Physics in the News – Nuclear Fusion

Where does the idea of nuclear fusion come from?

Briefly, it was an hypothesis of Sir Arthur Eddington based on Einstein’s silly formula E = m x c².  Eddington’s argument was that “if c² is a constant, then the above formula would indicate that each kilogram (mass) of any material would contain the same energy as a mass of 1 kilogram travelling at a speed of 9,000,000,000 kilometres/second. ( E = 1kg x 300,000 x 300,000)

This idea is typical of the lack of reality in modern physics.

Nuclear fusion is an attempt to unleash this hypothetical energy.

Now E in the formulae E = m x v²  ( or even Einstein’s E = m x c²) refers to Kinetic Energy which means the energy required to bring a moving object to rest. If the object is not moving then its kinetic energy is zero.

A 1 kilogram(mass) piece of coal or uranium or cheese resting on a bench has no kinetic energy. The coal, uranium and cheese will each have different amounts of ‘energy’ such as calorific or thermal but no kinetic energy, so the use of  of the formulae

Kinetic Energy = mass x velocity², is completely invalid.

Coal and uranium both contain potential energy in the form of atomic stress. I don’t think that cheese does.

Author – Brian Williams.

What is a Photon?

Consider the following two statements.

“Photons behave in some ways like particles, little bits of stuff, and in other ways like waves. It’s not just visible sunlight that is made of photons, but a lot of other kinds of waves like radio waves, television broadcasts, x-rays, and the ultraviolet (UVA and UVB) rays that give you sunburns. The difference between light and these other kinds of waves depends on the size of the wave – the wavelength. Very short waves are x-rays and ultraviolet rays, that cause sunburn. Visible light like sunlight is made of medium-length waves. Radio and television waves are very long waves. But all of these rays are made of photons. “  (http://quatr.us/physics/light/photon.htm)

“Wave-Particle Duality in Brief

As mentioned above, light has properties of both a wave and a particle. This was an astounding discovery and is certainly outside the realm of how we normally perceive things. Billiard balls act as particles, while oceans act as waves. Photons act as both a wave and a particle all the time (even though it’s common, but basically incorrect, to say that it’s “sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle” depending upon which features are more obvious at a given time).

Just one of the effects of this wave-particle duality (or particle-wave duality) is that photons, though treated as particles, can be calculated to have frequency, wavelength, amplitude, and other properties inherent in wave mechanics. (http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm)”

From the second statement let us consider “Billiard balls act as particles, while oceans act as waves”.

Oceans do not act as waves any more than than a bowl of jelly or your bath water does. Waves can be created or generated in any substance, from cast iron to gas.

Radio and television waves are man-made generated waves. Sound waves can be generated as in speech or created as in the sound of a falling object but cannot be claimed to prove the wavelike nature of air. Water waves can be either be generated as in the ripple tank or created as by dropping a pebble into a pond but this does not prove the wavelike nature of water. Known waves can be detected in any substance with modern equipment. Hypothetical waves, such as in light have never been detected. Note that in generated light, such as in A/C lighting equipment or strobe lighting, the generated frequency is easily detected, even at high frequencies. This is because light acts like a fluid. in a same way as water or gas.

So let us consider the statement “light has properties of both a wave and a particle”.

Water is made up of particles that we call molecules. Waves can be generated or created in water.  Waves can be generated or created in light, (in special circumstances). Light is made up of particles that physicists call photons.

If water molecules do not need to have a wavelike property, why do physicists argue that photons must have a wavelike property? The physicists are rather vague about this.  The real reason behind this is because of the physicists argument that (white) light must be composed of all other colours, and requires that individual photons carry particular colour properties. For this, they argue that colour is a waveform, and therefore each photon must have its own individual waveform!

Consider this. You put a new battery into your torch then switch the main room lighting off. You then shine your torch around (say) your child’s playroom. Your new battery is obviously freshly supplied with billions of  individual photons that illuminate the thousands of shades and colours.

A photon is actually an electron and it does not have a waveform (or even need one to explain all phenomena of light).

If you shine a light(photons?) onto a photocell you will get electricity (electrons) exiting the photocell. If you connect this to a lamp, light(photons?) will appear. Assuming your initial photocell is powerful enough you can shine this light(photons?) onto another photocell and again produce electricity(electrons). During this process heat (more electrons) is dissipated.

Consider the this from the first statement above, “ It’s not just visible sunlight that is made of photons, but a lot of other kinds of waves like radio waves, television broadcasts, x-rays, and the ultraviolet (UVA and UVB) rays that give you sunburns.”

Like virtually all of modern physics this is opinion only and is not based on evidence.

If this was correct you could produce light from any transmitter that could handle the necessary radio frequencies. You can’t.

All physics can be explained, logically and sensibly, using only two types of particle. More importantly. all physical phenomena can be explained using the oldest scientific laws known to mankind. These are the Laws of Mechanics.

See also-Control experiments for Young’s interference fringes.

Author – Brian Williams

The Mechanics of Electro-Magnetic Radiation.

The mechanics of any thing means how it actually works. Primarily, electromagnetic radiation means movement of electrons by means of a magnetic force. Radio waves can be created by electromagnetic radiation but generally are not. A dynamo creates electricity by using a magnetic field that accelerates electrons. A battery does not produce electricity by magnetics but by chemical reaction. Therefore light from a torch is not electro-magnetic radiation.

The magnetic field generated to move iron filings in school experiments is similar to electro-magnetic radiation in that it moves particles, in this case, iron filings. A single magnetic pulse will move iron filings. a second pulse may move them a little further. further pulses may or may not cause any extra movement.

When a force is momentarily applied to an object and the force is sufficient to move the object, then one of two things will happen. If there is no resisting force acting apart from inertia, then the object will continue moving after the force is removed. In other cases the object will slow down and then stop.

With a magnetic field pulse each step forward reduces the force available to move the object during the next pulse. A magnetic field is not a constant force, the force exerted depends on the distance from the object.

Magnetic fields have a very limited range relative to the force that they can produce. This means that a reversing force field acting on a small mass will lose effective contact with it. The outward force may accelerate the object to a distance beyond reach of the following inward force.

A further point to consider is the ‘velocity’ of the force field. If you consider a paper bag being blown along by the wind, the wind will be travelling faster than the paper bag, (if it wasn’t there would be no force acting on the paper bag and it would fall.). It is assumed that a force field propagates instantaneously. but I am not yet convinced of this, but am unable to put forward a reasonable argument against it. What is certain is that the rate of propagation is faster than 300,000 kilometres per second.

Relating to electrons this means that a magnetic pulse will pass through a cloud of electrons, irrespective of their velocity. This brings in a further complication to an already complex problem.

 There is no such thing as ‘instant acceleration’. It takes time to increase a velocity. Even an electron has inertia, plus an electron is subject to resistance from whatever substance that is travelling through.

Author – Brian Williams

Control Experiments for Young’s Interference Fringes

Why do physicists never do control experiments?

This basic requirement of experimental work is apparently not considered in physics.

Thomas Young, (1773-1829) carried out various experiments that have ever since been claimed to prove that light has a wave form. His experiments in the early 1800s were based on using experiments with water flow and were claimed to be exactly analogous to sound waves and therefore light.  However, we need to fully explore the actual results of these experiments before coming to any rash conclusions.

The above drawing shows water steadily flowing into a barrier that has a slit or gap in it.  As the water strikes the barrier a series of standing waves form in front of it. (Yes I know that you have never heard of this before, but they are there but are completely ignored by the physicists, universities and physics teachers).  It is easy to check this by using a piece of plastic with a notch cut out of it, and gently running water against it.

These standing waves are created by the mechanics of the experiment and have nothing to do with any inherent wavelike nature of water.

Standing waves do not just stand there without help, they need energy to support them. This energy is supplied by the flow of water within the standing wave. This is a very complex fluid dynamics mechanism. (See. Understanding Waves).

These standing wave forms pass through the slit while still retaining their wave form. Depending on the width of the slit, a cross section of the flow through the slit will show a a series of peaks and troughs THAT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO YOUNG’S FRINGES, without indicating that light (or water) had any inherent wavelike nature.

In the drawing below, the lower sketch shows two sets of waves from linked pulsators as used in the Ripple Tank experiments, the origin of Young’s Interference experiments.

The letters A and B relates to where two wave peaks coincide. The letters D and E relate to where a peak from one wave coincides with the trough from another wave.  The arrowed lines identify a path through the waves, and  the numbers relate the energy at the points shown along the line for one wave cycle.   The figures show that the energy balances out and therefore does not show any fringes.

The problem with these experiments is that they were carried out in the conviction that the wave theory was correct, and any result, however vague, would satisfy the requirement to prove that light was a waveform..

No attempt was made to carry out any control experiments to check if a non-waveform (steady) flow would exhibit fringe-like results. In the ripple tank itself no ‘clear’ fringes are visible.

Note; The assumptions made from these experiments should cause serious concern for human health. The physics establishment has assumed that light operates at frequencies of between 4×10¹⁴ Hz (red light) and 8×10¹⁴ Hz   (violet light). From this they argue that the human body is therefore quite happy to handle ‘electro magnetic’ radiation at these high frequencies. No direct evidence has ever been found indicating that light has waveform or frequency. Since the early 1980s, when I first looked into ‘electro-magnetic’ radiation due to the fact that my computer operated at 1Mhz, I have found no evidence of any form of energy transmission in nature that need electro-magnetics in its operation. The only natural energy transmissions are mechanical (including nerve impulses). The only wavelike energy transmissions in nature are sound and water waves, both mechanical.

‘Electro-magnetic’ pulses such as experienced due to lightning are only a single wavelike occurence, but pulse reflections can set up residual waves.

The Control Experiment for Young’s Fringes.

Below is the set up for the control experiment that I carried out many years ago.

Control Experiment for Young’s Fringes

It should be noted that these standing waves are not directly related to the standing waves in figure 1. In this control experiment the impact waves as created in figure 1 only apply to the separator between the two slits, the water on each side of the slits will tend to run away from the slits due to the angle of water flow. The standing waves from the separator will be much smaller, but may actually help in initially starting the standing waves in this control experiment.

The number of interface standing waves (or fringes) depends on the separation of the slits, the speed of the water and distance from slits. As the distance from the slits increases, so the number of ‘fringes’ increases.

There are numerous examples of this creation of standing waves in fluid dynamics.

Note; My original idea for this experiment was to only have the the central separator but replace the side separators with slots, allowing water to flow freely into the tank. to prevent reflection waves from distorting the results.

This was not satisfactory, but replacing the side separators did highlight the impact standing waves.

Rectilinear Propagation of Light.

This refers to the physicists argument that light always travels in straight lines. This is an very old assumption that is still accepted. Again this is based on water experiments, but as an argument to a ‘crucial difference’ between light and water. In fact, water and light both act strictly in according with the laws of fluid dynamics.

One of the arguments used was that water spreads out after passing through a slot/aperture but light travels in a straight line. It doesn’t. The difference is that water  may be travelling at 3metres/second whereas light will be travelling at 300,000,000 metres/second. On earth at the time these arguments originated there was no means of measuring the spread of light. Even today I doubt that it would be possible.

In the drawing below the left hand sketch shows what happens when light passes through an orifice.

Note that the colour bands are determined by the eye/brain and are not actually a part of light. Not an easy idea to comprehend, I know, but see ( origin-of-colour ).

Light passing through an orifice conforms to the same fundamental fluid dynamic principles as water passing through an orifice. It is slowed down at the edges. The light exiting the orifice close to the edge will have its linear velocity reduced most. It does not, however lose all its energy. Some is retained in spin and some in deviation. However, the eye only relates to the linear velocity entering it. This velocity determines the colour perceived by the brain. Note that true Blue is a very dark blue and is difficult to see compared to the white and yellow. This is generally considered  to be ‘infra-red’, but in fact is low ‘velocity’ light.

Basically light is a form of energy composed of particles that have no colour. ‘Colour’ is defined by the energy of the particles that arrive at the ‘colour’ receptors in the eye. The sensation of ‘colour’ is created by the brain itself. The human brain/eye combination allocates four energy ranges that correspond with the sensations of Blue, Red, Yellow and White. Other lifeforms may use a different number of ranges to suit their own evolutionary requirements.

This light spreads out in a similar way as my ‘control experiment’, and in the double slit situation creates an interface which creates standing waves. These standing waves still contain most of the energy lost in ‘velocity’.

In the drawing below (slightly over-cropped on the left), I have shown two separate light sources. This not a mistake, it is to make a deliberate point that Youngs Interfence Fringes still occur with totally different light sources without needing a single source to supply two synchronised light beams.

Dual Slit – Simple Mechanics

The shaded areas indicate the energy levels, pale grey being high energy, mid grey being mid energy and dark grey being low energy. The white areas on the right and centre lines indicate highest energy levels. Where these energy areas cross each other the energy level jumps into the higher energy band. However, fluid mechanics is a lot more complex than this, there is large amount of activity happening at the same time. See also (Taper Slit Experiment)

As the two streams(or beams if you like) meet, the forward velocity increases. In light this means that the low velocity light (or infra-red if you are a physicist) is forced to increase its velocity, bringing it into the visible range.

As the two beams continue to move in together the energy in the central area increases and the velocity increases.

In a similar way to the water dual slits as shown earlier, ‘standing waves’  are created. They don’t actually stand but are created in the same way, being relatively slow sideways moving pressure ridges. These pressure ridges are the source of Young’s Interference Fringes and have nothing to do with any wave like nature of light.

The eye has a threshold level due to energy loss in the vitreous humour, the eyeball ‘filling’. The energy of the light (velocity) is reduced so that the lower velocity particles do not even reach the retina. This prevents the brain from seeing ‘energy’ that instruments can detect, such as the ‘infra-red’ claimed by the physicists.

Young’s interference fringes are truly the only ‘evidence?’ for the claim for the wave theory of light but is clearly based on very poor experimental techniques.

Fluid dynamics is the most difficult subject I have ever studied. I will try to produce a more meaningful drawing in the next few days.

See also;- What is a Photon?

More to come on this later.

Author- Brian Williams

The Myth of Young’s Interference Fringes.

Why do physicists never do control experiments?

This basic requirement of experimental work is apparently not considered in physics.

Thomas Young, (1773-1829) carried out various experiments that have ever since been claimed to prove that light has a wave form. His experiments in the early 1800s were based on using experiments with water flow and were claimed to be exactly analogous to sound waves and therefore light.  However, we need to fully explore the actual results of these experiments before coming to any rash conclusions.

The above drawing shows water steadily flowing into a barrier that has a slit or gap in it.  As the water strikes the barrier a series of standing waves form in front of it. (Yes I know that you have never heard of this before, but they are there but are completely ignored by the physicists, universities and physics teachers).  It is easy to check this by using a piece of plastic with a notch cut out of it, and gently running water against it.

These standing waves are created by the mechanics of the experiment and have nothing to do with any inherent wavelike nature of water.

Standing waves do not just stand there without help, they need energy to support them. This energy is supplied by the flow of water within the standing wave. This is a very complex fluid dynamics mechanism. (See. Understanding Waves).

These standing wave forms pass through the slit while still retaining their wave form. Depending on the width of the slit, a cross section of the flow through the slit will show a a series of peaks and troughs THAT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO YOUNG’S FRINGES, without indicating that light (or water) had any inherent wavelike nature.

In the drawing below, the lower sketch shows two sets of waves from linked pulsators as used in the Ripple Tank experiments, the origin of Young’s Interference experiments.

The letters A and B relates to where two wave peaks coincide. The letters D and E relate to where a peak from one wave coincides with the trough from another wave.  The arrowed lines identify a path through the waves, and  the numbers relate the energy at the points shown along the line for one wave cycle.   The figures show that the energy balances out and therefore does not show any fringes.

The problem with these experiments is that they were carried out in the belief that the wave theory was correct.

No attempt was made to carry out any control experiments to check if a non-waveform (steady) flow would exhibit fringe-like results. In the ripple tank itself no ‘clear’ fringes are visible.

Note; The assumptions made from these experiments should cause serious concern for human health. The physics establishment have assumed that light operates at frequencies of between 4×10¹⁴ Hz (red light) and 8×10¹⁴ Hz   (violet light). From this they argue that the human body is therefore quite happy to handle ‘electro magnetic’ radiation at these high frequencies. No direct evidence has ever been found indicating that light has waveform or frequency. Since the early 1980s, when I first looked into ‘electro-magnetic’ radiation due to the fact that my computer operated at 1Mhz, I have found no evidence of any form of energy transmission in nature that need electro-magnetics in its operation. The only natural energy transmissions are mechanical (including nerve impulses). The only wavelike energy transmissions in nature are sound and water waves, both mechanical.

The Control Experiment for Young’s Fringes.

Below is the set up for the control experiment that I carried out many years ago.

