Canyon NP hoodoos and the canyon caprock at Hovenweep National Monument. Carmel Formation—The Carmel Formation is Jurassic in age and is between 200 and 300 feet in thickness. The Carmel Formation consists of massive beds of compact limestone separated by thin sandy limestone beds containing fossils of shallow water organisms. The many different lithologies are now being recognized as Members that include a Limestone Member, a Banded Member, a Gypsiferous Member, and a Windsor Member. The formation was formed from the flattening of sand dunes due to wave action in a shallow, warm sea. Temple Cap Formation—Jurassic, early Middle Bajocian, early Bajocian, middle. Consists of the White Throne and Sinawava Members. Navajo Sandstone—The Navajo Formation or Navajo Sandstone dominates Zion National Park and ranges from 1,000 to 2,200 feet in thickness. The Navajo Sandstone is Jurassic in age and is a cliff former and is famed for its cross bedding. The cross-bedding developed as sand dunes migrated to and fro on the shores of an ancient shallow sea. Some of the cross bedding was also produced by currents in the shallow sea in the near shore environment. Kayenta Formation—The Kayenta Formation is Early Jurassic in age and ranges from 500 to 700 feet thick. The Kayenta Formation is a slope former and is composed of siltstones and sandstones. The Kayenta Formation was deposited as sands and silts by low to moderate energy meandering streams. The cross-bedding within the formation was produced by shifting currents and the building of sandbars. Moenave Formation—The Moenave Formation, otherwise known as the Vermilion Cliffs, is between 215 and 570 feet thick. The Moenave Formation is Triassic in age and is composed of the Dinosaur Canyon Sandstone and the Springdale Sandstone Member. The Dinosaur Canyon Sandstone is a mixture of interbedded mudstones, thinly bedded siltstones, and sandstones. The Dinosaur Canyon Sandstone is a slope former and was deposited in a lake that was eventually silted in. The Springdale Sandstone Member is a cliff former and was deposited by streams. Chinle Formation—The Chinle Formation is Triassic in age and is a mixture of shales, sandstones, limestone, and volcanic ash between 900 and 1,000 feet thick. The Chinle is composed of the Shinarump Conglomerate and the Petrified Forest Member. The Chinle Formation was deposited by streams that picked up sand and gravel, and washed down trees that eventually became buried in sand and gravel bars during floods. The volcanic ash supplied the silica that was necessary for wood petrification within the Chinle Formation. The Chinle Formation is the same formation that is found at Petrified Forest National Park. Moenkopi Formation—The Moenkopi Formation, otherwise known as the Belted Cliffs, is a mixture of shales, siltstones, sandstones, gypsum, mudstones, and limestone between 1,800 and 1,900 feet thick. The Moenkopi is primarily a cliff forming formation that is composed of six different members. Some of the sediment was deposited in and along the streams that flowed on the coastal plain adjacent to an ancient sea. Fossils within the beds help to date the formation as having been deposited about 225 million years ago.

44

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Arches & Canyonlands Stratigraphy [abridged]:
Entrada Sandstone—Jurassic, late Middle Callovian, early Callovian, middle. The Entrada Sandstone was deposited overlying the Carmel Formation which overlies the Navajo Sandstone which also overlies an ancient salt dome and is responsible for many of the arches and unique landscape features in Arches & Canyonlands National Parks. It is a dark russety-brown red, during the midday hours it appears flat and brownish, but in the early morning sunrise light and late afternoon sunset it can fluoresce quite brilliantly into fuchsia hues.

Grand Canyon Stratigraphy:
Kaibab Limestone—This layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth. Toroweap Formation—This layer averages about 255 million years old and is composed of pretty much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from yellow to ochre-grey, and contains a similar fossil history. Coconino Sandstone—This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to creamy-ochre colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist. Hermit Shale—This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red-russet. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians. The Supai Group— This layer averages about 285 million years old and is composed primarily of shale that is intermixed with some small amounts of limestone and capped by sandstone. The limestone features become more and more prominent in the western regions of the Canyon, leading one to believe that that region was more marine. The eastern portions where probably a muddy river delta that fed into an ancient sea. The color of this layer varies from red for the shale to tan for the sandstone caps. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward. The layers contained within the Supai Formation are, from top to bottom, as follows: • Esplanade Sandstone—Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 225 and 300 feet thick. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion , which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward.

45

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

• • •

Wescogame Formation—Ledge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone, between 100 and 225 feet thick. Manakacha Formation—Cliff and slope-forming pale red sandstone, between 200 and 275 feet thick. Watahomigi Formation—A slope-forming gray limestone with some red chert bands, sandstone, and purple siltstone. Between 90 and 175 feet thick.

Surprise Canyon Formation Lenses—A sedimentary layer of purplish-red shale, which only exists in isolated lenses up to 40 feet thick. Variable deposits include sands and conglomerates. Cross bedding is common but localized. Great horizontal variation in stratigraphy. Redwall Limestone— This layer averages about 335 million years old and is composed of marine limestones and dolomites. This is probably the most prominent rock layer in the Canyon as it usually forms a sheer cliff ranging from 400-500 feet in height, which has become a natural barrier between the upper and lower regions of the Canyon. The only way though this barrier is in areas where the rock has faulted and broken apart to form a slope which can be climbed upon. The deep reddish color of this layer is caused by iron oxides leaching out of the layers above it and staining its outward face. Behind the reddish face the rock is a dark brownish-bluish-grey color. Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and arches can also be seen in the Redwall. Temple Butte Limestone Lenses—This layer averages about 350 million years old and is composed of freshwater limestone in the east and dolomite in the west. In the eastern Grand Canyon this layer occurs irregularly and only then by way of limestone lenses that fill streambeds that have been eroded into the underlying Muav Limestone. Apart from these channels, which are quite large in places, the Redwall Limestone sits directly atop the Muav Limestone. The Temple Butte Limestone is quite prominent, however, in the western regions and forms massive cliffs hundreds of feet high. The color of this layer ranges from purplish in the eastern regions to grey or cream colored in the west. The only fossils to be found in the eastern region are bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. In the western region there are numerous marine fossils. Muav Limestone—This layer averages about 515 million years old and is composed primarily of dolomitic limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. The Muav Limestone layer is much thicker in the western areas of the Canyon than it is in the east. Its color is greenish-grey and it does not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods. Bright Angel Shale—This layer averages about 530 million years old and is composed primarily of mudstone shale. It is also interbedded with small sections of sandstone and sandy limestone. The retreat of the Canyon rim is attributed primarily to the erosion of this layer which forms the top of the Tonto Platform. The plateau is much wider in the eastern portions of the Canyon where the Bright Angel Shale contains less sand and is more easily eroded. The color of this layer varies with its composition but it is mostly various shades of green with some grey, purplish-brown and tan thrown in here and there. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods. Tapeats Sandstone—This layer averages about 545 million years old and is composed of mediumgrained and coarse-grained sandstone. Ripple marks formed by ocean waves of an early

46

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Cambrian sea are common in the upper layer. The Tapeats is similar to the Redwall in that it forms a barrier between upper and lower reaches of the Canyon that can only be traversed where a fault has caused its collapse. The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails. The Great Unconformity—Erosional separation between the previous formations & members and the following: Sixty mile Formation—Tan colored sandstone with small sections of shale. Chuar Group—These layers average about 825 to 1,000 million years old and are composed of the following: • Kwagunt Formation—This layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with some limestone. In the area of Carbon Butte the lower layer also contains a large section of reddish sandstone. The shales within this layer are black and the mudstones range from red to purple. Fossils to be found in this layer are those of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon. • Galeros Formation—This layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and shale. The color is primarily greenish with some of the shales ranging from red to purple. Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer. Nankoweap Formation—A layer of course-grained sandstone, about 1,050 million years old. Unkar Group—These layers average about 1,100 to 1,250 million years old and consist of the following: • Cardenas Lavas—This dark brown layer is composed of basaltic lava flows. • Dox Sandstone—This layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of sandstone interbedded with shale, and occurs primarily in the eastern regions of the Canyon. Its color varies from red to orange and its fossil record contains stromatolites and algae. • Shinumo Quartzite—This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed of sandstone. This layer is only exposed in a few sections in the Canyon. Its color can be deep red, brown, purple or white. • Hakatai Shale—This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed primarily of shale with some sandstone. The color is a very bright orange-red red and is the layer that gives Red Canyon its name. • Bass Formation—This layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale. It is greyish in color and its fossil record consists of stromatolites. Vishnu Schist with Zoroaster Gneiss intrusions amalgamation—This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as today’s Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas [Sixty mile Formation, Chuar Group, Nankoweap Formation & Unkar Group remnants]. The color of this layer is dark pink for the gneiss intrusive veining and dark grey or black for the schist.

47

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

APPENDIX C:

Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System

Sol System Body

Magnetic Field

Intensity Relative to Earth

Notes

Sun

Yes

Mercury Venus Earth

Yes No Yes

100 Xs Stronger1 IMF—Interplanetary Magnetic Field 4X10-4 Xs Weaker2 Virtually Undetectable3 1:14

Moon— Terran [Present] Moon— Terran [4.2 BYA]7

No Yes

Virtually Undetectable5 50 Xs Weaker6

Mars Jupiter Europa— Jovian

No Yes Maybe

Virtually Undetectable8 2X104 Xs Stronger9 Awaiting Additional Data

Ganymede— Jovian

Yes

1.8X10-3 Xs Weaker11

Io— Jovian

Maybe

Awaiting Additional Data

As measured at Earth’s orbit—it should be noted that the other Solar Systemic bodies’ magnetospheres are undetectable at Earth’s orbit. 1/40,000th the strength of Earth’s. Indistinguishable from Solar Magneto Effects. But is weakening, 20% weaker than 400 years ago. It is theorized that Earth’s magnetosphere is undergoing a pole reversal. Earth’s Magnetotail has caused Lunar Crustal Effects. 1/50th the strength of Earth’s—after collision of a planetary body with Earth precipitating ejecta material which coalesced into the proto-moon new data suggests a strong molten mantle/core dynamo-induced magnetosphere initially formed which diminished with the cooling of the mantle/ core to present conditions. Miniscule Crustal “Umbrellas” that form as a result of Mars’ turbulent passage through the IMF. This is one of the reasons why Jupiter is believed to be Sol’s almost Binary that just couldn’t ignite. It’s movement through Jupiter’s magnetic field makes it difficult to distinguish whether Europa has an internal magnetic field. A proposed future Europa Jupiter System Mission is in part designed to answer this question.10 1/1,800th the strength of Earth’s—largest of the solar system’s natural satellites & an 8% greater diameter then Mercury, Ganymede has a magnetosphere slightly more than 22 Xs STRONGER than Mercury’s. At this point it’s difficult to separate Io’s magnetosphere from Jupiter’s strong magnetic field. The planned Juno mission is in part designed to answer this question. Tidal heating due to its orbital resonances with Europa, Ganymede and Jupiter is the driver of Io’s active interior—not radiological isotope decay. It’s arguably the most volcanically active solid body in the solar system. Ferrosilicates make up the bulk of Io’s interior with a solid iron core.12 13

48

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Sol System Body

Magnetic Field

Intensity Relative to Earth

Notes

Saturn Titan— Saturnian

Yes No

580 Xs Stronger14 Virtually Undetectable15

Though 85% of Jupiter’s diameter, the magnetic field is nearly 35 times weaker. Indistinguishable from Saturnian Primary & Solar Magneto Effects, only very slightly smaller than Ganymede with nearly the same distance from Jupiter.

Uranus Neptune

Yes Yes

Nearly 50 Xs Stronger16 Nearly 50 Xs Stronger17

Completed August 25th, 2008 and intended for strictly individual personal use. Revised April 11th, 2009. All rights are reserved. It may not be reprinted without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Mequet. It may not be altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution.

APPENDIX C NOTES: See The Interplanetary Magnetic Field—It comes from the sun!; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html. 2 See Mercury: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 476-478, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/merc_mag/. 3 See Venus: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 905-907, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/. 4 See Earth: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 208-211, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/earth_mag/. Also see The Solar Wind at Mars: The solar wind has slowly eroded the Martian atmosphere for billions of years—transforming the planet into a barren desert. by Dr. Tony Phillips, Science@NASA, January 31st, ©2001 at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm. & Solar Wind Rips Up Martian Atmosphere by Dr. Tony Phillips, Science@NASA, November 21st, ©2008 at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm. 5 See The Fine-Scale Lunar Magnetic Field by C. T. Russell, P. J. Coleman, Jr., B. K. Fleming, L. Hilburn, G. Ioannidis, B. R. Lichtenstein, and G. Schubert published in Proc. Lunar Sci Conf. 6th (1975), p. 2955-2969 Geochimica et Cosmochemica Acta Supplement 6, ©1975; accessed August 25th, 2008 at http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/. 6 See Astronomers crack longstanding lunar mystery: Ancient rock’s magnetic field shows that moon once had a dynamo in its core, Article by David Chandler—News Office Correspondent, TechTalk: Serving the MIT Community, Campus Weekly Periodical, Volume 53—Number 14, Wednesday—February 4, ©2009: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/techtalk53-14.pdf. 7 BYA—Billion Years Ago. 8 See Mars: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 454-456, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/. 9 See Jupiter: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 372-373, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/jup_mag/. 10 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Europa’s Magnetic Signature: Report from Galileo’s Pass on 19 December 1996, Science 23 May 1997: Vol. 276. no. 5316, pp. 1,239–1,241. DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5316.1239. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:44 CDT. See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/5316/1239.
1

49

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

See Discovery of Ganymede’s magnetic field by the Galileo spacecraft by M.G. Kivelson, K.K. Khurana, C.T. Russell, R.J. Walker, J. Warnecke, F.V. Coroniti, C. Polanskey, D.J. Southwood & G. Schubert in Nature magazine journal, Volume 384, pages 537–541, December 12th, ©1996. 12 Kivelson, M. G., el al; A Magnetic Signature at Io: Initial Report from the Galileo Magnetometer, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. 16 April ©1996; accepted 2 July 1996. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:52 CDT. See: http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/doc/sci273/text.htm. 13 Wikipedia Project, A; Io entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 08:23 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 02:44 (UTC). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon). 14 See Saturn: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 718-719, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/sat_mag.html. 15 See Abstract of Intrinsic Magnetic Field of Titan and Ganymede by H.Y. Weil, C.T. Russell, M.K. Dougherty & F.M. Neubauer in EPSC Abstracts, Volume 2, EPSC2007-A-00148, 2007, European Planetary Science Congress 2007, ©Author(s) 2007. 16 See Uranus: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 863-864, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/ura_mag.html. 17 See Neptune: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 532, Chapman and Hall, New York, ©1997; accessed August 25th, 2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/nep_mag.html.
11

50

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

APPENDIX D:

Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of Our Solar System

Sol System Body

Auto Rotation

Solar/Primary Orbital Period

Notes

Sun1 2 1,380,000 km D3 108 ED4 Mercury5 4,879 km D 0.38 ED Venus7 12,100 km D 0.95 ED Earth 12,756 km D 1 ED Moon— Terran9 3,476 km D 0.27 ED Mars10 6,792 km D 0.53 ED Jupiter11 142,984 km D 11.21 ED

600 hrs/25 days
AT SOLAR EQUATOR

n/a

864 hrs/36 days
AT SOLAR POLES

Europa12— Jovian 3,138 km D 0.246 ED Ganymede13— Jovian 5,262 km D 0.41 ED

87.970 days 0.241 yr 58 mil km 0.4 AU 5,392.8 hrs 243.018 days 224.7 days 0.665 yr 1.1 Xs/1 OP 108 mil km 0.7 AU 24 hours 365.25 days All rates are given in earth equivalent. 1 day 1 yr 365.25 Xs/1 OP 150 mil km 1 AU8 655.728 hrs 27.322 days Tidally locked with Earth, the same side of the 27.322 days 0.075 yr moon faces earth throughout its orbital period. 1.0 Xs/1 OP 0.4 mil km Earthlings never see the “Far Side” of the moon. 0.003 AU 24.660 hrs 687.053 days The most earth-like diurnal duration. 1.028 days 1.881 yrs 668.3 Xs/1 OP 228 mil km 1.5 AU 9.833 hrs/0.410 day 4,331.865 days Differential fluidic rotation. Fastest rotation of all AT PLANET EQUATOR 11.860 yrs planetary bodies. Oblate “bulge” at equator due 9.917 hrs/0.413 day 778 mil km to fast rotation rate. AT PLANET POLES 5 AU 10,500 Xs/1 OP 85.2 hrs 3.551 days Like the Earth’s moon, it is tidally locked with one 3.551 days 0.010 yr side always facing Jupiter and the other never. 9% 1.0 Xs OP 670,900 km smaller in diameter than the moon. Orbitally 0.005 AU resonant by 1:2 with Io and 2:1 with Ganymede. 171 hrs 7.125 days Like the Earth’s moon, it is tidally locked with one 7.125 days 0.020 yr side always facing Jupiter and the other never. 8% 1.0 Xs OP 1 mil km larger diameter than Mercury. Orbitally resonant 0.007 AU by 1:2 with Europa and 1:4 with Ganymede.

1,407.528 hrs 58.647 days 0.67 Xs/1 OP6

Differential fluidic rotation. 11-year average sunspot cycle between sunspot maximum activity and sunspot minimum activity then back to maximum makes one 22-year solar cycle. Mercury makes one autorotation in 1.5 solar orbital periods or 2 autorotations in 3 solar orbital periods. The sun actually appears to retrograde during perihelion. The only planetary body in the solar system to rotate in retrograde—clockwise. No explanation for this at this time.

51

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

Sol System Body

Auto Rotation

Solar/Primary Orbital Period

Notes

Io14— Jovian 3,643 km 0.286 ED Saturn15 120,540 km D 9.45 ED

42.5 hrs 1.771 days 1.0 Xs OP

1.771 days 0.005 yr 421,700 km 0.003 AU

Titan16— Saturnian 5,150 km D 0.41 ED Uranus17 51,118 km D 4.00 ED

Neptune18 48,599 km D 3.81 ED

10.667 hrs/0.444 day 10,759 days AT PLANET EQUATOR 29.457 yrs 10.767 hrs/0.449 day 1,429 mil km AT PLANET POLES 9.5 AU 24,100 Xs/1 OP 382 hrs 15.917 days 15.917 days 0.044 yr 1.0 Xs/1 OP 1.2 mil km 0.007 AU 17.233 hrs/0.718 day 30,681 days AT PLANET EQUATOR 84 yrs Indeterminate 2,871 mil km AT PLANET POLES 19 AU 42,750 Xs/1 OP 16.117 hrs/0.672 day 60,190 days AT PLANET EQUATOR 164.79 yrs Indeterminate 4,504 mil km AT PLANET POLES 30 AU 89,630 Xs/1 OP

