Gacor weighs Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Konstantin Batygin,Caltech,DrThomas Phillips, John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel, Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem) weighs hydrogen..

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-23 07:26:48 UTC

Permalink

Proper Water Electrolysis by weighing the mass of hydrogen and oxygen and comparing their masses from Stanford Uni and Rensselaer Poly not playing slot machines.

Kibo Parry-Jan Burse-- idiot spam into sci.math & sci.physics
1) Sinarjp Login
2) PAKARJP, Login
3) Semua Indah 8:07PM, Link Gacor

Volney, who can weigh
David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi, Murray Gell-Mann
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.

Volney (CIA) selling CalTech because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. Caltech science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.

Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova,..

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

Re: 2-Looking for a concordance of Dr. Richard Feynmann talking about AP-- on suffering of fools
by Volney 3:57 PM, 17Oct2023

This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.

Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process

Volney
3
Dan Christensen using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS at Univ Western Ontario instead of the fake Old Math calculus with its thousands of rules and memorization of trig functions. New Math has 1 rule-- Power Rule
9:03 PM


,
Volney
3
WM using AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Gottingen & Uni Berlin for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
9:01 PM


182b-Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:52 PM


,
Volney
2
Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:45 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Volney
14
unread,
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:43 PM


Caltech Physics Dept

Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to stalk hate spew

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."

--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993
Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.

Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers. Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.

My 250th published book.

TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages

Caltech & Rensselaer Polytech do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

2023-11-23 18:48:25 UTC

Permalink

Wouldn't You mind, if I rob Your car and all Your money tomorrow ?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proper Water Electrolysis by weighing the mass of hydrogen and oxygen and comparing their masses from Stanford Uni and Rensselaer Poly not playing slot machines.
Kibo Parry-Jan Burse-- idiot spam into sci.math & sci.physics
1) Sinarjp Login
2) PAKARJP, Login
3) Semua Indah 8:07PM, Link Gacor
Volney, who can weigh
David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi, Murray Gell-Mann
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.
Volney (CIA) selling CalTech because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. Caltech science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.
Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,
Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova,..
Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???
Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.
Re: 2-Looking for a concordance of Dr. Richard Feynmann talking about AP-- on suffering of fools
by Volney 3:57 PM, 17Oct2023
This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.
Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process
Volney
3
Dan Christensen using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS at Univ Western Ontario instead of the fake Old Math calculus with its thousands of rules and memorization of trig functions. New Math has 1 rule-- Power Rule
9:03 PM

,
Volney
3
WM using AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Gottingen & Uni Berlin for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
9:01 PM

182b-Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:52 PM

,
Volney
2
Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:45 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Volney
14
unread,
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:43 PM

Caltech Physics Dept
Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to stalk hate spew
Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

My 250th published book.

Caltech & Rensselaer Polytech do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-23 19:35:01 UTC

Permalink

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

Science times rather play Slot machines than fix math mistakes--Akun77

Mr. Brooks and Mr. Roston, what is the point in even having a The New York Times Science Section, when it cannot even answer the question of a New Yorker as Mr. Marshall Lett who wants to know if slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval.

Just because the NYT hates the guts of AP, and wants to never print his name, is no excuse in answering Mr. Lett's question. Besides, if NYT never answers the question, shows only that likely all of the NYT stories are just propaganda bias. You cannot answer science, means the rest of your newspaper is unreliable.

I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?

Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.

The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.

The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.



David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???

Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?

I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?

Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".


Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.

I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?

The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.

Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!



The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.



A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.

The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.



Let us analyze AP's Proof



Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.




3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

My 11th published book




World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-23 21:21:52 UTC

Permalink

failures..MIT_Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Gilbert Strang,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem),NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Volney is it too much beer guzzling and slot playing at MIT and not enough experiments in Water Electrolysis to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen to prove water is really H4O not H2O.

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee

President: Sally Kornbluth
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry Moroney Volney failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to spew hatred.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

My 250th published book.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-24 00:27:50 UTC

Permalink

Physics minnow

• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-24 03:33:01 UTC

Permalink

Physics minnow

• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-12-03 08:28:36 UTC

Permalink

Slot spam weighs Dr.Goodstein,Dr.Kip Thorne and CalTech for they have not enough brains to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-12-03 21:12:39 UTC

Permalink

NYT David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

Science times rather play Slot machines than fix math mistakes--Akun77

Mr. Brooks and Mr. Roston, what is the point in even having a The New York Times Science Section, when it cannot even answer the question of a New Yorker as Mr. Marshall Lett who wants to know if slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval.