It should be noted that these standing waves are not directly related to the standing waves in figure 1. In this control experiment the impact waves as created in figure 1 only apply to the separator between the two slits, the water on each side of the slits will tend to run away from the slits due to the angle of water flow. The standing waves from the separator will be much smaller, but may actually help in initially starting the standing waves in this control experiment.

The number of interface standing waves (or fringes) depends on the separation of the slits, the speed of the water and distance from slits. As the distance from the slits increases, so the number of ‘fringes’ increases.

There are numerous examples of this creation of standing waves in fluid dynamics.

More to come on this later.

Author- Brian Williams

What is Magnetism? What Causes It?

Magnetism is a very weak version of the nuclear force. It is caused by creating a very small shift in the position of the nuclei in the atoms. Obviously this can only happen if atoms have a crystal like structure.

Nuclei Shift in Magnetics

Obviously the above is a very simplified example.

Permanent magnets need a mixture of atoms to allow the more stable atoms to lock the more susceptible atoms (say iron) into a permanent magnetic state.

Author – Brian Williams.

See How to Built an Atom

Physics in the News- Gravity Waves. The Mechanics.

What is a gravity wave? Stand on the sea shore and watch the tide come in. You are watching the result of a gravity wave. This gravity wave, twice daily(roughly) not only moves the seas but also moves the land.

The force of the moon’s gravity creates a moving force field (gravitational wave) that travels around the Earth. This wave is also affected by the gravitational force of the sun, the planets and, to an exceedingly small amount, all other stars and planets in the universe.

All bodies having mass and moving relative to another mass create a gravity wave.

Note that bodies that are in geosynchronous mutual orbits do not create a moving force field and therefore do not create a gravitational wave because the bodies do not move relative to each other.

Yes, I do understand that the current proposed experiments are an attempt by the physics establishment to force gravity into the ‘Wave Theory of Everything’ syndrome. Gravity is a force, not a wave. Light is particle transmission, not a wave.

However, they are attempting to use the same experimental set-up as used in the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is full of errors, both logical and mathematical.

In fact, the results obtained in the Michelson – Morley experiment actually proves that light does not travel at a constant velocity and that light is not a wave.

Also, the experiments are set up on Earth and therefore subject to massive gravitational forces relative to the forces that they are attempting to measure.

Latest World Headlines, gravity waves found, a few computer created graphics, two prints from graphs, but no evidence presented to allow the claims to be checked out.

Author – Brian Williams

See also;

How-Gravity-Works-and-What-Causes-It.

The Full Mathematics of the Michelson-Morley Experiment-Part-1

Liquid Balance On Saturn Satellite Mimas.

Understanding Waves

How to Build an Atom – The Mechanics.

“So far I have been unable to find any property of matter that cannot be explained by the use of only electrons and nuclei.”

———————————————————

The construction of an atomic model that satisfies all the requirements of scientific knowledge regarding both physical and biological facts must be our starting point. It must be able to explain colour, weight (mass), state (i.e. solid, gas or liquid), changes due to temperature, changes due to pressure, hardness, and softness, rigidity and flexibility, chemical reactions, toxicity, radioactivity, gravity, magnetism, and most importantly, life.

My theory explains all known properties of matter. (It therefore passes the requirements of a theory.)

I may be wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the Physics Establishment.

The reader will have problems due to fact that I go against all the current atomic hypotheses that he/she will have been taught or accepted. I can understand this because I had the same problem myself, many times over the years, finding it difficult to believe my own results. Eventually, it was easier to consider existing hypotheses only to pinpoint where the problems were. This was a case of selecting any particular hypothesis proposed by the physics establishment, assume it is wrong, and work out alternative hypotheses and then produce a working theory. 90% of current hypotheses cannot satisfy the title of theory because there are no explanations of how they could work.

One of the main reasons for physicists opting for high-speed electrons is to try to explain the energy of an atom. However, all energy is in one of two types/states, momentum or stress. (Note; In rotary motion the energy is stored in a combination of momentum and stress.) All atoms are in a state of stress. The reader may find this statement difficult to accept but it is true, whether you are considering chemistry, radiation or mechanics.

Fig. 1 below shows the image of the atom best known by the public.

Fig 1

Fig. 2Fig. 2 shows the current hypothetical atom ‘structure’, which is a slightly less haphazard version of Fig. 1.

Neither of these models is of any use in explaining the known properties of matter. How do two or more atoms form a molecule without all the electrons colliding? How can one atom be harder than another? How is one atom a liquid and another a solid?

Ask your local physicist any of these questions and he will mumble that it is too complicated to explain to mere mortals. The fact is that modern physics cannot explain any of them.

If electrons are not whizzing (whizzing is travelling at high speed) around causing dangerous collisions then it is easy to form molecules. All you have to do is to remove one electron from one atom and fill the gap by moving another atom so that one of its electrons fits in the gap in the first atom. Dead easy, you now have a molecule, two atoms jointed by a mutual electron. Both atoms have the right number of electrons therefore nothing has changed but we now have a molecule. However, life, physics and mechanics are not that simple.

Modern physics argues that the more electrons there are in an atom then the heavier it is. Therefore, as our molecule is an electron short of two atoms, it should be lighter than the original two atoms. Unfortunately, I totally disagree with this hypothesis because it is illogical.

The Structure of Atoms and the origin of Mass.

If Hydrogen is the lightest element and only has one atom, the one to one bond between the nucleus and the electron would make it far more difficult to remove this one electron from Hydrogen than trying to remove one electron from an atom with many electrons. (See Proton.) However, Hydrogen is the easiest element from which to obtain energy in the form of emitted electrons. In addition, Hydrogen has a ‘soft’ explosion indicating that the velocity of emitted electrons is relatively low. Although there are a few arguments (but not facts) against this, none of them overcomes the other problems of an atom with orbiting electrons.

If we reverse the hypothesis and say that the greater the number of electrons the lighter the atom, then this explains away many of the problems in physics without introducing any more. This would mean that the heaviest possible atom would have one electron.

It would also mean that the lightest detectable element, Hydrogen, would have the second largest number of electrons.

Let us consider some simple possible atoms. In Fig. 3, the top sketch shows a nucleus with a single electron. As this electron is not whizzing around it snuggles up against the nucleus due to the force of attraction. The lower sketch shows an atom with two electrons. In this case, the force of repulsion between the two electrons is acting against the force of attraction between the electrons and the nucleus. The electrons would align themselves on opposite sides of the nucleus. Although I have shown the electrons standing well clear of the nucleus, they could still be pressing against the nucleus but with less force. This would depend on the relative strengths of the attraction and repulsion forces.

Let us add another electron. In Fig. 4, the three electrons have arranged themselves around the nucleus so that the forces of attraction and repulsion are balanced.

Now let me explain the problem that is irritating you. How can we have flat atoms? If the atom was a mile away from the nearest other atom or available electrons then Fig. 4 would be its natural state. In close proximity to other atoms, it would tend to combine with these atoms to form complex molecules, or try to accumulate more electrons.

It should be remembered that Fig. 4 is not a Lithium atom, it is an atom that is extremely heavy and one, like our previous two atoms, only being found at the core of collapsed stars or far out in space.

Let us now consider an atom with four electrons. Fig. 5 shows the atom in its ‘natural’ state.

However if in close proximity to other atoms it would tend to form a tetrahedron as shown in Fig.6

Fig. 6

Now that we have arrived at our first three-dimensional atom let us consider molecules. Using Fig. 6, we can create a simple molecule by using a single common electron.

With this type of molecular bond, it is obvious that the molecule will be quite flexible because one atom can flex and rotate relative to the other.

We now come to another deviation from modern physics. It is considered that for electrons to be attracted to the nucleus, the nucleus must have a positive charge (See Proton). Looking at the evidence from most experimentation would indicate that:

A. The nucleus is neutral and that the electron is attracted to the neutral state. Or

B The nucleus is attractive to both electrons and other nuclei, but the surrounding electrons reduce the affinity for other nuclei.

I feel that B. is the most logical. In the above sketch (Fig. 7) the shared electron presents a weakness in the surrounding shield of electrons, and the mutual attraction between the nuclei would pull them closer together as shown by the dotted circles. This in turn would distort the shapes of the two atoms as the forces balance. This weakness would be present in all molecules with similar results.

Let us now consider that these two atoms are joined as a molecule but by two common electrons instead of one. The formation of this molecule releases two electrons, therefore making the molecule heavier than the previous molecule. This new molecule is also less flexible than the previous one, one atom effectively being hinged off the other.

It should be considered that we are still dealing with extremely heavy atoms at this stage and the removal of electrons requires great pressure or a high energy.

