Copyright (c) 2013 University of Massachusetts - Amherst All rights reserved. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19 Recent Events in Day 2: Saturday, November 19 en-us Wed, 15 May 2013 22:06:50 PDT 3600 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/55 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/55 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:00:00 PST Laurence I. Gould http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/54 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/54 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:00:00 PST Paul H. Carr http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/53 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/53 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:40:00 PST TerraPower is moving forward with detailed plans for a sustainable, economic, and safe nuclear reactor. The Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR) -- a reactor in the 500-megawatt electric range - uses unique core physics to initiate a breed and burn wave which can be completely sustained in fertile material. This process allows the TWR to convert depleted uranium waste into usable fuel as the reactor operates, providing a sustainable base-load power source. TerraPower is the first company to create a practical engineering embodiment of this previously studied concept thanks to a powerful advanced reactor modeling interface, developed in-house, which enables the analysis of traveling wave reactor technology in a way that has not been possible before. This presentation will provide more detail about the origins of the TWR, the project's current status as well as some of the safety differences between TWRs and currently operating light water reactors.

]]> Tyler Ellis http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/52 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/52 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:50:00 PST The underlying physics of climate contains important elements that are widely agreed on though frequently misunderstood. In this lecture, the basic physics of greenhouse warming are simply described. It will be shown that the dynamic mixing of the troposphere is essential to the mechanism. It will further be shown that there is nothing intrinsically alarming in the basic physics. Alarm depends critically on the assertion that the climate system is dominated by large positive feedbacks that greatly amplify such warming as may be due to increasing CO2 alone. The nature of possible feedbacks will be described, and the conditions for observationally determining such feedbacks will be explained. It will be seen that the feedback factors, themselves, can be subject to fluctuations, so that large positive feedbacks could occasionally lead to instability. A variety of attempts to evaluate such feedbacks will be described. Some will be shown to be clearly incorrect. The remaining approaches suggest that feedbacks are small and even negative, suggesting little basis for alarm.

]]> Richard S. Lindzen http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/51 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/51 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:00:00 PST This presentation provides an assessment of hormesis, a dose-response concept that is characterized by a low-dose stimulation and a high-dose inhibition. It will trace the historical foundations of hormesis, its quantitative features and mechanistic foundations, and its risk assessment implications. It will be argued that the hormetic dose response is the most fundamental dose response, significantly outcompeting other leading dose-response models in large-scale, head-to-head evaluations used by regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA. The hormetic dose response is highly generalizable, being independent of biological model, endpoint measured, chemical class, physical agent (e.g., radiation) and inter-individual variability. Hormesis also provides a framework for the study and assessment of chemical mixtures, incorporating the concept of additivity and synergism. Because the hormetic biphasic dose response represents a general pattern of biological responsiveness, it is expected that it will become progressively more significant within toxicological evaluation and chemical and radiation risk assessment practices as well as having numerous biomedical applications. Particular application will be directed towards how hormesis may affect the risk assessment process for chemicals and ionizing radiation.

]]> Edward J. Calabrese http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/50 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/50 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:12:00 PST In Physics the problem of observers and observed plays a central role. A Blue Photon in is created, in one observers reference frame, that is far from another observer, at the Horizon of the his reference frame, when it reaches him it is a red photon, because there is a third observer present and that is the photon itself. The photon carries information with itself in its travels, as to where the time-normal was where it was created. If one agrees that the time normal points away from the observer at the Horizon, photons coming from there are red shifted, this is true of Black Hole Horizons as well. What about photons coming from over the Horizon? They go to radio frequency, but then are Blue Shifted using the same paradigm. The only way to Blue Shift a photon in this way is to give it mass and all of the trappings of mass, like charge. This is a particular type of Blue Shifting where the time vector points in an unusual direction. This CPT violation is commonly seen in the Electroweak Force, as at the Horizon the time vector only points out, away from the observer and is no longer part of 4 dimensional space-time. This symmetry breaking at the Horizon causes the Electromagnetic Force to become the Electroweak Force, and a Gauge is establish that is easily recognized. Using this idea a General Procedure for the Construction of Matter from Energy can be written. The easier parts are seen in a slightly curved environment like the Sun.

]]> Richard Kriske http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/49 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/49 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:00:00 PST McLeods' NEF11{\#}22 submission is from their same-title INVITED presentation at Frontiers in Optics 2011, San Jose, CA. It shows how Hooke's law for electron, proton and neutron strings build electromagnetic waves from strings. These are composed of spirally linked, parallel, north-pole oriented, neutrino and antineutrino strings, stable because of magnetic repulsions. Their Dumbo Proton is antineutrino-scissor cut, and compressed in the vicinity of a neutron star, where electrostatic marriage occurs with a neutrino-scissor cut, and compressed, electron, so a Mickey Neutron emerges. Strings then predict electron charge is \textbf{\textit{-- 1/3 e}}, Dumbo P is 25 {\%} longer than Mickey N, and Hooke says relaxing springs fuel three separate inflations after each Big Bang oscillation. Gravity can be strings longitudinally linked. Einstein says Herman Grid's black diagonals prove human vision reads its information from algebraically-signed electromagnetic field diffraction patterns known by ray-tracing, not difficult Spatial Fourier Transformation. High-schoolers understand its application to Wave Mechanics, and agree that positive-numbered probabilities do not enter to possibly displease God. Stick figure constellations detected, like Phoenix, Leo, Canis Major, and especially Orion, fool some observers into false beliefs in things like UFHumanoids, or Kokopelli, Pele and Pamola!

]]> David Matthew McLeod http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/48 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/48 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:48:00 PST Vision detects electric field amplitude information from spatial Fourier transforms, SFTs, of object space. Optics states: at focal, not image, surfaces, for Hermann, and pincushion, grids. Von B\'{e}k\'{e}sy's skin pressure experiments prove brain circuitry interprets focal diffraction patterns as inverse SFTs. This knocks out QM beliefs, enhanced by Schr\"{o}dinger's electron assertions. Mc Leods' electron string model, based on a neutrino in chiral embrace with a parallel, magnetically repellant, antineutrino, transversely aligned in continuous pairings along each wave-string's closure. This generalized, in Recife, PE, Brazil, to the three-ring, up quark, down quark, up quark, of our \textbf{\textit{Dumbo Proton}}, underpass-overpass string. Cut by an antineutrino scissor, and merged with our compressed, neutrino-cut electron, a \textbf{\textit{Mickey Neutron}} with over- or underpass pairs only, emerges, is unstable, and is of \textbf{\textit{4/3 e}} string units length. \textbf{\textit{Dumbo Proton}} is \textbf{\textit{5/3 e}} units; this string theory predicts a \textbf{\textit{Trinitarian Electron}}, with charge \textbf{\textit{-1/3 e}}, whatever phase, Standing Wave Up, SWU, Traveling Wave, TW, or Standing Wave Down, SWD. It explains solar neutrino flux factor 3 shortfall. Camcorders capture this electron at gigapower \textbf{\textit{n}} values. \textbf{\textit{Peruvian Nazcans recorded high energy, composite nucleon trajectories for us, as ``applied optical (VISION) physicists.'' }}

]]> Roger David McLeod et al. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/47 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/47 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:36:00 PST The publication in Science in 2007 of Jacques et al ``Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment,'' appears to demonstrate many counter-intuitive ideas. The solidity of those conclusions depends on whether quantum mechanics (QM) provides the ONLY available explanation of the experiment. By thinking outside the box we have arrived at a different explanation of that experiment. QM is the box outside of which we think, not because of criticism of QM, but in order to explore an unconventional viewpoint. Our explanation is based on elementary waves. We find no delayed choice. What appears to be delayed choice is an illusion. We also find local cause and effect. This does not prove that our way of thinking is correct. It simply means that we propose an alternative explanation of the experiment that does not lead to all those counter-intuitive ideas.

]]> Jeffrey Boyd http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/46 http://scholarworks.umass.edu/climate_nuclearpower/2011/nov19/46 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:24:00 PST For 50 years the field of hadronic parity violation has been unresolved. Since the 1980's the standard theoretical framework for hadronic parity violation has been the DDH model. However, discrepancies between the DDH model and experiment have called the use of this model into question. At low energies a new model independent analysis of hadronic parity violation can be carried out via pionless effective field theory. With the use of pionless effective field theory and new precision experiments, focusing on systems with $\mathrm{A} \leq 4$ in order to eliminate nuclear physics uncertainties, the field of hadronic parity violation at low energies will finally be understood. This talk will give an overview of the theory and possible future experiments in this old yet still exciting field.

]]> Jared Vanasse