Just because the NYT hates the guts of AP, and wants to never print his name, is no excuse in answering Mr. Lett's question. Besides, if NYT never answers the question, shows only that likely all of the NYT stories are just propaganda bias. You cannot answer science, means the rest of your newspaper is unreliable.

I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?

Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!



Let us analyze AP's Proof






Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-24 20:59:12 UTC

Permalink

I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?

Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!



Let us analyze AP's Proof






Archimedes Plutonium

2023-12-24 03:02:17 UTC

Permalink

AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
3m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
7:23 PM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Whilst writing my 268th book of science on a TV show of Nature showing sea wolf behavior of laying out salmon on land, and researching this, found me on this 10% Rule of biology. And I quickly understood that such a idea was "rife" for total misunderstanding of what the rule is about and what the rule is trying to say. So I wisely realized I should write a book on this Rule and to alleviate its mistake traps, for the rule is covered in misconception and application and enormous error. It takes a logical scientific mind to lay straight, clear and plain what this rule is. Just up AP's alley for it is logic that is AP's forte.

AP's 268th book of science--Rewriting NATURE: "Canada: Surviving the Wild North"
5m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 21, 2023, 4:32:48 PM (2 days ago)

This will be AP's 268th published book of science. Looking up the medical data and it is called
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 22, 2023, 3:47:43 AM (yesterday)

Now there is another parasite to note here, called Anisakis a nematode. It is likely that the NATURE
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
5:17 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
While researching wolf eating salmon, I ran across another science trap that causes huge misunderstanding.

--- quoting a Google search on 10 percent energy rule ---
Food Chain with 10% Energy Rule

NetLogo Modeling Commons
https://modelingcommons.org › browse › one_model
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from modelingcommons.org
In food chains, the predator only gains about ten percent of the prey's energy. This pyramid effect leads to lower populations of upper-trophic-level predators.
People also ask
What is the 10% rule in ecology?
What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
On average only 10 percent of energy available at one trophic level is passed on to the next. This is known as the 10 percent rule, and it limits the number of trophic levels an ecosystem can support.

Energy Flow and the 10 Percent Rule - National Geographic Education

nationalgeographic.org
https://education.nationalgeographic.org › resource › ene...
Search for: What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
Why is only 10 percent of energy transferred to the next trophic level?
How much energy do predators get?
Why only 10 of energy is passed from prey to predator?
Why is the 10% rule important?
Feedback

Life on the Food Chain

Northern Arizona University
https://www2.nau.edu › lrm22 › lessons › food_chain
Recent studies suggest that only ~10% of energy is converted to biomass from one trophic level to the next! The Food Chain: The answer has to do with trophic ...
Missing: tier

energy flow and trophic levels - Students

Britannica Kids
https://kids.britannica.com › students › assembly › view
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from kids.britannica.com
As little as 10 percent of the energy at any trophic level is transferred to the next level; the rest is lost largely through metabolic processes as heat. If a ...
Missing: wolf ‎tier

Wolf Food Chain | Overview, Diet & Predators

Study.com
https://study.com › academy › lesson › wolf-food-chain
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from study.com
Energy is transferred from producers to consumers, but only about 10% of the available energy is passed from one level to the next. The other 90% of ...
Missing: tier ‎percent

Wolf Predator vs Feral Predator?

Reddit · r/predator
280+ comments · 1 year ago
... Wolf doesn't waste energy or over-perform. They both have physical feats on the same tier, but Feral enjoys the violence and tends to overdo it.
Apex predators of Africa tier list : r/Tierzoo
Feb 18, 2021
Is Wolf The Smartest Predator So Far That We've Seen?
Feb 3, 2023
predator strength tier list
Aug 11, 2022
What's your Predator Tier List? : r/HuntingGrounds
Oct 28, 2022
More results from www.reddit.com

Apex predator

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apex_predator
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from en.wikipedia.org
The wolf is both an apex predator and a keystone species, affecting its prey's behaviour and the wider ecosystem. Because apex predators have powerful effects ...

Wolverines: Behind the Myth

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (.gov)
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov › ...
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from www.adfg.alaska.gov
They're not as fast as wolves, and they don't work in packs, but they can be more predator than scavenger if the situation allows for it.” Wolverines hunt ...
Images
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]

YouTube
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]
Legendary Tier List - Wolf Game the Wild Kingdom [NOV2022 List]

YouTube
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]
UNLOCK HIGH TIER WOLVES! Wolf Game The Wild Kingdom Troop Tiers! [Part VI]

YouTube
Feedback
6 more images
Web results

HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS

YouTube · Samhain13
2.8K+ views · 10 months ago

47:34
... TIER 28:06 - B TIER 30 ... RANKING ALL PREDATOR CLASSES ON PREDATOR: HUNTING GROUNDS 2023 ! FULL BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS. 2.8K views · 10 months ago ..
7 key moments
in this video
Missing: wolf ‎energy ‎percent

Food Chain

National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia
Oct 19, 2023 — At each step up the food chain, only 10 percent of the energy is passed on to the next level, while approximately 90 percent of the energy is ...
People also ask
What is the 10 percent rule of energy flow quizlet?
What is the 10% rule in second law of thermodynamics?
What law of thermodynamics is the 10% rule?
What is the 10% rule of energy transfer quizlet?
Feedback
Related searches
Wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent reddit
what happens to the energy that is not transferred to the next level in an energy pyramid?
how much energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next
tertiary consumer


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
5:28 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Biology's 10% rule turns out to be a Error Trap for most every scientist of biology

According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)

Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.

AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.

Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.

1.6K viewsView upvotes

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'

One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
8:46 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Actually this is going to be a very tough logic book to write. Where I have to align the Statement of the 10% Rule with the laws of Physics Electromagnetic Theory, and that is a tough tough task. So, no wonder few biologists have a handle on the Rule, for few Physicists have a handle on the rule.



Quora


According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are these organisms the strongest among all?
All related (34)
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits, flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.

AP writes: I think the biology professor has it correct. And it is a tough rule to understand.

Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get 10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either. They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen. There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.

1.6K viewsView upvotes

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
; _ _ ;
| ___( O )___ |
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: /
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'

One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought because in New Physics
the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, govt-police drag net spam,off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

AP's 269th book of science-- Biology's 10% Rule which 90% of scientists wrongly interpret and understand// biology & logic by Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2024-01-10 06:11:11 UTC

Permalink

Jan Burse weighs ETH Dr.Joel Mesot, Dr.Adrian Biland for they sure cannot weigh hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis.

Jan Burse, why cannot Dr.Kurt Wuthrich,Dr.Joel Mesot,ETH finish their water electrolysis by actually weighing the mass of hydrogen and compare to oxygen, instead of the stupid silly eyeballing the volume of one compared to volume of other?

Volney (CIA) with Jan Burse selling ETH because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. ETH science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.

Volney, who can weigh
Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot,Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.

This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.

Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process

Volney's failures..Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi,

Jan Burse and Volney, why cannot ETH finish their water electrolysis experiment by weighing the mass of hydrogen and oxygen to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

They must know the Quartz Crystal Microbalance has been around since 1960s to weigh hydrogen and oxygen in water electrolysis.

Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

"goonclod failure of logic"

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)
Princeton Univ physics dept
Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten, F.Duncan Haldane (physics), Russell Hulse (physics), Joseph Taylor (physics), Dr. David MacMillan (chem), James Peebles (physics), Daniel Tsui (physics)

ETH Zurich
Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider,Audrey Zheludev,Oded Zilberberg,
Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot

University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

AP writes: Looks like it is not going to stop for petty criminal Burse until he ends up in prison. He forges innocent people, and he even tore down AP's Wikipedia page. Now he is posting arbitrary houses for sale. To get at AP. So, really, Burse is a Swiss minded criminal, and someone should stop him before he hurts someone.

Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :

Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:

Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

------------------

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

My 250th published book.