If we now take our two atoms and create a molecule using 3 common electrons ( See Fig. 9 Below), we lose most of the flexibility and have an even heavier (and harder) molecule. It is clear that from two identical atoms we can produce the option of 3 different molecules each having different properties.

Now consider this point, if we split this molecule we are 3 electrons short of our original two atoms.

We could end up with one of our original atoms plus an atom with a single electron.

The modern physicist would argue that this result proves that the molecule was created by the addition of two totally different atoms. If it was difficult or impossible to split the molecule then the modern physicist would argue that this proves that the molecule is actually an atom!

Most of our known substances considered to be atoms may in fact be difficult to split molecules, and many of our molecules may be conglomerations of identical atoms, but which when separated produce two or more totally different atoms. In the sketch below if the chain breaks as shown you could mistakenly argue that the 9 link chain is obviously created from a 5 link chain and a 3 link chain.

Let us now consider an atom with 5 electrons. We have a problem with this in that it is difficult to balance all the forces. On the other hand it gives us a glimmering of the reason for the life force.

Although similar in shape to Fig. 9 it only has one nucleus which can move between A and B with little effort, seriously distorting the shape of the atom in the process. This distortion would not destroy the atom, the overall forces being strong enough to retain its integrity.

It would take little effort to set up an oscillation in this atom. If an oscillation was set up and the atom shielded from all external forces, the oscillation could continue forever.

See Atomic Damping.

We are still looking at very heavy atoms, the weight/mass detectable being dependent on the number of electrons. The actual mass of an atom remains unchanged as this is the mass of the nucleus, which does not change. The electrons mask the affect of the nucleus’ mass. With a full complement of electrons the atom will have no detectable mass.

We will now look at a lighter atom. We will consider an atom in the shape of a Dodecahedron i.e. 12 sides and 20 electrons as Fig. 14.

(You might also like to look at The Origin of the Golden Section., because ratios relating to the dodecahedron tie in with golden section ratios.)

All the electrons lie on a sphere, equally spaced and all the same distance from the nucleus. Obviously 20 electrons will not mask the affect of the nucleus’ mass. [Note: With regard to the dodecahedron shape, this would clearly allow for molecular bonding with 1, 2 or 5 common electrons. However, under certain conditions 3 and 4 electron bonds could occur.]

Can we increase the numbers of electrons without causing problems?

If we add 12 electrons they will be attracted to the nucleus but will have problems with the repulsion forces of the existing electrons. These repulsion forces are weakest in the centres of the faces so the new electrons will align themselves in the centre of the faces.

But consider the following point: The existing electron sphere reduces the attraction forces for the new electrons and each new electron has to contend with the repulsion forces of 5 existing electrons. Our original dodecahedron will now have a five sided spike on each face as Fig. 15.

It is clear that the new electrons will not be on the same sphere diameter as the existing ones, they will form a second sphere. We now have an inner shell with 20 electrons and an outer shell with 12 electrons.

The new electrons will be equally spaced around the outer shell and will all be the same distance from the nucleus.

Now if we can have 12 electrons in a shell outside the dodecahedron, can we have a shell inside it containing 12 equally spaced electrons? The answer is yes. We can also have another shell on the outside containing 20 electrons, followed by further shells having alternatively 12 and 20 electrons.

The limit will be reached when the number of electrons completely mask the attraction force of the nucleus.

Interim Recap.

The orbiting electron hypothesis does not explain any of the properties of matter. See note.

1. My theory explains rigidity and resilience.
2. My theory so far gives a faint insight into the possible cause of the life force.
3. My theory gives a logical cause for the crystal structure of many materials.
4. My theory explains molecular bonding.
5. My theory explains weight/mass. See note.

Note: The existing hypothesis states that the number of electrons governs the mass/weight of the atom. It does not explain how. The original reason for the statement that hydrogen had one electron was not based on any scientific reasoning or facts.

My readers may be wondering when I am going to explain about quarks, pi-mesons, etc. etc.

The answer is that there would be no point in wasting valuable space. The majority of these are hypothetical particles dreamed up to try and balance the faults in the existing weak hypotheses.  Note; So far I have been unable to discover any property of matter that cannot be explained using only electrons and nuclei.

Let now consider an atom with six electrons. This would be in the form of 8 triangular faces.

As with the dodecahedron we could add an extra shell of electrons, in this case 8 of them. These electrons would would form a slightly distorted cube. If we add further shells they each would have 8 electrons until the forces blanketed the nucleus.

Now to answer your question as to how many electrons does it take to blanket the nucleus. I just don’t know. The lightest known substance is hydrogen. No-one knows how many electrons each atom of hydrogen has despite the physicists statement that it has only one.

The problem is that we really don’t know how many electrons any atom has. None of the experiments in the last 100 years has produced any logical figures and the standard tables of the elements can only be considered as pure guesswork.

We will take an arbitrary figure of 100 as the number of electrons required to blanket the nucleus.

Logically it would only take one additional electron to finally trip an atom into a condition that would make it undetectable. In the above atom the electrons are added in batches of 8. In the dodecahedron shaped atom the electrons are added in batches of 12 or 20. Obviously both families of atoms could get to the stage of being undetectable. It would appear to be unlikely that in either case would the final shell would need a full complement of electrons before the atom became undetectable.

However it just may require a full complement or at least a balanced part complement.

The Structure and Mechanics of Atoms and Mousetrap molecules

Let us consider chemistry and chemical reactions. Chemistry relates to the formation of molecules.

If you put powdered copper, zinc, carbon, titanium plus water into a tray and mix them, once they have settled you will still have powdered copper, zinc, carbon, titanium plus water in the tray. No new molecules will have been created. Why not?

Cu + C + Zn + Ti + H₂0 = ?????

You cannot get an answer for the above equation because it does not allow for the two most important variables; Temperature and pressure. (I’ve never come across a valid formula for a cup of tea either.)

Without variables no formulae are valid.

Under ‘natural’ conditions certain molecules can be created. Obviously ‘natural’ conditions vary depending on where you are. Natural conditions at the North Pole are different than natural conditions in the Sahara Desert. ‘Natural’ conditions on the Moon are different conditions than on Pluto or Mercury. Under ‘natural’ conditions many molecules cannot be created i.e. they need high /low pressure or high/low temperature or a combination.

Under ‘non-natural’ conditions many molecules can be created.

Most life on Earth evolved to suit gradually changing ‘natural’ conditions. Occasionally, unnatural conditions, such as volcanic activity occur that release molecules that have been created under unnatural conditions such as high temperatures and high pressures. Many of these molecules are toxic to most forms of life on Earth. Some lifeforms, such as the sea creatures around volcanic vents on the ocean floors, have evolved to handle the toxins, high pressure and high temperatures. To these creatures these conditions are now ‘natural’.

Under higher pressures atoms contract and under lower pressures atoms expand. If the pressure is high enough electrons are ejected from atoms (Exothermic reaction). THEREFORE they become different atoms that have qualities different from the original atoms.

Lighter atoms compress more than heavy atoms, therefore they will lose electrons easier than heavy atoms.

The gas Nitrogen has a completely different atom structure than liquid nitrogen.

Carbon and diamond have different atomic structures.

Water and Ice have different atomic structures.

If you place two dissimilar atoms that, (under normal conditions would not form a molecule), under increasing pressure you will arrive at condition such that the lighter atom would be able to form multiple electron bonds (MEBs) with the heavier one.

When this happens the molecule would be stable at this particular pressure. However, if the pressure is released, the molecule will either split into two separate atoms again or will remain as a molecule but with the lighter atom being in a distorted and stressed condition. This would make it vulnerable to forming MEBs with other atoms that it would not be possible under normal conditions.

Mousetrap Molecules

In affect, the molecule could become a ‘mousetrap molecule’ that could be easily triggered into forming strange/unnatural molecules or atoms, or even molecular explosions. Apart from toxins this would explain ‘radio activity’ and inflammability.

Radioactivity depends on a source of materials that have been subject to high pressures. Most of these are relatively stable in that only a few molecules per/second explode in any given mass. However, when they do the lighter atom disintegrates  at high speed. Impurities in the ore tend to restrict the amount of radioactivity. Purifying the ore increases the ratio of mousetrap molecules until they start to trigger each other and you get a sustained reaction

————————————–

NOTE; Free Electrons have a very important role in chemistry. Free electrons are those not locked into the structure of an atom. They may be attracted to nearby atoms but can be easily moved around without affecting the structure of the atoms. Free electrons will still have a blanketing/insulating effect on the nucleus of the atom that would hide its true mass.

