Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
willpwilson 908
The Destruction of Nuclear Waste with Browns Gas technology.
Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:53
76.121.96.215

May 27, 2009 The Destruction of Nuclear Waste using Browns Gas technologies.

Below is an excerpt from a research project that led to the creating of the concept "Nuclear Chemistry."

A team of scientists working with Dr. Yull Brown, in the early 1990s regarding the beginning discovery of Nuclear Chemistry and the further discovery that Nuclear Waste can be transmuted into being non nuclear waste (via) by means or thereof, the discovery of finding the ability to re-program the nuclear proton by using various methods.

Methods that included the use of Browns Gas (Hydroxy welding gas) that had been discovered thereof to neutralize or transmute the nuclear proton into being non nuclear, (And thus, further verified by numerous scientific findings). That there were no residual atmospheric by products, pollution, waste gas, etc. of any kind. From the extensive research that was verified by more then forty university physics departments worldwide.

The following URL is from one of the former (key) pioneering scientists and research colleagues, Michael Wells Mandeville, who is a brilliant research technician - thereof -

Dr. William B. Mount had mentioned that the only way to dismantle nuclear material is with the sole use of nuclear reactors when in fact the means of destroying or altering nuclear waste was verified by more then forty University research departments by implementation of this Plasma Gas thereof by the use of Browns Gas technology that will readily neutralize and (transmute) or destroy all nuclear waste.

POLITICALLY HOT BROWN'S GAS USES
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/possib.php
George Wiseman lives in the eastern part of Washington State.
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
Advanced transmutation processes and their application for the decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes A. Michrowski President, Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
Results 1 - 10 of about 104,000 for Browns Gas nuclear waste.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Browns+Gas+nuclear+waste&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=Browns+Gas+nuclear+waste&aqi=&fp=2Inaafc1UxE
Vis a vis, here is the information and the URL: http://www.michaelmandeville.com/library/paradigm/dexmrad1.htm

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

FOR

ALTERING OR DESTROYING

RADIOACTIVITY

May 3, 1994

A Report Of Findings

These experiments were undertaken to verify the "Keller Catalytic Process" and the "Barker Effect". They prove that radioactivity can be changed or eliminated at will by electrical or chemical means, opening the door to atomic chemistry.

by Michael Wells Mandeville with assistance from Frank Stasny, Gary Hawkins, & Will P. Wilson
ABSTRACT

The principal investigator undertook a series of experiments to test the "Barker effect" and the "Keller Catalytic Process" in changing the rate of radioactive decay of heavy elements (elements heavier than lead, such as radium, thorium, or uranium, all of which are radioactive). Barker claims that subjecting radioactive materials to high electrostatic potentials (50,000 volts to 500,000 volts) can increase or decrease the rate of radioactive decay, with short exposures of the high voltage capable of inducing erratic decay rates which slowly return to normal over a period of weeks. Keller claims that subjecting radioactive materials to the high heat and fusing reaction of a chemical process (Keller Catalytic Process) can eliminate the radioactivity completely.

An experiment conducted on October, 30 1993 by Jack Keller, using his "Keller Catalytic Process", showed a complete elimination of radioactivity in a sample of NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) containing radium. Subsequent experiments were conducted separately and independently by the principal investigator in five series over a period of three months, December 1993 to March 1994. One series, CONTROLS C1-C14, constitute readings and manipulations of control samples of various formulations of radium in "NORM" (naturally occurring radioactive material). The other four series of experiments start with crude efforts which gradually become more refined and more decisive in demonstrating that the radioactive decay rate of radium in NORM can be altered at will by certain electromagnetic and chemical methods.

These results challenge prevailing opinions of scientists about the nature of radioactivity, which many physicists and chemists believe is immutable in nature, unless subjected to high energy nuclear bombardment (as in nuclear reactors, cyclotrons, atomic weapons, or suns).
SUMMARY FINDINGS

In the simplest terms, the finding of these experiments is that the rate of radioactive decay, at least in radium, can be altered by electro/thermal chemical reactions or by high potentials of RF (electromagnetic radio frequency energy). Essentially, I have found that the claims of both inventors are substantially correct. Many of my experimental samples show clear, consistent patterns of major changes or diminuation of their radioactivity, which proves to me the validity of both the Barker effect and the Keller Catalytic Process (KCP), at least in general terms.

