Have you considered adding "Zelensky Enterprises" to your investment portfolio?

Hello. As a broker and investment counselor for almost forty years now, I like to think I know a thing or two about great deals, and great investments. And, also about great businessmen. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce you to one of the greatest entrepreneurs I've ever encountered in my long career. I'm talking about Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He's worth 1.5 billion dollars, and, that's pretty impressive for a guy just making 13,000 dollars a year as President of Ukraine, don't you think? But, Mr. Zelensky, like all great businessmen, isn't satisfied with just being a small billionaire. Like all great businessmen, he thinks big. Really big. He thinks like the greats. How did Bill Gates get so rich? Why, he used his father's legal expertise and monopolistic business practices to drive all competing software enterprises out of business. As a result, we've had no significant progress in software in a generation, and Bill Gates is one of the world's richest men. How did Jeff Bezos get so rich? Why, the same way as Bill Gates. He created a monopoly with Amazon.com and drove the other online retailers out of business. These two men knew what truly great businessmen are made of. But, we shouldn't limit ourselves to monopoly as a business strategy. There's another business strategy that our current world's richest man, Elon Musk, has mastered -- fear mongering and disinformation. By playing up the "Global Warming" disinformation from the scientific community trying to make a buck, Elon has managed to hustle both of his two major companies -- Tesla, and SpaceX. He's selling Electric Cars and colonizing Mars on the basis of perfectly normal, cyclical climatic variation. And, he's become the world's richest man, doing it! What a business genius! And, I think it's this latter business strategy that's going to make Volodymyr Zelenskyy, within just a few short years, the world's richest man. Because Mr. Zelensky has grasped the true potential of fear and disinformation as a business strategy. After all, what could be a better source of fear, than war? War profiteers have always been spectacular at making a quick business "killing" -- Ha Ha, get it, War, Killing? Having become President on a platform of peace with Russia, he's started a war that's going very badly for him. But, that's the idea. Because on the basis of fear of war crimes, "Nazis", and, even, thermonuclear holocaust, Mr. Zelensky can now extract virtually unlimited funding, indefinitely, from the world's richest nations, whose leaders are all, also, getting their cut. Listen to these testimonials: "When I was first elected to the Senate, I didn't have a dime. By the time I became President, I was worth over 100 million dollars. But, now, thanks to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I'm going to be a multibillionaire. My only regret is that I won't live long enough to spend it!" Joe Biden, President of the United States. "I've made so much money from Zelensky Enterprises that I'm going to buy Napoleon's island of exile, St. Helena, and make it part of the French Empire." Emmanuel Macron, re-elected President of France. "Mr. Zelensky's Company has given me the resources to pay off all of Prince Andrew's debts, and to open up a theme park in Thailand --Pedoland-- where people like ourselves can enjoy our recreations in peace and tranquility. Thankyou Mr. Zelensky!" Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of Britain "At last, I have the money to reopen Dachau, and gas Russian POWs. As a German nationalist, I've been waiting a long time for this. Mr. Zelensky is my kind of guy. Even if he is Jewish." Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of Germany You too, can join this elite company. You too, can make your dreams come true. Just send your donations to the following address: Volodymyr Zelenskyy The Underground Bunker Kiev, Ukraine, Russia

What types of basic physics research can be done with cathode ray tubes?

I was interested in trying to do some basic physics research with cathode ray tubes. I was wondering what the options might be with this kind of simple and inexpensive electronic technology. A cathode ray tube is really a simple kind of particle accelerator, isn't it? And, Philo Farnsworth actually built his "Farnsworth fuser" with cathode ray tubes, didn't he? So, some work on elementary nuclear fusion reactors might be a possibility? How about creating and modifying isotopes of some types, would that be a possibility, as well? Other possibilities? Comment response: CRTs used to be really easy to find since they were the primary way to display data electronically. Some ideas, in rough order of easy to hard: •Demonstrate high voltage, by unhooking the high voltage drain wire and arcing it to the chassis. (In college I used to use my computer monitor this way, to light candles, incense, and other peoples' smokes) •Demonstrate electrostatic or magnetic steering of electrons, by bringing charged plates or magnets near the tube and watching the spot deflect. •Demonstrate X-ray formation by upping the high voltage and exposing photographic plates with the X-rays emitted by the front of the CRT. ------ Things below here involve disassembling a CRT and placing the parts in a separate vacuum chamber, which is a lot harder than messing with a completed CRT. •Use the electron beam to etch materials •Add a longitudinal focusing coil and create a scanning electron microscope •Build a small cyclotron and use the electron gun to feed it. •Demonstrate that you can create antimatter with your cyclotron, by placing a gamma ray spectrometer nearby and detecting the 0.511 MeV positron-annihilation line. •Modify your CRT to accelerate protons instead, by providing a hydrogen arc source near the accelerator assembly and inverting the sign of the voltage supply •Interfere beams from two proton-modified CRTs and demonstrate hydrogen fusion using a gamma ray spectrometer.

Ummm....Why is the U.S. spending more money on Ukraine than on single mothers at home?

I'm just curious about this. Why are untold billions being spent on arms for Ukraine and "economic assistance" for this breakaway province of Russia, when we have problems of poverty right back here in the good old US of A? Is it more important to blow up Russian tanks and ships than to support the American people themselves? Seems that way, doesn't it? Russia's making steady progress anyway. They're well on their way to controlling all of Donbas, and all of the Black Sea coast of Ukraine. Let's face it, as Machievelli tells us, mercenary troops like the Americans in Ukraine really aren't quite up to patriotic nationalists like the Russians there, who are actually ready and willing to die for their country. Other than causing inflation and killing people for fun, what on earth does the U.S. government think that it's doing?

Russia now controls 75% of Donbas

They'll get the rest of it, shortly. So, what exactly was all the fighting about, anyway? Why the ten billion dollars of useless arms provided by NATO? Why the Western media BS about how Putin was totally insane and the Russian people would rise up against him? In the 1990's, Russia was in a state of collapse, and the Russian province of Ukraine broke away. Now, Russia is taking some of its territory back. Is this surprising? If you think so, you're totally ignorant of Russian history. Russia is a highly centralized state, and, that's why it's able to dominate its less disciplined neighbors, like Ukraine. It's been working that way for a thousand years or so. If you think the current crop of NATO loser leaders are going to change that, think again.

Couldn't complex nuclear chain reactions be composed of multiple radioactive isotopes?

The potential range of synthetic nuclear radioactive isotopes is very large. So, isn't the range of complex nuclear chain reactions involving multiple radioactive isotopes, much larger? Have such complex chain reactions been investigated, at all? Complex chain reactions could redefine the concepts of both fissile, and fissionable materials, I would think. I guess I'm suggesting something a little unusual here. I'm talking about several, perhaps a large number of different radioactive isotopes, being involved in a single complex interaction resulting in the release of energy.

What if Hydrogen Bombs could be built cheaply, from a wide variety of materials?

For some time I've been puzzled by why atomic and hydrogen bombs were always built the same way, from the same materials. Indeed, they are often called Uranium bombs, or Plutonium bombs. In principle, there are a number of other radioactive materials that could be used to build nuclear bombs. For example, kalium-40, vanadium-50, lanthanum-138, lutecium-176, tantalum-180 There's a Chinese patent here to build a Hydrogen Bomb using them: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1417807A/en And, this would open up a wide variety of potential options for nuclear reactors, and, also, the possibility of cheaper and safer nuclear explosives that could then be used for civilian commercial applications, and, not just as military "bombs". I'm thinking in terms of Project Orion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) and subsequent efforts and ideas. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#id--Project_Orion This is a patent for power generation using nuclear fusion explosives in an underground cavity. It's quite detailed. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4569819 And here's a german patent to build a starship using hydrogen bombs that can go faster than the speed of light. https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102011016845A1/en Well, it's right there in the patent: "With the invention it is possible to achieve a much higher speed than today's spaceships. The achievable speed is just below that of light or, if Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect, several times the speed of light." So, how do physicists respond to this challenge to their authority? But...but...but...Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity while working in a Patent Office. The Irony! So, is it possible that all we've needed to do for the past seventy years or so, since the discovery of the H-bomb, is be a little more creative and flexible with the concept, and the universe of Star Trek would already be a reality? Earth-like planets in other solar systems all ready for our colonization, using H-bomb powered faster than light spacecraft?