(Structural Electrons are those electrons that are part of the structure of atoms.)

Heat and Temperature.

Let me make the following statement: ATOMS DO NOT HAVE A TEMPERATURE.

Any isolated atom is completely devoid of any sense of temperature, it is neither hot, warm or cold.

If it loses an electron then this electron MAY be detected as heat.

Under pressure, atoms will reach a stage when the atomic structure starts to break down and electrons are emitted.

Temperature measurement in this case is dependent on its emission velocity.

——————————————————-

The mass of an atom is a force.

Let me apologise for the title of this post. You cannot build an atom. You can only disassemble an atom.

I was going to change the title but could not think of a better one.

———————————————-

Families of Atoms

MORE TO COME SHORTLY

Author; Brian Williams

Comments accepted.

1. Individuals names only, no company names.

2. Only one URL allowed.

3. Note that comments are now processed through a

   separate computer.

Comments automatically deleted. (I do not see them.)

1. All comments from pornographic sites.

2. All comments from sales sites.

3. All comments not relevant to my website.

Tin, BPA, BPS and Phthalates.

A Preliminary Investigation into My Death. See also “boil or carbuncle” .

At the present time I am dying due to continuous carbuncles that are effecting the operation of my normal bodily processes. In the last eight years there has rarely been periods of longer than 5 to 6 weeks that I have not been suffering from an active carbuncle.

At present (14th July 2015) I am suffering from a carbuncle in an awkward position on by backside. This is in its (I hope) final stage after 5 weeks continuous leaking. (Update; 10th September 2015. I am still having to change dressings twice a day, so no improvement yet.)

The medical profession claim these carbuncles are boils and insist on prescribing antibiotics that have no effect on the problems.

They claim that boils and carbuncles (and furunculea) are all the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. See “boil or carbuncle“.

60 years ago I learned that carbuncles are not caused by streptococci. Boils are caused by streptococci. This was a simple experiment. Having had a carbuncle two years before, when I had a painful, throbbing boil erupt on my neck I decided to try stannous oxide tablets, as these had an almost miraculous healing effect on the earlier carbuncle after months of injections and capsules of antibiotics provided by the medical ‘experts’. Stannous oxide tablets had no effect on the boil. Chemists knew there was a difference between carbuncles and boils but the medical profession did not and still refuse to accept that there is a difference.

Is this criminal negligence by the medical profession? In one way it is. The refusal of (or inability) of medical personnel to listen to patients is a serious problem. I have never had any doctor ask me whether the prescriptions he issued to me actually worked.

Some prescription medicines include questions about side effects. Is the fact that the medicine prescribed has no effect on the complaint or illness and therefore extends the duration of the problem, not a side effect?

I have recently obtained 20 grammes of Tin that I trying to purify sufficiently to pass my own safety requirements. This will probably take a few weeks. Note; I will still have the problem of determining whether the tin or the oxide is the crucial component: I feel that the oxide is the most likely but I hope that my body can create the oxide.

Update 6th April 2016.  I am convinced that my body can handle handle the tin and use it for my benefit, however, I feel that tin oxide (Sn(ll) itself  is providing the improvement and that oxygen in the blood is modifying a small proportion of the tin into SnO. Tin metal itself is not a natural substance.

******************************

Ongoing notes relating my current attempt to self medicate.

1. At present (4th October 2015). Over the last two weeks I have been taking approximately 200 milligrams  each day of tin powder. (Note this is now correct, there was a fault on my electronic weighing unit)
   
2. Over this period I have noted the following;  Swellings under both my arms have almost disappeared (after about 8 years).  Pubic and underarm hair growth has increased. (But I am still going bald.) Over the last three days leakage from my current carbuncle has almost stopped. PLUS (relating to type 2 diabetes) sensitivity on the soles of my feet has improved, making walking a lot easier. It is obviously too early to get excited about these improvements. I will continue with the low dosage because I am still not confident about the quantity of contaminants. However, it  does seem that by my body can use the tin itself.
3. From the 1st of October 2015 I have rather complicated this series of tests by stopping taking statins. This was because it has been claimed by many sources that statins can cause leg muscle problems, which I have suffered from for about 18 months. Over the last two weeks I have noticed a significant improvement in my walking ability. A further unexpected result is a complete stoppage to my falling asleep at odd times during the day, often for 2 – 3 hours. I have not fallen asleep even once during the day since the 1st October.
4. 1st December. Still not dosing off during the day. Carbuncle leakage stopped. No further improvement in walking.

Brian,

*****************************

It is only recently that I have looked into the background to the changeover to plastic lined tins. I naturally assumed that it was just to make more profits for the involved companies. However, I find that not only that the companies have effectively prevented access to a highly beneficial vital mineral (SnO), they have replaced it with a toxic alternative.

—————————————–

NOTE: I have used lots of information from the ACU-CELL website (http://www.acu-cell.com/) which I have found interesting, well written and logical. However, I have still not found their address so that I can write to them.

“Health Benefits & Toxicity of the Element Tin, and its Effect on Adrenals, Depression and Fatigue. Copyright © 2000-2015  Acu-Cell – Tin – Health Effects.

While Tin (Sn) has been established to be an essential trace element for some animals (they won’t grow well without it), some researchers are still unsure of whether tin is essential to human health. Daily dietary intake of tin from various food sources is in the 1 – 3 mg range, which is less than 1/10th of the daily intake obtained years ago before lacquering tin cans, switching to aluminum cans, or, in the more distant past, when tin cups or tin pans were still in use. Since bronze contains copper and tin, the use of tin has been established well past the Bronze Age, several thousand years ago.

Rat studies have shown that tin-deficient diets resulted in poor growth, reduced feeding efficiency, hearing loss, and bilateral (male pattern) hair loss.”

“Tipton and Shafer examined tin in human tissue after accidental deaths.

They noted that tin was found in the aorta, brain, heart, kidney, liver, muscle, ovary, spleen, pancreas, testes, stomach, and uterus, but none was found in the thyroid of any victim, while the prostate, which usually shows no other trace element, had tin.”

[Note by Brian; Since the canning industry stopped the use of tin only and replacing the tin with a BPA lining I have had Pancreitus , Heart problems including a triple bypass and Prostate cancer.]

“Average concentrations were the same range as cobalt, iodine, chromium, and selenium, which are known vital nutrients. Inorganic tin is capable of entering into biological activity at saline pH, and it is far less toxic than other known vital trace elements such as copper and cobalt. In addition, tin levels do not vary statistically with age, gender, or geographical areas. Misk found traces of tin in the fetal heart and spleen, and higher levels in the liver, while Schroeder and others reported no tin in stillborns.”

Tin poisoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_poisoning)

Main article: Tin poisoning

Tin poisoning refers to the toxic effects of tin and its compounds. Cases of poisoning from tin metal, its oxides, and its salts are “almost unknown”; on the other hand certain organotin compounds ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organotin_chemistry#Toxicity}   are almost as toxic as cyanide.[25]

—————————————-

Extract from;

IBISWorld UK. UK Industry Market Research: Data & Analysis on 400 Industries.

www.ibisworld.co.uk.

What Kind of Cans Are Used for Canned Foods?

by Bonnie Singleton, Demand Media.

The majority of cans used for canned foods around the world today are made from steel. Although there is a thin layer of tin on the surface, there is only 5 to 6 pounds of tin per one ton of steel used.

Canned Controversies.

Almost all metal food and beverage cans contain an industrial chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA. The chemical is used in epoxy resins that coat the inside of food cans. There is a growing concern from scientists and health organizations like MayoClinic.com that BPA can seep into food or beverages. This is a problem because BPA has been linked to prostate and breast cancer, heart disease and damage to the prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. To avoid this danger, look for cans labeled BPA-free.

But,

BPA vs. BPS Options

Cans need to be lined with something, and you’ll typically have no way of knowing what that “something” is. Often, it’s a similar chemical known as bisphenol-S (BPS).

Unfortunately, BPS is not a safe alternative. Research has shown BPS has estrogenic activity comparable to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen. It was also found to be capable of enhancing estradiol-mediated cell signaling, making it a particularly potent endocrine disruptor.6

Furthermore, the study showed BPS can induce apoptosis (cell death) and interfere with cellular secretion of prolactin (PRL)—a hormone that regulates hundreds of biological functions, including metabolism, reproduction, and lactation.

