During my interview with Jeff Rense on 20th August 1999 I mentioned to him that my researches had led me to discovering that nuclear scientists have, for decades, been suggesting that nuclear fission reactions can occur naturally on the surface of, and inside, planets.
For some unknown reason this subject is almost never spoken about and is strongly discouraged even in scientific circles. All the scientists who have tried to write papers regarding this subject have had to face an incredible up-hill battle to get their papers published. Sometimes it has taken them years to get a single paper published! I have wondered therefore if there is some kind of subtle censure in place to stop the academic community from exploring this subject too much - perhaps because it will lead to some rather unexpected and unwanted discoveries!?
This reminds me of a discussion I had with a former work colleague who joined the National Intelligence Service here in my own country, South Africa. We were discussing secret South African Airforce research. He told me that the "hot button" in all airforces around the world was research on pilotless aircraft. Then he told me that one would not read much about this in magazines at all because the full extent of the research by all airforces was kept secret. What one reads about is nothing more than the tip of the ice-berg, and the fancier, cleverer stuff is kept from the general public. This makes me wonder whether perhaps the idea of nuclear reactions inside planets falls into this category.
I have a similar suspicion regarding gravity. Dr Erwin J. Saxl worked with Albert Einstein in the 1950's when Einstein told him that there must be a link between gravity and electricity. Saxl then spent 17 years experimenting with an electrified pendulum at Harvard University to see if he could find out whether and how gravity might be affected by electricity. In spite of this, many scientists shot Saxl's experiments down. But again, Albert Einstein wasn't exactly a fool, and such a suggestion by him should be taken seriously. So why doesn't the scientific community then look very seriously into possible links between gravity and electricity? Or is this another taboo subject which will lead to real breakthroughs in physics and is therefore the preside of secret military research? I spoke to a micro-wave engineer, Ron Kotas, who has been giving some presentations to various scientific societies in the USA over the past few years. Kotas is especially knowledgeable in the area of Quantum Physics. He told me that an atomic-level explanation of gravity would definitely result in showing that electricity and gravity are linked. He even told me how he believed one could control gravity like one controls magnetism. He believed it could be done by using an alternating current of the correct frequency. Kotas' 30 years of research is very impressive.
So what I am saying is this: Just because a subject is not popular among academics and is not spoken about openly does not necessarily mean it has no scientific merits. It may just be that the really hot research is classified and is kept from the hands of your "run-of-the-mill" university academics, and only those with the appropriate security clearances working for the Government and Military actually know about this.
While researching my book and considering the anomalies relating to planetary magnetic fields I wondered whether nuclear reactions could occur in planets. I am not nuclear scientist but it seemed like an idea with some possibilities. Obviously nuclear fusion could not operate on a large scale in planets since one needs an enormous amount of hydrogen or helium and very high temperatures to kick it off. But nuclear fission, which is the opposite (the splitting of atoms) is a much more likely possibility. Fission requires a limited critical mass and then a chain reaction is set off. Since it seems natural that the denser materials will gravitate towards the centre of a planet it follows that perhaps very heavy unstable materials such as uranium, radium, plutonium and various similar materials might congregate together at the centre of planets and thereby kick off a nuclear chain-reaction. Could nuclear fission reactions thus start off in the core of planets? I wondered about this and wondered if such a reaction would not, as a by-product, also generate a planetary magnetic field? Perhaps such a reaction might thereby also affect the gravity of a planet in this way by causing powerful electrical currents deep inside the crust of the planet? I mused over this.
Imagine my surprise as I reached the end of my research on my book when one day I came across the writings of a nuclear scientist, a Dr Herndon, from the University of California. He had written four papers in the 1990's wherein he applied nuclear reactor theory to the core of the planets.
Herndon was not the first to do so. Dr P. Kuroda had first seriously suggested that nuclear reactions could occur on or in planets back in the 1950's. The first physical evidence of such occured in the 1970's when French scientists in Gabon, Africa, discovered a uranium site where a natural nuclear chain-reaction had occured on the surface of the Earth and had run for hundreds of thousands of years, generating relatively high temperatures and also consuming several tons of uranium during that time. The researches of the French scientists showed clearly that what Kuroda had postulated could indeed occur. But Kuroda was not alone in seeing that this was possible. Other scientists had also thought of this, and the idea had been hinted at many times. But science journals strongly discouraged papers on this and even Kuroda's own paper had only managed to be printed because of a loop-hole which he had taken advantage of.
No one has however worked as hard as Dr Herndon has at showing that natural nuclear fission reactions can occur inside planets. One cannot help but wonder if he is touching on a taboo subject because in an article in Eos in September 1998 he wrote: "Curiously, the subject appears never to have been addressed in the pages of Science or the Journal of Geophysical Research." He went on to point out that the implications of the discoveries at Oklo can be applied to other planets as well as to the Earth's core.
In an e-mail dated 9 March 1999, he told me of the difficulties which scientists experienced when they touched on this subject:
"For whatever reason, the subject of nuclear fission reactors has been exceedingly unpopular in the USA. In 1956 Paul K. Kuroda predicted the occurrence of Oklo-type reactors; Kuroda told me that he was only able to publish the paper because at the time the Journal of Chemical Physics would publish one page papers without review."
"I was fortunate to learn about Oklo [Gabon, Africa] almost as soon as [it was] discovered by French scientists. They contacted Kuroda, and Kuroda announced the discovery to his former Ph.D. students. At the time I was a Ph.D. student of one of Kuroda's former students and, of course, I was advised. Even then, I recognized the importance of the discovery, but it took many years to fill in the pieces so that the implications would become evident and the science would be on secure footings".
Dr Herndon's first paper proposing the idea of "planetary-scale nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the giant planets" was published in 1992. The next year he took this further and found that it could be applied to "nonhydrogenous planets" such as Earth. By 1996, Dr Herndon had examined evidence from meteorites which supported his thinking. He compared the composition of meteorites with what we know of the Earth. He concluded that "In those meteorites, as much as half of the uranium occurs in the portion corresponding to the Earth's core". He went on to say: "Uranium or a compound thereof would be expected to precipitate from the Earth's core ... and, ... would be the densest substance and would tend to collect at the center of the Earth".
We are all familiar with the idea that stars are powered by nuclear fusion processes. In my book, Hollow Planets (see my web page: WWW.HollowPlanets.com), I have proposed that perhaps self-sustaining nuclear fission processes operate inside planets. Dr Herndon has criticised the nuclear fusion start-up models proposed for stars. Nuclear fusion can only begin when temperatures are in the order of millions of degrees. But how can a condensing star become that hot? Scientists believe these temperatures arise due to energy which is released through gravitational contraction alone. Dr Herndon points out that as the star's temperature increases it also radiates more heat. He therefore questions whether the temperatures inside a star would ever rise high enough to start the nuclear fusion process. So he suggests that a far more workable alternative is a fission process which first begins and generates the temperatures needed to kick off the fusion process. In other words, fission may be far more common in the universe than we ever imagined. Fission may be starting up stars while also operating inside planets! None of this is currently being considered by scientists who are only concerned with nuclear fusion.
Dr Herndon has explored the possible effects of nuclear reactions which may be inside planets. He has compared the general behaviour of internal nuclear reactions with other concepts such as the slow-moving convection currents thought to be at the Earth's core. He states that to this day, nobody really knows what causes geomagnetic field reversals. Nuclear reactions would be much more intermittent in nature and subject to rapid changes over short periods of time. This would explain the Earth's past geomagnetic field reversals.
Turning to the gaseous giants,Dr Herndon noticed that Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune produce enormous amounts of energy internally. He proposes that enormous nuclear reactions inside the giant planets may be causing the excessive turbulence in their atmospheres! As evidence, he cites the Great Red spot's strange behaviour. In 1878, the Great Red spot became very prominent. Then between 1882 and 1890 its brightness declined to such an extent that astronomers thought it would disappear altogether. Dr Herndon believes this behaviour is the result of a giant nuclear fission reaction inside Jupiter.
My own thoughts regarding the Great Red spot are a modification of that of Dr Herndon. I agree with his basic concept except that one must allow for a gigantic hollow shell which surrounds the nuclear reaction. A hole in the crust of that shell would then explain why the Great Red spot appears to be a permanent feature of Jupiter. In Herndon's 1992 paper he pointed out that Jupiter was thought to have the highest internal temperature of any of the planets. Calculations showed that its internal temperature was in the order of 20,000 degrees K. As high as this is, it is still too low to be produced by a nuclear fusion reaction as occurs in the stars. Scientists have thus proposed various other mechanisms to account for these high temperatures. The most popular ideas are those which relate to the release of gravitational energy or the release of potential energy from the metallic hydrogen planetary core. But as Herndon pointed out "... there is no proof or direct evidence for the ideas of gravitational energy release within the giant planets and for 20 years scientists have sought a non-gravitational source of sufficient magnitude to power the giant outer planets."
He explained that J. B. Orr had suggested in 1949 that self-sustaining nuclear reactions might occur in terrestrial uranium deposits. But it was P. K. Kuroda who first applied nuclear reactor theory to the problem. He showed that uranium-235 would have been more abundant in the past and this would have been sufficient to trigger nuclear fission reactions.
Herndon pointed out that the nuclear reaction at Oklo only stopped when it ran out of water. Had it not been for this, the nuclear reaction would have continued for countless millions of years more. Scientists had discovered that the Oklo reactor had not only consumed uranium-235 but it had also produced additional uranium-235 by neutron capture. The Oklo reactor was thus a "breeder" reactor which was able to generate additional fuel for its own use! These discoveries served to prove that long-term self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are possible in nature.
But can nuclear fission reactions take place in planets such as Jupiter? The only naturally occurring elements which can be induced to fission are uranium and thorium. A moderator is needed to slow down the neutrons so that fission can take place. Here on Earth, at Oklo, water is the suspected moderator. But as Herndon realised, very large amounts of hydr ogen and helium are suitable moderators. In fact, the vast amounts of hydrogen available throughout the bodies of these planets creates an environment highly favourable for nuclear fission reactions. His calculations showed that a nuclear fission reaction using uranium-235 as its fuel was most definitely feasible inside the giant planets. Even more important, thermal neutron fission of uranium-235 results in the production of other fissionable atoms. This results in a "breeder" reactor which can then utilise fuel sources other than uranium-235. This means that the nuclear reaction can then continue for much longer than would otherwise be possible. Hence, Herndon concluded that nuclear fission reactions may well be operating inside the giant planets at present.
Herndon went on to emphasise that the energy output from these natural nuclear reactions would not be constant. The fuel to moderator ratios along with changes in pressure, temperature, positioning of fuel, etc would all affect the reactor output. The nuclear fission reactions produce a variety of fission products. Some of these adversely affect the nuclear reaction. These materials are referred to as "reactor poisons." These "poisons" can slow down the nuclear reaction. He speculated that perhaps the low power output from Uranus was due to a reactor shutdown.
In 1994, Herndon applied nuclear reactor theory to the problem of stellar ignition. He showed that nuclear fission reactions might actually ignite thermonuclear fusion reactions in stars.
With regard to the possibility of nuclear reactions occurring inside the Earth, he wrote: "I have presented evidence for the occurrence of substantial quantities of uranium (and thorium) in the Earth's core and have demonstrated the feasibility for nuclear fission as an energy source for the geomagnetic field. Furthermore, I have suggested that polarity reversals of the geomagnetic field may have their origins in intermittent nuclear reactor output... uranium, virtually irrespective of chemical state, would be capable of self-sustaining nuclear fission, if present in planetary cores and concentrated by gravity to the planets' centre before about 2600 million years ago." He went on to point out that reactor poisons could shut down the geo-reactor permanently or temporarily. This might cause rapid changes in the geomagnetic field or even field reversals which have long been a puzzle for scientists.