Peaceful applications of the Chinese homogeneous heterotope bomb

Homogeneous heterotope nuclear bomb Abstract The homogeneous heterotope nuclear bomb includes thermonuclear bomb igniter in the shell, and the thermonuclear bomb igniter includes hollow ball and hollow cylinder. In the shell, there is lumpy combination or powder mixture of K-40, V-50, La-138, Lu-176 and Ta -180 as nuclear fuel. The present invention can reduce the cost of nuclear bomb. kalium-40, vanadium-50, lanthanum-138, lutecium-176, tantalum-180 https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1417807A/en No plutonium, lower cost, no primary radioactive waste.

Is this a plutonium free H-bomb?

https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1417807A/en And, if it is a plutonium free H-bomb, does that minimize the problem of primary radioactive waste, from a nuclear weapon? And, if so, does that make this "weapon" more suitable to non-military, applications like rocket propulsion and energy generation?

Why are uranium and plutonium the only radioactive materials regularly used to create nuclear chain reactions?

It seems that the only materials used regularly for nuclear chain reactions are uranium and plutonium. Why, exactly? In principle, any radioactive material could be used to create a chain reaction. And, this would open up a wide variety of potential options for nuclear reactors, and, also, the possibility of cheaper and safer nuclear explosives that could then be used for civilian commercial applications, and, not just as military "bombs". There are a wide variety of naturally occurring radioactive elements, and, potentially, a limitless number of synthetically created radioactive isotopes of elements. Why not try some of these, for the creation of nuclear chain reactions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile_material

Patent for a nuclear fusion power plant

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4569819 This is a patent for power generation using nuclear fusion explosives in an underground cavity. It's quite detailed. Does it make sense? If it works as well as the inventor says, and is as risk free, why, exactly, aren't we using it? P.S. Edit: I've just noticed that the Chinese seem to be developing Plutonium Free H-bombs. Wouldn't this reduce the dangers from radioactive waste, and also make the nuclear explosives cheaper? Hence, wouldn't they make this design much more practical? https://patents.google.com/patent/CN1417807A/en

nuclear explosives patents data

https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/cpc/html/defG21J.html

The U.S. patent office thinks Einstein's theory of Relativity might be wrong?

https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102011016845A1/en Well, it's right there in the patent: "With the invention it is possible to achieve a much higher speed than today's spaceships. The achievable speed is just below that of light or, if Einstein's theory of relativity is incorrect, several times the speed of light." So, how do physicists respond to this challenge to their authority? But...but...but...Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity while working in a Patent Office. The Irony!

Nuclear patent site

https://www.google.com/patents/sitemap/en/Sitemap/G21/G21J.html

What if there is no taxation of the American Colonies?

Many British politicians, including Pitt the Elder, strongly opposed the idea of taxing the American colonists. They had been essentially tax free until the end of the French Indian War, and, following this war, they had no pariticular reason to feel they needed Britain, at all. With France removed as a serious threat, the Americans felt they could manage on their own. So, this was a particularly bad time to start taxing them. Many British politicians agreed with the Americans that taxation without representation was illegal. But, the problem went much deeper than this. With three thousand miles of open ocean separating Britain from America, and eighteenth century transportation technologies, it was actually quite impossible to tax the Americans. There was simply no way whatsoever for Britain to enforce the payment of taxes, period. The British revenue collectors might as well have sailed for France, and tried to collect British taxes by knocking on doors in Paris. The effect was the same. They were ridiculed, harassed, assaulted and jailed. Naturally, the British responded in kind, sending armed forces to defend their revenue collectors in America, but, all this did was provoke riots and escalating confrontations. It didn't raise any revenue, at all. Quite the contrary, it cost money. A lot of money. So, the stage for the American Revolution was set. But, the fact is, it really wasn't at all necessary to tax the Americans. This was simply an economizing measure, and a relatively modest one. The real issue of signficance was control of the American Western Frontier. And, comparatively speaking, this did not cause nearly as explosive a level of confrontation, although it was vastly more significant. After all "No taxation without representation!" is a much better slogan for rebellion than "We want to murder Indians and steal their lands!" So, suppose George III faces reality, and accepts that Americans will not pay for the British forces on their soil. However, he continues to control the American frontier with British troops. They discourage settlement, so, there are far fewer settlers. How likely is this to cause an American Revolution? I would suggest, at the very least, the American Revolution is delayed for decades. I suspect there might not be any American Revolution at all. After all, the British troops are making perfectly legitimate points. It is very dangerous to settle on these Indian lands, the settlers may well be killed. Or, they may simply starve to death or die of exposure, they'll be no one around to help them. So, why would simply discouraging dangerous pioneering enterprises cause violent confrontation with the American colonists? Instead, the Americans become comfortable following British advice, and become submissive and accommodating to it, rather like Canadians. So, we have a slower growing, less aggressive set of American colonies. And, all of British North America becomes a kind of supersized Canada.

Could the radioactive elements in potassium be refined and chemically extracted?

I understand that potassium has a very slight radioactive component. Could this component be chemically refined and extracted for any practical purposes, at all?

Could nuclear weapons be built at substantially lower cost?

I'm thinking in particular of possible peacetime applications to nuclear powered spacecraft, of the Project Orion type. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) The idea here was that small atomic or hydrogen bombs could actually be used to power a spacecraft. There were a variety of obstacles here, but, actually, the main one was simply the great expense of nuclear bombs. Now, of course, nuclear weapons are extremely tightly regulated. Supposing those regulations were loosened. Supposing private entrepeneurs could develop new approaches to their construction and development. How much cheaper could businessmen build H-bombs, than the government? Because, effectively, we could argue that we've actually had "controlled nuclear fusion" for over seventy years now. The only real difference between an H-bomb and controlled nuclear fusion, is the size of the explosion. And, actually, we can build nuclear weapons with yields of no more than conventional size -- a few tons of TNT, or less -- which could be used for conventional energy applications like powering spacecraft. Of course, there are problems with radiation in nuclear weapons, and engineers keep claiming that they can develop a "no tears" approach to nuclear fusion, that if only we give them another few billion dollars they can provide unlimited energy, in a form that can be used along with Johnson's baby shampoo, in your baby's bathwater. This probably will not be the case. It may be the "nuclear weapons" are the only form of nuclear fusion we're ever likely to get. We just have to control radiation problems as much as possible, and make them as cheap as possible. So, how cheap could businessmen make nuclear bombs, for peacetime applications like space propulsion? I've asked this question of economists, and, they agree that competition and cost cutting incentives would almost certainly help. In fact, they've recommended that anyone interested should consider getting into this business. Any thoughts?

Crazed NATO leaders are trying to force Russia to use chemical weapons in Ukraine

Does the utter depravity of the NATO leadership know no bounds? What could account for their bloodlust, and taste for utter destruction? Is it the multiple sex change operations they've had, sometimes a dozen or more, trying to find "something they like"? Is it the bisexual pedophilic orgies they regularly attend, along with the Pentagon's joint chiefs of staff? Is it the methamphetamine orgies sponsered by Elon Musk, that they enjoy so very much? Do they simply require some further abomination to slake their thirst for suffering? In any case, now, the NATO leaders clearly desire Russia to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. They crave the vision of endless innocent human beings slowly choking to death on their own pneumatic fluids. Possibly, this is something genetic. Perhaps the descendants of Goebbels and Goering, having become addicted over time to the sufferings of their victims in Dachau and Auschwitz, simply cannot survive without the evident sufferings of millions of victims. And, this is why NATO is arming Ukraine. They want to force Russia to escalate, in order to achieve their legitimate territorial and security ambitions. Ukraine doesn't understand this. Ukraine sees Russia as their enemy, but, in fact, Russia is Ukraine's greatest friend in the world. Russia knows, that, in order to be kind, one must be cruel. Just as the U.S. military saved millions of Japanese lives at the end of World War II, by their humanitarian use of atomic bombs, so, Russia will save millions of Ukrainain lives, by the humanitarian use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. The Russian soldier is the closest thing this world will ever see, to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Could nuclear weapons be built at substantially lower cost?