Originally, BPS was heralded as a suitable alternative because it appeared to be less prone to leaching than BPA… but it must be getting into food because the majority of Americans already have detectable levels in their bodies. Scientific American noted:7

“BPS was a favored replacement because it was thought to be more resistant to leaching. If people consumed less of the chemical, the idea went, it would not cause any or only minimal harm. Yet BPS is getting out. Nearly 81 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPS in their urine. And once it enters the body it can affect cells in ways that parallel BPA.”

Unfortunately, even if a can (or plastic product) is labeled BPA-free, you can’t be sure it’s also free of BPS. And even if it doesn’t contain BPS, there’s a good chance it contains other harmful chemicals, like phthalates.

Banning BPS will not solve this problem, as there are many types of bisphenols, and simply switching from one to another is nothing but a game of toxic musical chairs.

At present, you may be paying more for a “BPA-free” product that is no safer than the old BPA-containing variety… You’re also exposed to a number of other chemicals courtesy of food and beverage containers, most of which have no warning labels at all.

————-

Fluoridation of water supplies.

More information on this at; http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/20/fluoride-deception-continues.aspx

This is something that I was aware of at the time that the government decided to add fluoride to public water supplies. Working in the chemical industry it was common knowledge that it was very toxic and was difficult to dispose of. Luckily, our local water company refused to add fluoride to its water supplies. However I have since avoided any products containing fluoride, and advised others to do the same. Obviously I cannot argue that fluoride has effected my health.

 

 

 

Stannous Oxide to replace Fluoride in toothpaste?

Extract from “Tin Based anti-Tumour Drugs”, Edited by Marcel Gielen.

Springer Science & Business Media, 29 Jun 2013. (Page 148+)

A traditional belief that the tin workers in Beauve never suffered from furunculosis led to the use of tin and its compounds in the treatment of staphyloccol infections. In 1917 Frouin and Greigore published a study which suggested that tin, tin oxide, stannous chloride and sodium stannate modified the virulence of staphylocci.

[A traditional belief? Or actual knowledge? A furuncula is a carbuncle and carbuncles are not caused by staphyloccol infection. Brian]

This work, based on seven infected rabbits and two control animals, has since been discredited and more recent evidence indicates that neither soluble nor insoluble tin compound of tin have any effect on staphyloccci in vitro or in vivo.

[I personally discovered this in 1956. The work by Fruouin & Greigore I would assume related to transferring infections from a sufferer of a Furuncula (carbuncle) to the host rabbits. If later tests used infection from a boil or stock staphylocci then obviously no effect would be found. Brian]

Nevertheless, the belief that tin had some value in the control of cutaneous sepsis persisted well into the 20th century and resulted in an occurrence of organotin poisoning in France 1954.

[The belief was that tin was valuable in curing carbuncles/furuncles, NOT cutaneous sepsis. This belief was NOT the cause of the organotin poisoning, which was caused by manufacturing negligence. Brian]

The proprietary compound involved, “Stalinon”, had been contaminated with triethyltin impurities and this resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.

[This is a different type of belief. This belief was by the medical profession, Cutaneous Sepsis does not apply to carbuncles because the sepsis generally starts in the muscles or fat and it can take many days, even weeks for any signs to appear in the cutaneous layer (Skin) Brian.]

In the UK a preparation containing methyl stannic iodide, “Staniform”, was available before 1958 as an external treatment for staphyloccal infections and an oral treatment containing tin powder and tin(II) oxide “Stannoxyl” was available until recently.

[‘Stannoxyl’ was the last treatment I managed to obtain and was old stock in 1984. At the time I was being treated with antibiotics for weeks with absolutely no effect. A local chemist managed to find a single course of Stannoxyl from wholesalers and within a few days I was cured. Brian]

In contrast to the organotins, metallic tin and inorganic compounds are generally non-toxic with the notable exception of stannane, Sn H₄, which is more toxic than arsine.

For many years, stannous compounds have been used in dentistry and oral hygiene. As long ago as 1947, it was known that tin(II) fluoride protected dental enamel from dissolution in lactic acid and since then SnF2 has been incorporated into dentifrices, mouthwashes, topical solutions and occasionally. dental cements.

[In 1945 US started adding fluoride to public water supplies. ]

The compound appears to exert its prophylactic and therapeutic effects in several ways. In combination with acidulated phosphofluoride it allows control of dental caries; it inhibits dental plaque growth; it effectively controls root hypersensitivity; it reduces root surface solubility and finally, it causes less mottling than sodium fluoride.

It has been said that the clinical effect of antimicrobial agents as plaque growth suppressors is not well correlated with in vitro antimicrobial assays of the same agents.

Reports indicate that while both stannous chloride and stannous fluoride possess bacteriostatic effects on oral micro-organisms in-vitro [Laboratory tests outside the body], growth inhibition by SnCl2 in-vivo [actual tests in the body] is only slight. However, no explanation has been offered for these different effects and the results may prove to be anomalies caused by the experimental difficulty in keeping stannous ions in solution.

It has been shown that commercial toothpastes containing SnF2 alone or in combination with Tin(II) pyrophosphate (Sn2P2O7), function as efficient plaque inhibitors and it appears that the Tin(II) [Stannous Oxide] ion is the bacteriostatic agent, with little, if any, effect from the fluoride component. Most of the tin retained in the mouth is bound to the epithelial surfaces, the dental plaque and salivary macromolecules and is slowly released over a period of about 4 hours following brushing, thus allowing a long lasting bacteriostatic effect.

[Therefore there is no excuse for using fluoride in water supplies, toothpaste or mouthwashes.]

 Stannous oxide (Tin(II)) is the safest of all the metallic oxides. Aluminium, Copper, Iron, Cromium, manganese, Zinc etcetera can all become toxic outside of certain narrow limits, whereas Stannous Oxide can be overdosed by a large amount  with the only symptoms being similar to eating too many apples.

Brian.

 

 

 

———————————-

Essential Minerals

The fact that Tin is not deemed to be an essential mineral is, I feel, due to poor experimental practices. I will explain some of these later.

My main purpose at present is to solve my problem of severe tin shortage in my diet. Normal dietary input is limited to 1-3mg per day against a recommended figure of 10-20mg proposed by Acu-Cell.  (Note: Acu-Cell don’t seem to want to sell you any supplements and give no advise on how to get them. I’ve tried)

Most of this is not retained in the body. Adding to this problem are ‘antagonists’, chemicals that reduce the effectiveness of the tin that is retained in the body.

In the Chart below (From Acu-Cell) the blue line indicates the ‘Normal’ for healthy people. Note; The Normal line does not mean that the same amounts (mg) are involved. ‘Normal’ for one element may be 10mg but normal for another element may be 1000mg.

Note; You cannot just increase one item and hope for a cure. A careful balancing is required between multiple elements. You need to go to the Acu-Cell website for much further information.

Brian

 

 

In this chart three of the main Tin antagonists are at above normal levels: These are  Iron, Calcium and Copper.

Low levels of Tin and Iodine would indicate that there would be some heart efficiency problems.

Low levels of Selenium and Germanium would indicate some brain and nerve problems.

Low levels of Selenium and Sulphur can indicate a wide range of problems including Arthritis and nerve problems.

Note; The extremely low sulphur levels in Alzheimer sufferers tends to highlight a set of problems for the elderly. Egg Yoke is the main natural source of sulphur. Egg Albumin (The White of Egg.) apparently causes constipation in the elderly. Recent medical opinion advises people to eat less eggs. Carers tend not to give eggs to the elderly due to the constipation problem.

 

 —————————————–

Phthalates What are they and What are their dangers?

© 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Phthalates are everywhere, and the health risks are worrying. How bad are they really?

Phthalates are everywhere, and a tidal wave of new research has documented their wide-ranging negative health impacts, but what are the real risks?

Lately, it seems like a new study on the health impacts of phthalates comes out every week. The chemicals are everywhere: they’re used in everything from household cleaners to food packaging to fragrance, cosmetics, and personal-care products.

In 2003, researchers at the US Center for Disease Control documented widespread exposure to a high level of a group of chemicals called phthalates (pdf) across the general American public. The chemicals act as binding agents and also make plastics flexible.

The CDC recommended that the chemicals and their effect on human health be studied further, a recommendation that helped unlock funding for dozens of studies focused on phthalates, resulting in a tidal wave of recently published reports that largely indicate the CDC’s concern was warranted.

The CDC’s warning on phthalates also caught the attention of senators Barbara Boxer and former US representative Henry Waxman, who included the class of chemicals in their Consumer Product Safety bill, passed in 2008. That bill banned the use of some phthalates in children’s products, passed an interim ban on others, and required that the Consumer Product Safety Commission take a close look at the chemicals.

While phthalates is a huge class of chemicals, several have been shown to have negative health impacts.

The resulting report on phthalates – the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (Chap) on Phthalates (pdf) – was finalized in late 2014, and despite the chemical industry’s efforts to soften the commission’s recommendations, public health advocates are largely pleased with the effort, a rarity when it comes to government-penned reports on chemical safety.

With academic studies and policy reports consistently voicing concern over the health impacts of phthalates, and consumers beginning to sit up and take notice, regulation may not be far behind.

“The Chap report is the first major regulatory document in the federal government that’s highlighting the extent of the new science on the risks of phthalates,” says Erik Olson, senior strategic director of food and agriculture and health programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The fact that the commission is looking both at phthalates as a group and at the toxicology of individual phthalates is really important,” he says.

Olson was the deputy staff director for the US Senate’s environment and public works committee when the Consumer Product Safety Bill was written and passed. Between the Chap report, a National Academy of Sciences report looking at phthalates as a class and what he calls “the tidal wave of research that’s been coming out fast and furious” in the past year or so, he said, “we’re getting past the phase of complete denial from the industry – they can no longer claim that there’s no risk at all with phthalates.”

What’s the harm?

Name a major public health concern over the past two decades and there’s likely some link to phthalates exposure.

In the past few years, researchers have linked phthalates to asthma, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, breast cancer, obesity and type II diabetes, low IQ, neurodevelopmental issues, behavioral issues, autism spectrum disorders, altered reproductive development and male fertility issues.

While phthalates is a huge class of chemicals and nowhere near every chemical in the class has been studied, several have been shown to have negative health impacts: butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP), dibutyl phthalate (DnBP), di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), di-butyl phthalate (DBP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP), diisononyl phthalate (DiNP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), dipentyl phthalate (DPP), di-isobutyl phthalate (DiBP), di-isononyl phthalate (DiNP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), di-isohexyl phthalate, dicyclohexyl phthalate (DcHP), and di-isoheptyl phthalate.

Enough distinct phthalates have been studied to indicate that companies should proceed with caution when using any chemical in the phthalate class, particularly in products for pregnant women or young children, whom the research has indicated are the most vulnerable to the effects of phthalates.

One of the first phthalates to raise a red flag, DEHP, was replaced in hundreds of consumer products with DiNP, only for researchers to discover a few years later that exposure to DiNP is correlated to male genital birth defects and impaired reproductive function in adult males.

Public health advocates hope to learn from the mistakes made in regulating bisphenol A (BPA) as momentum gathers behind the regulation of phthalates, and ensure that one harmful phthalate isn’t just replaced with another over and over again.

BPA was singled out as the sole chemical of concern in the bisphenol group, and regulated as such. Manufacturers largely replaced BPA with bisphenol S (BPS), which researchers are now discovering is equally as problematic as BPA.

With phthalates, the research has come before any sort of regulation – companies are not even required to list phthalates on consumer product labels – and legislators are already looking at the entire class of chemicals, as well as any particularly bad ones.

No escape

Both because of their ubiquitous usage and because they are not listed on product labels, phthalates are next to impossible to avoid. They are in household items (vinyl flooring), personal care products (hair care, body wash, some cosmetics), fragrance, household cleaners, and food. Even for those who either avoid these products or buy phthalate-free variations, phthalates lurk in unexpected places.

In food, for example, even milk packaged in glass may have passed through plastic tubes on its way from the cow to the bottle, taking DEHP along with it. “Milking machines use a lot of plastic and DEHP is free and very lipophilic (fat soluble), and milk is full of lipids, so it just pulls the DEHP out of the plastic tubing and into the milk,” explains Robin Whyatt, professor of environmental health sciences at the Columbia University Medical Center and the lead author on several landmark phthalate studies. “So my guess would be that milk is a pretty important source of dietary exposure to DEHP.”

Spices are another surprising source of phthalate exposure. A 2013 study, published in the journal Nature, compared the phthalate levels of two groups, one eating their regular diet but armed with a handout of recommendations for ways to reduce BPA and phthalate exposure in their diet, and the other eating a catered diet consisting solely of local, organic fare, none of which had touched plastic packaging. The study authors were shocked to find that DEHP levels in the local, organic group jumped 2,377% over the course of the experiment. Determined to figure out why, the researchers tested all of the foods consumed by the group and found high levels of the phthalate in dairy products and various organic, imported spices.

“The fact is you can’t know if a food has phthalates in it – you can suspect, but it’s almost impossible to know,” Olson says. “That makes them hard to avoid, which is why you need a regulatory framework.”

What now?

Regulation of consumer products moves slowly in the US, and that has proven to be especially true when it comes to chemicals. Despite the recent movement on phthalates, Olson says it is likely to be a long time before we have the sort of wide-reaching framework that would adequately protect the public from harmful exposure.

That doesn’t mean all is lost in the meantime. State and federal regulations have already eliminated the chemicals from some products, and that list is likely to grow. California’s Proposition 65 now includes four phthalates – DINP, DEHP, DBP and BBP – under its labeling requirements, and the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently proposed changes to Prop 65’s warning requirements, which would require manufacturers to list specific chemicals in their warnings and make those warnings more detailed (currently the warnings are vague, stating only “this product [or building] contains substances known by the state of California to cause cancer”).

“Prop 65 will be a driving force for change on phthalates,” Olson says. “Companies don’t like to put warning labels on their products.”

Consumers can also take matters into their own hands by avoiding products packaged in “recycling-code-3” plastic, products that include the vague ingredient “fragrance” on their label, and purchasing organic products packaged in glass as much as possible.

Whyatt also recommends that consumers remove any food packaged in plastic from its packaging and place them in glass. “DEHP continues to leech over time, so you do actually reduce exposure by changing the storage container, even if it’s been in plastic before you bought it,” she says. “All the DEHP has probably not come out yet by the time you get it home. And if there’s still DEHP in there, it’s probably still leeching out, so you can at least reduce your exposure some extent.”

“If we start by addressing the products where we know there’s significant exposure to phthalates, and we start with the most vulnerable communities – pregnant women and children – we can make a real difference,” Olson said. “We could take care of a lot of food exposure through FDA regulation and toys through the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and that’s a lot. It’s not all, but it’s a good chunk.”

Retailers could also play a significant role, as they have with other chemicals of concern. Target and Walmart both launched initiatives to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals from their shelves last year. Both retailers have said they will make evidence-based purchasing decisions to protect their customers’ health. With a mountain of scientific evidence piling up on phthalates, it can’t be long before consumers begin to put pressure on retailers and retailers in turn push their suppliers to find both alternatives to phthalates and ways to remove the chemicals from their products altogether.

Phthalates can fairly simply be removed altogether from products, with no replacement, according to “green” chemist Bruce Akers. It’s when the chemicals are used to create tubing or packaging that eliminating them becomes tougher: “If you want soft, squeezable plastic, you’re using phthalates,” Akers says.

But according to Whyatt, companies could be using flexible polymers instead. “There are flexible polymers that don’t require a plasticizer – they exist,” she says. “They haven’t been studied really, so we need to know more, but they probably do not leech the way phthalates do. The problem with phthalates as plasticizers is that they’re free floating, they don’t attach to the polymer, so they leech easily. If you have a flexible polymer that shouldn’t happen.”

Despite the size of the issue, Olson remains positive. “We’ve turned a corner on the regulation of phthalates,” he says. “They’re extremely widely used in the economy and it won’t be overnight that we’ll see widespread phase-outs, but clearly we’ve crossed the river and we’re now at the point of debating exactly which uses need to go and where we can use alternatives.”

Correction: This article was updated on 11 February to say Henry Waxman is a former US representative and not a current senator.

 More to follow.

———————————–

This is ongoing research in an attempt to save my own life. It may already be too late, but stannous oxide would stop the carbuncle problem within a few days, [See Boil or Carbuncle.] and allow other aspects of my health to improve.

Author; Brian Williams

The Full Mathematics of the Michelson – Morley Experiment. Part 1

I have never understood why the physics establishment decided that time differences were relevant to the Michelson – Morley experiment. I first looked at this about 48 years ago and my first thoughts were that there could not be any time differences. I am now absolutely certain. The actual results obtained from the experiment are exactly in accordance with the laws and mathematics of classical mechanics.

Basic Set-up of the Experiment.

Basic Set-up of the Michelson – Morley Experiment

The idea behind this experiment, dreamed up by Michelson & Morley, was that somehow it would enable them to detect the motion of the Earth in space, (or relative to a fixed point in space), and that it could be detected by differences in the time taken for two beams, travelling different paths, both identical in length. No differences were observed. Note that the physicists assumed that the path lengths were identical. This was the first major error of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Unfortunately, the experiment (in 1897) was doomed to failure, because the mechanics of it were not understood by Michelson & Morley, (or any later physicists.)