In 1996, Herndon produced a paper discussing the possible existence of a "sub-structure within the Earth's Inner core." Here, within the Earth's Inner core he expected to find nuclear material and the products of a nuclear fission reaction. He emphasised that the Earth's magnetic field would be produced right at the centre of the Earth by a nuclear reaction rather than at the boundary of the Inner and Outer cores. He suggested that the Earth's magnetic field was produced by electric currents which were generated nuclear activity.
In an e-mail dated 9 March 1999, he mentioned Jupiter: "It is regrettable that you could not have learned about my work sooner. In May of 1995 there appeared a brief article in Eos, entitled Neptune's Nemesis, that discussed the observation of a new spot in Neptune's atmosphere. The article incorrectly asserted that Jupiter's Great Red spot had been stable for 300 years and missed what I thought was the most significant implication of the observation. I submitted a short, 500 word response that included references to my work on planetary nuclear reactors and plane-tary change. At the time, the Planetary Science Editor, a NASA-JPL employee, insisted that I remove all reference to those subjects as a condition for publication. I refused. It took me three years and changes of AGU [American Geophysical Union] officers and editors to finally get the word out."
I am struck by Dr Herndon's reference to the attempted "censorship" of his article. Note how this NASA-JPL employee refused the publication of his article and how long it took before he could have it published. Dr Herndon does not believe there is anything sinister going on. Nevertheless, the resistance which he and Kuroda met is strange. Dr Herndon's revelations r epresent the final missing piece in the Hollow Planets puzzle. It was very pleasant to discover after all these years that indeed some scientists were thinking of nuclear fission reactions inside planets. It merely serves to add to my confidence that I am on the right track and that pursuit of this matter will lead to real discoveries. It is things such as this which have enormous implications.
It seems to me as if astronomy is not a science where true free thinking is allowed any more. As the Reader will see, Dr Van Flandern also mentions that there is a certain control of ideas in professional astronomy. Richard Baum of the British Astronomical Association also complains of the undue adherence to theory even when it does not match observation. These ideas, if pursued, might just lead to enormous breakthroughs which will shake physics to its roots.
During my research I came across a number of such ideas which might help us to understand many things better. Gravity is an area where we are highly ignorant and where we still do not have an atomic-level explanation of what gravity is. In seismology I propose a radical new seismic model which has impressed two academics I showed it to: Dr Tom Van Flandern and Dr M. Gohnert. With regard to meteorology, there may be a more fundamental reason why we can't predict weather more than a few weeks in advance - rather than fall back on wishful thinking in Chaos theory and the Butterfly effect, perhaps Polar Holes leading into a hollow planet are the real reason our super-computer models only work up to a certain point. Long Delayed Radio echoes may also be explained by way of radio waves bouncing into and out of our hollow planet, along with other mysteries such as the pulsating aurora which may be generated by a nuclear reaction inside our planet. The mysterious freak-weather findings of the climatologist Goesta Wollin might explain why air pressure over Alaska changes in concert with magnetic field changes. These and many other astronomical observations make me think that we live in a solar system composed of Hollow Planets including our very own Earth. All these things are testable and I wish to make the specialists in various fields aware of these possibilities and ask them to test some of these ideas.
Jan Lamprecht is a consultant in the computer industry in Johannesburg, South Africa. Some years ago he became
interested in a very strange old scientific idea first proposed by Sir Edmund Halley - the Hollow Earth Theory.
He was fascinated by this bizarre old idea and read through various literature regarding it - most of it being
rubbish. Nevertheless, there was a certain underlying logic to it all, and it was this which he set out to explore.
He decided to do his own feasibility study of this old idea using modern-day science as my basis. Is it possible
that planets could be hollow and that scientists might have somehow missed it? His 5 year obsession with this idea resulted in his writing a book of almost 600 pages examining
every aspect of science imaginable and seeing if any of this might mean that the planets of our Solar System
are hollow.
All Content © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1998-2005)
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved
Please send bug reports to the Information .