I'm thinking in particular of possible peacetime applications to nuclear powered spacecraft, of the Project Orion type. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) The idea here was that small atomic or hydrogen bombs could actually be used to power a spacecraft. There were a variety of obstacles here, but, actually, the main one was simply the great expense of nuclear bombs. Now, of course, nuclear weapons are extremely tightly regulated. Supposing those regulations were loosened. Supposing private entrepeneurs could develop new approaches to their construction and development. How much cheaper could businessmen build H-bombs, than the government? Because, effectively, we could argue that we've actually had "controlled nuclear fusion" for over seventy years now. The only real difference between an H-bomb and controlled nuclear fusion, is the size of the explosion. And, actually, we can build nuclear weapons with yields of no more than conventional size -- a few tons of TNT, or less -- which could be used for conventional energy applications like powering spacecraft. Of course, there are problems with radiation in nuclear weapons, and engineers keep claiming that they can develop a "no tears" approach to nuclear fusion, that if only we give them another few billion dollars they can provide unlimited energy, in a form that can be used along with Johnson's baby shampoo, in your baby's bathwater. This probably will not be the case. It may be the "nuclear weapons" are the only form of nuclear fusion we're ever likely to get. We just have to control radiation problems as much as possible, and make them as cheap as possible. So, how cheap could businessmen make nuclear bombs, for peacetime applications like space propulsion? I'm asking economists this question, from an economic point of view. I'll probably ask physicists and engineers the question, as well, from their perspective. Although, they may argue that they're doing the best they can, as it is.

Why isn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity applied in the Life Sciences?

Or, perhaps it is? After all, this is supposed to be the model of the entire Universe. And, currently, with nanotechnology and genetic engineering, life science is impinging more and more on the traditional realm of physics, and microparticles. So, shouldn't there be relativistic effects here, and shouldn't they be relevant to developing new drugs and biotechnology, in general?

Do biologists believe in "space-time"?

This may seem an odd question to ask life science specialists. After all, Einstein's Theory of Relativity primarily deals with space-time distortions at speeds approaching the speed of light, and with the effects of massive gravitational fields on light and time. So, what does that have to do with the life sciences, as we understand them? However, even if, as life science specialists, you may not be interested in "space-time", "space-time" may be interested in you! Consider the following example. https://philarchive.org/archive/ASSMAH-2 Here we have an attempt to explain mental illness in terms of distortions of the space-time continuum within the brain. Does this make sense? That's up to you, I suppose. Physicists, of course, believe in all aspects of relativity theory religiously. Quite religiously, actually. It's a cult. Anyone questioning relativity is a "confirmed relativity denier" and must be shunned. They are unclean. Lately, since GPS became commonly employed, engineers have climbed aboard the relativity bandwagon, as well. Since, at times anyway, 30 microsecond an hour corrections are necessary for GPS to function, and these are roughly correlated with relativistic predictions. And, since relativity is used to sell their products, engineers love relativity. I would tend to argue that the evidence for relativity isn't really that terrific. We have laboratory particle accelerator experiments which show that wave forms that can't travel faster than light, can't propel particles to speeds faster than light. Sound highly artifactual and confounded, to me, anyway. We have crude correlations to micro-effects like in GPS. Almost anything could be causing micro-effects on atomic clocks that relate to gravity. Gravity does affect things, in a variety of ways, you know. Doesn't mean time is dilating, necessarily. And, bear in mind, the physicists really do have to believe in something, as a model of the universe, don't they? Otherwise, what are they doing, exactly? In a general way, I'm suggesting that the physicists are selecting data to fit the theory. Historically, there's been a cyclical movement between believing the universe was totally controllable, and absolute -- Isaac Newton believed this -- and believing that the universe was virtually uncontrollable and incomprehensible. Arguably, Relativity theory moves in this direction. So, as a group, do biologists "buy" the whole special theory of relativity -- time is a dimension like space, time is distorted by gravity, time slows down at high speeds, time stops at the speed of light? Because, the physicists are true believers here. And, with biological nanotechnology, biologists are more and more impinging on the traditional territory of the physicists. Physicists may insist that life scientists must consider relativistic "space-time" considerations in their work. Physicists may insist that Einstein is directly relelvant to the development of new drugs, and treatments in health care. How would life scientists feel about this, exactly? https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i37/Relativistic-effects-govern-methyl-transfer.html

Russia now controls two-thirds of Donbas

As the Russo-Ukrainian War winds down, we can see that Vladimir Putin, as usual, has played his cards brilliantly. His diversionary tactics around Kiev have destroyed and diverted sufficient Ukrainian forces, despite the massive NATO airlift of weapons, to allow the full conquest of Donbas within another few weeks. Then, the war will end. We really should give Mr. Putin some credit as a humanitarian. Despite NATO's attempt to exterminate as many Russians and Ukrainians as possible, Mr. Putin has dramatically limited casualities by his controlled and resourceful use of military tactics and effective military force. Should Vladimir Putin be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, when this ends, shortly?

Do Chemists believe in "space-time"?

Now, I realize there are some "relativistic" effects in the field of quantum relativistic chemistry. However, I'm not sure there couldn't be other explanations for some, if not all of these effects. So, as a group, do chemists "buy" the whole special theory of relativity -- time is a dimension like space, time is distorted by gravity, time slows down at high speeds, time stops at the speed of light? Physicists, of course, believe in all aspects of relativity theory religiously. Quite religiously, actually. It's a cult. Anyone questioning relativity is a "confirmed relativity denier" and must be shunned. They are unclean. Lately, since GPS became commonly employed, engineers have climbed aboard the relativity bandwagon, as well. Since, at times anyway, 30 microsecond an hour corrections are necessary for GPS to function, and these are roughly correlated with relativistic predictions. And, since relativity is used to sell their products, engineers love relativity. But, what's the perspective of chemists, here? Your investment in relativity theory is minimal. Do you believe in it?

How large a "fusion pulse", could a spacecraft possibly withstand?

I'm thinking in terms of Project Orion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) and subsequent efforts and ideas. Is there any possibility, at all, of a spacecraft withstanding, and exploiting a nuclear explosion, perhaps a small H-bomb, of 100 kilotons, for example? And of most, or all, of the energy in the explosion actually serving to propel said spacecraft? http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#id--Project_Orion

Why doesn't Elon Musk use Project Orion type technology to colonize Mars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) Project Orion was perhaps the most ambitious and exciting scientific/engineering project undertaken, in human history. A geniune effort to build a starship, that actually predated the first Star Trek series! For a variety of reasons, it came to nothing. And this despite the fact that it employed relatively conventional technologies, and almost certainly would have been successful, if adequately funded. The idea was simply to use small H-bombs in deep space, as a form of propulsion. Perfectly feasible. Bear in mind, A-bombs -- which form the core of an H-bomb -- can have yields as low as ten tons of TNT, or less. So, in terms of the energy levels involved in large rocket propulsion systems in space, perfectly practical, and feasible. Now, some sixty years later, we're still muddling with exotic alternatives, and, despite innumerable optimistic predictions, not really getting anywhere with practical controlled nuclear fusion technologies, at all. Isn't it time to go back to Project Orion? And, if we got somewhere with deep space fusion technologies, who knows? Maybe there might be some generalization to practical controlled nuclear fusion technologies for energy production right here on earth. Stranger things have happened, haven't there, in the history of science and technology? Using this type of technology, trips to Mars could be made in mere days, from Earth. So, resupplying Martian colonies would be no problem, at all. No need for terraforming or the development of new, unknown technologies for "living off the land", on Mars. Also, it would probably be much cheaper than methalox rockets, once the technology was fully developed. So, what's stopping our friend Elon, here? Isn't Project Orion the answer to all his hopes and dreams?