 Summary of Actual Mathematics and Mechanics.     

Note; This is simply an experiment in mechanics, and therefore all the laws of mechanics must be strictly adhered to.

In the above chart ‘Emitted Velocity’ means the velocity that the light travels away from the light source.

Let us consider that the apparatus is travelling in the same direction as the light is emitted.  Let us assume that the speed of light is 100feet/sec, and let us assume that the apparatus is travelling at 50feet/sec.  I do this because using the actual figures leaves us with messy figures such as;

” T₂  = (2 x 0.1 x 300,000.0015/300,000) x (1/300,000.0015)” –  From Physics or Fantasy – Section 1. (It would also be difficult to get figures like this into the chart above.)

Beam 1

Within the apparatus the light would travel a distance of 400 feet in 4seconds, travelling from the emitter to Mirror A, then on to Mirror B and then passing through Mirror A again until reaching the Receiver.

However, whilst this is happening, the apparatus will have travelled  200 feet up the laboratory at a velocity of 50feet/second in the same 4 seconds.

Ignoring the speed of the light and considering only the speed of the apparatus, the light must pass through the points B, C, D and E, after being emitted from point A, and at the times stated. The distance the light must travel to pass through these points is 485.4 feet. If the apparatus is moving at any speed relative to any point outside the apparatus, then the distance travelled  relative to this external point must be greater or less than the path length within the apparatus, in our example 400 feet.

The light is emitted at time  t = 0, and must arrive at point E because that is where the receiver will be at time t = 4secs.

The velocity of the light relative to its starting position (Or even a fixed point in space) will be 100 ft/sec emission velocity plus 50ft/sec  (the velocity of the apparatus), but only until it strikes Mirror A.

Because Mirror A is moving away from the light, and is at 45° to direction of travel, the reflection of the light is, (according to the laws and mathematics of classical mechanics.) reduced to a velocity of 111.8 ft/sec. In other words the actual velocity of the light is reduced by 38.2 ft/sec.

Anyone who plays tennis, cricket, table tennis etc. will understand why this happens, without needing a degree in physics. A batsman facing a 100mph ball has various options. He can play a forward forcing shot  (which will increase the speed of the ball) over the bowlers head, hopefully, for six runs. He can also move the bat backwards at the time of impact, which will reduce the speed of the ball. In both situations the angle of the bat also affects both the speed and direction of the ball.

Mathematics

Va = Velocity of Apparatus.

Ve = Emitted Velocity of the light.

mA = Mirror A, mB = Mirror B, mZ = Mirror Z.

PD =  Physical distance between items of apparatus, example: PD(E>mA) = physical distance between emitter and Mirror A. This is 100ft in all cases in these examples.

TD = Travel distance of light between leaving one item and arriving at the next.

E = Light emitter.

R = Receiver.

Note: It is irrelevant whether you use feet, metres, miles, kilometres or Mega-miles as your units of measurement, if you remember to be consistent. This post is designed to investigate the validity of Einstein’s mathematics and logic.

Beam 1 –  (E>mA)

This is the simplest part of the mathematics.

If the light is emitted at 100ft/sec. and the apparatus is travelling at 50ft/sec then the light must travel at 150ft/sec.

In 1sec. Mirror A will have travelled 50ft from a position 100ft in front of the starting position of the light.

In other words, in 1sec. Mirror A will be 150ft away from the starting position of the light.

If the light travelled a a constant speed of 100ft/sec, it would take 1.5 secs to arrive at the position that Mirror A was after 1 sec. However, it would still be 25 feet behind Mirror A.
 

Time taken from Mirror A to Mirror B.

Tan A = Actual distance moved by Mirror B, divided by the physical distance between  Mirror A and Mirror B.

Tangent A = 50/100 = 0.5.  Angle A is therefore 26.565°

TD = Cosine 26.565° = 100/X = 111.8 ft.

It must travel this distance in 1 sec. otherwise it it would miss mirror B. ( Note; Although the mirrors in my diagrams are shown as very wide, in actual practice the mirrors would be narrow, probably about 0.5 inches (12.5mm) wide).

The actual distance travelled by the light from light source to Mirror B is now 150 + 111.8 = 261.8ft. It has taken 2 seconds.

The light now has to travel from mirror B to the receiver R. The actual distance between mirror B and the receiver R is 200ft. However, the light has to travel a distance of 2 x 111.8 to arrive at receiver R.

It takes 2 seconds to travel this distance at a speed of 111.8ft/sec.

_{TD(E>R) =  TD(E>mA)  +  TD(mA>mB) + TD(mB>E)  = 150 + 111.8 + (2 x 111.8)}

 = 485.4ft

The average speed of the light is 485.4/4 = 121.35ft/sec.

 It should be obvious that over a period of 4 seconds the light must strike mirror A then Mirror B, then Mirror A again, and finally the receiver R, at the times shown because that is where the items are at the times shown.  The light beam must travel at the speeds shown to allow it strike the items. 

 Beam 2.

Beam 2 travels from the emitter E to Mirror Z, then back to Mirror B and then onto the Receiver R.

The path length (measured on the equipment) is 400ft.

Note: The light strikes mirror Z at a closing velocity of 100ft/sec, because mirror Z is moving away at 50ft/sec. The light reflection loses another 50ft/sec. because the mirror is still moving away at 50ft/sec.

The speed of the light reflection relative to mirror Z is 100ft/sec. Confusing isn’t it? But it is true. Cricketers, table tennis players, etcetera all use this fact whilst playing their games, and without a honours degree in physics or engineering. Although not an everyday problem in mechanics it does arise quite often in machinery design.

TD_(E>mZ)    =       Time taken from Emitter E to Mirror Z.  

                  =       TD_(E>mZ)/V_{2(E>mZ)   =}      300/150   ₌  2 sec.

DT_(mZ>mA)  =     Time taken from Mirror Z to Mirror A.  

                    =     TD_(mZ>mA)/V_{(mZ>mA)    =}    50/50   ₌   1 sec.

T_(mZ>R)         =       Time taken from Mirror Z to Mirror A.  

                    =       T_(mZ>R)/V_{(mZ>R)   =} 111.8/111.8      ₌   1 sec.

—————————————————

Notes on lack of time differences in the Michelson – Morley experiment.

If you place the experiment on a train and rotate it through 360° and measure the time taken for the light to travel from the emitter to the the receiver at various angular positions, no time differences will be detected.

——————————————–

If you are in a car travelling eastwards towards the rising Sun at a road speed of 100 mph, then your speed relative to the Sun (It being a ‘fixed point in the universe relative to us), would be approximately 1,100 mph. (The earth rotates at approximately 1000 mph.)

If later the same day on the same road and still travelling at 100 mph, but travelling in a westerly direction towards the setting sun, your speed relative to the sun would be approximately minus 900 mph.  Therefore your speed relative to the sun would have changed by 2000 mph, (i.e. from +1100mph to -900mph.) in the 12 hours between the two journeys.

——————————-

If you replace the car with a beam of  light and carry out similar timings the light will actually be travelling at c + 1000 mph when travelling towards the sunrise, and c-1000mph  when travelling  towards the sunset, ( c =  The claimed constant speed of light.) The velocity of the light (Relative to the Sun) changes by 2000mph between these

Let us change our apparatus to a tube 300,000 kilometres long (approximately). Inside this tube there is a light transmitter(A) at one end and a light receiver(B)  at the other end. We set this tube travelling towards the sun, with end B at the leading end, at a speed of 300,000 kps. When B is at a distance of 300,000 kilometres from the sun we fire the light emmitter at A, towards B (the receiver). One second later end B hits the sun at exactly the same time as the light hits (B). At the time (A) is triggered it is 600,000 kilometres away from the sun.

During this one second the light has travelled 600,000 kilometres and this light has travelled at twice the speed of light!

If we had reversed the tube so that A was at the front end and carried out the same procedure, the light would travel from A to B in two seconds. (end B is still 300,000 kilometres from the sun when end A hits the sun). The light still travels the length of the tube in one second but to an outside observer the light front would be static whilst the end B would be travelling at 300,000 kps towards the light front.

It is this aspect of the Michelson – Morley Experiment that confuses the physicists (plus one or two trigonometry mistakes.)

The man plus the train, the car plus the road, are just different versions of the Michelson – Morley experiment.

Author – Brian Williams