Like the Earth’s moon, it is tidally locked with one side always facing Jupiter and the other never. Slightly larger than the moon, but 2/3s Ganymede’s diameter. Orbitally resonant by 2:1 with Europa and 4:1 with Ganymede. Differential fluidic rotation. 2nd fastest rotation of all planetary bodies. Discrepancy between Voyager and Cassini observations are continuing to be investigated. Oblate “bulge” at equator due to fast rotation rate. Like the Earth’s moon, it is tidally locked with one side always facing Saturn and the other never. Virtually the same as diameter as Ganymede. Differential fluidic rotation. 4th fastest rotation of all planetary bodies. Oblate “bulge” at equator due to fast rotation rate.

Differential fluidic rotation. 3rd fastest rotation of all planetary bodies. Oblate “bulge” at equator due to fast rotation rate.

Completed March 2nd, 2009 and intended for strictly individual personal use. Revised April 11th, 2009. All rights are reserved. It may not be reprinted without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Dobson Mequet. It may not be altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution.

APPENDIX D NOTES Russell, Randy; Rotation of the Sun, an entry posted on Windows to the Universe®, a project by The Regents of the University of Michigan, ©2005. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:06 CST. See: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/differential_rotation.html. 2 Phillips, Tony; How Round is the Sun, article posted on Science@NASA , a Fair Use online resource to the public, ©2008 USA.gov. Accessed: October 6th, 2008; 10:26 CDT. See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm?list1079386. 3 km—kilometer(s); D—Diameter. 4 ED—Earth Diameter(s). 5 Seligman, Courtney; The Rotation of Mercury, Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 16:32 CST. Accessed: February 29th, 2009, 16:32 CST. See: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/mercuryrot.htm. 6 OP—Orbital Period. 7 Elert, Glenn, Venus’s Rotation, an online scholastic Fair Use science resource, posted ©1999 Glenn Elert/Jessica Brodkin. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:33 CST. See: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JessicaBrodkin.shtml.
1

52

Why it’s Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen® Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Academic Version

by Kevin Dobson Mequet ©2009

AU—Astronomical Unit: the average orbital radius from the earth to the sun. Windows Team, The; The Moon’s Orbit and Rotation, an entry posted on Windows to the Universe®, a project by The Regents of the University of Michigan, ©2000. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:53 CST. See: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/uts/moon1.html&edu=high. 10 Wikipedia Project, A; Mars entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 18:44 CST. This page was last modified on 28 February 2009, at 00:40. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars. 11 Wikipedia Project, A; Jupiter entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: March 1st, 2009, 20:21 CST. This page was last modified on 26 February 2009, at 18:03. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter. 12 Wikipedia Project, A; Europa entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 10:53 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 14:20 (UTC). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon). 13 Wikipedia Project, A; Ganymede entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 22:05 CST. This page was last modified on 1 March 2009, at 02:57. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon). 14 Wikipedia Project, A; Io entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 08:23 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 02:44 (UTC). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon). 15 Galluzzo, Gary & Martinez, Carolina; Rotation Period is a Puzzle: On approach to Saturn, data obtained by the Cassini spacecraft are already posing a puzzling question: How long is the day on Saturn?, an online article for the project, NASA—Cassini, posted 06.28.04, ©2004 National Astronautics & Space Administration. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 20:52 CST. See: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-062804.html. 16 Wikipedia Project, A; Titan entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 22:25 CST. This page was last modified on 19 February 2009, at 22:32. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon). 17 Science JRank; Uranus’ Rotation, an online academic resource, ©2009 Net Industries. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 21:21 CST. See: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7119/Uranus-Uranus-rotation.html. 18 Science JRank; Neptune’s Rotation, an online academic resource, ©2009 Net Industries. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 21:35 CST. See: http://science.jrank.org/pages/4585/Neptune-Neptune-s-rotation-period.html.
8 9

53

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.