Saturday, 1 April 2017

No man-made Climate Change


2 years ago carbon emissions fell by 4.5%. last year they fell by 6%. But photosynthesis converts extra carbon into biomass WITHIN 5 MINUTES.
1 mCO2+(n+r)H2O+TU-> +r(He+O+E2+X-ray)
Cm(H2O)n=carbohydrates
r(He+O+E2+X-ray)=biological Molecular Nuclear Fusion
I was back in Sheffield last year, and told my PhD (Chemical and process engineering) about Molecular Nuclear Fusion – and he expressed ignorance.
Of the single most important energy system on Earth: what is he teaching his students?
No doubt that carbon emission increased CO2 levels in the global air. They don't – photosynthesis on the land and sea converts extra carbon back into active life – as I told him 2001.
All academics who have ever published work on Global Warming, should not be in science. And certainly not in education.
The most useful form of Molecular Nuclear Fusion is plasma Molecular Nuclear Fusion. As done by every lightening strike – every 3 minutes around the Earth. Providing 1040W of energy to drive nature.
Venting steam does Molecular Nuclear Fusion – and drives all earthquakes and volcanoes: which is why both give off X-rays. Academics were not interested in man-made Climate Change last time I looked.
So every lightening bolt is a 1.5kn 2cm wide steam plasma which releases 2.5x1030W, as it produces 5 tonnes of helium gas.
A 50x1cm steam plasma at 4 atmospheres releases a constant 1.2MW of heat.
2 H2O+TU->He2++O2++4e-+E2+X-ray Molecular Nuclear Fusion
but in a glass tube, we do the twice as dynamic H fission
3 H2O+TU->E22+L=X-ray E22=2.4MW from a 50x1cm steam plasma
to explain
4 H++e- ->n0 the plasma turns hydrogens and free electrons into neutrons
3 16O2++4n0 ->6n0+2H+ oxygen becomes neutrons and hydrogen ions
5 H++r n0->Er3+L+X-ray hence 3
So we have a glass tube, filled with steam from a paint stripper to 4 atmospheres. We borrow the electronics from a fluorescent light, and fire us the plasma, We use an air blast to cool the tube – we didn't in 2001 and melted the tube. Hence we stopped doing work on H fission.
If we had set it in a sealed water take, we would have got 2.4MW of steam at 350oC – after a significant vent. We would have been better off halving the tube, and using the second piece to superheat the steam to 920oC.
A $400-1,500 steam turbine (Steam Turbines - WADE : World Alliance for Decentralized Energy) would have generated over 1MW of carbon 0, non polluting, Fossil Fuels free power.
Generating an annual income of $3 billion. Payback 0.0036 seconds. No running cost. No CO2 – but CO2 levels fell by 4.5% 2 years ago. 6% last year.
As people go over to Molecular Nuclear Fusion, and H fission. No large plant required. The major cost is the turbine. So we are talking about $4,000.
Talk to your back manager – or even get it on VISA: you will pay back on your next bill – before you fly off to the Bahamas – for life.
So no 18 billion, for a super toxic uranium nuclear plant: which is so dangerous it needs insurance of 100 billion annually. 25 times more than the profit of the plant. So nuclear power really costs 51p per kW hour. Conventional power 8p. H fission 0.0002p.
And that is why carbon emissions are crashing. It is 1950s science. And all those academics should be sacked, and pay back all salary since 1984 – the year of Chernobyl – as they are acting as nuclear stooges.

I told Sheffeild this in 2001 – they ended my PhD with no award. The students I would have got them.
  First video on Molecular Nuclear Fusion http://jonsthings.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/steam-fusion.html

No comments: