Thursday, 6 August 2009

Carbon dates

Other people have published work on the emission of He, Ch4, O, heat and gamma waves from green plants in the light[1]. So green plants do molecular nuclear fusion!
Growing bacteria and animal mitochondria[2] also do molecular nuclear fusion! So life is fusion driven. This is why Carbon dating works, and also why it falls down.

Plants take in CO2, and convert it to CH4, as do peat bogs[3]: Plus He, O and gamma waves. But as we have a see of neutrons, we get 13C, not 12C. This is nearly stable, so the ration of 12C to 13C tells us how long ago since the substance was alive.
Animals do molecular nuclear fusion in their mitochondria, so we see 13C in the carbohydrates they build into their body. So this decays at a fixed rate.[4]
In a neutron free environment, this is a fixed ration[5]. So in the air, a Carbon date is fairly correct: It needs to be adjusted fro the background count. So areas near water falls or breaking waves are going to be wrong.
So molecular nuclear fusion means we need to adjust our dates. This is OK usually, until we get to the deep sea or peat bogs[6].
With peat bogs, an item buried 50 years ago, comes up with a Carbon date of 500 years: This was anecdotal news from the radio a few years ago.
So the proof of molecular nuclear fusion comes from where we have datable stuff, which comes up with a wrong carbon date. It also suggests that to reprocess radioactive waste, we need to burry it in a peat bog.
But this environment is very hostile, and I doubt we could stop radioactive leakage. We might be able to set up units, where we pass corrosion resistant containers through boiling water.
We collect the steam, and keep bubbling it back through the water, and the boiling molecular nuclear fusion keeps the steam pressure up.
In this document most of my references are via web pages. This is because most science documents are put on the web, and the web page reference is the simplest way to give it. Otherwise people would have to Google my references.
[1] Environmental chemistry By Peter O'Neill

No comments: