UFO Ex NASA Scientist Bob Oechsler BBC Radio 1 DJ Nicky Campbell

(N.B. Non pubblico una cosa del genere tanto per fare)

1993 Radio 1 D.J. Nicky Campbell Interviewed Bob Oeschler ex NASA scientist (Mind Blowing Info)
Topics Covered :
Government cover ups,
Aliens and ,
Alien Crafts,
Indoctrination Program,
Government Alien Barter Arrangements,
UFO Disk Technology,
Telepathic Communication,
Alien Species Description,
Alien Agenda
Alien Abductions,
Human Emotion Head Gear,
Anti Gravity,
Time Travel,
Gravity Manipulation,
warping space and time,
antimatter reactor,
Super Heavy Gravity Fuel,
Moon Missions.


NC (Nicky Campbell)> Bob, how long were you with NASA?


BO (Bob Oechsler)> I was with NASA in the mid-seventies, working on several

projects, including the Apollo-Soyuz test project. I worked on the

docking collar that mated the two craft. I also worked on the Inter-

national Ultraviolet Explorer, several deep-space projects, and some

Department of Defence projects.


NC> And in the end, you’ve left, and you’ve sort of come out of the UFO

closet, if you like?


BO> Well, I don’t know if you’d call it the UFO closet, actually.


NC> Is it not rather embarrassing for your ex-colleagues in the light of

what you’ve said about alien retrieved craft, and so forth? You’ve

spilled a few beans that, were I to believe your story, they would

have wanted to keep in the can.


BO> Well, that’s partially true, but from what I got, you see, I ended up

getting guidance. I was called in because of my expertise in remotely

operated airborne robotic systems to evaluate some activities that had

been recorded on video films. There was some rather extraordinary

physics. In fact, it appeared as though the objects were violating

the laws of physics as we know them.


NC> Hang on. NASA called you in to analyse these video films?


BO> No, I wasn’t called in by NASA, I was called in by an agency in

Washington, D.C., a couple of different agencies, in fact, that

had been addressed. One was the Department of the Navy.


NC> Had you left NASA by this point?


BO> Yes, I had. I was asked to use the facilities of the NASA facility

at Goddard Space Flight Centre to review some of the video films that

had been recorded recently.


NC> By whom?


BO> Actually, the first one had been recorded by a custom builder who

happened to see an object flying around behind the high school behind

his home in this little town of five thousand people down in the north-

west panhandle of Florida, and I had the opportunity to spend a good

bit of time – five months, in fact – doing an analysis of this at the

Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland.


NC> Courtesy of NASA?


BO> Yes. They gave me the operational facilities there to use for the

analysis project.


NC> So they’re not greatly embarrassed by the fact that you’re looking

into alien life forms and so forth?


BO> Well no, they didn’t really know what it was. In fact, they were

probably hoping that I would be able to discover that this was some

kind of a hoax, that somebody had a radio-controlled model, or some-

thing like that.


NC> That’s not what you discovered?


BO> No, in fact, an optical physicist with the navy was the one that

really initiated the interest in getting an analysis done, because he

was observing some things that he couldn’t quite explain. So I got

involved in the project and, extraordinarily enough, we were able to

determine that there was absolutely no possible way this could have

been a model flying around. This thing was exhibiting capabilities

of extraordinary direction reversals – at low speed, but with no

deceleration or acceleration.


NC> How did NASA react to your findings, your investigations?


BO> They didn’t have a reaction. There was never any official reaction.

They were just more or less bystanders and interested in the results.

What we later discovered was that, as a result of that, we later

sought guidance from the highest levels of the intelligence community,

in particular Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who was the National Security

Agency deputy director at the CIA, a host of other intelligence posts,

and a technologist, and there was a sort of camaraderie just

established from that. He had informed me in a documented recorded

telephone conversation – inadvertently recorded, actually – that the

United States government had possession of extraordinary hardware in

operational condition that was of non-human origin and manufacture.

Of course, the public popular term is UFO.


NC> Have you seen them?


BO> I have indeed.


[The interview breaks for a record – David Bowie’s “Loving the Alien”.]


NC> We’ve got to the point in your story – and you’re only in the U.K.

on a flying visit, you came on a plane, not a UFO.


BO> Right, we had to leave the disk in the shop. We didn’t have time

to change the oil every 55000 miles.


NC> But you’re deadly serious. This isn’t a wind up, is it? You’re

going to come to some of the technology of it later on, and it’s

absolutely rivetting. You’ve seen, you say, retrieved craft. What

was the expression you used, hardware?


BO> Operational hardware, right.


NC> You’ve seen this? In whose possession was it?


BO> I’ve seen it in both situations. I’ve seen it where they were being

piloted and guided by presumably non-human pilots. They clearly were

not remotely operated vehicles.


NC> Have you seen it in US governmental care?


BO> Yes, and I’ve talked to a number of test pilots who have worked on the

projects and test-flight programmes, worked with what you might call

mechanics or actually physicists who worked on propulsion systems

related to the vehicles and they report some rather extraordinary



NC> How close did you get to one of these things?


BO> I’ve been within about two hundred feet. That’s about the closest I’ve



NC> Why no closer to them?


BO> In the case of vehicles that were operated by non-humans, it was

surprising that I was able to get that close, because I certainly

didn’t have any control over that situation. And, in the case of

US military…


NC, interrupting> Yes, that’s what I was talking about.


BO> … and intelligence, due to a variety of security and safety

restrictions, really.


NC> Were they extremely guarded about this operational craft, even given

the fact you were an official, in certain ways? Were they not

extremely guarded and nervous that anyone was seeing it, beyond a

chosen few?


BO> Well, again, we do have it on record that these issues are covered

under national secrecy laws. However, there’s somewhat of a dichotomy

that exists here. Yes, the technology is highly classified. But the

issue of the vehicles themselves, of the presence of the intelligent

species behind them, is the subject of an indoctrination programme,

especially in the United States. But it’s also worldwide, I’ve found.

Studies have been been conducted, back in the very late fifties – paid

for by NASA, actually – conducted at the Brookings Institution in

Washington, D.C., regarding the implications of a confrontation with

an extraterrestrial culture. Whether or not this information should

be withheld from the public, what the outcome would be.


NC> Yes, because the outcome is fairly shattering. It shatters many

illusions, moral, religious, ethical, the whole bit.


BO> Exactly. In the economic arena is of course what the biggest concern



NC> So, as a corollary to what you’re saying, why are they not extra

careful that people like you didn’t wander in and have a look, which

you evidently did, and come over and talk about it on radio shows and

television shows, which you evidentially are?


BO> Well, because, in effect, I end up, wittingly or unwittingly, playing

a part in their indoctrination scheme. The idea is, in order to solve

the problem of the chaos created by public disclosure, it was deter-

mined, back in the late sixties, that the solution to avoiding chaos

was a slow, long term indoctrination programme. The intelligence

community got involved in development of films such as “Close

Encounters of the Third Kind”, and “E. T.”.


NC> So, briefly, what is your role in this. Why are they quite relaxed

about the fact that you’re talking like this? You talked about

security regulations. Presumably you’re breaching all of these. Why

are they relaxed about it?


BO> Again, it’s like I say, there is in fact an indoctrination programme,

and I’m essentially playing a part in that.


NC> You’re a drip feed?


BO> You could say that. I mean, the difference would be, you could either

have lunatics running about talking about aliens and extrterrestrial

spacecraft without any basic background knowledge of what they’re

talking about and just speculating wildly, or, you could have somebody

who actually knows something about it, or several people who something

about it, to set the record straight, and to provide that information.


NC> Right, lets have some more music…


[Nicky plays Chris de Burgh’s “A Spaceman Came Travelling”.]


NC> So, you were within two hundred feet of this craft, Bob, which you say

was a retrieved craft in operational order. What did it look like?


BO> Again, I don’t know that you could say that it was a retrieved craft.

As far as I’m aware, it just as well could have been given to us. It

certainly wasn’t shot down. It could have been provided; maybe there

was some barter arrangement.


NC> A barter arrangement? I’m going to write that down. I’ll come back to

that – barter arrangement, given – because that strikes an interesting

note. What did it look like?


BO> Well, it was about a thirty foot diameter disk-shaped craft. It had a

small dome around the centre. There were protruding flanges equidistant

around the outer edge. There was some kind of apparatus hanging down

from the bottom. It was ‘floating’ above the ground, probably at about

ten feet altitude. A tremendous amount of plasmatic light with various



NC> Sorry?


BO> Plasma. It’s a very, very bright white light. It’s caused by inter-

action of a very high electrical voltage field around the disk. In

fact, I was able to learn that the reason why they use circular type

of craft is in order to contain the high-voltage field, so you don’t

have a corona discharge.


NC> Sorry?


BO> On ordinary powerlines you might have seen thses round spherical

resistors – no, capacitors – they put on these power lines. That’s

to avoid a discharge of electricity that might zap somebody driving

by in a car.


NC> There may well be a lot of astrophysicists listening, but I’m not one

of them. Suffice it to say, this is a highly sophisticated looking

piece of equipment. How do you know it wasn’t made here?


BO> Because I was told, for one, plus, I also interviewed an official of

the Canadian government who was actually on board the craft, and

visited with the intelligence that was on board.


NC, after a long pause> He did what!?


BO> You seem stunned. [He chuckles.]


NC> Yes! He did what with the intelligence on board?


BO> Visited with them, communicated, interacted. The individual, I

believe, was taken on board. Probably without being asked, like



NC> Did you speak to this individual of the Canadian government, about



BO> Yes I did. I communicated with the individual, and arranged to have

conducted a military polygraph exam.


NC> That’s a lie detector?


BO> Yes, indeed.


NC> And what was the result of that?


BO> Well, let me put it this way. The polygraph examiner said at the

beginning when we started on this thing [that] there was absolutely

no way, this individual must be making this up. When we completed

the exam, approximately a week of extraordinary work – just to

construct the proper questioning procedure – the polygraph examiner

came away scrathcing his head, convinced not only was the witness

telling the truth or believed exactly what the witness was saying,

but also that this was not any form of hallucination or fantasy.


NC> The witness, as you call this Canadian gentleman, was the only person

on board?


BO> You can call him a gentleman; I’ve been very careful to keep neutral

with regard to gender.


NC> Ah, so it was a woman!


BO> [Laughs] Interesting conclusion.


NC, laughing> You may be a scientist, but I know a bit about logic myself.

This is amazing. What did this person – he or she, or it, or whatever

– relay about their ‘conversations’ or communications, I should say,

with the intelligent life-form?


BO> Well, intriguingly enough, one of two entities that she had a direct

encounter with apparently was dying, was quite ill. They apparently

were conducting operations against their will, indicating that they

were under the control of some other intelligence, shall we say. I

don’t know what the other intelligence was, or, at least, I’m not at

liberty to say what the speculation is at this point.


NC> Well, what is the speculation? You can tell us.


BO, sounding very nervous and evasive> I’d prefer not to get into that end

of it. Let’s just say that.


NC> Why not? I’m not asking you to, but why not?


BO> Well, I think it would probably be inappropriate because it could in

fact be rather indictable to a particular species of human, shall we



NC> Us, in other words?


BO> Well, not us, but a specific nationality of human was referenced in

this encounter, and it wouldn’t be proper or fair to suggest or indict

some nationality. It wouldn’t be ethical.


NC> They were being made to do this against their will? And how did they



BO> Telepathically. Which is an interesting study in itself. Telepathic

communication is quite intriguing because we’ve been able to learn

that you can have five different individuals in a room all speaking

different tongues, and a telepathic communication can be transmitted

to all five simultaneously and the translation effect takes place

within the individual. So, ironically enough, you don’t have to know

the language to conduct telepathic communication with somebody.


NC> If we could do that, I’d know exactly what you were talking about with

that particular species of human a few minutes ago. What did they

look like?


BO> They were approximately four feet tall. They had self-luminating skin

[which] was a bit on the yellowish-white. The eyes were rather large

[and] black – we don’t know if it was actually a coating because of

sensitivity to the eyes, but it looked like these big wraparound sun-

glasses they used to have a couple of decades back.


NC> And they were wearing clothes?


BO> They were wearing black jumpsuit type of clothing, right.


NC> Very natty! Let’s have some more music.


[He plays Jimmy Cliff’s “Wonderful World”.]


NC> [I have] Bob Oechsler, ex-NASA mission specialist with me. Earlier

on, Bob, you were talking about the fact that this craft may well

have been given as some sort of barter arrangement. You’ve got to

tell me more about this.


BO> Well, the fact that I was able to learn that at one facility at which

I understand – there are several but I’ve not visited them – there is

housed nine different types of craft. I assume, all in operational

condition, from what I was told, by people who were there. And to

have an operational craft, you would assume it didn’t crash somewhere

and was recovered. Presumably it wasn’t shot down or you’d expect to

find some sort of damage to it, unless of course some method of

electromagnetic pulse weapon system or something like that might have

been used to disable the craft. And again, you’d expect to have some

sort of damage in the retrieval operation.


NC> So you’re maintaining that there’s some sort of deal going on between

the US government – or the allied governments, whatever they’re called

in this new world order – and some alien life-form. There’s some sort

of arrangement?


BO> Well, I asked Admiral Inman that question, if he was aware of any

ongoing dialogue today – I probably should have left off the word

‘today’, because he indicated not to his knowledge. However, I did

get the impression that from the period of 1979 to 1982 that there

very well could have been some form of dialogue going on with at least

one species. That opens up another Pandora’s Box, because the evidence

suggests that there’s more than one species involved, just like there’s

more than one nationality of human being, or species if you will.


NC> You’re talking about more than one Genus?


BO> Apparently so. Even in this one, the creatures that I described just

a while ago, it clearly appears that there are different species of

those. We find different features like, for example, the same typical

species will have a snout nose feature whereas others will have

virtually no facial features – nose, mouth, or anything like that.


NC> What do they want from us?


BO> Well, that again is a very difficult question to answer because that

would presume that we had some knowledge of the alien agenda. We don’t

really know what the alien agenda is. We can only derive from analysis

the facts of what we see. Clearly, what is going on, there is, aside

from the fact that there is a genetic engineering programme – and

that’s another mix altogether – but apparently they have abducted –

that’s a term that’s been commonly used – human beings from all walks

of life, with no apparent rhyme or reason to the selection process for

at least four generations now. We’ve been able to document that they

have been taken, given medical examinations, extract semen from males,

extract eggs from females, fertilise eggs to a half-breed shall we say,

re-implant the egg in the womb. The female, of course, is pregnant,

will carry the foetus for three months, and will be re-abducted and

the foetus extracted. In some cases we’ve had twins where one of the

twins was extracted just before birth, which is going to be quite a

shock for a mother who has been told she’s having twins…


NC> This is going on?


BO> This is going on, absolutely, right now, today, in very significant



NC> The government knows about it?


BO> Absolutely.


NC> And they’re quite happy about it because some deal’s been done?


BO> We’ve evaluated as many as three thousand cases in North America.


NC> Out there in outer space, there’s a whole load of half-breeds going

around – half alien, half human?


BO> We don’t really know what the purpose is, anything like that. Maybe

they’re trying to seed anothe planet, who knows what? There’s been

speculation about that they’re on the downside of some sort of

evolutionary curve, they’re trying to reinstitute some lost qualities

or something or other. We have also had some rather extraordinary

cases, quite a number, really, involving the study of human emotions,

where they will create a scenario, almost being able to create a

psychosomatic environment. Those who’ve seen the new features of

“Star Wars – Deep Space Nine” – they have a holodeck where they seem

to be able to simulate a thing – it’s almost as if that sort of

environment is created in order to extract or elicit from a human

being a specific emotion. They’ll take that individual into a

specific room. We’ve identified the specific apparatus that they use

to put on the head of the individual. They’ll put a similar apparatus

on the head of one of the aliens. They will somehow trigger a reflex

mechanism, if you will, and force the human to relive the experience

mentally, and transpose the whole emotional process to the entity.

And then that one will get up, they’ll bring another one in, and

they’ll go through this process twelve times for the same incident,

for example. It’s kind of remarkable, because one might assume gee,

with this kind of technology you’d think they have the ability to do

a multiple memory dump or something or other, but, that’s clearly not,

those aren’t the facts of what we’re getting in these cases.


NC, taking a deep breath> Blimey! Bob Oechsler is my guest tonight, and

I’m going to have a chat to Bob about the technology of these craft.

Are we using this technology? How do these UFOs work? He’s studied

that and has got some interesting things to say. After this from

Joan Armatrading.


[Joan Armatrading’s “Drop the Pilot” is played.]


NC> They’re retrieved alien craft, landed alien craft, that have been

given to us as part of a barter with another life form. He’s talking

about the fact that humans have been taken on these craft. This is an

ex-NASA scientist here. He says it’s just a matter of time before all

this information is commonly known, sometime within the next century,

no doubt. But they’ve got to drip feed it to us, because it’s too

much for us all at once. It’s certainly too much for me at this time

of night, Bob, but you are a scientist. How do these spacecraft work?


BO> It’s a very fascinating science.


NC> Don’t be too technical.


BO> I’ll do my best. As Carl Sagan often has said, it’s not logical for

us to even consider travelling to the nearest star system due to the

concepts of linear travel. It doesn’t matter how fast you go. Even

if you approach the speed of light, you’ll still have to go from point

A to point B and, whatever that distance in light-years is, it takes

too long for us to consider feasibly going there and coming back.

Well, if you can eliminate some of these concepts – which has

apparently happened with these craft, what they do is, they’re able

to manipulate time, which is something we’ve been very much aware of

for a couple of decades at NASA – that gravity slows down time in

contrast to what we normally think of as sixty seconds a minute, and

so on. There is a constant relative to that except in one place, in

terms of the gravity. In other words, the gravity field is the same

on the surface of the earth but, when you leave the surface of the

earth strange things begin to happen, in terms of time. The fact is

that time speeds up the further away from a gravity influence you get.

Well, these machines create intensified gravitational fields which,

in effect, slow down time as we see it, and are able to cut down on

the amount of time it takes to go from point A to point B. The other

point is that, if they’re able to focus a gravity field on another

point, they’re able to stretch or pull together points A and B. If

you view space as like a waterbed, if you put a bowling ball in the

middle of the waterbed, the bed kind of wraps up around the ball.

Well, this is very typical of what happens in space. If you create

an intensified gravitational field you warp the distances between the

two. In other words, shortening the distance between A and B, making

the whole concept more feasible. That’s in a nutshell, really, how

these things operate is by warping space and time, and getting into

some real interesting astrophysical sciences, it interprets into a

much more feasible method of travel.


NC> So it’s not like getting from A to B, the old linear travel? The

technology is kind of anti-matter?


BO> There are some systems that use what is referred to as an anti-matter

reactor, which is a powerful system. It uses super-heavy elements,

well beyond what we have been familiar with traditionally, like

Uranium. They are able to capitalise on, apparently – there is a

low grade B-gravity wave, which is different than the atomic gravity

that holds molecules together – they’re able to capitalise off that

and amplify it. They use a series of amplifiers in order to focus it.

It’s a lot easier to focus three points than it is to just try and

focus one. Typically, with a telescope, we’ll just try to focus one.

What we’ve learned in deep-space science, like in the SETI project,

is that if you put one antenna here and one in Arecibo, and you split

three around the planet, you can actually focus three different points

and get a much bigger telescopic view. Well, this is very similar to

the types of things they’re doing with gravity waves.


NC> So, presumably they’ve taken some of these elements heavier than

Uranium down here and we’ve now got them in our hands, and they’re

being examined?


BO> That’s another interesting phenomenon too, is that we apparently have

about five hundred pounds of the fuel shall we say, the heavy gravity-

stabilised fuel that the systems that are used. How we got that is

remarkable, because it only takes about 223 grammes to operate one of

these things and we don’t even know [for] how long. A lot longer than

the average car will last, I’ll tell you that.


NC> It’s amazing stuff. One last question: Why haven’t we utilised any

of this thus far?


BO> Well, actually we have, in quite a number of areas. The development

of the B2 Stealth bomber was one that I’m aware of where an anti-

gravity cavern was developed.


NC> Sure, an impressive machine, but it’s hardly a spectacular use of

alien technology. It’s not going to take us to another solar system.

So why haven’t we been to another solar system if we have known all

this for such a relatively long time?


BO> That would assume that we have a complete understanding of the

technology to go to another star system. The prospects are that we

probably have used it to go to the moon, but, right now it seems that

the focus at this point seems to be to learn how to adapt some of the

alien-derived technologies into applicable human uses, one of which

is to develop air transport that can carry large amounts of weight

over long distances without the fuel requirements that we typically

are confronted with.


NC> We’ve been to the moon using this technology, you think?


BO> I think that is true, yes.


NC> Moon missions we know about?


BO> That we don’t know about.


NC> There have been moon missions that we don’t know about?


BO> That’s my understanding, yes.


NC> Mmm. Well, we could go on all night, Bob. It’s been fascinating

having you in. I know you’re flying back tomorrow. Bob Oechsler,

investigations analyst, and a man with a good story to tell, if

nothing else. I think people will have enjoyed listening. Thanks

very much.


BO> Thanks for having me, Nicky.

[Nicky then plays The Police’s “Walking on the Moon”.]

Picchisti e serristi: il fondamentalismo che deturpa la scienza


Se i rilievi saranno confermati, Eni potrebbe festeggiare la più grande scoperta di gas mai effettuata in Egitto e nel mar Mediterraneo, che potrebbe diventare una delle maggiori scoperte di gas a livello mondiale.


Al Concilio di Nicea si votò per stabilire se Gesù fosse divino oppure no. Una schiacciante maggioranza ha instaurato il dogma attualmente esistente.
Le cose non sono cambiate poi molto. Oggi come allora si stabiliscono degli assiomi/dogmi a maggioranza e si ignora l’evidenza che li confuta, stuprando la scienza e perseguitando gli eretici.

Contemporary psychologists have published a series of provocative experiments showing that faith in science can serve the same mentally-stabilizing function as religious beliefs…The byproducts of absolute truths and intractable forms of ideology … historically seem linked to bigotry and prejudice.

I picchisti del petrolio sono un po’ come i serristi…e faranno la stessa fine.
Il problema è che bisognerà tollerare le loro farneticazioni ancora per qualche anno.

Ciò detto, la civiltà umana, se vuole definirsi civile, tra le altre cose DEVE liberarsi dalla schiavitù dei combustibili “”fossili”” e DEVE prendersi cura dell’ambiente, lasciando stare le innocue emissioni di CO2 che fanno benissimo alle foreste e all’agricoltura e concentrandosi sui veri inquinanti che stanno avvelenanando noi e il pianeta su cui viviamo.

Results of several recent laboratory studies and some field observations an interesting development of the theory of petroleum genesis. If the observations are correct, then hydrocarbon reserves can be considered renewable and the peak oil predictions are to be left to the past.


Gold ha raggiunto la fama nel 1992 con l’articolo “The Deep Hot Biosphere” pubblicato in un numero della rivista Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, e nel quale ha proposto una controversa teoria sull’origine del petrolio, del carbone e del GAS NATURALE, e viene da alcuni considerata come uno dei più importanti contributi alla teoria del petrolio di origine inorganica. La teoria esposta nell’articolo suggerisce che i giacimenti di idrocarburi (petrolio e GAS) e il carbone siano ORIGINATI DAL FLUSSO DI GAS presente ad estreme profondità, al di sotto della superficie e, quindi, NON DA COMBUSTIBILI FOSSILI. Si tratterebbe di materiale primordiale (METANO) che arriva attraverso le caratteristiche tettoniche e viene contaminato da una “biosfera” in profondità fornita da BATTERI che vivono in condizioni o addirittura di superficie. Gold ha pubblicato il libro “The Deep Hot Biosphere” nel 1999, che estende le argomentazioni del 1992 e include la speculazione sulla origine della vita.


L’origine abiotica del petrolio. Già nell’Ottocento l’avevano proposta Alexandre Von Humboldt e Dmitrij Mendeleev. Poi è stata rilanciata nel 1951 in Unione Sovietica dal geologo russo N. A. Kudryavstev e dei suoi allievi. Oggi, in tempi di dibattiti sulle riserve mondiali di petrolio e su quando avverrà il famigerato “picco di produzione”, c’è chi torna a sostenerla. Magari con nuovi dati sperimentali, tanto validi che nel 2009 hanno ottenuto la pubblicazione su Nature Geoscience.

Vladimir Kutcherov, uno degli autori dello studio, non ha dubbi: l’origine del petrolio è abiotica e non fossile. Di più: lo scienziato russo – ricercatore al Kth Royal Institute of Technology di Stoccolma – si spinge ad affermare che si tratta, di fatto, di una fonte energetica rinnovabile, poiché verrebbe prodotta continuamente nello strato superiore del mantello terrestre, al di sotto della crosta. La sua certezza si basa in primis sui sugli esperimenti…Di certo, anche se fosse una risorsa inesauribile, l’idea di un mondo alimentato a petrolio non è piacevole. Se non altro visti i danni causati dalle emissioni dei combustibili convenzionali, quale che sia la loro origine, fossile o meno. Ma questo, commenta Kutcherov, è un altro problema. «L’inquinamento da petrolio è dovuto soprattutto ai carburanti e altri derivati, come i lubrificanti. Si dovrebbe utilizzare questa fonte solo per generare elettricità e riscaldamento, settori in cui è possibile applicare al meglio le tecnologie per la cattura di idrocarburi e la riduzione delle emissioni».


“Le nostre ricerche provano che non si crea da materiale organico fossile ma da reazioni chimico-fisiche in atto nelle profondità del pianeta”
L’ idea di Vladimir Kutcherov è di quelle che potrebbero cambiare il corso della storia. Mentre i bollettini ufficiali di illustre istituzioni come il Mit di Boston scandiscono con le indagini dei loro specialisti il conteggio alla rovescia verso la fine del petrolio, Kutcherov sostiene esattamente il contrario. E lo ha dimostrato con alcuni esperimenti che l’ anno scorso fecero il giro del mondo generando fiumi di critiche ma anche qualche consenso. «Di oro nero sulla Terra ne esiste ancora in grandissima quantità, bisogna solo cambiare il modo di cercarlo»


Gli argomenti di Gold a favore dell’origine non biogenica di petrolio e gas sono i seguenti: 1. I giacimenti si estendono per chilometri senza relazione con depositi sedimentari minori. 2. I giacimenti sono presenti a livelli differenti corrispondenti a epoche diverse e non sono correlati a sedimenti biologici. 3. I depositi biologici non giustificano le enormi quantità di metano esistenti. 4. I depositi d’idrocarburi in vaste aree contengono le stesse firme chimiche, mentre le formazioni circostanti hanno età geologiche differenti. 5. Gli idrocarburi contengono elio: gas chimicamente inerte, non associato con alcuna forma biologica.

Nel 2001 J. Kenney dimostrò che le leggi della termodinamica proibiscono la trasformazione a basse pressioni di carboidrati o altro materiale biologico in catene di idrocarburi. Infatti il potenziale chimico dei carboidrati varia da meno 380 a meno 200 kcal/mole: quello degli idrocarburi è positivo. Dunque la trasformazione citata non può avvenire. Il metano non si polimerizza a pressione bassa ad alcuna temperatura.

Accade, poi, che giacimenti di gas e petrolio esauriti si riempiano di nuovo. Questo processo può essere alimentato solo da depositi profondi ripetendo la sequenza di fenomeni che portò alla loro formazione iniziale. Queste situazioni spiegano l’incremento delle riserve mondiali di petrolio del 72% tra il 1976 e il 1996.

Negli anni 80 Gold convinse il Governo Svedese a fare una trivellazione profonda nella Svezia centrale in un’area granitica di lava cristallizzata. Era priva di sedimenti e non plausibile come fonte di idrocarburi. Presentava, però, infiltrazioni di metano, catrame e petrolio attribuite a sedimenti organici sovrapposti al granito e poi spariti. Si usò per le trivelle un fluido a base di acqua onde evitare di contaminare il pozzo con oli esterni. A profondità di 5 km si trovarono idrogeno, elio, metano e altri idrocarburi.

A 6 km si trovò una pasta nera maleodorante (segno di forte presenza batterica) contenente molte molecole oleose. A 6,7 km si ottennero 12 tonnellate di petrolio grezzo. Le teorie di Gold erano confermate.

Roberto Vacca


La maschera “green” di un’oligarchia psicopatica – schiattare per il gelo in Europa


Per garantire il livello di vita dell’élite finanziaria globale, non occorrono le migliaia di miliardi accumulati da questo ceto, basterebbe molto meno. Insomma, il denaro per questa gente non è solo il mezzo per fare quella vita, è molto di più, è davvero fine a se stesso.

Gustavo Zagrebelsky, “La maschera democratica dell’oligarchia”

Numerosi studi dimostrano che i cervelli sociopatici non rispondono emotivamente a parole come “morte”, “stupro” e “cancro”, o almeno non quanto fanno i cervelli normali: diciamo che la nostra risposta emotiva equivale a quella che si ottiene pronunciando la parola “sedia”. Un’ulteriore ricerca ha poi dimostrato che i cervelli dei sociopatici dispongono di un numero inferiore di connessioni tra corteccia prefrontale (che aiuta a regolare le emozioni, interpreta i segnali di pericolo e consente di prendere le decisioni) e l’amigdala (che le emozioni le elabora), il che potrebbe spiegare perché i sociopatici non provano sufficienti emozioni negative nel momento in cui compiono un’azione antisociale.

M.E. Thomas, “Confessioni di una sociopatica”

Avevo avvertito che sarebbe successo (“Il raffreddamento globale è causato dall’uomo” – NO! Non fatevi fregare un’altra volta!” 5 giugno 2013) ed è successo. Alcuni scienziati giapponesi hanno annunciato che il “riscaldamento globale causato dall’uomo” ci garantirà inverni rigidi in Asia ed Europa FINO ALLA FINE DEL SECOLO:


La prossima fase, che sarà quella finale sarà formulata in questi termini: “il riscaldamento globale causato dall’uomo ha innescato una glaciazione. Se ci aveste ascoltati ora l’emisfero boreale non sarebbe coperto di ghiacci” (cf. “L’alba del giorno dopo”).

Ci aggiorniamo nel 2016-2017 e vedrete che ci avrò beccato.

Intanto c’è chi ci lascerà le penne in massa. Per esempio inglesi e belgi.

. . . . e che cosa occorre fare per evitare la crisi energetica che incombe sulla Gran Bretagna? Con il 40 per cento della nostra capacità di generazione di energia che svanirà nei prossimi anni (con 14 delle nostre principali centrali nucleari e a carbone che saranno chiuse), che misure intende proporre il governo per tenere accese le luci e far funzionare un’economia che dipende dai computer?

Christopher Booker nel 2010, profeta inascoltato.

Le famiglie dovranno abituarsi ad usare l’energia solo quando è disponibile (leggi: non avete alternative all’assideramento? Cazzi vostri!)

Steve Holliday – responsabile della rete energetica britannica, 2011

2 settimane di gennaio senza energia elettrica per il Regno Unito se questo sarà un inverno particolarmente rigido


Questo a causa delle folli/criminali politiche energetiche del governo neoliberista/neoconservatore (basta carbone, W l’eolico che arricchisce i latifondisti inglesi dal cuore green quanto il loro portafogli! settore energetico tutto in mano ai privati!) > Wind turbines bring in ‘risk-free’ millions for rich landowners, Guardian, 28 febbraio 2012

Significa migliaia di morti, forse decine di migliaia di morti. I neocon sono sempre stati eugenetisti, quindi la cosa non ci deve sorprendere


Ricordatevelo quando elogiate Londra e l’Occidente, o quando vi rifiutate di credere che ci possano essere psicopatici al governo di una nazione (“sarebbero facili da riconoscere!”)

I governi psicopatici li riconosci dal numero di esseri umani che lasciano morire o di cui causano attivamente la morte.

In Belgio sono ancora più lungimiranti. Hanno superato la fase del se e hanno già predisposto delle aree in cui verrà fatta mancare l’elettricità nel corso dell’inverno e che quindi se la devono cavare da sole: “caro cittadino, sono un po’ cazzi tuoi!”.


Meglio il pubblico inefficiente o il privato avido?

Per favorire gli interessi privati i governi neoliberisti di Blair e Cameron hanno messo troppe uova energetiche in un paniere, quello eolico, che esiste solo grazie agli ingenti sussidi pubblici e che dovrebbe arrivare a coprire il 20% del fabbisogno, ma chiaramente non lo può fare quando le alte pressioni estive ed invernali bloccano le condizioni meteo facendo crollare la produzione all’1% di quanto è richiesto. Hanno poi consentito ai privati di smantellare le centrali a carbone che dovevano attivarsi in caso di emergenza, per costruire abitazioni che subiranno il blackout.


Questo è folle e criminale!

È difficile da credere se uno si rifiuta di accettare l’idea che siamo in un’epoca sociopatica, in cui vi è un’altissima incidenza di persone prive di coscienza o sotto ricatto che sono giunte nelle stanze dei bottoni.

Nei prossimi anni la realtà batterà più di un colpo alla porta delle 3 scimmiette.


L’unica risposta sensata è quella di creare un rinascimento della scienza, economia e politica per essere all’altezza della sfida che rappresenta la prossima glaciazione.

1. La fisica quantistica ha dimostrato che lo spazio e la materia contengono grandi quantità di energia inutilizzata;

2. La legge di conservazione dell’energia non sarebbe violata. Non c’è energia gratuita ma solo conversione da un’altra forma di energia di cui abbiamo ignorato l’esistenza o che credevamo inaccessibile;

3. A causa di 2 #, dobbiamo sviluppare una buona comprensione teorica di qualsiasi tecnologia prima di iniziare la generazione. Abbiamo bisogno di sapere da dove provenga l’energia e quali effetti questo trasferimento di energia potrebbe avere sugli esseri viventi circostanti (e sulla materia).

4. Se e quando queste tecnologie saranno disponibili, dovranno essere presentate contemporaneamente in tutto il mondo in modo open-source per impedire che siano soppresse e/o controllate da pochi oligarchi;




Guru che odiano le donne (e gli uomini) – da Rachel Carson a Gore e Latouche

A cura di Stefano Fait

Web Caffè Bookique [Facebook]


Mi amareggia sapere che Serge Latouche goda in Italia di una popolarità sproporzionata rispetto a quella riservatagli nel resto d’Europa e dell’Occidente, dove è relativamente poco conosciuto. E per fortuna, dico io


Latouche è uno dei tanti frutti di una corrente reazionaria e misantropica dell’ambientalismo. Reazionaria perché rimuove il benessere umano dal centro del discorso politico e lo sostituisce con un distorto “amore” per il pianeta / terra / natura che, per qualche ragione, esclude l’umanità.
Se questa corrente non sarà sconfitta sul terreno delle idee e dei dati empirici finirà per pugnalare alle spalle il pensiero progressista e lo stesso ecologismo.

Infatti il suo principale effetto è quello di dirottare l’attivismo progressista in campagne contro il meteo (tra lo scetticismo di tutti gli esperti che cercano di far capire che clima e tempo meteorologico sono cose diverse) e contro il progresso economico, anche se ciò condanna a morte e alla miseria milioni di esseri umani.

Questi nostri fratelli dei paesi in via di sviluppo desiderano ardentemente energia elettrica abbondante e poco costosa, acqua pulita e servizi igienico-sanitari adeguati, non vogliono morire prematuramente di indigenza e indifferenza o guardare i loro figli morire o appassire. Vogliono sfuggire alla prigione della povertà. È un loro diritto, è una scelta perfettamente razionale e moralmente inappuntabile.


Ma apparentemente non per Latouche o per Al Gore. Per loro crescita equivale a consumismo, mentre per il resto del mondo crescita significa speranza di diventare un po’ più liberi, un po’ meno discriminati, un po’ meno disuguali.
I dati reali danno ragione ai due miliardi di abitanti del pianeta privi di elettricità e torto ai guru dell”ecologismo reazionario:



Non è una questione di dover fare un po’ meno shopping, è una questione di trovare finalmente la forza, la volontà e il modo di dimostrare che ce ne importa qualcosa dei nostri fratelli di colore più scuro.

I poveri del mondo non hanno solo bisogno di un po’ di luce elettrica e di alcuni gadget elettronici per condurre una vita dignitosa. Oltre all’energia necessaria per alimentare una moderna produzione industriale e agricola, prerequisito per una vita dignitosa per centinaia di milioni di poveri, c’è la questione di come cucinare il cibo. Al momento moltissimi di loro disboscano per poter cucinare e ogni anno decine di milioni di (per lo più) donne soccombono di malattie polmonari conseguenti ai sistemi di cottura a legna e carbone in ambienti chiusi. Queste persone devono poter essere in grado di cucinare su fornelli elettrici e avere frigoriferi, sia a casa che durante lo stoccaggio e il trasporto.

Non è normale che qualcuno ci venga a dire che questi sono privilegi e non diritti per i quali si sono battuti i nostri genitori, nonni e bisnonni. E’ il pensiero di persone dissociate dalla realtà o, come nel caso del multimiliardario Gore, in malafede.

Dovremo abituarci a vivere con meno, ci spiega James Cameron, regista di Avatar, proprietario di 3 ville a Malibù con 3 piscine riscaldate, un ranch di 100 acri, un elicottero privato, 3 Harley-Davidson, una Corvette, una Ducati, uno yacht, un Humvee, una Ford GT, una flotta di sottomarini (ne ha donato uno da 10 milioni di dollari alla Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution).

Non che Latouche se la cavi troppo male, nel centro di Parigi.

Tornando al cuore della questione, la decrescita e l’aumento dei costi energetici in un paese sviluppato non sono fatali (salvo che per quegli anziani che non si potranno permettere di riscaldare le case in inverno). Se lo stesso però succede in un paese in via di sviluppo, si avrà un enorme disastro umanitario che costerà la vita a milioni di persone e condannerà a languire in miseria un numero ancora maggiore di esseri umani.

Una cosa del genere non è altro che un moderno programma eugenetico, dove una parte dell’umanità viene sacrificata per far sentire meglio i privilegiati.

Per fortuna il resto del mondo non ascolta le prediche di Latouche e Gore. Non è infatti concepibile difendere la tesi che la gente dovrebbe volontariamente restare povera. Non succederà mai ed è meglio che i decrescisti/serristi se ne facciano una ragione.

Miliardi di esseri umani, chi più chi meno, vogliono la stessa cosa, ossia una ragionevole aspettativa di vita, una ragionevole prosperità materiale, un posto in cui vivere che sia ragionevolmente piacevole, energia abbondante e a costi ragionevoli, opportunità di viaggiare, educarsi, curarsi e migliorarsi, acqua potabile, igiene, ordine e sicurezza. Sono diritti fondamentali di ciascun essere umano, o comunque dovrebbero essere riconosciuti come tali.

In ogni caso nessun politico può pensare di rimanere a lungo al potere impedendo alle future generazioni di soddisfare queste legittime ambizioni.

162628126-0e10219d-91ea-4526-a517-9420c7ae54bdIntroduzione di Al Gore, appunto

È questo che alla fine ci salverà dal radicalismo chic, cioè da chi, come giustamente nota Laura Fedrizzi, firma appelli e parla ex indignata conscientia, e troppo poco ex informata conscientia.

Fedrizzi si riferisce alla vergogna dell’affaire Silent Spring.


L’ondata di panico generata da “Silent Spring” (“Primavera silenziosa”, 1962) della biologa e ambientalista Rachel Carson, ha ucciso oltre 40 milioni di persone, tra le quali moltissimi bambini. Lo sta ancora facendo. Il libro ha contribuito in modo significativo alla decisione di bandire l’insetticida Ddt (1972 negli Stati Uniti, 1978 in Italia), un modo sicuro e molto efficace per frenare la malaria, la prima causa di morte nell’Africa sub-sahariana, e un’invenzione per la quale il chimico elvetico Paul Hermann Müller era stato insignito del Nobel per la Medicina nel 1948.

Ci sono voluti oltre 30 anni perché l’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità riconoscesse l’errore commesso e tornasse a raccomandare l’uso mirato del  Ddt.

Il Ddt comporta alcuni rischi per gli uccelli, ma vale la pena di salvare milioni di uccelli al costo di milioni di vite umane e, chi dovesse rispondere affermativamente, ha pensato che potrebbero essere i suoi figli (se le temperature mondiali dovessero riprendere a salire)?
È un libro che ha promosso un tipo di ambientalismo che prioritarizza l’ambiente sempre e comunque, anche a discapito del benessere umano ed è la ragione per cui ha successo anche e soprattutto negli ambienti reazionari – il conservazionismo è nato su iniziativa di quelli stessi magnati che predicavano l’austerità e la sterilizzazione eugenetica al tempo della Depressione e poi della crisi del 1973-1974 –, in cui il riscatto delle masse dalla miseria e dall’ignoranza non è visto come un obbligo ma come una minaccia per lo status quo.

Non sarò complice di questo abominio.

Big Bang Creationism is NOT science

A cura di Stefano Fait

Web Caffè Bookique [Facebook]

Bernard Burchell – A superconducting model of the Sun

A cura di Stefano Fait

Web Caffè Bookique [Facebook]


A Superconducting Model
of the Sun

 by Bernard Burchell

There are two popular and competing models that describe how the Sun works.  As in, how it glows, gives off heat, light, solar wind, etc.

The most well-known of these is the thermonuclear model.

In this model, loose accumulations of interstellar hydrogen are drawn together under the pull of their own gravity and into a sphere of compressing gas.  The process involves friction, which causes the gas to glow either red or infrared, and leads to what we call a brown dwarf.

If this process were allowed to continue, and with increasingly larger amounts of hydrogen involved, the pressure at the interior of the ball would become so high that the hydrogen would undergo nuclear fusion: first into helium, and then into higher order elements.  The energy released by this fusion process would cause the gaseous ball to glow white-hot, leading to a star like our Sun.

In the thermonuclear model the Sun’s interior is millions of degrees Celsius.  This steadily decreases toward the surface where we observe a temperature of around five thousand degrees.

A lesser-known explanation is the electric model.

In this model, the glow we observe from the Sun’s surface is not caused by fusion but by electrical discharges; similar to the electric arcs/sparks seen on a welding device.  For this to happen the Sun must have a strong net-positive charge.  It is made out of plasma (ionised gas) and this positive plasma steadily discharges at its surface.  Its interior is a few thousand degrees throughout; slightly cooler than the photosphere surface.  And its interior charge counteracts gravity to prevent further collapse.

(The above is a very brief introduction and admittedly the subject takes some getting used to.  For a better description of the Electric Sun model see
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm )


Of these two models, the more likely is the electrical one.  It correctly accounts for the magnetic fields, the appearance of tufts, its temperature increase whilst heading outward toward the corona, the solar wind, and occasional flaring.

Sunspots with Birkeland current twisting
In these close-ups of sunspots we see twisted glowing strands. These are consistent with Birkeland currents, a type of electrical arcing seen in plasma discharges.   Credit: SST, Royal Swedish Acadmey of Sciences

          Plasma loops
Here we see coronial plasma loops, an effect related to magnetism.  The Sun’s magnetic field can also be detected far out into the solar system.   Credit: M. Aschwanden et al. (LMSAL), TRACE, NASA

        Voltage potential of Sun causing plasma discharge
This diagram shows the Sun as a large positively charged ball and the voltage potential arising from it.  The high positive charge causes a discharge of protons into the photospheric gasses, leading to plasma glowing effects.  The protons then continue to accelerate and strike the corona (an outer layer of gas surrounding the Sun) at high speed, leading to even higher temperatures there.   Credit: The Electric Universe, Thornhill & Talbott

Where’s the power?

Despite its success though, the electric Sun model does appear to suffer a major deficiency.  Namely the question: what powers this electrical giant?  Specifically, what gives it a positive charge, and what drives the currents necessary to explain its magnetic fields?

According to the theory, the Sun is powered by streams of electrons funnelling inward toward the polar regions.  These ‘galactic powerlines’ interconnect all the stars in the galaxy and feed them the necessary current to power their photospheres.  The presence of these has been partially observed via the Ulysses craft, which passed over the polar regions [1].

But while there could be little disagreement that a positively-charged ball would attract electrons, there are major problems in suggesting that this could be its power source.

First, a stream of electrons ‘falling’ into the Sun is not going to do much other than steadily discharge it.  In order to power an electrical device (e.g. a desk lamp), charge must be forcefully fed into it and then extracted again.  This is because the device has resistance that needs to be overcome.  But the electrical Sun model describes a one-way inward current flow.  And it’s not forced, just free-falling.

Second, since the Sun is emitting positive charges, the net current supply must consist of protons rather than electrons otherwise the output current – the solar wind – would eventually cease. This is a big problem because protons won’t move toward a net-positive charge unless they are somehow forced or initially fired (from where?) at high speeds.  But the model allows for no such inward positive flow and no observations support it.

So what then could explain the power supply and nature of the Sun?

What if…?

What if, instead of the high-temperature thermonuclear model, we said the Sun steadily grew cooler as we headed inwards?  And by ‘cooler’, I don’t just mean in a sense relative to its surface, as in a few thousand degrees.  Nor even a few hundred degrees.  And not even a few degrees below room temperature, but colder again.

What if the temperatures in the Sun’s interior became so cold that they approached levels nearing absolute zero Kelvin – the lowest temperature possible for any material?

The idea sounds absurd!  It is the complete opposite of the conventional model, with its millions-of-degrees thermonuclear core.  And after all, how could a compressed gas become cold?

Extreme compression of a gas

To understand how this might be possible, consider an airtight cylinder with a piston at one end.  We fill the cylinder with nitrogen (which is basically air minus oxygen) and begin to apply pressure to the piston.  What will happen?

This is somewhat like compressing air inside a bicycle pump.  The pressure will increase and the temperature will rise.  After a while though, this heat from the compression process will dissipate and the temperature will return to the surrounding air temperature.

So we push the piston further.  Once again, the nitrogen pressure will increase and the temperature will temporarily rise before returning to normal.

Now let’s suppose our cylinder was very strong and we were able to apply a very high amount of force to the piston.  In this case the gas will compress so much that it will cease being a gas and become a liquid: liquid nitrogen.

Take this idea further.  We continue to apply ever larger forces on the piston.  Eventually this liquid will be forced to collapse into ‘solid nitrogen’.

As is well known, liquid and solid nitrogen are very cold substances.  However it needs to be quickly pointed out that we have not made anything cold.  Rather, the liquid and solid states of nitrogen will at first be at high temperature and pressure.  After a while, the heat will dissipate and temperature will return to the surrounding air temperature.  But compared to regular (cold) liquid or solid nitrogen, the pressure is very high and the substance would explode into gas if released.

Compression under gravity

Now consider a similar situation for a star.  Under the standard astronomy model, stars are formed when loose accumulations of hydrogen gas are drawn together under the force of their own gravity.  As this occurs, gas is compressed and heats up, giving out infrared heat.  This increase in temperature might halt the compression process for a time.  But adding more gas will force the compression to continue.

Eventually the internal gaseous resistance will give way, allowing the hydrogen to liquefy.  Although this liquid will be still be quite hot.  We continue to add more hydrogen, increasing the external pressure.  Eventually this liquid also gives way, and the hydrogen collapses into a solid.

At this stage the solid is somewhat disorganised, its atoms not arranged according to any particular pattern.  We continue to increase pressure.  Eventually the hydrogen atoms are forced into crystalline lattice structures.  We could now refer to this as ‘metallic hydrogen’.

The atoms have now become rather restricted in their movement.  They are unable to move about freely as they did in their gas, liquid or semi-solid state.  Instead they are restricted into vibrating along short distances.

Despite the restriction in distance though, this rapid movement still accounts for a high temperature; since that vibration is essentially the definition of temperature.  But if enough pressure were applied to the lattice, the hydrogen atoms would be almost unable to move.  They would effectively have become frozen and could thus be described as having a temperature of near absolute zero.

So… what happens when we freeze a metal or crystalline material to near absolute zero?  The title of this essay gives it away: it becomes superconducting!

As is known, superconductors allow electrons to flow through them without resistance.  A superconductor formed into a ring or disk can maintain an internal electric current that circles forever.  And as it does so, it emits a magnetic field, just as an electromagnetic coil would do.  Except a superconductor magnet requires no power supply to maintain it.

Therefore a superconductor formed into a ball should also be able to maintain internal currents that cycled forever and without the need for any power supply.

Electrons circling within a superconducting ball or disk.

Current cross-section of a wire

So what does this mean?  Quite obviously, if the Sun were a giant superconductor, we should likewise expect it to contain powerful circling currents.  These currents would then generate large magnetic fields.  And we certainly do observe magnetic fields and related effects like plasma loops coming from the Sun (see eariler diagram).

But there is more to this story than just magnetism.

Consider now two parallel wires, each carrying a current in the same direction.  We know from observation that these will attract each other.

Magnetic attraction from parallel currents.

Now consider the situation inside just a single current-carrying wire.  We will give this wire a rectangular cross section, with width is twice its depth.  Below is an enlarged top and cross-section view.

Electrons stationary inside a wire with rectangular cross-section.

Here we see the wire with protons and electrons both stationary, i.e. no current is flowing yet.  If we draw an imaginary dividing line down the middle of the wire we notice that it would become analogous to the two parallel current-carrying wires described earlier, except without a gap between them.  Therefore, like the two-wire situation, we should expect flowing electron streams to attract each other like so:

Electrons flowing inside a wire with rectangular cross-section.

Here we see an electron current flowing and the electrons are now concentrated along the middle of the wire.  This gives the inner part of the wire a slight negative charge.  Meanwhile the outer edges of the wire have a lack of electrons and therefore gain a slight positive charge.

Does this happen in reality?  It doesn’t.  Experiments show that current density remains uniform when DC currents are involved.  And when an AC current is fed through, the electrons push themselves against the walls of a wire.  This is called the ‘skin effect’.

Given our knowledge of magnetism however, this appears curious.  Because by all accounts the electrons should accumulate into the middle portion of the wire in both the DC and AC scenarios.

It appears something else is going on inside wires, namely ‘eddy currents’.  These are tiny ‘whirlpool’ currents that appear to develop inside conductors, repelling attractive current flow and pushing the electrons to the outside.  In the AC case the effect is more pronounced.

But we are not dealing with regular conductors.  We are dealing with superconductors, and these have rather different properties where magnetism is concerned.  Given that superconductors have zero resistance, perhaps eddy currents don’t develop or are too minor to be a problem.  Therefore for superconducting wire, especially where large currents are concerned, magnetic forces may well focus the electrons along the middle of the wire, as indicated above.

Next consider the situation for a superconducting disk.  We’ll start by having electrons circle around its centre.

Electrons circling in disk (no magnetic attraction).

Since these electrons are moving in parallel, we should expect them to magnetically attract each other, resulting in a situation like this:

Electrons circling in disk, with internal magnetic attraction.

As with the rectangular wire above, the electrons have concentrated themselves into a negatively charged ring-shaped region located between the centre and the perimeter.  The reason for a ring and not a small inner disk is that the electrons moving in opposite directions on either side of the ‘inner disk’ will magnetically repel each other.  The result will be a negatively charged ring with a positively charged regions either side: one in the centre and the other along the outer part of the disk, as shown below.

(Fig 10) Magnetic attraction and repulsion of circling electrons leaves positive and negative regions within a disk.

Now extend the above situation to a ball-shaped superconductor.  Particularly one the size of the Sun.  We should expect large internal currents, which focus themselves into a middle negative region, whilst leaving a positive region in the centre and on the outside.

This outer positive region is of particular interest.  If the charge were strong enough, we should expect electrical discharges to occur across the surface of the Sun, as protons leapt off the surface.

If the surface were covered by a gaseous layer (and it is with the Sun) the motion of protons passing through it would cause the surface to light up with electrical sparks, also known as ‘anode tufts’.  We should also expect a steady discharge of protons accelerating out as a solar wind.  And if for some reason the sparking stopped at some area, causing sunspots, we should also expect those regions to be darker because we would now be looking at the relatively cooler solid surface of the Sun.  And sure enough, this all corresponds to what we see!

Since currents can circle forever within a superconductor, the above describes a model in which a star can glow indefinitely, without any external power source or requirement for internal fusion.  Electrons will still be attracted and flow inward toward the Sun’s positive surface.  However, these are not required for the Sun to glow and act more as a power discharge than a power supply.

What about density?

In order for this model to be viable it needs to show an agreeable density.  The density of the Sun is 1400kg/m3 or 1.4 times that of water.  This is of course an average.  We should expect the density to be less near the surface and steadily increase toward a value higher at the centre.

So how does the 1400 number fit with this model?

Below is a table showing the densities of various substances in ascending order and compared with the Sun’s average.

Substance Density (kg/m3)
Hydrogen gas 0.09
Helium gas 0.18
Helium solid 0.21
Nitrogen gas 1.3
Tungsten Hexafluoride gas 13
Hydrogen liquid 71
Helium liquid 125
Lithium solid 534
Hydrogen solid 600
Nitrogen liquid 807
Water liquid 1000
Nitrogen solid 1030
Sun (average) 1400
Quartz (SiO2 – typical rock) 2600
Diamond (carbon) 3500
Iron 7900
Lead 11000

Note the position of hydrogen gas on the list.  At 0.09 kg/m3, it is far less than the 1400 required.  Likewise with heavier gasses such as helium and nitrogen.  In fact even the densest gas known, tungsten hexafluoride, falls well short of what is required.  This would appear to rule out an interior of a gaseous or plasma nature.

Hydrogen in its liquid state is still too light, as is helium.  Liquids made of heavier elements would certainly work, although that requires them to be far above hydrogen on the periodic table, and which requires going back to the problematic fusion model.

Going to typical solids, such as diamond (compressed carbon) places us too high on the list.  Carbon is said to be a common fusion by-product in the thermonuclear model.

But solid hydrogen appears nearer the mark.

Solid hydrogen has a density of 600kg/m3.  The 1400 Sun-density value seems to correspond to hydrogen compressed to a bit over double that amount.  If we estimate a higher density for the Sun’s interior of 1800kg/m3, that makes it 3 times the 600 hydrogen figure.  Admittedly the 1800 number is a guess and the real density might be higher; although could not be too much higher because the 1400 average would be wrong.

Thus, a Sun comprised of compressed solidified hydrogen would have a density consistent with what we observe, and is supportive of the model described here.

Of course it would also be possible to achieve the 1400 average using a combination of elements.  Metallic lithium for example has a density of 534kg/m3.  So compressing that several times can give the necessary density.  Or combining it with heavier elements like iron would also work.  However, it will require fusion and also require the relative abundance of such substances be very different than what is observed in the universe.  Thus metallic hydrogen still seems the more likely candidate [2].

Solar Oblateness and Rotation

Here’s another point to consider.  As we know, the Sun rotates on its axis, and this rotation gives rise to a bulge around its equator, similar to the way the Earth bulges around its equator.

The degree of bulge – called the solar oblateness – however, is far smaller than what would be expected for a flexible rotating ball of that size, mass and angular speed.  In fact the Sun comes close to being a perfect sphere.

But if the interior of the Sun were not made of gas or plasma, and was instead a solid ball, the above observations on oblateness would make sense.  Because only the outer flexible layer of the photosphere gasses would be able to bulge and the amount of bulge would be limited by its thickness.

And speaking of rotation, another interesting fact is that the Sun rotates faster at its equator than at its poles.  This tells us that some of the observed rotation may just be a surface effect and leads to the possibility that the interior may be rotating even slower again.  In fact for all we know, the interior may not rotate at all and the surface rotation we observe may be caused by interior electrical currents pushing the photosphere around.  If this were the case it would explain why the interior solid region formed as a sphere rather than an ‘ellipsoid’.

The overall current flow

Let’s now look at the overall current flow.  The above diagram (Fig 10) showing positive and negative regions within a disk won’t work for a sphere.  Namely, it won’t be possible for currents to circle a sphere in all directions because electrons moving head-on would magnetically repel.  Therefore, it will instead be necessary for currents to largely flow in the same direction.

In the previous section it was speculated that the Sun’s apparent rotation only represented the flow of its photosphere, and that this was being caused by the electron currents flowing in the solid interior.

This does seem likely.  Since the gasses within the photosphere are ionized into a plasma, the protons within the plasma would be magnetically attracted to the circling electrons and dragged across the solid surface underneath.  Meanwhile the electrons in the photosphere will move along with the protons, giving an overall movement of the photosphere surface.

This motion of the photosphere suggests an interior current flow in layers, i.e. many current loops running parallel to the Sun’s equator.  The overall current flow and resulting charged regions will then look something like this:

(Fig 11) Electron currents cycle eastwards along the equator and in many layers parallel to it.  This leaves positive and negative regions within.  Arrows represent direction of electron flow and the vertical grey line is an “axis” of rotation.

As with the disk, this results in positive and negative regions within.  What happens at the polar regions is uncertain since we won’t be able to fit in a ‘mini disk’ there.  So here they are speculatively shown as having the adjacent positive regions spill over onto them.   As a result we end up with a sphere covered by an outer positive layer.

Magnetic repulsion of the surface

Next we’ll look at the interaction between the moving photosphere and stationary interior.

In this model, protons within the solid interior remain stationary while the electrons cycle west-to-east, and the photosphere moves in the same direction, albeit more slowly.

Since the protons in the photosphere are moving against those in the interior, they will magnetically repel and be pushed away.  Meanwhile the electrons in the photosphere will be magnetically attracted.  This diagram shows the resulting force directions.

(Fig 12) Magnetic attraction/repulsion between photosphere and interior (top view, looking down on north pole).  Protons experience repulsion and electrons attraction as they both move over the net-positive surface of the interior.

This interaction turns out to be very important.  We know from Coulomb’s law that a sphere containing equal amounts of positive and negative charge can have zero net-attraction.  This will be the case when the charge is distributed with radial symmetry, i.e. if the charge is arranged into positive and negative spherical shells.  The charge distribution diagram above (Fig 11) shows something close to this situation.

But if differently charged regions of the interior and exterior regions were moving against each other (as indicated in Fig 12), this can lead to a net repulsion of the photosphere’s protons, resulting in a glow-discharge and solar winds.

In fact without the photosphere’s rotation, it might be that the Sun wouldn’t glow at all.  It might also be true that sunspots are caused by a slowing down of photosphere motion (for unknown reasons), and hence a halting of the discharge process at those places.

No miniature stars

The electric star model discussed at the opening of this essay is part of a broader body of knowledge and theory known as the Electric Universe (EU) model.  One of the big benefits of the EU model is that it is able to recreate observed astronomical phenomena in a laboratory.  For example it is possible to produce phenomena that look strikingly similar to nebulae formations inside plasma focus devices.

The fact that we can do this is very impressive and tells us EU theory must be on the right track in much of what it describes.

Despite this validity however, no similar success has been achieved in creating a small-scale star in a laboratory.  The same is true throughout the universe: no miniature stars are seen floating about our galaxy or elsewhere.  It appears that white stars must be of a minimum size or they won’t function.

This should be a big clue that there is more than just electricity at play in creating a star.  Namely, that a large amount of gravity is required in order for a star to advance beyond the brown dwarf stage and become a white star.  This point further supports the compressed superconducting model.

How long can it last?

Can the Sun/star model described here radiate forever?  On the face of it it would appear so.  Superconductors can maintain a current continuously without decrease.  Therefore it would seem that stars could output an unlimited supply of energy.

Problem is, our Sun also outputs solar wind and flares – amounting to a million tons of matter every second and consisting mainly of protons.  This process clearly can’t continue forever.  At some point it must come to a stop when the Sun runs out of ejectable protons or becomes too negatively charged (as a result of losing protons) and is unable to eject more.  At this point the electrical discharges in the photosphere would cease and the Sun would become dark.

Another consideration is the inflow of electrons.  As discussed earlier, a positive charged surface would be expected to attract a steady stream of electrons.  Initially these electrons might add to the those already circling within the interior.  This would increase the current flows, the magnetic fields, and the brightness/intensity of the solar output.  Eventually though, the increase in negative charge would be enough to halt the output of protons, again leading to the Sun’s demise.


Something also needs to be said about the conversion of hydrogen into heavier elements, i.e. fusion.  The electric star model forbids fusion within the Sun’s interior but allows for it to take place within the electrical discharge area of the photosphere.

In this superconductor model we’ll allow that the same should apply.  Namely that there should be no fusion activity within the frozen interior but that fusion will take place either in the photosphere or just beneath it.  How long this can continue for is unknown.  But of course, it can’t continue forever and ultimately the conversion of too much hydrogen would bring a halt to the radiation process; unless the conversion products were also superconductive.

Benefits of this model

In summary then, this superconducting model neatly accounts for a number of observations about the Sun:

  • Its average density
  • Its magnetic fields
  • Its (seemingly unlimited) power supply
  • Its minimum size
  • The solar wind
  • The darkness of sunspots


It’s possible that our Sun (and many stars) consists primarily of hydrogen that is first compressed into a solid, then further compressed to the point where the atoms are almost unable to vibrate.  At this point the solid becomes ‘frozen’ at near-zero absolute temperature.  This allows the substance to become superconducting and large electrical currents to circle within it.

These currents produce magnetic fields and focus themselves into a mid-region within the Sun, leaving a net positive area near its surface.  This positive area then electrically discharges into the surface atmosphere, producing light, heat, solar wind, and occasional flares.

[1]  Although the evidence is sketchy because the craft was not designed to measure that.
[2]  Astronomers speculate that the interior of Jupiter and Saturn consists of metallic hydrogen.  Assuming their calculations are correct, if metallic hydrogen can form within a gas-ball the size of Jupiter, there should be no problem in it doing likewise within the Sun.


Torio per un Mondo Nuovo


La meravigliosa energia atomica è stata usata per distruggere, oppure senza garantire dei ragionevoli margini di sicurezza (es. centrali costruite su faglie sismiche attive, come ad Oi, in Giappone).

Ora è tempo di passare dallo stadio embrionale alla maturità e questo non potrà avvenire finché il paradigma dell’uranio impedirà l’affermarsi dell’era del torio che comporta un rischio molto minore, se non nullo, di proliferazione nucleare, annulla la possibilità di una fusione del nocciolo (meltdown), smaltisce le scorie radioattive che non sappiamo ancora dove sistemare generando energia nel farlo (!), decade in poche centinaia di anni invece delle decine di migliaia del materiale usato oggi, è più abbondante dell’uranio ed ha un’altissima resa.

Rubbia spiega il torio

Questo metallo leggermente radioattivo, scoperto nel 1828 dal chimico svedese Jons Jakob Berzelius e che prende il nome dal dio Thor, ha il potenziale di rivoluzionare completamente l’evoluzione della civiltà umana, da un punto di vista economico, sociale e culturale, emancipando la nostra specie dal materialismo, dalla lotta per le risorse, dal soggiogamento a mestieri spiacevoli o umilianti, dalla miseria e dall’austerità indotta da scaltre strategie di profitto basate su una falsa scarsità di risorse.

Lo sfruttamento del torio, sviluppato negli anni Sessanta e Settanta, è stato ostacolato da tutti quegli interessi legati allo sfruttamento dei combustibili fossili e che ora cercano di rifarsi un nome “verde”, pur sapendo che per molte generazioni le energie rinnovabili, senza dubbio fondamentali, saranno insufficienti per i nostri bisogni e soprattutto per riscattare dalla miseria milioni di esseri umani del terzo e quarto mondo.

I cittadini tedeschi stanno ora facendo i conti, dolorosamente, con le scelte populistiche e scellerate dei loro governanti:


Energie rinnovabili e reattori al torio [LFTR – Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor] possono e devono procedere mano nella mano, fino all’avvento della fusione nucleare. Si possono amare allo stesso tempo l’energia “verde” e l’energia nucleare senza dover scegliere tra “mamma” e “papà” e senza che i tifosi dell’una insultino quelli dell’altra, quando invece dovrebbero essere alleati, nel nome di una verità inoppugnabile: E = mc2

Mentre l’infame Nixon tagliava le gambe alla ricerca sul torio negli Stati Uniti, Francia, Canada, Cina ed India hanno continuato su questa strada promettente e siamo vicini alla sua applicazione:


L’Italia dovrebbero fare la sua parte, seguendo l’esempio del Nobel Carlo Rubbia, uno dei suoi massimi promotori e di tanti ecologisti pro-torio:





Perfino tra i grillini ci sono dei sostenitori


Il successo dello sfruttamento del ciclo del torio metterebbe fuori gioco Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, ecc. che hanno lucrato sulla menzogna del picco del petrolio (scarsità artificiale = estorsione):


Le loro azioni crollerebbero, il loro dominio sull’economia e la geopolitica mondiale terminerebbe. Le centrali a carbone sarebbero un ricordo del passato, così come il fracking con i suoi rischi sismici


Il prezzo del gas naturale declinerebbe stabilmente.

Addirittura, le navi da trasporto, che consumano il 20-30% del petrolio impiegato nel mondo, potrebbero essere equipaggiate con dei mini reattori LFTR.

Il dollaro, agganciato al petrolio, collasserebbe, e con lui l’egemonia della NATO e dell’OPEC sul mondo.

La Cina non sarebbe più costretta a dipendere dalle importazioni americane per poter acquistare il petrolio saudita (teocrazia militarista alleata con gli USA e con Israele).
Le guerre in Iraq, Afghanistan e Libia, infatti, non erano per controllare il petrolio (gli USA saranno presto il maggior produttore mondiale di petrolio), ma per impedire alla Cina di accedere alle riserve medio-orientali ed africane e possibilmente spingerla a cercare miglior fortuna in aree strategiche per la Russia (divide et impera). Cosa penserebbero gli Americani se scoprissero che le ingentissime spese militari del Pentagono che li hanno indebitati fino al collo non servono a tener basso il prezzo dell’energia e della benzina negli Stati Uniti, ma unicamente a sabotare la Cina, inimicandosela sempre di più?

Occorre capire che il paradigma della scarsità delle risorse è l’architrave del sistema oligarchico mondiale. Quelle poche migliaia di individui (la stima era di 8000 circa persone e 147 imprese/banche) che controllano la finanza e la politica, non avrebbero alcuna chance in un regime di abbondanza energetica



Già nel 2005 i massimi specialisti mondiali di proliferazione nucleare (Agenzia Internazionale per l’Energia Atomica) avevano mostrato che il rischio è molto inferiore rispetto ai reattori ad uranio:


Robert Hargraves e Ralph Moir “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors” (American Scientist July–August 2010) hanno ribadito che il rischio è inferiore per le seguenti ragioni:

Un reattore commerciale produrrà uranio quel tanto che basta per alimentare la produzione di energia. Qualunque sottrazione fermerebbe il reattore, avvisando le autorità di una violazione, con blocco immediato delle uscite.

Certamente dei terroristi non potrebbero rubare dall’interno di un reattore sigillato U-233 disciolto in una soluzione di sale fuso [i reattori a sale fuso che utilizzano torio liquido come combustibile sono la soluzione tecnica ideale per lo sfruttamento del torio, NdT] con prodotti di fissione letalmente radioattivi.

Il protocollo di sicurezza dell’agenzia internazionale per l’energia atomica (AIEA) richiederebbe rigidi controlli, la contabilizzazione di tutto il materiale nucleare, la sorveglianza ed ispezioni meticolose.

È concepibile che una nazione o gruppo rivoluzionario possano espellere gli osservatori dell’AIEA, fermare il reattore torio e tentare di rimuovere l’U-233. Ma servirebbero ingegneri particolarmente capaci per alterare le apparecchiature di fluorurazione e separare l’uranio dal sale.

In ogni caso, l’U-233 è una pessima scelta per chi vuole creare un’arma nucleare perché gli stessi neutroni che lo producono, generano anche l’U-232, altamente contaminante e facilmente individuabile per la sua fortissima radioattività, migliaia di volte maggiore di quella del “normale” plutonio.

L’esposizione all’U-232 renderebbe probabile la morte dell’eventuale terrorista o malintenzionato entro 72 ore. Questo isotopo di uranio non può essere rimosso chimicamente ed una separazione tramite centrifuga contaminerebbe irreparabilmente il dispositivo.

Inoltre l’uso del torio porterebbe allo smantellamento degli impianti di arricchimento dell’U-235, dal quale si può effettivamente ricavare materiale radioattivo impiegabile per azioni terroristiche.

I due scienziati concludono: “Questa fonte di energia è più conveniente del carbone, può aumentare la prosperità e può ridurre il rischio di guerre per le risorse.





Is there a safer future for nuclear? Dr Geoff Parks, Cambridge University, June 2012

Safer nuclear – let the thorium debate begin, SmartPlanet, May 2012

New Life for Forgotten Fuel, FT Magazine, September 2011

The Nuclear Renaissance?, BBC Business Daily, September 2011

Thor Forges Safer Nuclear Power, The Sunday Times (PDF 1.6 Mb)

Thorium: the Element that Could Power our Future, Wired.co.uk, September 2011

Safer nuclear does exist, The Telegraph, August 2011

Why thorium nuclear power shouldn’t be written off, Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, July 2011

Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the green nuke, Wired, December 2009

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: