KDM Proposal NuMEgen Ver03 Academic 20100605 Final

Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect
Academic Version
by Kevin Dobson Mequet
2009
A REVOLUTIONARY VIEW TO
THE CHRONIC ENERGY PROBLEM
&
MITIGATION OF GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PUMPING

AND PRIMARY ENERGY RESOURCES DEMAND-DRIVEN SCARCITY:
AN ATHERMAL APPROACH TO NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Copyright 2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet.

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

Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect
2009
CONTENTS
PAGE SECTION
1 Executive Summary
3 Introduction
6 Electromagnetism and the Energy Grand Staircase
12 Solar System Survey
18 Geophysics and an Athermal Possibility for Geomagnetism
22 The Earths Interior Architecture
30 A New Athermal Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-Modeled Core
32 This is Nice, but How Do We Get Electricity Out of It?
35 Next Steps
36 Acknowledgements
37 Endnotes
41 Appendix A: 12 Cognitive Traps
43 Appendix B: The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau
48 Appendix C: Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System
51 Appendix D: Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of Our Solar System
ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE FIGURES
9 Figs. 13: The Hubbertian Petroleum & Fissile Fast Neutron Curves
10 Figs. 4 & 5: US Energy Consumption by Source & Energy Grand Staircase
25 Figs. 611: Thermal/Density Gradient Convection, Convection Cells
Cross-sections, Density Gradient Instability Development &
Mantle/Core Convection Model
26 Figs. 1214: Horizontal Component Vector Movement, Spherical 3-Axial
Relative Movement, Orthographic Core Schemata Diagrams
27 Figs. 1517a-f: Core Fullerene Geodesic Geometry/New Core Armatures,
3-Axial, New Core Single Stage Architecture Sequential Isometric Diagrams
26 Fig. 18: Full Integration Electricity Generation Diagram
iii
Academic Version
2009
iv
Academic Version
2009
Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable Athermal Nuclear Generator

2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thermal nuclear power cannot effectively replace oil, natural gas and coal. The need for a radical
breakthrough in rethinking fissile nuclear power is universally acknowledged. This paper presents
just such a breakthrough. In order to reach a viable fusion economy we must master a viable fission
economy first to successfully transition off hydrocarbon fuels. I propose moving fissile interactions
closer to the actual generation of electricity, cutting out the thermal cycle entirely. I further propose
retiring the single-through-put fuel cycle in favor of a design that makes use of the nearly 560 times
the conventionally usable naturally-occurring fissile nuclear materials, opening the way to full
utilization of the remaining now unusable fissile nuclear materials.
This can be done safely with a design that is intrinsically unweaponizable. My idea is to generate
electricity without burning nuclear fuels to boil water into steam and turn turbine electricity generators.
Instead, I propose generating the electricity directly from a rotating spherical core with entrained
stable and nuclear elements. Naturally, the question is how can this be accomplished?
Look to the oldest example sitting right below our feet. The earth has been generating and
maintaining its magnetic field for at least 4 billion years. If there is an athermal alternative to the well-
established thermal model this would be the place to look for it. Magnetohydrodynamics is a fancy
word for the magnetized hot fluid rocks of the earths interior. It is in complex motion. Somehow
its generating the earths magnetic field but we dont currently know how. Im convinced I have
figured it out; perhaps not entirely, but substantially enough to make a key insight into the solution.
My hypothesis is that the nuclear interactions themselves are directly producing the earths
magnetic field, due to the rotation and motions of the planet. This is derived from a key insight
Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann made in 1957 that each nuclear interaction also produces a
spontaneous tiny magnetic field which, until now, weve overlooked. The earths interior is filled
with nuclear materials that work in a manner similar to leavening in bread, illustratively speaking.
The iron and silicates comprise most of the flour in the bread. The nuclear materials comprise the
yeast and the entrained composition could be said to be similar to bread. It is the interaction of both
the iron and silicates and the nuclear materials that gives rise to the earths magnetic field. If we
1
Academic Version
2009
miniaturize this model, then we can construct a dynamic core that mimics what the earth is doing
naturally, and we can harvest electricity from the magnetic field surrounding the dynamic core.
This paper explains in detail my hypothesis and proposal, and it draws from a number of distinct
scientific disciplines. Any misrepresentation of standard scientific nomenclature in specific sub-
disciplines is unintentional. Look past them to the possibilities that are proposed. Development of
this technology will make investment in a National SuperGrid, not only viable, but a practical
necessity to the United States future domestic and international interests. Not to mention the massive
employment opportunity this would promote. More work and experimentation is needed, but this
proposal constitutes radically new thinking towards an alternative approach to nuclear energy, and a
huge step forward in reconceptualizing and resolving our current energy and economic crises.
Here is a preliminary scenario for proceeding to test and develop this project:
1) Test and verify my hypothesis about earths magnetic field.
2) Test and verify nuclear dynamic core concept.
3) Make a mechanical test-prototype dynamic core.
4) Make a nuclear test-prototype dynamic core.
5) Full integration nuclear test-prototype dynamic core and electricity generation
operating regimes.
6) Safety test-prototype of commercial/industrial applications and governmental
oversight certification.
7) Production fabrication, certification, and deployment for commercial/industrial
grid application.
Contact Information:
Kevin Dobson Mequet

605 Watkins Street
Conway, Arkansas 72034
(501) 327-9470 v & f
k_mequet@hotmail.com
2
Academic Version
2009
Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen1 Device

Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect2
2009
INTRODUCTION
We need to make a successful transition off petroleum-bituminous fuels as the primary energy
resource running our global economies, both to mitigate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels driving
global chaotic climate change and chronic global demand-driven scarcity leading to the primary
energy resources certain future exhaustion. I propose this can be done using a special consequence
of the Feynman/Gell-Mann Theory of the Fermi Interaction, linking the weak nuclear interaction to
the electromagnetic forces. As we shall see, an athermal approach to a radical reconceptualization of
fissile electricity generation can open a new possibility, not only for a nonhydrocarbon-dependent
future, but a vastly increased capacity for electricity generation.
For 54 years, M.K. Hubberts call for a viable replacement to hydrocarbon-dependent infra-
structure has been open.3 Seemingly, either no one has heard or taken it seriously. However, to
assume this negligence has validity is not born out upon careful examination. In political, economic,
and even some academic circles, this might have seemed justifiable, but in scientific circles, it was not.
Several competent scientists had come to the same conclusions as Hubbert; notably, Andrew Flower
in 1978,4 and Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrre in 1998.5 More importantly, Hans Bethe supported
and conferred his imprimatur upon Hubberts 1956 conclusions 20 years later in 1976.6 The general
populace could continue to ignore this reality as long as hydrocarbon fuels remained plentiful and
increasing in their cheap availability. Neither is the case anymore. To quote Ken Deffeyes: Its
done. Its past. Im no longer a prophet looking forward to the peak. Im an historian looking back
at the peak.7 We have neither the luxury nor the convenience of continued procrastination. We
must act. The question is how to proceednot whether we ought.
Jerome Ringo, a self-proclaimed ecological evangelist, travels the entire country speaking the
gospel of sustainability, consistently telling his audiences: The pollution-based economy is the
pastthe green-based economy is the future. Yet it has been 21 years since Scientific American
magazines special topical edition: Managing Planet Earth, September 1989 issue, calling for
exactly the same thing.8 Visiting Al Gore in Nashville the summer of 2008, Ringo asked Gore if it
3
Academic Version
2009
was too late to mitigate catastrophic runaway climate change and Gore responded: Its broken,
Jerome. Honestly, were beyond the point of no return. In January of 1978 Scientific American
magazine published an article sounding the alarm that not only anthropogenic hydrocarbon
combustion but also widespread anthropogenic sylvan destruction was conclusively contributing to
pervasive global atmospheric increases of entrained CO2.9 How did the general populace respond?
Universal denial, defensiveness, and avoidance.
Ringo lent Van Jones his rallying call: Green jobs as a pathway out of poverty for millions of
Americans. Author of The Green Collar Economy and former president of Green For All, Jones
advocates for community awareness of global climate change and the opportunity of entrepreneurial
environmentally sustainable commerce. This is useful to be sure, but will it move us as a complex
industrial society to the promise of its vision; can we navigate reliably away from continuing to
contribute to climate change quite possibly prompting a catastrophic greenhouse event before also
exhausting the current primary energy resource at the same time? Sadly, no, as Bethe made plain in
1976. Does this mean its futile? Again, no, absolutely not.
Yet, an exclusive devotion to global sustainability will not move us appreciably toward our goals.
A certain hardnosed pragmatism thus demands acknowledging that conservation efforts in one group
only makes room for increased consumption in another, giving rise to increasing consumption
overallnot decreasing. Known to ecological economists as Jevons Paradox, I take exception to
this appellation. It trivializes the importance of Jevons observations in Britain, 1864. A better
characterization would be Jevons Theorem: conservation leadsnot to overall decreasing, but the
oppositeoverall increasing consumption.10 To better appreciate this principle it is important to
understand the underlying basis of economic activity in the first place. It is not monetary instru-
mentationas seductively attractive as this easy answer may bebut useful conversion of energy
resources that provides for that very monetary instrumentation and on to productive innovation and
increasing economic activity. The mistake of more than hundred years ago was not only the
perpetuation of a thermal view but also the embrace and promotion of irrational consumption as the
basis for economic success. As long as the available primary energy resource is increasing in its
abundance for consumption, theres not a problem. But when this physical condition no longer
prevails, nor does the increasing environmental harm of its increasing use hold a rational imperative
for continuation, then something must be done. A revolution is at hand and it must be pursued.
4
Academic Version
2009
I say revolutionary change because the time for incremental change is long past. Incremental
change by its definition is a longterm minute accrued amortization that upon its maturity a new
direction is firmly in place, having averted the potential disastrous course by competent analysis long
before that outcome would present itself. The proof of its success is the fact of never having come
close to encountering those disastrous consequences. The main problem is that antecedent clues are
so subtle and innocuous as to be unobvious by normal observation. Only diligent and relevant
analysis points unwaveringly towards policy implementation. Thats when incrementalism is an
effective and practical tool in producing desirable future outcomes.
But when adverse consequences become so obvious as to be undeniable, that is far too late for
incrementalism. Think of it this way. Several of our upcoming space probes will be fitted with ion-
plasma drives. These drives use tiny sips of hydrogen or nitrogen fuel with attendant diminutive
thrust factors, but they can operate for fantastically long periods of time. They are practical studies
in effective incrementalism coupled with precise and well-executed analysis. Upon their first half of
travel distance, the accrued amortization of their thrust acceleration reaches extraordinary velocities.
At the midpoint of transit, these crafts will then rotate 180 degrees and the thrust deceleration
second half of their journey begins. To achieve successful orbital insertion at their destination the
reverse accrued amortization of deceleration must match perfectly the outward first half of their
voyage. Long before orbital insertion, this incremental change must be implemented and assiduously
maintained. Miscalculation or failure of precise implementation would result in disastrous overshoot
and loss, or destruction upon unavoidable impact. There is no difference between this scenario and
the one playing out right now.
That one might think there is a difference is a primary source of the problem. Its a very human
attribute to get caught up in cognitive traps. Of course it would be foolish to propose to stop being
human. I am proposing, though, to stop assuming ourselves to be merely the sum total of our human
fallibilitiesto take responsibility for our collective humanity and leap beyond it to new frontiers. A
necessary step towards this is to understand and fully accept those traps as our very own. There are at
least 12 cognitive traps that we all to one degree or another are unwittingly ensnared.11 12
A failure of invariance is the only result of being ensnared in any one or all of these traps without
awareness of entrapment. Or put another way by Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over, expecting a different result. The ability to not only consider but also take action in
5
Academic Version
2009
new directions of thought demands breaking free of these impediments. The stakes couldnt be higher.
We find ourselves in this predicament precisely because of a 50-plus-year-long failure of invariance.
1956 was the moment of midpoint effective incrementalist intervention as far as the current
energy crisis in which we find ourselves is concerned. The first energy crisis of 1973 wasnt solved at
all, but merely a first act in prelude to subsequent events: rampant inflation of the late 70s, wildly
cycling economic swings, Gulf War I, and our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Had we heeded
the warning prudentially and acted accordingly wed be in much different circumstance now. We
were warned not to embark upon the importation of petroleum from foreign sources to augment our
economic expansion and yet we began this practice in 1958. We were warned that domestic sources
would plateau and begin inexorably declining in 1970 or so and yet we increased our importation of
foreign sources right at the moment this plateau occurred, beginning a secured and inexorable over-
dependence upon those sources. Now we have entered a terminal phase of worldwide plateau and
inexorable global decline in petroleum extraction with no viable alternatives firmly ramping up to
replace the global loss of the primary energy resource.
Had we embarked upon new energy technological approaches to augment our economic
expansion, and planned for the certain eventuality of domestic plateau and inexorable decline in the
extraction of petroleum resources with replacement of them during this phase, then a more amenable
current circumstance would face us. This was not the case. Now some, perhaps, would lament this
unfortunate result. Or many might continue to be entrapped in one or more cognitive traps,
ignoring reality and refusing to face it. I would not recommend this, but instead, exhort embarkation
upon a revolutionary course of action. So, bear with me and allow me to build a case.
ELECTROMAGNETISM AND THE ENERGY GRAND STAIRCASE

The basic principles of the electromagnetic binary have been known and exploited for some two
centuries. Simply stated a classic dynamo does one of two things: either generate electricity or make
an electromotor/electromagnet. Rotate a suitable conductor at right angles to a magnetic field and
that angular motion will induce an electric current. Conversely, run an electric current through the
conductor and an associated magnetic field forms around the conductor at right angles in a counter-
clockwise direction. So a magnetoelectric construct will generate electricity by magnetic induction
6
Academic Version
2009
and an electromagnetic construct will generate a magnetic field by electric current flow that can be
used to make an electromagnet or electromotor.
For a little more than 150 years we have used the burning of fuels, first wood, coal, natural gas,
then radiologic decay to heat a fluid thermal transfer medium to turn water into steam, passed it
through, first reciprocating engines, then turbine engines to turn magnetoelectric-dynamo generators to
make our electricity. Its known as thermal electricity generation and it is well understood. Thats the
primary problem. It is too well understood, as this is a result of several cognitive traps at work. Now
is our opportunity to think the problem anew. Rather than continue to predominately burn fuels to do
useful work, can we conceive and construct a technological system that mimics a natural one from
which the electricity we need may be harvested on a far greater scale than the current hydrocarbon-fast-
oxidation model allows with which we are so familiar and utterly dependent? I think so and the
following is concerned with accomplishing this goal.
It is also well understood that nuclear thermal electricity generation in its current form is pitifully
impractical and inefficient, not to mention prohibitively expensive to implement pervasively. The
community of nuclear academic and industry experts is agreed: whats needed is a radical breakthrough.
What would be an efficient use of fissile resources? Where might we look for a clue? How
might we use heavy radiologic elements to, not merely get a good energy return on energy investment,
but an orderor several ordersof magnitude improvement over hydrocarbon thermal tech-
nologies? A thoughtful reinvestigation of Einsteinian electromagnetism, planetary astrophysics/
cosmology, and quantum electrodynamics just might hold those very clues.
David Goodstein, Distinguished Professor of Applied Physics and former Vice Provost at
Caltech, claimed that:
There has always been the hope we would conquer the problem of nuclear fusion
thermonuclear fusion. That promise has been 25 years away for the past 50 years and its still
25 years away. Its an extremely difficult technical problem to solve. But if, ultimately, we
were to solve it, we would able to burn just deuterium from seawater, then every gallon of
seawater would contain as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline. So, for our longterm future
thats our best hope.13
7
Academic Version
2009
While a significant boon in the future, the short-term prospects are not encouraging at all. Theres a
very logical reason for this. I call it the Energy Grand Staircase. A very good way to visualize this is
found in the Four Corners region of the Colorado Plateau from Colorado River level at the bottom
of Grand Canyon to the hoodoo pinnacles of Bryce Canyon the stratigraphic geologic timeline,
spanning some 2 billion years which has a prescient name: The Geologic Grand Staircase.14 From
the Vishnu Schist at approximately 2 BYA15 with Zoroaster Gneiss intrusions amalgamation at
approximately 1.7 BYA to the Claron Formation at approximately 60 MYA16 the landscape stairsteps
somewhere around 2,500 ASL17 to 9,500 ASL.18
In the same way The Geologic Grand Staircase is helpful in understanding the western US Four
Corners topography and geology, The Energy Grand Staircase is a way to visualize the classification
of natural energy resources into broad categories related to their ability to provide energy return on
energy investment (EROEI) in both their transportation for end-user consumption and utilization.
The lower an energy class resides on the Staircase the smaller will be its EROEI; conversely, the
higher a class ascends the greater will be its EROEI [see Figs. 4 & 5]. The lowest tread comprises
the myriad non-fuel sources of work accomplished by humankind, animal husbandry, wind and water
harnessing which doesnt even register on the scale for a single unit of output but must be amassed in
huge numbers for sufficient output to benefit a very small privileged few: x>0:1 EROEI. The
second step is the exploitation in the 17th century of natural forestrysylvanlumber and wood
waste byproducts for thermal output to benefit whole communities and nation states: 4:1 EROEI.
The third step is the discovery and exploitation in the 1750s of coal for thermal output to benefit
even greater communities and nation states giving rise to the Industrial Revolution: 10:1 EROEI.
The fourth step is the discovery and exploitation in the 1850s of petroleum and natural gas for
thermal output giving rise to the explosive innovation and prosperity we take for granted today:
100:1 initially for the former, 2040:1 currently for the former, and 1015:1 for the latter EROEIs.
The fifth step is the discovery and exploitation of nuclear fission in the late 1930s for thermal output
electricity generation as a replacement for thermal hydrocarbon technologies: 4:1 EROEI. The sixth
step is nuclear fusion in the next 25 years maybefor virtually unlimited thermal electricity
generation to replace all the current hydrocarbon/fission thermal technologies: x<1:1 EROEIwe
have not yet achieved scientific breakeven.19
Arranged in this way the problem becomes obvious. The thermal approach for nuclear fission
achieves no better the 17th century thermal wood performance. Continuing down the thermal path
8
Academic Version
2009
Fig. 1: Hubberts Curve for oil extraction from the 1956 paper.
Fig. 2: Hubberts Curve for oil extraction from the 1971 paper.
Fig. 3: Hubberts Curves for oil extraction & nuclear fission from the 1956 paper.
Note that Hubbert attempted a rational estimation of conversion of U238 and Th232.
9
Academic Version
2009
Fig. 4: Note the successful transitions from nonfuels to wood, from wood to coal, and from coal to
petroleum/NG when the new curve overtakes the old curve. This didnt happen for hydroelectric
and nuclear electric power. The steps in the chart below occur at those transition points.
Fig. 5: The Energy Grand Staircasewhen EROEI by source is arranged this way the observable
economic disruptions, not to mention the difficulties in embarking upon viable replacements to
hydrocarbon-dependence, become obvious.
10
Academic Version
2009
for nuclear fusion is even worse. This is unworkable. Its also a check on thinking through the prob-
lem. It turns out the sustainable alternatives do no better than thermal nuclear fission. True, solar
thermal and photovoltaic, and wind generation are renewable and non-exhaustiblewhich is very
goodbut they are also too intermittent and diffuse, requiring an infrastructure breakthrough in
storage20 21 and/or SuperGrid22 transmission to be functional replacements for hydrocarbon tech-
nologies; not to mention they perform no better than 17th century thermal wood fuel exploitation. The
delicate fragility of the collection devices is extraordinarily vulnerable to severe storm damage and
harsh environmental conditions require expensive maintenance and replacement on a regular basis.
The real point here is this. Well before the peak of a previous energy resource category we made
such efficient use of it that a viable transition to the next step was successful spurring greater
innovation and prosperity benefits from embarking upon the new energy resource exploitationthat is,
until nuclear fission. For 350 years we have been on an expansion juggernaut that reliably provided
unimaginable and unprecedented human innovation and prosperity by the successful ascent of The
Energy Grand Staircase. However, we have not made efficient use of nuclear fissionfar from it
and so we cannot successfully transition from hydrocarbon fuels as a result, let alone get to nuclear
fusion. The reason we will not leapfrog nuclear fission to nuclear fusion is that the available space of
energy conversion capacity by hydrocarbon fuels is insufficient to make fusion viable. Only when we
make efficient use of nuclear fission can sufficient available space be made for embarking upon fusion.
We cant get to a viable nuclear fusion technology until we successfully solve the nuclear fission prob-
lem. We have made ill-suited thermal nuclear fission technologies that are lacking in their usefulness,
highly vulnerable to illicit terrorism, not to mention their inviability as a suitable hydrocarbon replace-
ment. We need to make a well-suited nuclear fission technology that will move us off hydrocarbon
fuels and facilitate a successful embarkation upon nuclear fusion technologies.
What would that well-suited nuclear fission technology be?
One that mimics Earth, as we shall see. Attempts at conceiving just such an approach have been
made. One physicist takes the notion of a discrete mechanical view too literally. He postulates that a
pure uranium deposit at the centroid of the planet within the solid iron core functions as georeactor.
The main problem with this is that it doesnt explain how a georeactor generates a planetary mag-
netosphere.23 While at the same time avoiding the unfortunate reality that if it operated similarly to
terrestrial thermal nuclear generators the accumulated heat generated to produce the observed
11
Academic Version
2009
geomagnetosphere would be in the hundreds of thousands of degrees which is highly implausible.

Furthermore, its chief liability lies in confining the georeactor inside the solid iron core. Disregarding
for a moment the work of George Cowan, Alex Meshik and Charles Hohenberg on geologic
naturally-occurring fission reactorschiefly the Oklo phenomenonwhich reveals that a naturally
moderated fission chain reaction requires a self-regulated water fluid/vapor cycle that would not be
present in the core,24 the stunningly obvious situation of extraordinary pressure compressing the hot
liquid iron into a metallic solid would also compress the uranium beyond a supercritical mass
threshold producing a spectacular thermonuclear detonation. Since the Earth and human life
continue to exist, this hypothesis is highly improbable, but I shall defer to the critique of this
physicist offered by David J. Stevenson of Caltech:
[he] is a solid and knowledgeable person when it comes to (nuclear) reactors. But the
amount of attention this (georeactor) idea has received is out of proportion with its
plausibility. Its not complete nonsense, but its highly unlikely. There are many instances in
science where this happens. This one has merely received more attention than most.
The idea is based on two very dubious propositions: (a) That uranium (or any heavy element)
would naturally go to the center of the Earth. This is almost certainly untrue. It is a
misunderstanding of chemistry and statistical physics at a very fundamental level. (b) That
there is something about Earths heat flow or helium that is so wildly discordant with our usual
ideas that it requires an outrageous hypothesis to explain it. This is incorrect.25
I suggest that the planet Earth does indeed function as a natural georeactor that generates a planetary
magnetosphere, but in a far more holistic, complex, and nuanced manner, which addresses Steven-
sons critique, and better fits the available evidence. At this point, we need to examine the planets of
the solar system to understand how this might work.
SOLAR SYSTEM SURVEY

A thoughtful examination of the known data regarding stellar and planetary magnetism uncovers a
surprising set of conclusions:26 27
1) The sun has the strongest magnetic field, driving the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF).
2) The 4 innermost planets are solid rocky bodies within 1.5 AU28 from the sun in the
terrestrial zone.
12
Academic Version
2009
3) The outermost planets are gas giants comprised of lighter gaseous elements between 530
AU from the sun in the jovian zone.
4) The asteroid belt is concentrated between 24 AU. Though no local asteroid magnetic
fields have been detected by space probe transits to the gas giants, MIT has recently
disclosed a hypothesis that many, if not most, did in the primordial nebular past.29
5) Mercury has an extremely tenuous magnetic field; Venus and Mars have no magnetic
fields.
6) Earth has a powerful enough magnetic field to protect both its atmosphere and biosphere
from cosmological energetic charged particles and harmful radiation.
7) Jupiter has the most powerful magnetic field, Saturn has the 2nd, and Uranus and Neptune
each have the 3rd.
8) Although Earths moon has no magnetic field now, it did in the primordial nebular past,30
and Jupiters Ganymede has a magnetic field 22 times stronger than Mercurys. Saturns
Titan, nearly a twin to Ganymede, has no magnetic field.
The solid body planets hold a dearth of magnetic fields. The gas giants hold an abundance of
magnetic fields. The sun generates the IMF and it is extraordinarily strong. Why?
If we go back to the electromagnetic dynamo model, then we see that it is well understood that
massive, complex plasmas are moving in the suns mantlethe majority interior known as the
Convection Zonewith a net effective common direction of electric current flow. Keep in mind
that plasmas are by definition piezoelectric gaseous fluids not constrained by the Curie temper-
aturesome cold but most hot, very hot in fact. Two things are going on at once to draw this
conclusion. First, the rotation of the sun moves its entire mass in a counterclockwise direction, and
second, the equator is moving far faster than the Polar Regions11 days differential, 25 at the
equator and 36 days at the Polar Regions giving rise to a torsional differential fluidic autorotation. By
far a net equatorial angular moment in electric current flow is producing the IMF. At Earths orbit,
our space probes detect the IMF as 100 times stronger than our terrestrial magnetosphere at the
magnetopause. None of the other solar systems bodily magnetospheres are detectable near Earths
space. It is well understood that the inferred plasmatic electric currents are massive, complex in their
structure, and pervasive in the suns interior. A complex interaction between the Convection Zone,
the Photosphere, and the Corona interchanges electricity flows with magnetic fields and back in a
most chaotic way. Magnetic field tubes rupture and reconnect dynamically; magnetic induction
superheats hydrogen/helium plasmas heating the Corona sending out light and the solar wind.31
13
Academic Version
2009
From these phenomena we can conclude that fusion, heat, plasmas, electricity flows and magnetic
field generation makes for a perfectly suited fusion reactor electromagnetic stelleodynamo.32
I suggest that the gas giants function similarly to the sun except they are preignited imperfectly
suited proto-fusion reactors. While Ill grant that they may well possess fission georeactors in parallel
with plasmatic processes, I question that proposed architecture as Davidson makes its deficiencies
plain. My point is that gravity-induced compression heating would give rise to similarly viable plasma
flows as in the sun but at greatly reduced effectiveness. Plasmatic electromagnetic quasistelleo-
dynamo processes would explain their magnetospheres; magnetic induction, magnetic tube rupture,
and reconnection in their mid atmospheres would explain the observed net excess heat dissipation,
when contrasted with the solar radiation input. Jupiter, being the most massive and fastest in
autorotation, has the most massive magnetosphere20,000 times stronger than Earths. Its no
wonder Jupiter has the strongest magnetosphere in the solar system, 2nd only to the sun. This is why
it is predominately accepted that Jupiter is the suns almost-ignited binary. Saturn, being the second
most massive and second fastest in autorotation, has the second most massive magnetosphere
nearly 35 times weaker than Jupiters, yet 580 times stronger than Earths. Uranus and Neptune,
being nearly twins in that they are each the third most massive with Neptune the third and Uranus
the fourth fastest autorotations, have the third most massive magnetospheres400 times weaker
than Jupiters, yet nearly 50 times stronger than Earths. Clearly, theres a distinct process going on
that differentiates the innermost terrestrial solid planets from the Jovian gas giants.
What might that be?
Mercury is the only other solid body planet with a magnetic field, albeit a tenuous one. One of
the primary functions of the current MESSENGER33 mission is to determine whether Mercury has
its own magnetic field, has a remnant frozen magnetic crustal effect after its mantle/core cooled,
or is at the effect of its close proximity to the sun. Regardless, we know theres an associated equa-
torial magnetic field 40,000 times weaker than Earths, courtesy of Mariner 10 more than thirty years
ago. What will be interesting to find out is whether Mercury continues to generate its magnetic field
or not.34 Venus has no magnetic field. Mars has no magnetic field with the exception of transient
magnetic umbrellas that rhythmically pinch its tenuous remaining atmosphere into interplanetary
space. Rather than an intrinsically Martian phenomenon, this is an effect of Mars transit through the
IMF, disturbing it in turbulent eddies that manifest the umbrellas on the surface of Mars.35
14
Academic Version
2009
Our moon is an interesting enigma. It has no magnetic field, but it has perennially residual
magnetic crustal effects due to its passage through the Earths magnetotail for 6 days out of every
27.3.36 37 MIT recently confirmed a surprising longstanding controversy that 4.2 BYA it had a
thermally-induced electromagnetic dynamoor geodynamomagnetosphere 50 times weaker than
Earths. While more than 20 years before a Scientific American magazine article asserted that wildly
fluctuating rotational and magnetic effects due to orbiting debris impacts swung the poles drama-
tically and may have produced periods of geomagnetism twice the Earths intensity.38 With the
cooling of the moons mantle/core, the magnetosphere disappeared in the intervening time. This
revelation followed a similarly interesting disclosure: many, if not most, planetesimals and remaining
asteroids had geodynamo magnetospheres 4.2 BYA. Like our moon, as their interiors cooled their
magnetospheres dissipated. What interests me is not that their magnetic fields are gone, but that they
once had them and it seems to be regardless of size; therefore, there seems to be a scalable characteristic to
planetary magnetism. Well return to this in a moment.
Why does the Earth have a strong magnetic field? Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earths moon dont,
yet Earth does. A great deal of investigation and theorization has transpired and yet this mystery is far
from solved. The following overview by Tony Phillips, resident investigator and prolific public out-
reach author for Science@NASA illustrates how complex and elusive the endeavor is:
Earths magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid
in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like
water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has hurricaneswhirlpools powered by
the Coriolis forces of Earths rotation. These complex motions generate our planets magnet-
ism through a process called the dynamo effect.
Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting

fluids and magnetic fields, [Gary] Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a super-
computer model of Earths interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic
ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds
of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens.
What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and,
occasionally, flip. Change is normal, theyve learned. And no wonder. The source of the field,
the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. Its chaotic down there, notes Glatz-
maier. The changes we detect on our planets surface are a sign of that inner chaos.39
15
Academic Version
2009
The problems with this line of reasoning are manifoldnot with the dynamics, but with the
geodynamo. As resistance impedance increases the conductor increases in heat, losing electric
current energy to heat energy within the conductor which in turn increases resistance impedanceto
a point where current flow is eventually reduced to nothing. This is a reverse feedback loop that is
greatly magnified with additional heat provided from geologic processes. More importantly, though
ferrous elementsironare highly ferromagnetic, they are not correspondingly as piezoelectric, or
good conductors of electricitybeing 4 times more resistant than cuprous elements. Cuprous
elementscopperon the other hand, while nonferromagnetic, are 6 times more piezoelectric
electrically conductivethan ferrous.40 Interestingly, cuprous elements are also 5 times more
thermally conductive than ferrous.41 Meaning that not only is copper a better conductor of electricity
but its 5 times better at conducting it in the presence of resistance impedance heating than iron! The
coup de grce is this: the mantle temperatures exceed the Curie temperature for ferromagnetic ferrous
elements,42 and perversely, also for piezoelectric cuprous elements, negating a plausible induced
ferromagnetism to such an extent that a geomagnetic effect is rendered implausible; which explains
why it is now universally accepted that the classic dynamic view must be retired in favor of a newer
view: magnetohydrodynamics. Yet the Curie temperature also precludes electrical conductivity in the
very fluids comprising magnetohydrodynamics. This is problematic enough to give pause, but then
in the very same article the supporting parallel reference material blunts Glatzmaier and Roberts
magnetohydrodynamic view with this:
Although the details of the dynamo effect are not known in detail, the rotation of the Earth
plays a part in generating the currents which are presumed to be the source of the magnetic
field. Mariner 2 found that Venus does not have such a magnetic field although its core iron
content must be similar to that of the Earth. Venuss rotation period of 243 Earth days is just
too slow to produce the dynamo effect.43
In apparent contravention of the so-called Blackett Effect44 to which this alludes, Mars autorotation
is very near Earths yet has no magnetic field either, and Ganymedes rotation is tidally locked with
Jupiter yet has a magnetic field 22 times stronger than Mercurys. Mercurys autorotation is 1 times
its orbital period, giving it a full 2 rotations for every 3 complete orbital periods; yet its magnetic field
is the strongest after Earths in the terrestrial zone.45 While the replacement of the classic dynamo/
rotation theory has been supplanted by the magnetohydrodynamic view, it now seems to be pushed
much too far in the Earths case for a very simple reason. Arguably, tunnelvision has led these
16
Academic Version
2009
investigators astray. I propose that an overdependence upon computational modeling without

seeking broader multidisciplinary collaboration and utility of practical physical modeling is the source
of the conundrum.46 Lets suppose cuprous elements are entrained with the ferrous in such a way
that electricity flows and further suppose it can do so beyond the Curie temperature to the point
geomagnetism is produced, then where is the electricity coming from? This gets nebulous too:
Convection drives the outer-core fluid and it circulates relative to the earth. This means the
electrically conducting material moves relative to the earths magnetic field. If it can obtain a
charge by some interaction like friction between layers, an effective current loop could be
produced. The magnetic field of a current loop could sustain the magnetic dipole type
magnetic field of the earth. Large-scale computer models are approaching a realistic simulation
of such a geodynamo.47
The problem with this is most glaring. Ignoring for a moment the tautological contradiction with the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics, anyone who has shuffled their feet on a carpet during a dry day, touch-
ed someone else or something metallic and received a resulting shock of static electricity knows that,
while surprising, it is unharmful. Or, recall an electric machine in introductory physics class power-
ing an unharmful Tesla Jacobs Ladder. Because in both examples, while a high voltage is
generated, an extremely miniscule current is also generated. Laypersons not conversant with electro-
dynamics often mistake high voltage for correspondingly high current, interchangeably. Which is
understandable, given that the everyday experience of just such a person is associated with the
electricity coming from a convenience outlet. This is not the case here. A minuscule current is
generated but at very high voltage which would be insufficient to power an electromagnet. Con-
sequently, the geomagnet requires massive current flow with high voltage, not miniscule current flow
with massive voltageas would be the case with supposed geologic differential, frictional motions
to make the magnetohydrodynamic model plausible.
There is no current. Or certainly such a miniscule current that the observed geomagnetism is
not possible. Whats going on? The magnetohydrodynamic view now appears to be just as
teleological as the older classic dynamo view. We have now arrived at the crux of the problem
stumping experts the world over. Lets examine a plausible resolution of these difficulties.
17
Academic Version
2009
GEOPHYSICS AND AN ATHERMAL POSSILIBILITY FOR GEOMAGNETISM

It is well understood for quite some time that the Earths interior has remained hot and in dynamic
motion due to a superimposition of its autorotation and radiologic decay of heavy unstable elements,
namely the fissile isotope U235 and the conversion of fertile isotopes Th232 and U238 into fissile U233
and Pu239, respectively.48 The fast neutron radiological decay heats the predominately ferrous
elements driving the dynamic motions of the upper/lower mantle and core, producing three macro
phenomena: maintenance of autorotation, crustal tectonics/volcanism, and the geodynamo magneto-
sphere, now known as magnetohydrodynamics. As previously shown, we can now make an
important distinction: there is the helio- or stelleodynamo-induced IMF, quasistelleodynamo-induced
magnetospheres for the gas giants and a geodynamo magnetosphere for the Earth. We have
discussed the basic principles for the stelleodynamo and quasistelleodynamos. While the Earth
possesses the only geodynamo-induced magnetosphere other than Mercurymaybeand
Ganymede, the other planets, moons and most if not all the asteroids, although long ago once did,
no longer do today. What happened? They cooled over the elapsed 4 billion years. Why did they
cool? It cant be that gravitational tidal forces have changed all that much because whatever changes
have occurred have happened to the Earth as well as to all the others except Jupiters moon Io whose
interior is being driven by tidal resonance geologic flexure/compression-induced heating.49 The
inescapable conclusion is that their mantles do not proportionately possess as much heavy radiologic
elements as the Earths to maintain their dynamic molten mantle/cores. Ganymede apparently does,
or at least far more than the othersthe discovery of its rather strong magnetic field came as a
complete surprise courtesy of the NASAs 1996 Galileo mission surveys.50 While Galileos surveys of
Io and Europa have yielded provocative observations, new missions will be required to elucidate
whether they are at the effect of Jupiters magnetic field alone, possess their own intrinsic magnetic
fields, or encompass an intertwined combination of both.51 52
Is there evidence that the Earth could have accumulated the lions share of available heavy
radiologic elements in the primordial solar nebula? In fact, there is. For more than 30 years Stuart
Weidenschilling has been investigating and elucidating the mechanics of the evolution of the solar
nebula into the contemporary solar system we observe today. By reverse engineered forensic analysis
he has made some striking headway. Collisions of small solid planetary embryos accreting into larger
protoplanets predominately drove planet formation until gravitation took over in furthering accretion.
The process is nonlinear, incredibly complex, chaotically turbulent, and iteratively manifold. The
18
Academic Version
2009
current relative scarcity of computational resources has disallowed superfine scale modeling, but
relatively coarse scale modeling implies that heavier elements are predominately self-distributed to
the 0.21.0 AU terrestrial zone. Weidenschillings conjecture is that random planetary embryo
accretion reached a transition point to gravitationally-driven accretion that then progressed into a
runaway chain until the available materials were swept into the growing gravity well in the eventual
planets orbital paths.53 54
The point is that Earth appears to be somewhat unique and I wish to answer the question as to
why. It was the first of the inner solid rocky planets to reach its gravitational accretion threshold that
allowed it to accumulate the lions share of available heavy radiologic elements in the terrestrial zone
of planetary formation. Radiologic heating and autorotation appear to be associated with its geo-
dynamo magnetosphere. Radiologic heating and a fortuitous dynamically self-replenishing thermally-
insulative lithosphere has maintained our active mantle/core over the elapsed 4 billion years until the
present and will continue to do so well into the far future by a preponderance of radiologic elements
having been swept into the forming proto-Earth, leaving a dearth of such elements for the other
terrestrial zone solid body planets and moons.
It is interesting to note that Ganymedes diameter is a third greater than both Io and Europa
following the terrestrial zones pattern in a miniature expression. What relatively little remaining
heavy radiologic elements that existed in Jovian space appears to have been swept up by Ganymede,
similar to the case for Earth and its neighbors.
I have dismissed, at Davidsons compelling insistence, the existence of a discrete mechanistic

georeactor embedded within the Earths solid iron core. There are a couple of simple reasons why
this may confidently be done. First, the georeactor hypothesis requires that the early primordial
nebula was very hot and the molten heavy radiologic elements be entrained in the ferrous elements
such that as the early proto-Earth formed the heavy elements would migrate under the influence of
nascent gravitation into the centroid of the molten iron and be encased before the iron core solidified.
Second, it requires that those very same heavy elements must defy thermally turbulent convective
motion in the forming proto-Earth mantle as the process of formation proceeded.
Interestingly, though it was long assumed the primordial solar nebula must have been quite
active and hot, in the million-degrees-Kelvin range, recent computational modeling indicates this
might not have been the case at all. It now appears to have been less than 519K, half the
19
Academic Version
2009
condensation temperature of lead55 in the vicinity of Earths formation and ultimate orbit. Weiden-
schilling concurs with this assessment, putting the temperature at ~320K. So this means that the
Earth system hasnt cooled from the primordial period, but heated up. This also means that the
other solid bodies didnt cool either but heated up initially from planetary embryonic collision/
gravitationally-driven accretion heating with relatively scant radiologic fissile-driven decay, which
then allowed them to cool over the 4-billion-year elapsed time to the present. This precludes the first
criterion for the discrete georeactor hypothesis.
The second is dealt with rather elegantly if somewhat pedestrianly. A simple experiment rules
out the core-heavy radiologic-element-migration hypothesis and demonstrates thermal turbulent
mixing of both lesser and greater density elements in the same system. Well model them in a simple
physical setup. The molten ferrosilicate mantle is a far less dense fluid than the entrained heavy
radiologic elements. So, water will do nicely to represent the molten ferrosilicate mantle material;
bring the water to a boil in a 2-litre beaker with one egg and cook it for 5 minutes. Once the time
has elapsed, remove the beaker from the flame, and remove and peel the egg. Save the shell pieces
and membrane, break them into tiny bits and put them back in the beaker. This is important: notice
all the shell and membrane pieces sink to the bottom of the beakerthe shells admirably represent
the heavy radiologic elements, Th232, U235, U238, and the membranes represent lighter fissile
byproduct radiologic elements, such as Sr90, Sn126, Cs13756because they are significantly denser and
heavier than the water. Now bring the beaker back to a boil, but watch carefully the phase changes.
Youll notice that the shells jitter and chatter while the membranes convect quite noticeably. They
allow you to see the turbulent thermal fluid convection currents well before the phase change
progresses into vigorous boiling. When the water is boiling notice that all the shells are quite well
mixed in the far less dense water turbulent thermal fluid convection flow. This rules out the second
discrete georeactor criterion.
33 years ago D.P. McKenzie and Frank Richter did the first physical modeling investigation of
plastic thermal convection characteristics simulating processes purported to be analogous to the
Earths mantle.57 Whats striking is the apparent geometric structure in the models. Simpler patterns
at highest viscosity and lowest temperature form elongated parallel cylinders. Lower viscosity/higher
temperature patterns superimpose two sets of elongated parallel cylinders at right angles to each
other forming a chessboard geometry. Lowest viscosity/highest temperature patterns form
amorphous pentagonal/hexagonal cells with descending ridges wavelength horizontally offset with
20
Academic Version
2009
similar patterned ascending fins[see Fig 6]. That such deterministic-seeming order would arise from
simple-rule nonlinearity was surprising at the time, but rather expected now.
Christopher Talbot and Martin Jackson have been studying salt tectonics for well over two
decades now and one of their more important discoveries is that the basis of convection flow is not
temperature gradient, primarily, but density gradient and the crucial element of variable timescale.
Thermal gradients produce density gradients in homogenous element systems giving rise to
convection. All elements are fluids even solid rocky elements when considered as very large
structures. All elements convect due either to the interaction of 2 elements of differential relative
density or a single element of thermally-induced differential relative density.58 Density-gradient-
gravity-instability convection geometries are strikingly similar to thermal convection cell geometries
and may competently be thought of interchangeably [see Fig 7]. This is successfully modeled in our
experiment above.
We now have the necessary principles to understand whats transpiring in the Earths mantle/
core interior. Less dense lighter molten ferrous ferromagnetic elements have much denser heavy
radiologic fertile/fissile elements entrained throughout them convecting in turbulent fluidynamic
motions and are coupled to an autorotation which produces a geodynamo magnetosphere. The
radiologic decay process is driving the heating and the heating is driving a system of density gradients
which in turn drives the chaotic turbulent convection/coriolis motions of the active mantle, which in
turn drives a relative differential motion of radiologic fast-neutron and ferromagnetic system that in
turn drives the geodynamo. The Earth operates as a system to produce the geodynamo magneto-
sphere in a novel way that is not shared with the solar/gas giants plasmatic stelleo/quasistelleo-
dynamo magnetospheres. The gas giants imperfectly model preignited nuclear fusion reactors with
Jupiter possessing the most successful preignited nuclear fusion quasistelleodynamo leaving the
remaining gas giants in descending order of efficiency, proportional to their distance from the sun.
The sun models the perfect nuclear fusion reactor. The Earth, therefore, models the perfect nuclear fission
reactor. We have only to figure out an efficient way to harvest electricity from this architecture.
Lets spend a bit more time elucidating the Earths interior architecture so we may then proceed
to formulate a hypothetical architecture for a viable generator model.
21
Academic Version
2009
THE EARTHS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE

First, we need to define our terms and specify the known architecture of the interior of Earth. The
mean diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km, giving a mean radius of 6,378 km from the surface of the
lithospherecrustto the centroid of the solid metallic iron core. The crust is a quite diverse cool
tectonic rocky peel of Earth, approximately 30 km in thickness, giving a mean distance of 6,348 km
from the crustal/mantle interface to the centroid. The mantle is a hot plastic zone of manganese,
ferrous, aluminum, silicates, and oxides elements with a thickness of roughly 2,900 km, giving a mean
distance of 3,448 km from the mantle/core interface to the centroid. The core is a hotter liquid zone
of ferrous and sulfurous elements with a thickness of roughly 2,300 km, giving a mean distance of
1,148 km from the core/inner core interface to the centroid. This leaves the hottest solid ferrous
inner core with a mean radius of approximately 1,148 km. The reason the measurements are
approximate is that the interfaces are chaotically turbulent mixing zones between the members above
and below.
Although heat is giving rise to the convection and mixing, as we have seen, its not the primary
driver.59 The density differential gradients are the primary driver of convection and mixing by the
mechanism of heating. The heating is caused by the radiologic decay and conversion of fertile
elements entrained in the stable elements by convection mixing. This may seem like splitting hairs
but it only seems soits an important distinction as we shall see. At the crustal/mantle interface
the temperature has increased from a mean surface temperature ranging from 050C to 1,000C,
supporting the notion that the crust is a very efficient thermal insulator. Descending through the
plastic mantle materials to the mantle/core interface the temperature has increased to 3,700C.
Passing deeper into the liquid core materials to the core/inner core interface the temperature
increases to 4,300C. The inner core is a nearly pure ferrous ball of the hottest terrestrial solid
metallic material. The intense gravitational pressure is whats compressing it into a solid mass.
How this might be useful is to realize that an inverse density gradient between two differential
density members gives rise to gravitational instability between an upper member that is more dense
and plastic overbearing a lower member that is less dense and fluidic. This is exactly the situation
with the cooler more dense plastic mantle materials overbearing the hotter less dense liquid core
materials. Now we have something concrete to work with in understanding the Earth system as a
geometric construct. What Talbot and Jackson have done is elucidate a 3-dimensional geometric
expression that can be applied to mantle/core dynamism. They have formulated a system in which
22
Academic Version
2009
underlying buoyant less dense materials are gravitationally unstable interacting with overbearing
submergent more dense materials, causing them to rise/sink in intertwined deterministic-seeming
geometric patterns. The interesting thing is that if the overbearing submergent materials are more
stiffmore viscousthan the buoyant underlying materials then the resultant upwelling diapursor
bulbswill be balloon-shaped; if more viscous thumb-shaped; and if similarly viscous mushroom-
shaped. The upwelling diapurs and downwelling troughs crowd into a geometric pattern resembling
thermal spoke-patterned vigorous convection cells with diapurs having ridges in 3- or 5- spoke
configurations and the troughs being formed into irregular pentagonal and hexagonal shapes laterally
offset by the cell or the wavelength. Now recall that McKenzie and Richter did the same for
thermal-induced convection in hot plastic materials with much the same results.
To an architect this is striking and exhilarating. Theres a famous geometric system that neatly
fits this pattern, but well get to that in moment. The computational modeling done at Harvard
Seismology and LMUGeophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences60 indicates
interesting common features with salt tectonic behavior as expected by confirming evidence from
McKenzie and Richter. When we examine both research seismological institutions approaches to
modeling, the mantle convection imaging shows strikingly analogous congruence with the Talbot
Jackson salt modeling, and thermal plastic McKenzieRichter modeling. There appears to be a
remarkable symmetry from which a rational architecture points towards a new well-suited nuclear
fission architecture. Thus, allowing us to form a workable geometric approach to a new geonuclear-
modeled nuclear fission core. But before we explore this we need to look at radiologic fast neutron
decay and ferromagnetic stable ferrous elements binary in the mantle/core.
The so-called weak nuclear force is implicated here. It is this force that moderates electron
binding to the nucleus and nuclear fission decay. It is related to the electrons because piezoelectricity
is a result of the interactive binding statefreedom of electrons to provide for current flow or
restriction of electrons to not provide for current flow. The reason the strong nuclear force is not
implicated is because it binds the nucleon subparticles and the residual interaction binds the nucleus.
In the case for very heavy radiologic elements their nuclei are so unstable that the shifting
interactions between bound neutrons and protons, further influenced by the vibrating energy state
delta levels of their electrons, overcome the strong nuclear force binding state, spontaneously
splitting the nucleus and releasing one or more neutrons. Heavy radiologic elements whose nuclei
strong nuclear force binding state is equal to or greater than the collected neutron/proton kinetic
23
Academic Version
2009
motion will not spontaneously fission; they require outside stimuli to fission, and so, are known as
radiologically fertile elements. Heavy radiologic elements whose nuclei strong nuclear force binding
state is lesser than the collected neutron/proton kinetic motion will spontaneously fission and are
known as radio-logically fissile elements. Lighter radiologic fissile elements are not naturally
occurring, but byproducts of heavy radiologic fission/decay processes. The conversion of fertile
elements to fissile radioisotopes produces over time a net increase of over all radiologic fissile
elements. The fission chain is the released energy which drives the Earths mantle/core function.
But is there another process co-occurring in such a way that a net aggregate magnetism would
give rise to a macro magnetic effect that is nonclassic dynamically, nonferromagnetically or
nonpiezoelectrically generated? Thats the key question. Because as we have seen, the Earths
magnetic field cannot be a result of the electro-magnetohydrodynamic effect because of the absence
of sufficient electrical current flow, yet it exists. Is there a theoretical basis for supposing another
process at work?
Indeed, yes, there is. This is exactly the predicted state of affairs in the Theory of the Fermi
Interaction by Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann.61 In beta decay a released neutron decays
into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino via strange subparticles, giving rise to a net magnetic
effect. As Feynman and Gell-Mann state the process is net neutral, producing a proton +1 charge,
an electron 1 charge and a neutrino moderating a nonparity effect of a strange subparticle electric
current release with its attendant magnetic field. It is the strange subparticle current effect that led
physicists at that time to call this collaboration between Feynman and Gell-Mann the Strange
Theory and also caused them to view Feynman and Gell-Mann as a shining example of modern
theoretical investigation.62 They along with a great many investigators would go on to formulate
these strange subparticles into the myriad pantheon of quarks and their manifold combinations
which eventually gave rise to the Standard Model generalization of elementary particle physics.
Subsequently, high energy theorists took the Strange Theory further leading to new insights
producing quantum chromodynamics and investigating more deeply the relationships between
electromagnetism and the weak interaction which in term led to the gauge theories deepening
understanding of strong interactions. Why havent investigators already applied the Feynman/Gell-
Mann Radiomagnetic Effect to the problem of elucidating the mechanics of the Earths magnetic
field and thereby the conception of athermal nuclear fission electricity generation? I assert that it is
24
Academic Version
2009
Fig. 6: McKenzieRichter high Rayleigh plastic Fig. 7: TalbotJackson density gradient gravity
thermal gradient convection pattern. instability convection pattern. [Rnnlund model]
Fig. 8: McKenzieRichter high Rayleigh plastic Fig. 9: TalbotJackson density gradient

thermal gradient -cell flow cross-section. instability full-cell flow cross-section.
Fig 10: TalbotJackson density gradient instability Fig. 11: LMU mantle/core 3-d computer model.
convection progressive development models. Note congruent tile-mapping with fig. 10.
25
Academic Version
2009
Fig. 12: Horizontal component of convection Fig. 13: Translation of horizontal relative
cell motion may be modeled successfully. motions into a spherical 3-axial geometry.
Fig. 14: Orthographic Core Schemata diagram of a 3-axial arrangementx/x, y/y, z/z. One stage
comprises 6 whole spheres halved at their equators into 2 hemispheres providing for the motions shown
in Fig. 13. 3 stages are shown. Each hemisphere pair spins opposing its companion half, allowing for
mechanical design flexibility in mounting and maintaining stable operation.
26
Academic Version
2009
Image is Pending
Fig. 15: Fullerene geodesic tile-mapped fenestration. Fig. 16: 3-Axial arrangement isometric diagram.
Fig. 17a: Stage 1F/F. Fig 17b: Stage 1E/E. Fig. 17c: Stage 1D/D.
Fig. 17d: Stage 1C/C. Fig. 17e: Stage 1B/B. Fig. 17f: Stage 1A/A.
27
Academic Version
2009
Image is Pending
Fig. 18: Fully integrated Nuclear MagnetoElectric generatoror NuMEgen. A tamping neutron-
reflecting protective enclosure secures the core. Electromotors, fully controllable, driven by
thermocouple piezoelectric power cells, use the surplus byproduct heat to drive the spinning
armatures. The fast neutron reactions heat the interior below the architectures melting point but
beyond their Curie temperatures. Therefore the interior is not magnetized; the geomagnetosphere-
modeled field manifests externally surrounding the core. Nonlinear wobble is introduced into the
fully-variable spin rates to stabilize the geomagnetic-modeled field and autorotate it for
electroinduction coil harvesting by the surrounding spherical wedge coil assemblies. Control rod
damping of the core radiologic fast chain reaction is moderated through the 6 driveshafts transecting
the core architecture on the 3-axial arrangement.
28
Academic Version
2009
an unconscious entrapment within a Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelian ever-diminishing atomic

materialism, Newtonian classicism and mechanistic manifest destiny, and an overdependence upon
the thermodynamic view which has stood in our way.
Something strange is happening in the mantle/core. Contrary to the accepted view, the above
experiment indicates that not only is the discrete georeactor precluded but it is plausible radiologic
elements are rather thoroughly mixed in the mantle/core. That the observed temperature gradients are
far lower than this view might postulate doesnt preclude its validity, but offers an alternate explanation.
The relative amounts of radiologic elements are far lower to make the earths interior system operate
than was previously known. Estimating the aggregate number of decay chain interactions becomes
quite important. It is now unknown. But it is being aggressively investigated. John Learned at
University of Hawaii and several colleagues are promoting a global collaborative effort to quantify
this.63 Theyre looking for geoneutrinos which are interior-earth-produced antineutrinos.
Feynman/Gell-Manns theory predicts one antineutrino and one tiny magnetic field for each decay
chain interaction. If Learned and company could get their geoneutrino detectors running around the
globe and arrive at an aggregate total of decay chain interactions in the Earths interior, then an
aggregate paramagnetism of the magnetohydro-dynamic fluids could be adduced as well. If it matches
with the distributed geomagnetosphere field flux of 0.5 gauss, then my hypothesis would be confirmed,
elevating it to the status of a plausible theory of radio-magnetohydrodynamicsor a Feynman/Gell-
Mann Radiomagnetic Effect Geomagnetismcorrectly explaining the Earths geomagnet.
The last piece of our puzzle is that the mantle/core radiologic processes with their attendant
radiation effects are insulated from the biosphere by the thin crustal lithosphere, effectively acting as
a tamping reflective/absorptive shield protecting it. The continuous motions of the Earths interior
are the result of accumulating the lions share of heavy radiologic elements in the terrestrial zone
during primordial nebular formation. Those elements are thoroughly entrained within stable ferrous
elements by density gradient convection and mixing. The interaction between radiologic and ferrous
elements in motion produce a net Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect paramagnetizing the
hot plastic/liquid mantle/core materials, circumventing the Curie-temperature-limitation of the
classic dynamo/elctro-magnetohydrodynamic views. The lithosphere protects the biosphere from
lethal radiation effects of the mantle/core processes and conversely preserves those very processes
by its inherent insulative properties. The geomagnetosphere also protects the biosphere from lethal
29
Academic Version
2009
extraterrestrial electromagnetic radiation, high energy particle bombardment, IMF assault of its
atmosphere, and other deleterious threats.
This overall construct is beautiful. While not analytically rigorous, this view must not be
dismissed. A Feynman and Penrose principle with which I resonate is an attenuation to aesthetic
concern associated with creative inspiration.64 If it looks beautiful, then it is quite likely correct; and
conversely, if it looks ugly, then more than likely it is in error.
Now, we have arrived someplace useful. We can competently postulate the basis for a very
straightforward new revolution in electricity generation. An athermal approach. A nonhydrocarbon-
dependent approach. A method of harvesting electricity from a fast neutron fission architecture that
will convert the remaining unusable 99.3% of fertile uranium radioisotopes over time into fissile
radioisotopes, convert 3-fold the uranium radioisotopes of fertile thorium radioisotopes into fissile
radioisotopes, intensify the core magnetosphere by the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect;
and therefore, produce more electricity over operating time until the radiologic doubling time
requires reprocessing of the core into two or more new cores, and dramatically increase our electric-
ity generation capacity worldwide in a virtually nonexhaustive way.65
A NEW ATHERMAL RADIOLOGIC FISSILE GEOMAGNETIC-MODELED CORE

I said earlier that an architect would be most excited about this turn of events. Why might that be?
Buckminster Fuller never thought of himself as an eccentric architect; he thought of himself as a
designer. His cumbersome self-appellation aside, he called himself a comprehensive anticipatory
design scientist. This may well prove to be more correct than anyone had thought. The density/
thermal gradient convection geometry autocatakinetizes into amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal
tiled geometry. The globe of the Earth maps this same geometric tile-pattern spherically. Fuller
deduced that the shortest path to least action expended in materials, effort, and expense was to map
pentagonal and hexagonal tiles to construct a spherical dome. The Principle of Least Action
underlies mathematics and all the physical/biological sciences.66 It is the basis of autocatakinesis.
We see it turn up everywhere; even in a tiny molecular world of the 60-atom carbon molecule, which
when elucidated was dubbed a Buckminsterfullerene or fullerene for short due to its geodesic
spherical construct.
30
Academic Version
2009
How might a mechanical architecture of a new dynamic nuclear core mimic planet Earths archi-
tecture? An architecture that simulates density/thermal gradient convection motions. In answering this
question an architects eye is helpful. Circular convection cells squeezed into a bounded area has an
interesting design format, or fenestration. Looking from above in both the McKenzieRichter [see Fig.
6] and the TalbotJackson [see Fig. 7] images an amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal tiled fenestra-
tion is obvious. If we map this tile-pattern on a hemispherical dome we have an amorphous eccentric
Buckminsterfullerene geodesic structure that uncannily coincides with the LMU spherical 3-D
computational modeling of the Earths mantle/core convection image [see Fig. 11].
In the McKenzieRichter [see Fig. 8] and TalbotJackson [see Fig. 9] cross-sectional convection
cell analyses we see an oblate circular motion pattern wrapped 360 about the cell vertical centroid axis
forming cells that self-organize, or autocatakinetize67 into amorphous pentagonal and hexagonal tiling.
Whats important is not the slavish reproduction of the thermal/density gradient convection physical
motions, but taking the useful portion of the full physical motion and adapting it to a mechanical
architecture that provides for the salient relative motionshorizontal vectorsand an analogous
approximation of density gradientsvertical vectors. So, we will model the horizontal relative motions
with design mechanical motions, and not model the vertical relative motions, but treat the density
gradient as a necessary design feature of our core [Fig. 12]. If we design a core architecture that
provided for the horizontal relative motionsopposing and oblique to right angles top-to-bottom then
we have a schematic basis for designing our dynamic core [see Fig 13]. We will think of the density
changes as somewhat associated with altitude which we could then approximate by stratification of the
discrete shells which would translate nicely to nested concentrically arranged spheres.
How might we accomplish making motions of relative opposing and oblique to right angles top-
to-bottom? If we spin the spheres about 3 axes of rotation arranged 90 to 90 to 90 in 3-d space
we run into a problem [see Figs. 1617a-f]. Each sphere rotating about one of 3 axes would be cut
in half at its equator by the other two axes [see Fig 14]. So, well make this a feature of our construct.
One sphere is comprised of two hemispheres gapped so that driveshaft assemblies for the other two
axes and a driveshaft assembly on the axis of this hemisphere pair attach their poles to the driveshaft.
Now we may make the necessary relative motions of the nested hemispheres approximate natural
physical convection. 3 nested hemisphere pairs make the top half of a convection stage and 3 more
rotating opposite the first 3 make the bottom half of a stage , totaling 6 hemisphere pairs to complete
a single stage.
31
Academic Version
2009
The use of a fullerene geodesic lattice architecture for the hemispherical domes accomplishes
three important goals [see Fig. 15]. First, this fenestration strengthens and increases rigidity while
also minimizing the material required for it to maintain its shape and integrity. Second, the openings
provide mechanical anchoring for the plasma electroplating of the radiologic fertile/fissile recipe
coatings to the hemispheric armatures. And third, this fenestration is flexible in its execution so that
the outermost hemispheric armatures are lacier than the innermost armatures, distributing the same
finished mass for each hemisphere, realizing a mass accumulation, modeling that found in the Earths
interior, of least apparently accumulative for the outermost hemisphere pair to most apparently
accumulative for the innermost hemisphere pair, distributed by the spherical area rule: 4r2.
This is the basic schematic design proposal for a new athermal dynamic Earth-like Radiologic
Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled core.
THIS IS NICE, BUT HOW DO WE GET ELECTRICITY OUT OF IT?

Its time we make a paradigm shift. Evolutionarily and biologically we are profoundly predisposed to
a heat-related bias. Until 1905 no one seriously questioned this bias. It worked so very admirably up
till then. Weve had 105 years to think differently about this. Up until the peak we really didnt have
to think differently; those days are now over. Lamenting their loss is at best overly self-indulgent; at
worst narcissistic. Einstein opened a new way to approach the thermal viewnot denial of it, but a
new view, an electromagnetic particular view.68
Currently, thermal nuclear fission electricity generation is merely a heat-source substitution for
coal/NG-fired plant architecture which fundamentally has remained intact since the mid 19th century.
Its an overly complex multitier approach to spin turbine magnetoelectric dynamos of a maximum
750 mw capacity with no room for further improvement in unit capacity and only incremental
enhancement in thermal efficiency. It strikes me that an orderor moreof magnitude improve-
ment in performance would result if the electricity generation capability were moved upstream closer
to the actual radiologic fission process. Would there be a way to harvest electricity directly from the
radiologic fission process? There would be if we reversed our thinking and took an Einsteinian
electromagnetic view and built upon this with a practical application of the Feynman/Gell-Mann
Radiomagnetic Effect.
32
Academic Version
2009
Let a Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled core which produces a magnetosphere many

times greater in gauss density than the maximum moment of the largest conventional magnetoelectric
dynamo be the center of a new nuclear fission magnetoelectric generator architecture. Then
assemble a surrounding construct of neutron-reflecting-tamping enclosure, static electroinductive
coils about this core, and then, harvest electrical current from the external-affect, fully-controllable-
autorotating magnetosphere up to the capacity limit of the generator. To be sure, a great deal of
modeling, theoretical mathematics, and electromechanical engineering needs to be preformed, but
conceptually, this is achievable [see Fig. 18].
Why am I pursuing this line of inquiry? It represents a radical departure from the past and thats
just what is called for because a sequential derivation from the past will not get us to a revolutionary
solution for the future. We need a clean break and new direction for a successful transition from
hydrocarbon primacy to fissile. Since 1941 weve had only 2 thermally-driven options for the
practical use of radiologic elements: bomb or boiler.69 Nuclear academic, research and industry
experts know the track were on will not replace current hydrocarbon-dependence. They know a
radical breakthrough is required. Goodstein stated that nuclear fission as its currently conceived and
if used to replace hydrocarbon thermal electricity generation is a bridge solution at best with a life
expectancy of no more than 1020 years. Thats itand the available crustal U235 will be exhausted
effectively forever in the process. The much touted Generation IV designs being researched at this
time only incrementally improve thermal performance.70 71 They are somewhat better scaled
miniaturizations of the past technology, but by no means are they fully scalable. And what will be
done about the additional single-through-put thermal radiologic wastes?72 To continue this course is
irrational. We must embark upon a radical new approach: a scalable harvester-type Radiologic Fissile
Geomagnetic-modeled Generation V Nuclear MagnetoElectric Generator (NuMEgen) technology.
Theres 139 times more naturally occurring U238 than U235. There are 3 times as much naturally-
occurring Th232 than the uranium isotopes. It is profoundly wasteful and irresponsible not to make
unweaponizable use of these resources. NuMEgen will make responsible, prolific use of them.
This is the breakthrough that has been long anticipated.
We can disregard the fact that primordial planetesimals have lost their geomagnetism due to their
dearth of radiologic elements because that was the reason for their dissipation over the last 4 billion
years. The NuMEgen Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled architecture renders this detail
33
Academic Version
2009
moot. Whats important to focus upon is that they were operating in a wide range of sizes from the
comparatively small to planetary scales, indicating a scalable Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic effect.
The NuMEgen architecture, by definition and design, is fully scalable in the same manner. The
implications of this feature are manifold and extremely diverse. Literally, everything will change.
Our approaches to land, sea, and air transportation will transform dramatically. The RMS QM2
is the newest state-of-the-art luxury ocean liner accepted for service 5 years ago by the Cunard Line.
It has no conventional rudder. It has no oil-fired steam boilers, drive turbines, or screw-driveshafts.
It uses diesel-fired thermal electricity generation plants to electrify its 4 fully-automated tractor
propulsion pods mounted outboard under its stern.73 2 are fixed for motive power, and 2 are fully-
azimuthing through 190 of rotation for motive power and nimble maneuverability. How nimble?
In conjunction with its forward transverse thrusters, it can spin about its centroid, left or right,
indefinitely with no external assistance. We could decommission its diesel-fired thermal electricity
generation plants and reconstruct its fuel bunkers into additional shipboard useable space. Then
install an appropriately-scaled NuMEgen unit, run the ship anywhere in the world indefinitely
without ever having to refuel again, and by the way, also not emitting any combustion CO2. Oh, wait,
there is one problem. In about 20 years the ship will have to be serviced. The old power unit will
have to be removed and replaced with a new one so that the old one can be reprocessed into 2 or
more units for deployment elsewhere.
What we most need to do right now is make real Amory Lovins prescription to embark upon
the implementation of a decentralized and pervasively diffuse electricity generation approach.74 My
contribution to his thinking is that it should also be nonhydrocarbon-dependent. The increase and
diffusion of this technology to a great many other applications can then be sought in parallel with the
conversion of our existing hydrocarbon thermal electricity generation systems to a well-suited nuclear
fission technology.
Then the next step in The Energy Grand Staircase will naturally flow to an implementation of a
well-suited nuclear fusion approach.
34
Academic Version
2009
NEXT STEPS
A great many things need to be done. Breaking it down into achievable steps is essential. Heres a
schematic framework for moving forward:
1) Computational modeling of fast neutron decay of radiologically fissile elements and
their effects upon radiologically fertile and stable paramagnetic ferrous elements in
the mantle/core matrix to prove the efficacy of the Feynman/Gell-Mann
Radiomagnetic Effect to prove the primary mechanism of a Radiologic Fissile
Geomagnetic-derived athermal nuclear electricity generator.
2) Test experimentation of core architecture proof of concept. Special investigation
regarding efficacy of stage assembly multiplexingdoes appreciable improvement
of concept occur if 2, 3, 4, or more stages are incorporated? Is 1 sufficient? What
should the centroid architecture be?
3) Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping the core assembly without radiologic
elements to prove apparatus function and methods of production.
4) Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping methods of chemical/mechanical bonding
via plasma/electroplating of radiologically fissile and fertile elements to ferrous
Buckminsterfullerene hemispheric armatures.
5) Design, fabrication, and test-prototyping spherical radiologic fast neutron reflector
protective enclosure and induction coil assemblies surround.
6) Partial integration of core assembly and radiologic hemispheric armatures for test-
prototyping proof of concept operating regimes.
7) Full integration of total assembly for test-prototyping proof of operating regimes.
8) Safety test-prototyping proof of commercial/industrial applications and
governmental oversight certification.
9) Production fabrication, certification, and deployment for commercial/industrial grid
application.
10) Research of diverse manifold applications and deployment.
Thank you for your kind attention.
35
Academic Version
2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Two colleagues and valued interlocutors have contributed to this effort, without whose generous
outpouring of time, discussion, criticism and encouragement it would have not have progressed as
well as it has; a special thank you goes to Clayton Crockett, Associate Professor and Director of
Religious Studies Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Central Arkansas, and
Aaron Simmons, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Hendrix College. Jonathan Gilligan,
Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at Vanderbilt University made a significant
contribution to the evolution of this hypothesis. Although he may not have intended it as such, Im
deeply indebted to him for correcting my misconstrued use of a Scientific American article published in
1995 that started this odyssey.75 Mason Brothers has steadfastly supported and encouraged this
effort with timely wit, a swift kick to the fundament when needed and thoughtful criticism. I wish to
extend my sincere appreciation to the authors referenced above; without their invaluable
contributions to their respective areas of expertise I could not have synthesized this hypothesis.
Lastly, the following scholars graciously endured my first public presentation of these ideas in an
academic conference settingtheir insightful, Socratic questioning contributed greatly to the
development of this hypothesis: Clayton Crockett, Donna Bowman and Jay McDaniel, organizers
and facilitators of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Theology and Energy 2009 a Joint Conference
at University of Central Arkansas and Hendrix College; Whitney Bauman, Matthew Creswell, Wilson
Dickinson, Daniel Finer, Sara Harvey, Luke Higgins, Catherine Keller, Jeff Kelley, Oz Lorentzen,
Jeffrey Robbins, Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Malik Saafir, Andrew Saldino, Aaron Simmons and Aaron
Youmans, contributors and conferees.
Copyright 2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet. All rights are reserved.
This whitepaper was complete on June 23rd, 2009, significantly revised June 5th, 2010, and intended for strictly individual
personal use. It may not be reprinted, reproduced or otherwise electronically republished without obtaining prior written
permission from Kevin Dobson Mequet. It may not be altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed, or plagiarized. Please
strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution.
Patents are pending for the technology described herein.
36
Academic Version
2009
ENDNOTES
1 Nuclear-driven MagnetoElectric generator.

2 Feynman, Richard and Gell-Mann, Murray of Caltech; Theory of the Fermi Interaction or also known colloquially as the
Strange Theory, a whitepaper published in Physical Review scientific journal, #109:193, 1958a.
3 Hubbert, M. King; Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels, a whitepaper published in Publication No. 45, Shell
Development Company, Exploration, Production Research Division, Houston, Texas, June, 1956. First presented
publicly at the Spring Meeting of the Southern District, Division of Production, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel,
San Antonio, Texas, March 79, 1956.
4 Flower, Andrew; World Oil Production: There is only a finite amount of oil and there are limits to the rate at which it
can be recovered. Sometime before the year 2000 the decreasing supply of it fail to meet the increasing demand, article
appearing in Scientific American magazine, March 1978 Issue, Vol. 238, No. 3.
5 Campbell, Colin J.; Laherrre, Jean H.; The End of Cheap Oil: Global production of conventional oil will begin to
decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years, article appearing in Scientific American magazine, March
1998 Issue, Vol. 278, No. 3.
6 Bethe, Hans A.; The Necessity of Fission Power: Over the next 25 years there is no major alternative to fossil fuels but
uranium, article appearing in Scientific American magazine, January 1976 issue, Volume 234, Number 1.
7 Interview contribution to Crudethe incredible journey of oil, an Australian Broadcast Corporation Science/History Channel
motion picture documentary, 2007. Retired Professor of Geophysics, Princeton University.

See: http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/.
8 Volume 261, Number 3.
9 Woodwell, George M.; The Carbon Dioxide Question, article appearing in Scientific American magazine, January, 1978
Issue, Vol. 238, No. 1.

10 Jevons, William Stanley; The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our
Coal-Mines, 1865.
11 Ferguson, Niall; The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, 2008. Afterword: pp. 3456.
12 See; Appendix A: 12 Cognitive Traps, pp. 41.
13 Interview contribution to A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash, a motion picture documentary by Basel Gelpke & Ray
McCormack, 2006. Former Vice Provost Caltech, Applied Physicist, founder of Condensed Matter Physics, Frank J.
Gilloon Distinguished Teaching, and Service Professor. See: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/.
14 For a fuller explanation, see; Appendix B: The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau, pp. 43.
15 BYABillion Years Ago.
16 MYAMillion Years Ago.
17 ALSAbove (average) Sea Level.
18 Having explored these terrains extensively, it has profoundly informed this fundamental rethinking of the energy problem
now confronting us.

19 EROEI values and explanation: Visalli, Dana; Getting a decent return on your energy investment, published on 11 Apr 2006 by
Partnership for a Sustainable Methow. Energy Bulletin online resourceArchived on 12 Apr 2006. Accessed: March 10th, 2008.
See: http://www.energybulletin.net/14745.html.
20 Krupp, Fred; Earth: The SequelThe Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, Chapter 3: Harnessing the Sun, Part
II, 2008.
21 Chandler, David; MIT tests unique approach to fusion power: Mimicking Earths magnetic field in a thermos bottle, article in TechTalk:
Serving the MIT Community, Campus Weekly Periodical, Volume 52Number 20, WednesdayMarch 19, 2008.
Thomson, Elizabeth; PSFC fires up novel plasma fusion experiment, article in TechTalk: Serving the MIT Community, Campus
Weekly Periodical, Volume 49Number 12, WednesdayDecember 8, 2004. While the point is to test-prototype this
technology into a future viable thermal-fusion-electricity-generation technology, what has really been proven is a massively
efficient magneto-capacitor-type electricity storage device. If this is coupled with a SuperGrid then a massively efficient
transmission and storage system for not only America but world wide could put several tens of millions to work, fulfilling
Ringo & Jones vision for green pathways out of poverty.
22 Grant, Paul M.; Starr, Chauncey; and Overbye, Thomas J.; A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy: Cryogenic,
superconducting conduits could be connected into a SuperGrid that would simultaneously deliver electrical power and
hydrogen fuel, article in Scientific American magazine, July 2006 Issue, Vol. 295, No. 1.
23 Smith, Wayne; The Nuclear Heart of the Earth, The science behind The Core including an interview with J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.,
SpaceDailyYour Portal to Space, BrisbaneMar 31, 2003. Accessed: March 6th, 2009, 22:15 CST.
See: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html.
24 Meshik, Alex P.; The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor: Two billion years ago parts of an African uranium
deposit spontaneously underwent nuclear fission. The details of this remarkable phenomenon are just now becoming clear,
37
Academic Version
2009
Article, Atomic Physics, Naturally-Occurring Fission In-Situ Geologic ReactorsScientific American magazine; October
2005 Issue, Vol. 293, No. 4. Accessed: March 8th, 2009, 16:26 CDT.
See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor.
25 Davidson, Keay; Scientific mavericks theory on Earths core up for a test: Controversial view sees vast uranium field that serves as natural
reactor, article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, November 29, 2004. Accessed: March 30th, 2009, 15:59 CDT. See:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/29/MNGPIA17BL45.DTL&type=printable.
26 The controversial planetary status of the Pluto/Charon binary precludes them from consideration. There just isnt
enough direct, close empirical observation to contribute significantly to this investigation.

27 For a comprehensive overview with references, see; Appendix C: Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar
System, pp. 48.

28 AUAstronomical Unit, the average distance from the earth to the sun, 150 million km.
29 Chandler, David; MIT News Office October 30, 2008; Magnetic fields record the early histories of planets, article in TechTalk
Serving the MIT Community campus weekly periodical publication, Volume 53, Issue #8, November 5th, 2008. Accessed:
March 3rd, 2009, 08:26 CST. See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/planetevolution-1030.html.
30 Chandler, David; MIT News Office January 15, 2009; Astronomers crack longstanding lunar mystery: Ancient rocks magnetic field
shows that moon once had a dynamo in its core, article in TechTalkServing the MIT Community campus weekly periodical
publication, Volume 53, Issue #14, February 4th, 2009. Accessed: March 3rd, 2009, 08:13 CST.
See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/moonrock-0115.html.
31 Phillips, Tony; Cartwheel Coronal Mass Ejection, online article posting on Science@NASAInform Inspire Involve, May 27th,
2008. Accessed: May 28th, 2008, 15:32 CDT.

See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/27may_cartwheelcme.htm?list1079386.
32 The accepted convention is heliodynamo but is here too narrowly focused. The author suggests this description is true
for all stars, hence the use of the more universal term stelleo pertaining to stars in general.
33 MESSENGERMErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging NASA/JSC/APL spacecraft
mission. See: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/index.html.

34 Minkel, JR; Mercury Flyby Reveals Active (but Shrinking) Core: Cracks in the planets crust imply a contracting world, online article
posted on Scientific American magazine onlineNews; Space; Core, Mantle & Crust, July 3rd, 2008; Accessed: July 7th, 2008.
See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mercury-flyby-reveals-act.
35 Phillips, Tony; Solar Wind Rips Up Martian Atmosphere, online article posted on Science@NASAInform Inspire Involve,
November 21st, 2008. Accessed: November 21st, 2008, 06:42 CST.

See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm.
36 Russell, C. T.; Coleman, Jr., P. J.; Schubert, G.; Lunar Magnetic Field: Permanent and Induced Dipole Moments, originally
published in Science, 186, p. 825-826, 1974. See: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/lunar_magfield/.

37 Phillips, Tony; The Moon and the Magnetotail, online article posted on Science@NASAInform Inspire Involve, April 17th,
2008. Accessed: April 17th, 2008, 14:43 CDT.

See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/17apr_magnetotail.htm?list1079386.
38 Runcorn, S.K.; The Moons Ancient Magnetism, article appearing in Scientific American magazine, December, 1987
Issue, Vol. 257, No. 6.

39 Phillips, Tony; Earths Inconstant Magnetic Field: Our planets magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are
beginning to understand how it behaves and why, online article posted on Science@NASAInform Inspire Involve, December 29,
2003. Accessed: February 7th, 2008. 11:20 CST.
See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm.
40 Cuprous electrical conductivity: 59,600,000/ohmm @ 20C. Ferrous electrical conductivity: 9,931,000/ohmm @ 20C.
Argentoussilverelectrical conductivity: 63,010,000/ohmm @ 20C. Expressed as the inverse of impedance (ohm) per
metermay also be expressed as Siemens (S) per meter-1.
41 Since we are dealing here with the relationship between thermal conductivity and electrical resistance impedance the
relative values for each are compared. Of course electric conductivity is important too. Due to ferrous isotopes greatly
secured electrons, contributing to its high tensile strength, reduced ductility, and brittle nature, these qualities make them
very poor electric conductors. Due to cuprous isotopes greatly unsecured electrons, contributing to its low tensile strength,
high ductility, and resilient nature, these qualities make them very good electric conductors2nd only to silver. This is the
reason why silver/lead alloy is used for electric/electronic soldered connections, low melting point for convenience of
utility and higher electric conductivity then the copper conductors for unimpeded connection.
42 Named for Pierre CurieMaries husbandthe Curie point (Tc) or Curie temperature is the point above which
ferromagnetic elements will give up their ability to become and/or remain magnetized (768C or 1,414F for iron) and
piezoelectric elements will give up their ability to conduct an electric current (380C or 716F for copper).
38
Academic Version
2009
See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm. Sidebar: The Magnetic Field of the Earth.
See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html.
44 The Blackett Effect was postulated by Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett (18971974) in his published paper: The
Magnetic Field of Massive Rotating Bodies in the science journal Nature, #159, 658-666, May, 17th, 1947. The following
was quoted in Saul-Paul Siraqs (ISSO) Notes on the Blackett Effect, October 12th, 2000: The Blackett Effect is the
(proposed) law that a rotating body generates a magnetic field analogous to the magnetic field generated by rotating
electrically charged body. It has been discreditedhe later recanted itand is considered thoroughly implausible today.
Accessed: April 13th, 2009, 11:11 CDT.
See: http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/blackett1.pdf.
45 For a comprehensive overview with references of planetary mechanics, see; Appendix D: Planetary & Stellar Rotation
Survey of the Our Solar System, pp. 51.

46 Gleick, James; Chaos: Making a New Science, 1987, pp. 2101. See the Albert Lidchaber He3 Experiment description and
lead investigator conclusions.

See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm.
Sidebar: The Magnetic Field of the Earth. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html.
48 Th: Thorium. U: Uranium. Pu: Plutonium.
49 Ios circumstances are very interesting, but definitive differentiation between supposed radiologic mantle/core
thermodynamism and exclusive tidal thermodynamism is impossible at this time. This doesnt preclude following the line
of reasoning in this paper.
50 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Discovery of Ganymedes magnetic field by the Galileo spacecraft, paper published in the scientific journal
Nature, Volume 384, pages 537-541, December 12, 1996.

51 Kivelson, M. G., el al; A Magnetic Signature at Io: Initial Report from the Galileo Magnetometer, Institute of Geophysics and
Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. 16 April 1996; accepted 2
July 1996. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:52 CDT. See: http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/doc/sci273/text.htm.
52 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Europas Magnetic Signature: Report from Galileos Pass on 19 December 1996, Science 23 May 1997: Vol.
276. no. 5316, pp. 1,2391,241. DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5316.1239. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:44 CDT.
See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/5316/1239.
53 Weidenschilling, Stuart J.; The distribution of mass in the planetary system and solar nebula, contribution to Astrophysics and Space
Science, vol. 51, no. 1, Sept. 1977, p. 153-158. DOI: 10.1007/BF00642464.

See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Ap&SS..51..153W.
54 Weidenschilling, Stuart J.; Formation of Planetesimals and Accretion of the Terrestrial Planets, paper published by the Planetary
Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85705, USA. Received: 12 August 1999; Accepted: 6 March 2000.
55 Calderwood, Arthur; The Distribution of Niobium, Uranium, Cerium, and Lead in the Earth and its Constraint on the Mass of the
Depleted Mantle and Solar Nebula Temperature, paper published in Goldschimdt 2000, September 3rd8th, 2000, Oxford, UK,
Journal of Conference Abstract, Volume 5(2), 281, 2000 Cambridge Publications.
56 Sr: Strontium. Sn: Tin (Stannum, Lt.). Cs: Cesium.
57 McKenzie, D.P. and Richter, Frank; Convection Currents in the Earths Mantle: Both large- and small-scale currents
play a role in plate tectonics, article appearing in Scientific American magazine, November 1976 issue, Volume 235,
Number 5.
58 Talbot, Christopher J. and Jackson, Martin P. A.; Salt Tectonics, Article, EarthGeophysicsTectonics,
Scientific American magazine, August, 1987 Issue, Vol. 257, No. 2.

59 Phillips has done a good job of presenting Glatzmaier and Roberts magnetohydrodynamics work noted earlier. The
current mantle/core dynamism is well conceived and presented by them, and corroborated by Bunge, Hagelberg and Travis
of LMULudwig-Maximilians-Univeritt MnchenGeophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. My
contribution to their work is to connect it to Talbot and Jacksons work preceded by McKenzie and Richters.
60 Bunge, Hagelberg and Travis; Mantle Convection with Variational Data-Assimilation, GJI (2003), 152, 1-22, LMU
Ludwig-Maximilians-Univeritt MnchenGeophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Last modified

07 Sep 2006 21:53 EU WDTGMT+1. Accessed 21 Nov 2008 19:27 USA CSTGMT-6.
See: http://www.geophysik.lmu.de/research/geodynamics/data-assimilation.
39
Academic Version
2009
61 Feynman, Richard and Gell-Mann, Murray of Caltech; Theory of the Fermi Interaction or also known colloquially as
the Strange Theory, a whitepaper published in Physical Review scientific journal, Vol. 109, No. 1, January 1, 1958;
received September 16th, 1957.
62 Gleick, James; Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, pp. 335341, 1992.
63 Learned, John G.; Detection of Geoneutrinos: Can We Make the Gnus Work for Us? published in Journal of Physics:
Conference Series 136 (2008) 022007; doi: 1088/1742-6596/136/022007, The XXIII Conference of Neutrino Physics and
Astrophysics; 2008 IOP Publishing Ltd.
64 Ibid, pp. 1767. And see also: Penrose, Roger; The Emperors New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics,
pp. 421, 1989.

65 I say virtually nonexhaustive to indicate a new paradigm of energy conversion. Until all the available naturally-
occurring fertile U238 and Th232 are converted this is a technology that doesnt consume the primary energy resource as a
consequence of its utilization. When all the available fertile elements are converted then this technique will consume those
fissile elements until they are exhausted in say, several centuries. But by the time of that eventuality we will be well past
the transition to a well-suited athermal nuclear fusion technology.
66 Gleick, James; Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, pp. 5761, 1992.
67 Swenson, Rod, Autocatakinetics, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production: A Principled Foundation
Towards the Study of Human Ecology, paper appearing in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6, pp. 147, 1997. Refer to
the detailed description of the etymology of autocatakinesis. See link: http://rodswenson.com/humaneco.pdf.
68 Einstein, Albert; Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement, Part II, 3rd Annus Mirabilis Paper doctoral dissertation
on a physical & mathematical explanation of the thermodynamic view of molecular random motion due to heatBrownian
Motion, in the original German, May 11, 1905; English translation, 1926.
69 UIC; Outline History of Nuclear Energy, Briefing Paper #50, September 2005. British MAUD (Military Application of
Uranium Detonation) Committee 1941 reports: Use of Uranium for a Bomb & Use of Uranium as a Source of
Power. Accessed: March 23rd, 2007, 19:13 CST.
See: http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html.
70 Six Generation IV designs are being researched by Western governments (now), evaluated (5 or so years away), prototype
test-proved (1015 years away), and production unit constructed and certified (2025 years away): 1) Pebble Bed helium-
cooled, graphite-moderated reactor whose extremely high outlet temperature (1,650 to 1,830 F) is best suited to hydrogen
production, replacing the current hydrocarbon feedstock/processing method; 2) Fast Neutron Reactor Gas/Plasma thermal
electricity generation; 3) Fast Neutron Reactor Molten Sodium thermal electricity generation; 4) Fast Neutron Reactor
Molten Lead thermal electricity generation; 5) Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor thermal electricity generation; and 6)
Supercritical Molten Salt Reactor thermal electricity generation.
71 Russia has embarked upon their own proprietary Gen IV technology development program that appears much further
along in research moving into implementation and production roll-out, called a Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor or SVBR-100
Modular Nuclear Reactor. See: Babb, Christopher; Russias Unique SVBR-100 Nuclear Reactor, a guest posting on The Oil
Drum website, May 17th, 2009, 10:54 am. Go to: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5383#more.
72 3 of the 6 research design concepts. Although the pebble-bed single-through-put seems to be the leading design concept.
73 Rolls-Royces MermaidTM tractor propulsion pods are a brand new technology offering by RR in competition with ABBs
well-proven Azipod systems propulsor technology. Litigation over the manufacturers performance claims and the
steamship lines service experience has tainted RRs reputation. It seems both parties expectations regarding a brand new
products actual service and test-prototype-break-in-proving standards of practice appear to be the source of conflict.
74 Dubner, Stephen J., Lovins, Amory B.; Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants? A Guest Post, on Freakonomics,
BlogDubner & LevittThe New York Times newspaper. Posted: February 9th, 2009, 3:49 pm.
See: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/does-a-big-economy-need-big-power-plants-a-guest-post/.
75 Mukerjee, Madhusree; The Mystery of the Missing Dynamo: Astronomers Cannot Explain the Galaxys Magnetic Field,
article published in Scientific American magazineScience and the Citizen, Dynamo TheoryCosmic physics/Galaxies
Magnetic Fields; January, 1995 Issue, Vol. 272, No. 1.
40
Academic Version
2009
APPENDIX A:
12 Cognitive Traps
Niall Fergusons latest book does an admirable job of succinctly exploring 10 of 12 of these traps:1
1. Availability Bias, which causes us to base decisions on information that is more readily
available in our memories, rather than the data we really need [see Cognitive Trap 11];
2. Hindsight Bias, which causes us to attach higher probabilities to events after they have
happened (ex post) than we did before they happened (ex ante);
3. The Problem of Induction, which leads us to formulate general rules on the basis of
insufficient information [and then prevents us from revising those rules when new
relevant data comes to light, see Cognitive Trap 5];
4. The Fallacy of Conjunction (or Disjunction), which means we tend to overestimate the
probability that seven events of 90 per cent probability will all occur, while
underestimating the probability that at least one of seven events of 10 per cent probability
will occur [see Nassim Nickolas Talebs The Black Swan, 2007];
5. Confirmation Bias, which inclines us to look for confirming evidence of an initial hypothesis,
rather than falsifying evidence that would disprove it;
6. Contamination Effects, whereby we allow irrelevant but proximate information to influence
a decision;
7. The Affect Heuristic, whereby preconceived value-judgments interfere with our assessment
of costs and benefits;
8. Scope Neglect, which prevents us from proportionately adjusting what we should be
willing to sacrifice to avoid harms of different orders of magnitude [AKA The
Double-Down Effect];
9. Overconfidence in Calibration, which leads us to underestimate the confidence intervals within
which our estimates will be robust (e.g. to conflate the best case scenario with the
most probable) and;
10. Bystander Apathy, which inclines us to abdicate individual responsibility when in a crowd
[herding behavior, e.g. inactivitywaiting for someone to initiate, spontaneous group
activity or flight].2
41
Academic Version
2009
While not appearing in Fergusons book the following 2 are powerful drivers that also must be
considered seriously:
11. Flashbulb Phantom Memory, whereby we assume our memory to be fixed, static and
permanent, when in reality it is plastic, dynamic and highly impermanent, subject to
evolution over time especially when the memory of shocking, psychologically traumatic
events wildly degrade over time and the original facts are often lost and;3
12. Patternicity Bias, whereby we are driven to arbitrarily ascribe meaning and pattern-fitting
interpretations upon data when it may have no bearing at all and the actual inherent
information may be missed entirely.4
APPENDIX A NOTES
1 Ferguson, Niall; The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, 2008. Afterword, pp. 3456.
2 Yudkowsky, Eliezer; Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks, in Bostrom, Nick and Circovic,
Milan (eds.), Global Catastrophic Risks (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 91119. See also Mauboussin, Michael J. More
Than You Know: Finding Financial Wisdom in Unconventional Places (New York/Chichester, 2006).
3 Pritchard, Evan, Prof., PhD; Long Term Memory (LTM), Lecture Notes, Subsection Flashbulb memory, December 8,
2000. Accessed: August 11th, 2007, 12:38 CDT. See: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~epritch1/ltm99.htm. Also see Neisser,
Ulric; Hyman, Ira E.; Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts, Chapter 9 Phantom Flashbulbs, Analysis Challenger
disaster memory recall study by Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch, pp. 7589, 1999. Accessed: June 2nd, 2009, 16:15 CDT.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yf1F1c8oAB4C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=ulric+neisser+and+nicole+harsch&sour
ce=bl&ots=LKHucia3Yn&sig=_EKiTOct5ldPiwE0fOdOCek42f0&hl=en&ei=WJUlSqfFCpXMMdrV9LEF&sa=X&oi=
book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA75,M1.
4 Shermer, Michael; Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise: Why the brain believes something is real when it is not,
Scientific American magazineOp-Ed ColumnistSkeptic, December, 2008 Issue | Accessed: January 22nd, 2009, 12:21
CST. See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns.
42
Academic Version
2009
APPENDIX B:
The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau
The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of

a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognised
as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have
elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable
extinct and living descendants, was created.
naturalist, Charles Darwin
T he Geologic Grand Staircase shown here has been simplified for illustrative purposes. The
Colorado Plateau comprises an area spanning across four states; so obviously, the
comprehensive inclusion of all local variations as well as overarching large-scale variations would be
too distracting. This stratigraphy gives a reasonably expansive overview, ranging from highest
altitude, youngest geological time to lowest altitude, oldest geologic time.
Bryce Canyon Stratigraphy:

Claron Formation60 million years ago the area where Bryce Canyon now stands was not the
highest point, but rather it was the lowest and the bottom of a seventy-mile long lake. As
time passed, more changes occurred until sand, gravel and sedimentary deposits filled the
ancient lake. The lake dried over and over again for a period of about twenty-five million
years and each time the cycle resulted in laying down more layers of material. These materials
compressed and hardened into sedimentary rock. The rock "rusted" when iron, oxygen and
water combined, giving the coral color to the sediments. It's these sediments that became the
siltstone, sandstone and limestone of the Claron formation.
Pink Hallow FormationInformation unavailable.
Caanon Peak FormationCaanon Peak Formation is a Paleocene-age unit described in the Bryce
Canyon National Park region.
Kaiparowits FormationCretaceous, Late Campanian.
Wahweap FormationCretaceous, Late Campanian, late. Sandy agglomerates.
Straight Cliffs FormationThe Straight Cliffs consist of Late Cretaceous-age sandstone and shale.
Tropic ShaleCretaceous, Late Cenomanian, late Turonian, early Turonian, middle.
43
Academic Version
2009
Zion Canyon Stratigraphy:

Dakota FormationCretaceous, Early (local) Albian, late (local) Cretaceous, Late Cenomanian.
Dakota Sandstone forms the remnants of upper Zion Canyon NP hoodoos and the canyon
caprock at Hovenweep National Monument.
Carmel FormationThe Carmel Formation is Jurassic in age and is between 200 and 300 feet in
thickness. The Carmel Formation consists of massive beds of compact limestone separated
by thin sandy limestone beds containing fossils of shallow water organisms. The many
different lithologies are now being recognized as Members that include a Limestone Member,
a Banded Member, a Gypsiferous Member, and a Windsor Member. The formation was
formed from the flattening of sand dunes due to wave action in a shallow, warm sea.
Temple Cap FormationJurassic, early Middle Bajocian, early Bajocian, middle. Consists of the
White Throne and Sinawava Members.
Navajo SandstoneThe Navajo Formation or Navajo Sandstone dominates Zion National Park and
ranges from 1,000 to 2,200 feet in thickness. The Navajo Sandstone is Jurassic in age and is a
cliff former and is famed for its cross bedding. The cross-bedding developed as sand dunes
migrated to and fro on the shores of an ancient shallow sea. Some of the cross bedding was
also produced by currents in the shallow sea in the near shore environment.
Kayenta FormationThe Kayenta Formation is Early Jurassic in age and ranges from 500 to 700
feet thick. The Kayenta Formation is a slope former and is composed of siltstones and
sandstones. The Kayenta Formation was deposited as sands and silts by low to moderate
energy meandering streams. The cross-bedding within the formation was produced by
shifting currents and the building of sandbars.
Moenave FormationThe Moenave Formation, otherwise known as the Vermilion Cliffs, is
between 215 and 570 feet thick. The Moenave Formation is Triassic in age and is composed
of the Dinosaur Canyon Sandstone and the Springdale Sandstone Member. The Dinosaur
Canyon Sandstone is a mixture of interbedded mudstones, thinly bedded siltstones, and
sandstones. The Dinosaur Canyon Sandstone is a slope former and was deposited in a lake
that was eventually silted in. The Springdale Sandstone Member is a cliff former and was
deposited by streams.
Chinle FormationThe Chinle Formation is Triassic in age and is a mixture of shales, sandstones,
limestone, and volcanic ash between 900 and 1,000 feet thick. The Chinle is composed of
the Shinarump Conglomerate and the Petrified Forest Member. The Chinle Formation was
deposited by streams that picked up sand and gravel, and washed down trees that eventually
became buried in sand and gravel bars during floods. The volcanic ash supplied the silica
that was necessary for wood petrification within the Chinle Formation. The Chinle
Formation is the same formation that is found at Petrified Forest National Park.
Moenkopi FormationThe Moenkopi Formation, otherwise known as the Belted Cliffs, is a mixture
of shales, siltstones, sandstones, gypsum, mudstones, and limestone between 1,800 and 1,900
feet thick. The Moenkopi is primarily a cliff forming formation that is composed of six
different members. Some of the sediment was deposited in and along the streams that
flowed on the coastal plain adjacent to an ancient sea. Fossils within the beds help to date
the formation as having been deposited about 225 million years ago.
44
Academic Version
2009
Arches & Canyonlands Stratigraphy [abridged]:

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

Kaibab LimestoneThis layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the
Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of
sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The
color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles
a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be
found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.
Toroweap FormationThis layer averages about 255 million years old and is composed of pretty
much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from
yellow to ochre-grey, and contains a similar fossil history.
Coconino SandstoneThis layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure
quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be
seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from
white to creamy-ochre colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous
invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.
Hermit ShaleThis layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded
shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone
and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of
the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto
Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red-russet. Fossils to be found in this
layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles
and amphibians.
The Supai Group This layer averages about 285 million years old and is composed primarily of
shale that is intermixed with some small amounts of limestone and capped by sandstone.
The limestone features become more and more prominent in the western regions of the
Canyon, leading one to believe that that region was more marine. The eastern portions
where probably a muddy river delta that fed into an ancient sea. The color of this layer varies
from red for the shale to tan for the sandstone caps. Numerous fossils of amphibians,
reptiles and terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils
as you move westward.
The layers contained within the Supai Formation are, from top to bottom, as follows:
Esplanade SandstoneLedge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone,
between 225 and 300 feet thick. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles, and
terrestrial plants exist in the eastern portion , which are replaced by marine
fossils as you move westward.
45
Academic Version
2009
Wescogame FormationLedge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone,

between 100 and 225 feet thick.
Manakacha FormationCliff and slope-forming pale red sandstone, between 200 and
275 feet thick.
Watahomigi FormationA slope-forming gray limestone with some red chert bands,
sandstone, and purple siltstone. Between 90 and 175 feet thick.
Surprise Canyon Formation LensesA sedimentary layer of purplish-red shale, which only exists in
isolated lenses up to 40 feet thick. Variable deposits include sands and conglomerates. Cross
bedding is common but localized. Great horizontal variation in stratigraphy.
Redwall Limestone This layer averages about 335 million years old and is composed of marine
limestones and dolomites. This is probably the most prominent rock layer in the Canyon as
it usually forms a sheer cliff ranging from 400-500 feet in height, which has become a natural
barrier between the upper and lower regions of the Canyon. The only way though this
barrier is in areas where the rock has faulted and broken apart to form a slope which can be
climbed upon. The deep reddish color of this layer is caused by iron oxides leaching out of
the layers above it and staining its outward face. Behind the reddish face the rock is a dark
brownish-bluish-grey color. Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall
Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and
arches can also be seen in the Redwall.
Temple Butte Limestone LensesThis layer averages about 350 million years old and is composed
of freshwater limestone in the east and dolomite in the west. In the eastern Grand Canyon
this layer occurs irregularly and only then by way of limestone lenses that fill streambeds that
have been eroded into the underlying Muav Limestone. Apart from these channels, which
are quite large in places, the Redwall Limestone sits directly atop the Muav Limestone. The
Temple Butte Limestone is quite prominent, however, in the western regions and forms
massive cliffs hundreds of feet high. The color of this layer ranges from purplish in the
eastern regions to grey or cream colored in the west. The only fossils to be found in the
eastern region are bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. In the western region
there are numerous marine fossils.
Muav LimestoneThis layer averages about 515 million years old and is composed primarily of
dolomitic limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. The Muav Limestone
layer is much thicker in the western areas of the Canyon than it is in the east. Its color is
greenish-grey and it does not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and
brachiopods.
Bright Angel ShaleThis layer averages about 530 million years old and is composed primarily of
mudstone shale. It is also interbedded with small sections of sandstone and sandy limestone.
The retreat of the Canyon rim is attributed primarily to the erosion of this layer which forms
the top of the Tonto Platform. The plateau is much wider in the eastern portions of the
Canyon where the Bright Angel Shale contains less sand and is more easily eroded. The color
of this layer varies with its composition but it is mostly various shades of green with some
grey, purplish-brown and tan thrown in here and there. Fossils to be found in this layer
consist of marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods.
Tapeats SandstoneThis layer averages about 545 million years old and is composed of medium-
grained and coarse-grained sandstone. Ripple marks formed by ocean waves of an early
46
Academic Version
2009
Cambrian sea are common in the upper layer. The Tapeats is similar to the Redwall in that it
forms a barrier between upper and lower reaches of the Canyon that can only be traversed
where a fault has caused its collapse. The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains
fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails.
The Great UnconformityErosional separation between the previous formations & members and
the following:
Sixty mile FormationTan colored sandstone with small sections of shale.
Chuar GroupThese layers average about 825 to 1,000 million years old and are composed of the
following:
Kwagunt FormationThis layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with
some limestone. In the area of Carbon Butte the lower layer also contains a
large section of reddish sandstone. The shales within this layer are black and the
mudstones range from red to purple. Fossils to be found in this layer are those
of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon.
Galeros FormationThis layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and
shale. The color is primarily greenish with some of the shales ranging from red
to purple. Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer.
Nankoweap FormationA layer of course-grained sandstone, about 1,050 million years old.
Unkar GroupThese layers average about 1,100 to 1,250 million years old and consist of the
following:
Cardenas LavasThis dark brown layer is composed of basaltic lava flows.
Dox SandstoneThis layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of
sandstone interbedded with shale, and occurs primarily in the eastern regions of
the Canyon. Its color varies from red to orange and its fossil record contains
stromatolites and algae.
Shinumo QuartziteThis layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed
of sandstone. This layer is only exposed in a few sections in the Canyon. Its
color can be deep red, brown, purple or white.
Hakatai ShaleThis layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed
primarily of shale with some sandstone. The color is a very bright orange-red
red and is the layer that gives Red Canyon its name.
Bass FormationThis layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed
primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale. It is greyish in color and its
fossil record consists of stromatolites.
Vishnu Schist with Zoroaster Gneiss intrusions amalgamationThis layer averages about 1,700 to
2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of
sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with
metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite
were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays
Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new
sediments were deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas [Sixty mile Formation,
Chuar Group, Nankoweap Formation & Unkar Group remnants]. The color of this layer is
dark pink for the gneiss intrusive veining and dark grey or black for the schist.
47
Academic Version
2009
APPENDIX C:
Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System
Sol System Magnetic Intensity Notes

Body Field Relative to Earth
Sun Yes 100 Xs Stronger1 As measured at Earths orbitit should be noted

IMFInterplanetary that the other Solar Systemic bodies
Magnetic Field magnetospheres are undetectable at Earths orbit.
Mercury Yes 4X10-4 Xs Weaker2 1/40,000th the strength of Earths.
Venus No Virtually Undetectable3 Indistinguishable from Solar Magneto Effects.
Earth Yes 1:14 But is weakening, 20% weaker than 400 years ago.
It is theorized that Earths magnetosphere is
undergoing a pole reversal.
Moon No Virtually Undetectable5 Earths Magnetotail has caused
Terran [Present] Lunar Crustal Effects.
Moon Yes 50 Xs Weaker6 1/50th the strength of Earthsafter collision of a
Terran planetary body with Earth precipitating ejecta
[4.2 BYA]7 material which coalesced into the proto-moon
new data suggests a strong molten mantle/core
dynamo-induced magnetosphere initially formed
which diminished with the cooling of the mantle/
core to present conditions.
Mars No Virtually Undetectable8 Miniscule Crustal Umbrellas that form as a result
of Mars turbulent passage through the IMF.
Jupiter Yes 2X104 Xs Stronger9 This is one of the reasons why Jupiter is believed to
be Sols almost Binary that just couldnt ignite.
Europa Maybe Awaiting Its movement through Jupiters magnetic field
Jovian Additional Data makes it difficult to distinguish whether Europa
has an internal magnetic field. A proposed
future Europa Jupiter System Mission is in
part designed to answer this question.10
Ganymede Yes 1.8X10-3 Xs Weaker11 1/1,800th the strength of Earthslargest of the
Jovian solar systems natural satellites & an 8% greater
diameter then Mercury, Ganymede has a magneto-
sphere slightly more than 22 Xs STRONGER
than Mercurys.
Io Maybe Awaiting At this point its difficult to separate Ios magneto-
Jovian Additional Data sphere from Jupiters strong magnetic field. The
planned Juno mission is in part designed to
answer this question. Tidal heating due to its
orbital resonances with Europa, Ganymede and
Jupiter is the driver of Ios active interiornot
radiological isotope decay. Its arguably the most
volcanically active solid body in the solar system.
Ferrosilicates make up the bulk of Ios interior
with a solid iron core.12 13
48
Academic Version
2009
Sol System Magnetic Intensity Notes

Body Field Relative to Earth
Saturn Yes 580 Xs Stronger14 Though 85% of Jupiters diameter, the magnetic
field is nearly 35 times weaker.
Titan No Virtually Undetectable15 Indistinguishable from Saturnian Primary & Solar
Saturnian Magneto Effects, only very slightly smaller than
Ganymede with nearly the same distance
from Jupiter.
Uranus Yes Nearly 50 Xs Stronger16
Neptune Yes Nearly 50 Xs Stronger17
Completed August 25th, 2008 and intended for strictly individual personal use. Revised April 11th, 2009. All rights are
reserved. It may not be reprinted without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Mequet. It may not be altered,
misquoted, truncated, misattributed or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and attribution.
APPENDIX C NOTES:
1 See The Interplanetary Magnetic FieldIt comes from the sun!; accessed August 25th, 2008 at:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html.
2 See Mercury: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 476-478, Chapman and Hall, New York, 1997; accessed August 25th,
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/merc_mag/.
3 See Venus: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/.
4 See Earth: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/earth_mag/. Also see The Solar Wind at Mars: The solar
wind has slowly eroded the Martian atmosphere for billions of yearstransforming the planet into a barren desert. by Dr. Tony Phillips,
Science@NASA, January 31st, 2001 at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm. & Solar Wind Rips Up
Martian Atmosphere by Dr. Tony Phillips, Science@NASA, November 21st, 2008 at:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan%5F1.htm.
5 See The Fine-Scale Lunar Magnetic Field by C. T. Russell, P. J. Coleman, Jr., B. K. Fleming, L. Hilburn, G. Ioannidis, B. R.
Lichtenstein, and G. Schubert published in Proc. Lunar Sci Conf. 6th (1975), p. 2955-2969 Geochimica et Cosmochemica Acta
Supplement 6, 1975; accessed August 25th, 2008 at http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Lunar/.
6 See Astronomers crack longstanding lunar mystery: Ancient rocks magnetic field shows that moon once had a dynamo in its core, Article by
David ChandlerNews Office Correspondent, TechTalk: Serving the MIT Community, Campus Weekly Periodical, Volume
53Number 14, WednesdayFebruary 4, 2009: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/techtalk53-14.pdf.
7 BYABillion Years Ago.
8 See Mars: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/.
9 See Jupiter: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/jup_mag/.
10 Kivelson, M. G., el al; Europas Magnetic Signature: Report from Galileos Pass on 19 December 1996, Science 23 May 1997: Vol.
276. no. 5316, pp. 1,2391,241. DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5316.1239. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:44 CDT.
See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/5316/1239.
49
Academic Version
2009
11 See Discovery of Ganymedes magnetic field by the Galileo spacecraft by M.G. Kivelson, K.K. Khurana, C.T. Russell, R.J. Walker, J.
Warnecke, F.V. Coroniti, C. Polanskey, D.J. Southwood & G. Schubert in Nature magazine journal, Volume 384, pages
537541, December 12th, 1996.
12 Kivelson, M. G., el al; A Magnetic Signature at Io: Initial Report from the Galileo Magnetometer, Institute of Geophysics and
Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567, USA. 16 April 1996; accepted 2
July 1996. Accessed: April 11th, 2009, 09:52 CDT. See: http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/doc/sci273/text.htm.
13 Wikipedia Project, A; Io entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009,
08:23 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 02:44 (UTC). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon).
14 See Saturn: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/sat_mag.html.
15 See Abstract of Intrinsic Magnetic Field of Titan and Ganymede by H.Y. Weil, C.T. Russell, M.K. Dougherty & F.M. Neubauer
in EPSC Abstracts, Volume 2, EPSC2007-A-00148, 2007, European Planetary Science Congress 2007, Author(s) 2007.
16 See Uranus: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
2008 at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/ura_mag.html.
17 See Neptune: Magnetic Field & Magnetosphere by J. G. Luhmann & C. T. Russell published in Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences
Edited by J. H. Shirley and R. W. Fainbridge, pages 532, Chapman and Hall, New York, 1997; accessed August 25th, 2008
at: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/nep_mag.html.
50
Academic Version
2009
APPENDIX D:
Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of Our Solar System
Sol System Auto Solar/Primary Notes

Body Rotation Orbital Period
Sun1 2 600 hrs/25 days n/a Differential fluidic rotation. 11-year average
1,380,000 km D3 AT SOLAR EQUATOR sunspot cycle between sunspot maximum activity
108 ED4 864 hrs/36 days and sunspot minimum activity then back to
AT SOLAR POLES maximum makes one 22-year solar cycle.
Mercury5 1,407.528 hrs 87.970 days Mercury makes one autorotation in 1.5 solar orbital
4,879 km D 58.647 days 0.241 yr periods or 2 autorotations in 3 solar orbital periods.
0.38 ED 0.67 Xs/1 OP6 58 mil km The sun actually appears to retrograde
0.4 AU during perihelion.
Venus7 5,392.8 hrs 243.018 days The only planetary body in the solar system to
12,100 km D 224.7 days 0.665 yr rotate in retrogradeclockwise. No expla-
0.95 ED 1.1 Xs/1 OP 108 mil km nation for this at this time.
0.7 AU
Earth 24 hours 365.25 days All rates are given in earth equivalent.
12,756 km D 1 day 1 yr
1 ED 365.25 Xs/1 OP 150 mil km
1 AU8
Moon 655.728 hrs 27.322 days Tidally locked with Earth, the same side of the
Terran9 27.322 days 0.075 yr moon faces earth throughout its orbital period.
3,476 km D 1.0 Xs/1 OP 0.4 mil km Earthlings never see the Far Side of the moon.
0.27 ED 0.003 AU
Mars10 24.660 hrs 687.053 days The most earth-like diurnal duration.
6,792 km D 1.028 days 1.881 yrs
0.53 ED 668.3 Xs/1 OP 228 mil km
1.5 AU
Jupiter11 9.833 hrs/0.410 day 4,331.865 days Differential fluidic rotation. Fastest rotation of all
142,984 km D AT PLANET EQUATOR 11.860 yrs planetary bodies. Oblate bulge at equator due
11.21 ED 9.917 hrs/0.413 day 778 mil km to fast rotation rate.
AT PLANET POLES 5 AU
10,500 Xs/1 OP
Europa12 85.2 hrs 3.551 days Like the Earths moon, it is tidally locked with one
Jovian 3.551 days 0.010 yr side always facing Jupiter and the other never. 9%
3,138 km D 1.0 Xs OP 670,900 km smaller in diameter than the moon. Orbitally
0.246 ED 0.005 AU resonant by 1:2 with Io and 2:1 with Ganymede.
Ganymede13 171 hrs 7.125 days Like the Earths moon, it is tidally locked with one
Jovian 7.125 days 0.020 yr side always facing Jupiter and the other never. 8%
5,262 km D 1.0 Xs OP 1 mil km larger diameter than Mercury. Orbitally resonant
0.41 ED 0.007 AU by 1:2 with Europa and 1:4 with Ganymede.
51
Academic Version
2009
Sol System Auto Solar/Primary Notes

Body Rotation Orbital Period
Io14 42.5 hrs 1.771 days Like the Earths moon, it is tidally locked with one
Jovian 1.771 days 0.005 yr side always facing Jupiter and the other never.
3,643 km 1.0 Xs OP 421,700 km Slightly larger than the moon, but 2/3s
0.286 ED 0.003 AU Ganymedes diameter. Orbitally resonant by 2:1
with Europa and 4:1 with Ganymede.
Saturn15 10.667 hrs/0.444 day 10,759 days Differential fluidic rotation. 2nd fastest rotation of
120,540 km D AT PLANET EQUATOR 29.457 yrs all planetary bodies. Discrepancy between
9.45 ED 10.767 hrs/0.449 day 1,429 mil km Voyager and Cassini observations are continuing
AT PLANET POLES 9.5 AU to be investigated. Oblate bulge at equator due
24,100 Xs/1 OP to fast rotation rate.
Titan16 382 hrs 15.917 days Like the Earths moon, it is tidally locked with one
Saturnian 15.917 days 0.044 yr side always facing Saturn and the other never.
5,150 km D 1.0 Xs/1 OP 1.2 mil km Virtually the same as diameter as Ganymede.
0.41 ED 0.007 AU
Uranus17 17.233 hrs/0.718 day 30,681 days Differential fluidic rotation. 4th fastest rotation of all
51,118 km D AT PLANET EQUATOR 84 yrs planetary bodies. Oblate bulge at equator due to
4.00 ED Indeterminate 2,871 mil km fast rotation rate.
42,750 Xs/1 OP
Neptune18 16.117 hrs/0.672 day 60,190 days Differential fluidic rotation. 3rd fastest rotation of all
48,599 km D AT PLANET EQUATOR 164.79 yrs planetary bodies. Oblate bulge at equator due to
3.81 ED Indeterminate 4,504 mil km fast rotation rate.
89,630 Xs/1 OP
Completed March 2nd, 2009 and intended for strictly individual personal use. Revised April 11th, 2009. All rights are
reserved. It may not be reprinted without obtaining prior written permission from Kevin Dobson Mequet. It may not be
altered, misquoted, truncated, misattributed or plagiarized. Please strictly adhere to competent academic citation and
attribution.
APPENDIX D NOTES
1 Russell, Randy; Rotation of the Sun, an entry posted on Windows to the Universe, a project by The Regents of the University of
Michigan, 2005. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:06 CST.
See: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/differential_rotation.html.
2 Phillips, Tony; How Round is the Sun, article posted on Science@NASA , a Fair Use online resource to the public, 2008
USA.gov. Accessed: October 6th, 2008; 10:26 CDT.

See: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm?list1079386.
3 kmkilometer(s); DDiameter.
4 EDEarth Diameter(s).
5 Seligman, Courtney; The Rotation of Mercury, Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 16:32 CST. Accessed: February 29th, 2009,
16:32 CST. See: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/mercuryrot.htm.

6 OPOrbital Period.
7 Elert, Glenn, Venuss Rotation, an online scholastic Fair Use science resource, posted 1999 Glenn Elert/Jessica Brodkin.
Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:33 CST. See: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JessicaBrodkin.shtml.
52
Academic Version
2009
8 AUAstronomical Unit: the average orbital radius from the earth to the sun.
9 Windows Team, The; The Moons Orbit and Rotation, an entry posted on Windows to the Universe, a project by The Regents of
the University of Michigan, 2000. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 17:53 CST.
See: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/uts/moon1.html&edu=high.
10 Wikipedia Project, A; Mars entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February 28th,
2009, 18:44 CST. This page was last modified on 28 February 2009, at 00:40. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars.
11 Wikipedia Project, A; Jupiter entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: March 1st, 2009,
20:21 CST. This page was last modified on 26 February 2009, at 18:03. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter.
12 Wikipedia Project, A; Europa entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009,
10:53 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 14:20 (UTC).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon).
13 Wikipedia Project, A; Ganymede entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February
28th, 2009, 22:05 CST. This page was last modified on 1 March 2009, at 02:57.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon).
14 Wikipedia Project, A; Io entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: April 11th, 2009,
08:23 CDT. This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 02:44 (UTC). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon).
15 Galluzzo, Gary & Martinez, Carolina; Rotation Period is a Puzzle: On approach to Saturn, data obtained by the Cassini spacecraft are
already posing a puzzling question: How long is the day on Saturn?, an online article for the project, NASACassini, posted
06.28.04, 2004 National Astronautics & Space Administration. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 20:52 CST.
See: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-062804.html.
16 Wikipedia Project, A; Titan entry, an online academic resource, all cited references in effect. Accessed: February 28th,
2009, 22:25 CST. This page was last modified on 19 February 2009, at 22:32. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon).
17 Science JRank; Uranus Rotation, an online academic resource, 2009 Net Industries. Accessed: February 28th, 2009, 21:21
CST. See: http://science.jrank.org/pages/7119/Uranus-Uranus-rotation.html.

18 Science JRank; Neptunes Rotation, an online academic resource, 2009 Net Industries. Accessed: February 28th, 2009,
21:35 CST. See: http://science.jrank.org/pages/4585/Neptune-Neptune-s-rotation-period.html.
53

KDM Proposal NuMEgen Ver03 Academic 20100605 Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

KDM Proposal NuMEgen Ver03 Academic 20100605 Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen Device Using the Feynman/Gell-Mann Radiomagnetic Effect

MITIGATION OF GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PUMPING

Copyright 2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet.

Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen Device

Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable Athermal Nuclear Generator

Kevin Dobson Mequet

Why its Time to Develop a Fully Scalable NuMEgen1 Device

ELECTROMAGNETISM AND THE ENERGY GRAND STAIRCASE

What would that well-suited nuclear fission technology be?

geomagnetosphere would be in the hundreds of thousands of degrees which is highly implausible.

SOLAR SYSTEM SURVEY

What might that be?

Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting

investigators astray. I propose that an overdependence upon computational modeling without

GEOPHYSICS AND AN ATHERMAL POSSILIBILITY FOR GEOMAGNETISM

I have dismissed, at Davidsons compelling insistence, the existence of a discrete mechanistic

THE EARTHS INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE

Fig. 8: McKenzieRichter high Rayleigh plastic Fig. 9: TalbotJackson density gradient

an unconscious entrapment within a Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelian ever-diminishing atomic

A NEW ATHERMAL RADIOLOGIC FISSILE GEOMAGNETIC-MODELED CORE

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

Let a Radiologic Fissile Geomagnetic-modeled core which produces a magnetosphere many

Thank you for your kind attention.

Copyright 2009 Kevin Dobson Mequet. All rights are reserved.

Patents are pending for the technology described herein.

1 Nuclear-driven MagnetoElectric generator.

motion picture documentary, 2007. Retired Professor of Geophysics, Princeton University.

Issue, Vol. 238, No. 1.

now confronting us.

enough direct, close empirical observation to contribute significantly to this investigation.

System, pp. 48.

2008. Accessed: May 28th, 2008, 15:32 CDT.

mission. See: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/index.html.

November 21st, 2008. Accessed: November 21st, 2008, 06:42 CST.

published in Science, 186, p. 825-826, 1974. See: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/lunar_magfield/.

2008. Accessed: April 17th, 2008, 14:43 CDT.

Issue, Vol. 257, No. 6.

Survey of the Our Solar System, pp. 51.

lead investigator conclusions.

Nature, Volume 384, pages 537-541, December 12, 1996.

Science, vol. 51, no. 1, Sept. 1977, p. 153-158. DOI: 10.1007/BF00642464.

Scientific American magazine, August, 1987 Issue, Vol. 257, No. 2.

Ludwig-Maximilians-Univeritt MnchenGeophysics Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Last modified

pp. 421, 1989.

The Geologic Grand Staircase of the Colorado Plateau

The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of

Bryce Canyon Stratigraphy:

Pink Hallow FormationInformation unavailable.

Kaiparowits FormationCretaceous, Late Campanian.

Wahweap FormationCretaceous, Late Campanian, late. Sandy agglomerates.

Tropic ShaleCretaceous, Late Cenomanian, late Turonian, early Turonian, middle.

Zion Canyon Stratigraphy:

Arches & Canyonlands Stratigraphy [abridged]:

Grand Canyon Stratigraphy:

Wescogame FormationLedge and slope-forming pale red sandstone and siltstone,

Planetary & Stellar Magnetosphere Survey of Our Solar System

Sol System Magnetic Intensity Notes

Sun Yes 100 Xs Stronger1 As measured at Earths orbitit should be noted

Sol System Magnetic Intensity Notes

Planetary & Stellar Rotation Survey of Our Solar System

Sol System Auto Solar/Primary Notes

Sol System Auto Solar/Primary Notes

USA.gov. Accessed: October 6th, 2008; 10:26 CDT.

16:32 CST. See: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/mercuryrot.htm.