The major specific findings of these experiments are:

a) Fusing the radium into slag through a chemical reaction (using the specifications of the Keller Catalytic Process) has a clear effect. One sample which we monitored in November of 1993, fired by the inventor, showed a clear decay of all radioactivity to zero within about 72 hours. Other samples, which I fired and monitored myself, independently of the inventor and without his skill at obtaining a complete reaction, showed a remarkable decline in their radioactivity, by 50% to 70% (even though the reactions were amateurishly done without the requisite skill in making the material fuse thoroughly and completely) with a trend which shows some increase in the radioactivity one month after treatment.

b) Stimulating radium with the spark end of a large Tesla coil delivering more that 100,000 volts at low radio frequencies (most likely 50 kilocycles to 25 megacycles) for 30 minutes, while heated to 1400 degrees F, generates a clear effect. First, the rate of radioactivity decreases by as much as 50% over a period of time (a few days) and then it steadily increases over a period of about four weeks until it returns to as much as 75% of its original reading.

c) Heat up to 1400 degree F, in and of itself, seems to have no effect on the rate of radioactive decay of radium. We rather suspected that to begin with, since the high heats involved in nuclear reactors would have probably created results which the nuclear power industry would have detected long ago.

d) Stimulating radium with a Tesla Coil as in (a) above, but without heating the sample, creates a highly noticeable effect. First, the samples show an increase in radioactivity in their second reading (two of them showing greater than a 50% increase), which then decreases during a period of about seven weeks to come close to their original reading. This strange effect "parallels" the "Barker effect".

e) Strong magnetic impulses have little effect in changing the rate of radioactive decay.

f) Simply stimulating radium (in NORM) with a high voltage (12,000 volts AC from a neon sign transformer) seems to create a very strange effect, but I believe the measured effect (a sinusoidal wave of increased then decreased radioactivity) could very well be an "artifact", composed of purely random variations in the art of measuring the sample through time. This sample shows the difficulty of taking valid measurement.

g) The trends in the results are consistent for the types of experiments and among the multiple treatments which were done in each type, although variations in the sample compositions created quantitative differences in the results.

h) Great care was taken to insure that the radioactivity was not blowing off into the atmosphere or was being masked by some other material. The radioactive element did not "disappear", it was altered.

i) The Keller Catalytic Process clearly provides the strongest effect in the permanent elimination of radioactivity. It provides a clearly defined technology pathway, the exploration and development of which should be undertaken in a serious effort to solve the problem of disposing of radioactive waste.

The magnitude and clarity of these effects can be easily seen in the simple graphs with accompany this report. The expected error deviation of 4%. The standard allowance of error is 10%. The fusion fire experiments may have error deviations of 16% Any deviation (change in the graph line) greater than 20% in these graphs should be considered a significant indicator of the ability to alter the radioactivity of a sample.

Table 1: First Keller Sample, the result of the experiment conducted by Jack Keller in October, 1993 and monitored by Frank Stasny. This graph shows a typical decay rate for a radioactive element (radium) which has been treated by the Keller Catalytic Process.

Table 2: Third Round Fusion Fire, the results of four fusion experiments conducted by MW Mandeville on March 2, 1994. This graph shows a semi-successful application of the Keller Catalytic Process, achieving an average reduction in the radioactivity of radium in five samples from a net average CPM of 1395 to 525, a reduction of 62%.

Table 3: Third Round Tesla Treatment, the results of four Tesla/Kiln experiments conducted by MW Mandeville on March 2, 1994. This graph shows the result of simultaneously exposing four samples of radium in various compositions to over 100,000 volts RF from a Tesla coil for 30 minutes while heating the samples to about 1400 degrees F in a small ceramic kiln. The samples tend to show a 35% to 50% decrease in their net radioactivity two days after treatment, which then tends to recover to about 70%-90% of their pre-treatment readings over the course of a month.

Table 4: First Miniature Fusion, the results of a first effort to replicate the Keller Catalytic Process conducted February 8, 1994 by MW Mandeville. The graph shows post-treatment readings only, which gyrate widely, showing a first post-treatment reading about 35%-50% below the their comparable controls, then one sample (E208-1) recovers to what it was originally (inferred) while another (E208-4) gyrates widely (the split sample).

Table 5: Second Round Tesla Experiments, the results of two experiments using a Tesla coil to stimulate NORM with more than 100,000 volts of low RF energy, fed directly through the sample on the top end of the coil, and the result of one experiment where the coil feed wire had burned out inside of a kiln, resulting in no stimulation of the sample. The graph shows post-treatment readings only, which show a clear, strong wave-like response in the two successful experiments over a period of about seven weeks, first increasing, then decreasing. The graph also shows very little deviation (all within the allowance for average deviation) for the unsuccessful treatment (E204-2).

Table 6: Second Round Voltage Experiments, the results of two experiments, one using a neon transformer, 12,000 volts AC and the other using 50,000 volts DC to stimulate the NORM. All readings are post-treatment. The graph shows a pattern of what appears could be a sinusoidal wave in response to the neon transformer. The graph also shows, over a seven week period, a near doubling of the radioactivity of the NORM stimulated for one hour with 50,000 volts DC.

Table 7: Second Round Magnetic Experiments, the results of two experiments using a strong magnetic impulse of a few milliseconds on the NORM. All readings are post-treatment. The graph decisively shows a NULL result, despite the use of enough magnetic energy to cause ferromagnetic metal objects to shrink (compression) in size by 50% or more.

These findings should provide experimentalists and researchers with enough grounds to warrant an open mind and some simple experimentation aimed at exploring how to build on these discoveries. Small laboratories practically anywhere in the world can replicate these experiments and go considerably beyond them, cheaply but with far greater elegance than I was able to achieve with my limited time and even more limited resources.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS

The inventor, Jack Keller, claims to have discovered a "catalytic" chemical method for "neutralizing" (i.e. destroying) radioactivity. In principle, using the Keller Catalytic Process (KCP) all radioactive isotopes can be "restructured" into non-radioactive elements within a few days. If true, this discovery is as important as Newton's "gravity" and Einstein's "relativity". The discovery has astounding implications and potential applications.

Although I cannot directly or definitively answer the theoretical questions of why it is possible to alter or eliminate radioactivity, I know that these experiments demonstrate clearly and reasonably that it does occur. This creates implications of exceptional importance to both science and industry, the most important of which is that the Keller Catalytic Process, or some successor, may help humankind eliminate its worst environmental problem, the huge inventories of radioactive waste which are slowly contaminating their surroundings and sooner or later will create catastrophic problems.

IMPLICATIONS RIPPLE THROUGHOUT THE POND OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

The easy simplicity by which I was able to demonstrate, using variations of two different inventors, that the rate of radioactive decay is not a stable, universal constant which is independent of environmental conditions, has a lot of rippling consequences for physics, chemistry, geology, archeology, history and so on. Many conditions which duplicate the electro/chemical techniques of these experiments can be easily hypothesized in nature.

For instance, it is not difficult to find static charges and piezoelectric effects in the range of 12,000 to 100,000 volts in the natural environment, simply through friction and pressure within the earth. It is logically reasonable to assume that a substance which is subjected to strong pressures under the earth and high electrostatic field potentials, especially surrounding silicates in the earth's crust, is likely to behave, in accordance with the findings of these experiments and the Barker effect, quite differently than in the laboratory or on the surface. Which means in essence that carbon-14 dating, and other types of radioactive dating, on samples from deep deposits in the earth may be unreliable.

Therefore, all dating and clocking of time based on radioactive decay rates must henceforth be considered suspect until proven otherwise. This really does mean that CARBON-14 dates, and all of the other radioactive samples which have been used for dating purposes, absolutely must be considered speculative, not definitive.

If high voltage and strong chemical ionic force can dramatically alter the radioactive count of a substance, it is logical to assume that other parameter shifts may do the same, to some degree or another, especially gravity and relative acceleration. A sample in orbit may very well decay at a different rate than one at sea level and one at the center of the earth.

This could mean that the so-called definitive proof of relativity must once again be considered to be speculative. Many proofs of relativity have been offered over the years, but all of them, except one, seem to be weak proofs. The strong proof of relativity is the so-called proof of time dilation, which is based on the difference in the rate of decay (counts per second) of a radioactive isotope, one half of which remains stationary, the other half of which was sent into orbit and then brought back to earth. The theory of relativity predicts that the half which went into orbit will

  • February 24, 2013 - A Report sent (today) to Washington State Governor Jay Inslee - http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/ - February 24, 2013 To Governor Jay Inslee from WillPWilson, the producer of... more
    • The Destruction of Nuclear Waste with Browns Gas technology. — willpwilson 908, Sun Feb 24 11:53
Click here to receive daily updates