“I’m thinking maybe Tel Aviv? The Weizmann Institute of Science?… some other people. Does Tel Aviv not host an annual piss up, with science lectures in bars?”
“Science On Tap”
“That’s the one!… yeah… in May? I was going to attend an Ayahuasca conference in Spain, but I’m going to go and check Israel out instead… go and do Tel Aviv and Haifa… see if I can fit in some Krav Maga training whilst I’m there” ;D~
Does anyone from the UK have a problem with me visiting Israel? Oh wait…
Science on Tap 2017
An influential initiative, creating a new urban culture that has been adopted around the globe – presented by Yivsam Azgad, Spokesman and Curator of the Weizmann Institute of Science, ISRAEL.
What is it? About 60 leading scientists and outstanding PhD students appear – on the same day, same hour – in bars and cafes around the city for informal talks with the patrons on the open scientific questions in their fields, on the sense of discovery, and on life on the “frontier” of science.
Are there parallel realities? Do dark energy and dark matter rule the Universe? How did life originate? Can we build a brain? Is nuclear fusion the solution to our energy problems? What do we mean by “personalized medicine?” Why do stars explode? Are we truly made of stardust? These are just a few of the questions that the scientists discuss.
Science on Tap 2018
Dozens of top scientists and outstanding research students from the Weizmann Institute of Science will be in 51 bars in Tel Aviv to talk with the patrons.
HERE’S SOMETHING INTERESTING FROM WEIZMANN INSTITUTE!…
Prof. Ron Milo’s lab reveals stunning insights about Earth’s biomass While humans make up just a tiny fraction—only 0.01 percent—of the mass of all living things, we are responsible for a hefty amount of destruction across other species. Human activity has caused a decline in the total biomass of wild mammals—both marine and terrestrial— by a factor of six, or over 80 percent, since the dawn of civilization, according to a new Weizmann Institute-led study. Meanwhile, the total plant biomass has declined twofold since the emergence of people on the planet due to the cutting down of forests. But the surprising finding was that plants still rule the Earth—comprising about 450 gigatons of carbon (Ct C) out of the total 550 Gt C of biomass on Earth. In comparison, humans make up a staggeringly low 0.06 Gt C, despite our enormous impact. The study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, includes a census of the total biomass distributed among all kingdoms of life. Performed by PhD student Yinon Bar-On from Prof. Ron Milo’s laboratory in the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, in collaboration with Caltech Prof. Ron Phillips, the research provides a holistic view of the biosphere’s composition while characterizing patterns according to taxonomic categories, geography, and nutrition. To assemble the census, the scientists conducted extensive analyses based on hundreds of existing studies. Another insight from the study was that while the biomass of wild animals has declined steeply, the total mass of mammals—including humans and livestock—increased fourfold. “Over the relatively short span of human history, major innovations, such as the domestication of livestock, the adoption of an agricultural lifestyle, and the Industrial Revolution, have increased the human population dramatically and have had radical ecological effects,” the authors observe. “The impact of human civilization on global biomass has not been limited to mammals but has also profoundly reshaped the total quantity of carbon sequestered by plants.”
Yeah anyway… Tel Aviv!
Tel Aviv Among World’s ‘Heavyweight’ Tech Hubs, Says New Report
While Silicon Valley is still “off the charts” as a global tech hub, Beijing and Shanghai are catching up and Tel Aviv is among the most influential and most international, with more deals involving foreign investors, according to a new report this week by New York-based research firm CB Insights.
Silicon Wadi (Hebrew: סיליקון ואדי, lit: “Silicon Valley”) is an area with a high concentration of high-technology companies on the coastal plain of Israel, similar to Silicon Valley in the U.S. state of California, and is the reason Israel is nicknamed the Start-Up Nation. The area covers much of the country, although especially high concentrations of high-tech industry can be found in the area around Tel Aviv, including small clusters around the cities of Ra’anana, Petah Tikva, Herzliya, Netanya, the academic city of Rehovot and its neighbour Rishon Le Zion. In addition, high-tech clusters can be found in Haifa and Caesarea. More recent high-tech establishments have been raised in Jerusalem, and in towns such as Yokneam Illit and Israel’s first “private city,” Airport City, near Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv Startup City
Ranked one of the world’s leading innovative cities, Tel Aviv is at the heart of the global startup scene. Through its vast resources, top talent, highest level of venture capital per capita, and non-stop culture, Tel Aviv is the place to be to create the next big project. Tel Aviv welcomes all ideas and startups no matter the size and will support you in your journey. The city, with its fast-paced nightlife and unforgettable environment, breeds the best innovation, uniqueness, and creativity.
The Rise Of Tel Aviv’s Tech Hub
Tel Aviv has long been the epicentre of Israel’s bustling high tech scene. The latest trend overtaking the startup world is shared workplaces dedicated for techies and young professionals alike to work in, and Tel Aviv’s famously (un)corporate work culture is leading the way. Built around open spaces and geared towards networking, these hubs range from so-called “accelerators” run by investors, to small communal offices for freelancers and creatives. In Tel Aviv, you can find a wide variety of both, with big firms like Microsoft setting up shop alongside hip young workspaces, perfect for the gig economy.
“Those of you that know me, know I’ve been talking about this subject matter for a number of years (slight diversion from global energy)… Phosphorous! Not only is it essential to securing the global food supply due to the global fertiliser industries over reliance upon it, it’s actually essential to ALL life on Earth, the backbone to DNA…
it is a FINITE resource, that is not being thoughtfully managed or controlled, at some point in the future, humanity will exhaust the planets supply.
a) source it from elsewhere. i.e. outer space. Recent study suggests all phosphate on Earth actually came from elsewhere in cosmos. “Biocompatible phosphorus could have travelled to Earth on space ice Lab experiments back up hypothesis that comets and meteorites provided a form of the element compatible with the biochemistry of early life”
b) find a method of synthesising or recreating the phosphate molecule.
We now have a population exceeding 7 billion, set to hit 9 billion by 2030, and not slowing down… unless there is a technological revolution, in our understanding of molecular modelling, synthesising or reproducing organic molecules vital to life and DNA (phosphorous), or sourcing them from elsewhere in the Cosmos (meteorites, planets)… billions of people will potentially starve and die!
With The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics, a better understanding of molecular and atomic structure… accurate and predictive molecular modelling programs such as Millsian… this sorry arse civilisation may stand half a chance!
How Phosphorus Scarcity Endangers the World
By Ryan Sim August 10, 2016
Phosphorus: a powdery maroon substance used in producing everything from baking powder to steels to fertilizer. Surprisingly, stocks of phosphorus are declining. The international community faces so many insidious issues that phosphorus scarcity can seem trivial; however, dwindling phosphorus is indeed important to national security. One of the most important substances for global food production, phosphorus is crucial to sustainable population growth. Its scarcity must be addressed by the international community.
Used in many fertilizers, phosphorus enables higher food production from crops, which is important for feeding a rapidly growing world. Phosphorus has contributed to a global surplus of food that has fed millions. Unfortunately, phosphorus, like many other important resources such as water or energy, is limited. There is no replacement for phosphorus, and without its role in fertilizer, millions will go hungry.
Numerous global trends have caused the demand for phosphorus to increase at an unsustainable rate. Especially in developing regions, rapid population growth has led to increased phosphorus demand, with the rate of fertilizer including phosphorus increasing by over 600 percent from 1950 to 2000. In developed regions, on the other hand, the shift towards a diet of meat and cheese have also increased phosphorus demand, since meat and dairy contain a significant proportion of phosphorus. As a result, countries everywhere face rising demands for phosphorus, which has led to precarious markets.
Recently unfolding events have demonstrated the impacts of phosphorus’ increased demand. In 2008, world food prices skyrocketed, leading to the 2008 global food crisis. While there were many explanations for this phenomenon, ranging from oil price volatility to economic tariffs, the fact that there was a simultaneous rise of in phosphate prices did not go unnoticed. Though at first many were skeptical of a correlation, the international scientific community has strongly supported the relationship between these two trends.
In such scarcity, phosphorus especially impacts farmers from poor regions like India and landlocked regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. In poor regions, farmers are vulnerable to extreme price changes such as the recent phosphorus price crisis in 2008. In fact, in places such as India and Haiti, many farmers committed suicide while others rioted due to their disrupted livelihoods from the 2008 phosphorus price crisis. In landlocked regions, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, expensive transport as well as government corruption add significantly to phosphorus prices. It is unfortunate, since many of these countries rely upon agriculture for economic growth, further increasing their reliance on phosphate. Many of these countries are also undergoing rapid population growth, which cannot be sustained by such high phosphorus prices.
Though demand is increasing, phosphorus is an extremely rare resource and its supply may not be able to keep up. Phosphate rock is the difficult to extract and slow-forming product of millions of years, much like oil, and cannot be produced artificially. To make matters worse, phosphorus cannot be replaced by any known alternatives. It is uncertain exactly how much time that the international community has before phosphate runs out. However, as phosphate is continuously and increasingly harvested, the ability to easily harvest high-quality phosphorus is reduced. This is a phenomenon known as “peak phosphorus”, since at a certain point of time, phosphorus quality peaks and then is difficult to harvest afterwards. Even now, it takes enormous amounts of energy to obtain the same amounts of phosphate as before. Since phosphorus has a limited and quickly depleting availability and it saps precious energy, more sustainable and efficient methods of phosphorus harvest must be implemented.
It must also be noted how phosphorus can only be found in very specific locations, namely, Morocco, China, Algeria, and South Africa among a few others. As is the case with most resources of significance, when certain countries have a monopoly, it gives them major geopolitical power over other countries who need those imports. For example, the 2008 phosphorus price crisis was spurred in part due to China placing limits on phosphorus exports. This event demonstrates how countries are at the mercy of those who hold such a monopoly and, consequently, the balance of power has significantly been slanted towards them.
Though demand is increasing, phosphorus is an extremely rare resource and its supply may not be able to keep up.
In countries such as Morocco, for instance, phosphorus lies in the Western Sahara, an area that Morocco claims to own; the international community refuses to acknowledge this territorial claim. Regardless of the legitimacy of the Moroccan claim, numerous companies import phosphate rock from this contested area, much to the dismay of neighboring countries. Moreover, the people who occupy the Western Sahara protest against the phosphorus extraction, stating that it violates their sovereignty. Though this may be a singular case, it demonstrates how the extreme need for phosphorus combined with little regulation has created an environment where illegal activity may flourish. Furthermore, the lack of regulation allows more opportunistic powers to enter weaker territories and take their resources, instigating oppression and deeper economic woes.
Phosphorus’ scarcity stems not only from its limited quantities, but it is also wasted during harvests. As much as four-fifths of phosphorus is wasted during production, from the moment it is mined to the final moments of processing. These losses can be minimized through greater efficiency and recycling waste, ensuring more sustainable levels of phosphorus use. Moreover, improving the efficiency of phosphorus extraction reduces phosphorus runoff into streams and oceans, which causes algal blooms that kill aquatic wildlife and hurt tourist industries and the environment. This algal bloom is costly, as well. The estimated annual cost in the United States alone reaches up to as high as $2.2 billion USD. More stringent monitoring of excess phosphorus waste during harvest will decrease phosphorus scarcity and environmental risks.
This raises the question–who is responsible for managing phosphorus, whether by following international norms or minimizing excessive waste? The answer, at the moment, is lost in a hectic mass of mining sectors, national governments, and agricultural industries. The trade and production data that exists on phosphorus is incomplete; indeed, the only data available is from the US Geological Survey, but even this data lacks outside verification from other organizations or countries. This is a clear and present problem, especially given that phosphorus is such a critical resource for future food sustainability. All lines involved in the production of phosphorus need to be held to more accountability, and more information regarding the phosphorus production process needs to be revealed to give a better picture of the status quo.
Luckily for the international community, the future is not as grim as it appears. There are a number of institutional changes that can be made to improve regulation and decrease waste. Outreach and advocacy measures, on the macro-level of the United Nations and giant media organizations as well as micro-level of grassroots movements and nonprofit organizations, can raise awareness of the seriousness of phosphorus. As these reforms and changes change the nature of institutions to become more sympathetic to phosphorus sustainability, the best practices and procedures of the international community can be more easily implemented.
One area that should be prioritized in reducing phosphorus is the smarter use of fertilizer. In most cases, farmers are unaware of how much fertilizer they need. For good reason—the amount of fertilizer a farmer may need is highly dependent on environmental conditions such as soil, temperature, and weather patterns. As a result, many farmers in developing countries are not able to accurately gauge their fertilizer requirements, leading to much waste. One example of this case can be found in a China Agriculture Survey on northern Chinese farmers. Since many of these farmers were never taught how much fertilizer they need, they tend to use about half of the fertilizer they put down. Thus, a valuable resource is wasted and becomes an environmental risk to water supplies, just because some people were never educated.
To combat this lack of information, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization is putting together a task force to work together with local and state governments. It hopes to provide accessible information to farmers, emphasizing ideals of conservation and long-term sustainability of phosphorus. This task force is not unprecedented and draws inspiration from past successful initiatives. The University of Wisconsin, in concert with the Wisconsin government, put together a program called the Wisconsin phosphorus index, which helps farmers accurately predict how much phosphorus that they will need. By promoting past sustainable practices that have a track record of success, organizations like the United Nations will hopefully be able to increase awareness amongst local communities.
Another area that can be examined to increase phosphorus supply is recycling waste. In the past, farmers were able to sustain the quality of their soil largely through household waste. Even though animal manure is still widely used, human waste is also a valuable source of phosphorus. Instead of disposing of it as sewage, human waste has potential as an alternative fertilizer. Moreover, many countries across the world are undergoing intensive research to find innovative ways to efficiently recycle waste. It is important that the international scientific community communicates their findings to one another to promote the best long-term phosphorus recycling methods. Additionally, areas that might not be able to afford such advanced levels of technology need to receive assistance from NGOs and the United Nations. Since some of these recycling procedures are difficult to keep up without high development levels, countries must have access to at least rudimentary recycling processes. In this way, countries will be able to extend their current supplies of phosphorus.
Just as important in preserving phosphorus in the long term is having a tangible idea of the global phosphorus supply. As previously mentioned, the US Geological Survey currently gives us the best representation of how much phosphorus is left. However, a more effective way to describe the world phosphorus supply would be through an international organization such as the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization should work together with governments to foster the creation of a more comprehensive global database of phosphorus trade and supply. Indeed, this partnership should also yield information of new phosphorus mining areas, since many places need heavier examination by regional governments. Then, markets and research institutions will have more accurate information to act upon, creating a more sustainable phosphorus supply in the long run.
While there are numerous measures that can be implemented in order to promote more long-term phosphorus supply sustainability, they cannot be effective without cultural changes as well. Meat and dairy, for example, take up immense supplies of phosphorus, and yet people are consuming these products at unprecedented levels. Therefore, it is increasingly necessary to promote a plant-based diet to reduce the amount of phosphorus consumption. Other cultural changes can include speaking with local farmers in underdeveloped countries, explaining how phosphorus is an essential and limited resource that needs conservation. With these movements in place, major media outlets and nonprofit organizations should direct the focus of public energy. Of course, this will not be an overnight process, since cultural changes often take many more incremental, subtle steps. However, encouraging such a long-term paradigm shift while putting into place other specific strategies for improvement should maintain phosphorus supplies.
The world’s population is growing at an exponential rate, as technology has dramatically improved the standard of living. On the whole, more people have access to the necessary resources they need to live than ever before. Yet, there are still large swaths of populations who live in poor conditions. There is still work to be done in lifting every person to the basic standard of living that they each deserve. Phosphorus is not a silver bullet that will deliver such people. However, when phosphorus sustainability is considered in the grander scheme of things, it will have enormous benefits to everyone, regardless of where they live. It will improve international security, as those who have more access to phosphorus will not have such a monopoly on power. It will reap benefits for farmers who are able to support their livelihoods through affordable fertilization. And it will reap benefits for every individual, as the markets of phosphorus and agriculture become more stable over time.
Phosphorus is more than simply an element or powdery substance—it represents an opportunity for the international community to help itself and the most marginalized populations. In a vastly changing world, it has become an essential element for change.
Phosphorus (P) plays a fundamental role in the physiology and biochemistry of all living things. Recent evidence indicates that organisms in the oceans can break down and use P forms in different oxidation states (e.g., +5, +3, +1, and −3); however, information is lacking for organisms from soil and sediment. The Cuatro Ciénegas Basin (CCB), Mexico, is an oligotrophic ecosystem with acute P limitation, providing a great opportunity to assess the various strategies that bacteria from soil and sediment use to obtain P. We measured the activities in sediment and soil of different exoenzymes involved in P recycling and evaluated 1,163 bacterial isolates (mainly Bacillus spp.) for their ability to use six different P substrates. DNA turned out to be a preferred substrate, comparable to a more bioavailable P source, potassium phosphate. Phosphodiesterase activity, required for DNA degradation, was observed consistently in the sampled-soil and sediment communities. A capability to use phosphite (PO3 3−) and calcium phosphate was observed mainly in sediment isolates. Phosphonates were used at a lower frequency by both soil and sediment isolates, and phosphonatase activity was detected only in soil communities. Our results revealed that soil and sediment bacteria are able to break down and use P forms in different oxidation states and contribute to ecosystem P cycling. Different strategies for P utilization were distributed between and within the different taxonomic lineages analyzed, suggesting a dynamic movement of P utilization traits among bacteria in microbial communities.
Phosphorus, the 11th most common element on earth, is fundamental to all living things. It is essential for the creation of DNA, cell membranes, and for bone and teeth formation in humans. It is vital for food production since it is one of three nutrients (nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus) used in commercial fertilizer. Phosphorus cannot be manufactured or destroyed, and there is no substitute or synthetic version of it available. There has been an ongoing debate about whether or not we are running out of phosphorus. Are we approaching peak phosphorus? In other words, are we using it up faster than we can economically extract it?
In fact, phosphorus is a renewable resource and there is plenty of it left on earth. Animals and humans excrete almost 100 percent of the phosphorus they consume in food. In the past, as part of a natural cycle, the phosphorus in manure and waste was returned to the soil to aid in crop production. Today phosphorus is an essential component of commercial fertilizer. Because industrial agriculture moves food around the world for processing and consumption, disrupting the natural cycle that returned phosphorus to the soil via the decomposition of plants, in many areas fertilizer must now be continually applied to enrich the soil’s nutrients.
Most of the phosphorus used in fertilizer comes from phosphate rock, a finite resource formed over millions of years in the earth’s crust. Ninety percent of the world’s mined phosphate rock is used in agriculture and food production, mostly as fertilizer, less as animal feed and food additives. When experts debate peak phosphorus, what they are usually debating is how long the phosphate rock reserves, i.e. the resources that can economically be extracted, will hold out.
Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at the Earth Institute, does not believe there is a shortage of phosphorus. “In my long 50-year career, “ he said. “Once every decade, people say we are going to run out of phosphorus. Each time this is disproven. All the most reliable estimates show that we have enough phosphate rock resources to last between 300 and 400 more years.”
In 2010, the International Fertilizer Development Center determined that phosphate rock reserves would last for several centuries. In 2011, the U.S. Geological Survey revised its estimates of phosphate rock reserves from the previous 17.63 billion tons to 71.65 billion tons in accordance with IFDC’s estimates. And, according to Sanchez, new research shows that the amount of phosphorus coming to the surface by tectonic uplift is in the same range as the amounts of phosphate rock we are extracting now.
The duration of phosphate rock reserves will also be impacted by the decreasing quality of the reserves, the growing global population, increased meat and dairy consumption (which require more fertilized grain for feed), wastage along the food chain, new technologies, deposit discoveries and improvements in agricultural efficiency and the recycling of phosphorus. Moreover, climate change will affect the demand for phosphorus because agriculture will bear the brunt of changing weather patterns. Most experts agree, however, that the quality and accessibility of currently available phosphate rock reserves are declining, and the costs to mine, refine, store and transport them are rising.
Ninety percent of the phosphate rock reserves are located in just five countries: Morocco, China, South Africa, Jordan and the United States. The U.S., which has 25 years of phosphate rock reserves left, imports a substantial amount of phosphate rock from Morocco, which controls up to 85 percent of the remaining phosphate rock reserves. However, many of Morocco’s mines are located in Western Sahara, which Morocco has occupied against international law. Despite the prevalence of phosphorus on earth, only a small percentage of it can be mined because of physical, economic, energy or legal constraints.
In 2008, phosphate rock prices spiked 800 percent because of higher oil prices, increased demand for fertilizer (due to more meat consumption) and biofuels, and a short-term lack of availability of phosphate rock. This led to surging food prices, which hit developing countries particularly hard.
With a world population that is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050 and require 70 percent more food than we produce today, and a growing global middle class that is consuming more meat and dairy, phosphorus is crucial to global food security. Yet, there are no international organizations or regulations that manage global phosphorus resources. Since global demand for phosphorus rises about 3 percent each year (and may increase as the global middle class grows and consumes more meat), our ability to feed humanity will depend upon how we manage our phosphorus resources.
Unfortunately, most phosphorus is wasted. Only 20 percent of the phosphorus in phosphate rock reaches the food consumed globally. Thirty to 40 percent is lost during mining and processing; 50 percent is wasted in the food chain between farm and fork; and only half of all manure is recycled back into farmland around the world.
Most of the wasted phosphorus enters our rivers, lakes and oceans from agricultural or manure runoff or from phosphates in detergent and soda dumped down drains, resulting in eutrophication. This is a serious form of water pollution wherein algae bloom, then die, consuming oxygen and creating a “dead zone” where nothing can live. Over 400 coastal dead zones at the mouths of rivers exist and are expanding at the rate of 10 percent per decade. In the United States alone, economic damage from eutrophication is estimated to be $2.2 billion a year.
As the quality of phosphate rock reserves declines, more energy is necessary to mine and process it. The processing of lower grade phosphate rock also produces more heavy metals such as cadmium and uranium, which are toxic to soil and humans; more energy must be expended to remove them as well. Moreover, increasingly expensive fossil fuels are needed to transport approximately 30 million tons of phosphate rock and fertilizers around the world annually.
Sanchez says that while there is no reason to fear we are running out of phosphorus, we do need to be more efficient about our use of phosphorus, especially to minimize eutrophication. The keys to making our phosphorus resources more sustainable are to reduce demand and find alternate sources. We need to:
Improve the efficiency of mining
Integrate livestock and crop production; in other words, use the manure as fertilizer
Make fertilizer application more targeted
Prevent soil erosion and agricultural runoff by promoting no-till farming, terracing, contour tilling and the use of windbreaks
Eat a plant based diet
Reduce food waste from farm to fork
Recover phosphorus from human waste
Phosphorus can be reused. According to some studies, there are enough nutrients in one person’s urine to grow 50 to 100 percent of the food needed by another person. NuReSys is a Belgian company whose technology can recover 85 percent of the phosphorus present in wastewater, and turn it into struvite crystals that can be used as a slow fertilizer.
New phosphorus-efficient crops are also being developed. Scientists at the International Rice Research Institute discovered a gene that makes it possible for rice plants to grow bigger roots that absorb more phosphorus. The overexpression of this gene can increase the yield of rice plants when they are grown in phosphorus-poor soil. Rice plants with this gene are not genetically modified, but are being bred with modern techniques; they are expected to be available to farmers in a few years.
A breed of genetically modified Yorkshire pigs, called the Enviropig, has been developed by the University of Guelph in Canada to digest phosphorus from plants more efficiently and excrete less of it. This results in lower costs to feed the pigs and less phosphorus pollution, since pig manure is a major contributor to eutrophication. Last spring, however, the Enviropigs were euthanized after the scientists lost their funding.
The Agriculture and Food Security Center is working on food security in Africa and attempting to eliminate hunger there and throughout the tropics within the next two to three decades.
In the mountains of Tanzania along Lake Manyara, Sanchez’ team has discovered deposits of “minjingu,” high-quality phosphate rock that is cheaper and just as efficient as triple super phosphate (a highly concentrated phosphate-based fertilizer) in terms of yields of corn per hectare.
Minjingu deposits are formed by the excreta and dead bodies of cormorants and other birds that roost and die in the mountains, forming biogenic rock phosphate or guano deposits. Guano, the feces and urine of seabirds (and bats), has a high phosphorus content, and in the past was often used as fertilizer.
Sanchez’ researchers have also discovered a common bush called the Mexican Sunflower that is an efficient phosphorus collector. It grows by the side of the road, fertilized by the excreta dumped there by farmers. The farmers cut it down and use it as green manure, an organic phosphorus fertilizer which helps grow high-quality crops like vegetables.
The Agriculture and Food Security Center team also helps farmers contain erosion and runoff by encouraging them to keep some vegetative cover, either alive or dead, on the soil year-round. This is done through intercropping, leaving crop residue in the fields, contour planting on slopes or terracing.
“There is no data to support the idea of peak phosphorus,” said Sanchez. “Just fears. New deposits are continually being discovered. We also have more efficient extraction that is getting more phosphate rock out of land-based sediments. And there is an enormous 49-gigaton deposit of phosphorus in the continental shelf from Florida to Maritime Canada that scientists have known about for years. Now there is some experimental extraction going on off the coast of North Carolina.” Pedro Sanchez, author of Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics published in 1976, which continues to be a bestseller, is currently working on Tropical Soils Science, an update of his previous work. It will be published by 2015.
1. Phosphorus equals food
Without phosphorus, we can’t produce food. Phosphorus is as essential as water, carbon or oxygen.
Phosphorus is essential for all living matter, including bacteria, plants and animals. We get our phosphorus from the food we eat, which in turn comes from the phosphate fertilizers we apply to crops. Phosphorus fertilizer is essential for modern food production and is the limiting factor in crop yields. Phosphorus is a critical global resource, along side water and energy resources.
Around 90% of the phosphate rock extracted globally is for food production (the remainder is for industrial applications like detergents).
2. Growing food demand, growing phosphorus demand
Nine billion mouths to feed by 2050 with growing appetite for meat and dairy means increasing demand for phosphorus.
Demand for phosphorus is increasing globally, despite a downward trend in developed regions like Western Europe. This is due to an increasing per capita and overall demand for food in developing countries, from increasing population and global trends towards more meat- and dairy-based diets, which are significantly more phosphorus intensive.
The average diet today results in the depletion of around 22.5 kilograms of phosphate rock per person each year (or 3.2 kilograms of P). This is 50 times greater than the 1.2 grams per person per day recommended daily intake of P.
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of eradicating hunger and achieving food security, means we must change the way we source, use and equitably distribute phosphorus in global food production. Further to market forecasts, there is a ‘silent’ demand from the many farmers with phosphorus-deficient soils who can’t afford fertilizers. The current phosphorus inequity is most evident on the African continent, which is simultaneously home to the world’s largest phosphate rock reserves (over 75% of the global share) and the continent with the lowest phosphorus fertilizer application rates, some of the most phosphorus-deficient soils and the most food insecure region.
3. Finite phosphate: we’ve used up the good stuff
The world’s main source of phosphorus fertilizer – phosphate rock – has taken millions of years to form.
The majority of the world’s agricultural fields today rely on fertilizers derived from phosphate rock. Phosphate rock is a non-renewable resource that has taken 10-15 million years to form from seabed to soil via tectonic uplift and weathering. Many recent studies indicate that phosphorus demand could outstrip supply this century if no fundamental changes are made to the current trajectory, while others argue we have ‘hundreds’ of years remaining (see Peak Phosphorus).
While oil and other non-renewable natural resources can be substituted with other sources when they peak (like wind, biomass or thermal energy), phosphorus has no substitute in food production.
While there is some uncertainty about the timeline, there is consensus that the quality of remaining phosphate rock is declining. That is, the concentration of P in mined phosphate rock is decreasing and the concentration of unwanted clay particles and heavy metals like cadmium are increasing. The cadmium content of phosphate rock can be very high. This is either considered a harmful concentration for application in agriculture, or, expensive and energy intensive to remove (maximum cadmium concentrations for fertilizers exist in some regions, like Western Europe). Further, remaining phosphate reserves are becoming more difficult to physically access (mining under the sea bed has begun). Extracting the same amount of phosphorus is requiring more energy, is more costly, and is generating more waste and byproducts.
With growing concern about fossil fuel scarcity, we cannot afford to continue the energy intensive process of mining, processing and transporting phosphate rock and fertilizers across the globe. Phosphate rock is one of the most highly traded commodities in the world. Around 30% of energy use in agriculture in the US is from fertilizer production and use.
4. Geopolitical risks: an issue of national security?
All farmers need phosphorus, yet just 5 countries control 88% of the worlds remaining phosphate rock reserves
Phosphate rock is unevenly distributed across the globe resulting in only a small number of countries controlling the world’s remaining reserves. According to the US Geological Survey in 2015, Morocco, China, Algeria, Syria & South Africa together control 88% of the world’s phosphate. Morocco alone controls 75% of the world’s high-quality reserves, and the Kingdom’s share is expected to increase to 80-90% in the coming decades. The US used to be the world’s largest producer, consumer, importer and exporter, yet now has approximately 20 years of reserves remaining. while China has recently imposed a 135% export tariff to secure domestic fertilizer supply, which has halted most exports.
This means all importing countries – from India to Australia to Europe – are vulnerable to price fluctuations and supply disruptions in producing countries.
Further, the phosphate rock located in Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco. While Morocco claims rightful ownership of the land and phosphates of Western Sahara, this occupation is condemned by the UN and not recognised by any other nation, nor the Saharawi people of Western Sahara, many of whom are living in refugee camps in neigbouring Algeria. Many of Scandinavia’s major banks and pension funds have divested from companies importing ‘conflict phosphates’ from Western Sahara via Morocco.
5. An inefficient global food system
Phosphorus is mis-managed: Four-fifths is lost or wasted in the supply-chain from mine to field to fork
Phosphorus is scarce not only because it is finite – but because it is mismanaged in the food system. Only one-fifth of the phosphate mined specifically for food production ends up in the food we eat globally. Four-fifths of the phosphorus is lost or wasted during mining and processing, fertilizer production and distribution, fertilizer application on farms, food production and trade, right through to the dinner table. Much of these losses could be avoided through improved practices and efficiency measures, while the remaining waste (banana peels to manure) could be captured for reuse as fertilizer.
Much of the lost phosphorus ends up in our rivers, lakes and oceans where it can cause toxic algal blooms – from the Baltic Sea, to China to the Great Lakes of North America to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Algal blooms can kill fish and other aquatic life, pollute our drinking water and damage our tourism and fishing industries.
6. Cheap fertilizer – a thing of the past for farmers
Farmers need access to phosphorus, yet up to a billion farmers lack access to fertilizer markets.
Already many of the world’s farmers can’t afford fertilizers. Sub-Saharan African farmers in some landlocked countries can pay 2-5 times more at the farm gate for fertilizers than European farmers, due to high transport costs (road/rail), handling, duties and even corruption.
In 2008, the price of phosphate rock spiked 800%. This led to farmer riots and suicides from India to Haiti.
While demand continues to increase, the cost of mining phosphate rock is increasing due to transport in addition to a decline in quality and greater expense of extraction, refinement and environmental management.
Non-food demand for phosphorus has also increased: the demand for first generation biofuel crops over the past decade increased global demand – and hence price – of phosphate rock.
7. No one is monitoring phosphorus: whose responsibility is it?
There are currently no international or national policies, guidelines or organisations responsible for ensuring long-term availability and accessibility of phosphorus for food production.
Despite being one of the world’s most critical resources, there are no international organisations like the UN taking responsibility for phosphorus security in the long term. There is no independent, comprehensive and transparent data on the world’s remaining phosphate rock and trade. The US Geological Survey collates data provided directly by companies and countries as a public service, with no way of verifying the source, assumptions and authenticity of the data.
The management of phosphorus is fragmented between many different sectors – from the mining and fertilizer sector where phosphorus is a globally-traded commodity, through to the sanitation sector where phosphorus is a pollutant, wastewater indicator and in some cases a resource to be recovered.
Whose responsibility is long-term governance of phosphorus for food security? the fertilizer industry? Investors? National governments? the UN? Agri-food companies? Food consumers? Sanitation providers?
Cordell, D. & White, S (2014), Life’s bottleneck: sustaining the world’s phosphorus for a food secure future, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 39:161-188.
Cordell, D. & White, S. Phosphorus security: global non-governance of a critical resource for food security, Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Politics and Governance, (Eds) Pattberg, P & Fariborz Zelli, F. 2015. In press.
February 17, 2016 by Charly Faradji, University Of Bristol, And Marissa De Boer, Vu University Amsterdam, The Conversation
You know that greenhouse gases are changing the climate. You probably know drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce, and that we’re living through a mass extinction.
But when did you last worry about phosphorus?
It’s not as well-known as the other issues, but phosphorus depletion is no less significant. After all, we could live without cars or unusual species, but if phosphorus ran out we’d have to live without food.
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all forms of life. It is a key element in our DNA and all living organisms require daily phosphorus intake to produce energy. It cannot be replaced and there is no synthetic substitute: without phosphorus, there is no life.
Our dependence began in the mid-19th century, after farmers noticed spreading phosphorus-rich guano (bird excrement) on their fields led to impressive improvements in crop yields. Soon after, mines opened up in the US and China to extract phosphate ore – rocks which contain the useful mineral. This triggered the current use of mineral fertilisers and, without this industrial breakthrough, humanity could only produce half the food that it does today.
Fertiliser use has quadrupled over the past half century and will continue rising as the population expands. The growing wealth of developing countries allows people to afford more meat which has a “phosphorus footprint” 50 times higher than most vegetables. This, together with the increasing usage of biofuels, is estimated to double the demand for phosphorus fertilisers by 2050.
Today phosphorus is also used in pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, catalysts for chemical industries, building materials, cleaners, detergents and food preservatives.
Phosphorus is not a renewable resource
Reserves are limited and not equally spread over the planet. The only large mines are located in Morocco, Russia, China and the US. Depending on which scientists you ask, the world’s phosphate rock reserves will last for another 35 to 400 years – though the more optimistic assessments rely on the discovery of new deposits.
It’s a big concern for the EU and other countries without their own reserves, and phosphorus depletion could lead to geopolitical tensions. Back in 2008, when fertiliser prices sharply increased by 600% and directly influenced food prices, there were violent riots in 40 different developing countries.
Phosphorus also harms the environment. Excessive fertiliser use means it leaches from agricultural lands into rivers and eventually the sea, leading to so-called dead zones where most fish can’t survive. Uninhibited algae growth caused by high levels of phosphorus in water has already created more than 400 coastal death zones worldwide. Related human poisoning costs US$2.2 billion dollars annually in the US alone.
With the increasing demand for phosphorus leading to massive social and environmental issues, it’s time we looked towards more sustainable and responsible use.
There is still hope
In the past, the phosphorus cycle was closed: crops were eaten by humans and livestock while their faeces were used as natural fertilisers to grow crops again.
These days, the cycle is broken. Each year 220m tonnes of phosphate rocks are mined, but only a negligible amount makes it back into the soil. Crops are transported to cities and the waste is not returned to the fields but to the sewage system, which mainly ends up in the sea. A cycle has become a linear process.
We could reinvent a modern phosphorus cycle simply by dramatically reducing our consumption. After all, less than a third of the phosphorus in fertilisers is actually taken up by plants; the rest accumulates in the soil or is washed away. To take one example, in the Netherlands there is enough phosphorus in the soil today to supply the country with fertiliser for the next 40 years.
Food wastage is also directly linked to phosphorus overuse. In the most developed countries, 60% of discarded food is edible. We could also make agriculture smarter, optimising the amount of phosphorus used by specially selecting low-fertiliser crops or by giving chickens and pigs a special enzyme that helps them digest phosphorus more efficiently and therefore avoid extensive use of phosphorus-heavy growth supplements.
It takes vast amounts of energy to transform phosphate ore into “elemental phosphorus”, the more reactive and pure form used in other, non-agricultural sectors. Inventing a quicker route from raw rocks to industrially-useful compounds is one of the big challenges facing the future generation. The EU, which only has minimal reserves, is investing in research aimed at saving energy – and phosphorus.
We could also close the phosphorus cycle by recycling it. Sewage, for instance, contains phosphorus yet it is considered waste and is mainly incinerated or released into the sea. The technology to extract this phosphorus and reuse it as fertiliser does exist, but it’s still at an early stage of development.
When considering acute future challenges, people do not often think about phosphorus. However, securing enough food for the world’s population is at least as important as the development of renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases. To guarantee long-term food security, changes in the way we use phosphorus today are vital.
A good way to scare yourself is by googling “phosphorus shortage.” Agriculture requires lots of phosphorus for fertilizer, and after it’s spread on crops, most of it gets washed into the ocean, where it is irrecoverable. Without phosphorus, food production will plummet, unless people come up with new ways to grow food.
From the Global And Chinese Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, 2018 Market Research Report:
In 2007, at the current rate of consumption, the supply of phosphorus was estimated to run out in 345 years. However, some scientists thought that a “peak phosphorus” will occur in 30 years and Dana Cordell from Institute for Sustainable Futures said that at “current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years.”
From The Conversation:
Fertiliser use has quadrupled over the past half century and will continue rising as the population expands. The growing wealth of developing countries allows people to afford more meat which has a “phosphorus footprint” 50 times higher than most vegetables. This, together with the increasing usage of biofuels, is estimated to double the demand for phosphorus fertilisers by 2050.
Today phosphorus is also used in pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, catalysts for chemical industries, building materials, cleaners, detergents and food preservatives.
From Critical Shots:
The greatest natural reserves of unmined phosphorus exist in [Morocco]…
According to the USGS, 42% of all phosphorus imported by the United States between 2012-2015 came from Morocco. China beats them out by a tremendous margin in production, but based on the most recent data Morocco and Western Sahara combined are sitting on 50,000,000,000 metric tons of reserves.
GRANTHAM: We’re on a finite planet with finite reserves of phosphorus. And we are mining it and running through the supply. That should make the hair on the back of everybody’s neck bristle.
SMITH: There are widely ranging estimates for just how close we are to the phosphorus cliff. Maybe we’ve got 30 years. Maybe we have 300 years. It’s hard to estimate. This is Jeremy’s take.
GRANTHAM: Whether it’s 42 years, 62 years or 82 years doesn’t really matter. We have to change our way of growing food.
DUFFIN: We’ve known for a while that phosphorus was limited. But the price was cheap, and the problem just seemed so distant, so people were kind of like, meh, we’ll deal with that problem later.
SMITH: Then 2008 happened – the financial crisis. And along with many commodities, phosphate prices spiked, which – because of its use as a fertilizer – made food prices skyrocket. And now everybody’s talking about phosphorus.
NARRATOR: Across the developing world in 2008, hungry people rioted as food supplies ran low and the price of phosphate rock spiked by 800 percent.
GRANTHAM: I would argue that that was a shot across the bows. That was the first warning to planet Earth that we are beginning to run out.
China is a very inefficient consumer of fertilizer: a recent China Agriculture University study found that northern Chinese farmers use about 525 pounds of fertilizer per acre, of which 200 pounds is wasted into the environment. This is six times more fertilizer and 23 times more waste than the average American farmer in the midwest uses and produces (Shwartz, 2009). These phenomena of growth and overuse, coinciding with peak production, will drive prices drastically higher and force a number of changes in the world’s food production and consumption. The potential for catastrophic food shortages and global famine looms without significant systemic changes.
Date: March 17, 2010
Summary: Phosphorus is just as important to agriculture as water. But a lack of availability and accessibility of phosphorus is an emerging problem that threatens our capacity to feed the global population. Like nitrogen and potassium, it is a nutrient that plants take up from the soil and it is crucial to soil fertility and crop growth.
Phosphorus is just as important to agriculture as water. But a lack of availability and accessibility of phosphorus is an emerging problem that threatens our capacity to feed the global population. Like nitrogen and potassium, it is a nutrient that plants take up from the soil and it is crucial to soil fertility and crop growth.
“Unless something is done, the scarcity of phosphorus will cause problems of a global dimension. As early as 2035 it is calculated that the demand for phosphorus map outpace the supply,” says Dana Cordell, who presented her thesis at the Department of Thematic Studies — Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, Sweden on the implications of phosphorus scarcity on global food security.
Phosphorus is extracted from phosphate rock, a non-renewable resource that is used almost exclusively in agriculture. Two thirds of the world’s resources are in China, Morocco, and Western Sahara.
“The demand for phosphorus has increased and prices soared by 800 percent between 2006 and 2008,” says Dana Cordell.
Cordell maintains that the shortage of phosphorus in not simply due to a drop in the availability of phosphate ore. Many of the world’s farmers do not have enough purchasing power to be able to afford and use phosphorus-based fertilizer, which means their soil is becoming depleted. What’s more, phosphorus use in the food system from mine to field to fork is currently so inefficient that only one fifth of the phosphorus in the rock that is mined actually makes its way into our food.
“There is a lack of effective international governance to secure long-term access to phosphorus for food production,” says Dana Cordell, who adds that the way phosphorus resources are handled needs to be improved.
Phosphorus needs to be applied and management in agriculture more efficiently, we need to eat more vegetarian food, and increase efficiency throughout the food chain. At the same time we need to recover and reuse a large part of the phosphorus that exists in crop residues, food waste, manures human faeces and other sources.
“If nothing is done, food production runs the risk of a hard landing in the future, including further fertilizer price increases, increasing environmental effects of pollution, energy and resource consumption, smaller harvests, reduced farmer livelihoods and reduced food security,” says Dana Cordell.
Eliminating depletion and environmental damage with efficient phosphorus use and reuse.
Earth’s phosphorus is being depleted at an alarming rate. At current consumption levels, we will run out of known phosphorus reserves in around 80 years, but consumption will not stay at current levels. Nearly 90% of phosphorus is used in the global food supply chain, most of it in crop fertilizers. If no action is taken to quell fertilizer use, demand is likely to increase exponentially.
(Prud’Homme, 2010, from Schroder et. al., 2010)
A simple program of smart demand reduction and increased organic waste recycling, supplemented with mining exploration in probable deposit areas, can delay, if not completely avoid, a peak in phosphorus production for several decades. However, it is imperative to take action now. There was a time when humans operated totally self-sufficient farms, tilling the same land for years by managing waste effectively, by simply making sure that everything that came out of the land eventually went back into it. In such a closed-loop scenario, phosphate would have the capacity to be reused approximately 46 times as food, fuel, fertilizer, and food again . In the fertilizing techniques that dominate today, which involve the annual application of phosphate-enriched chemical mixtures on top of nutrient-starved soil, phosphorus is used exactly once, then swept out to sea. This practice is simply unsustainable. Our ancestors learned the importance of conserving nutrients through necessity: if they could not make the soil yield, they would starve; there were no second chances. The world has a chance, now, to learn this lesson again, before it’s too late.
The United States is unique in that it is both a wealthy, industrialized nation at the forefront of technology, and an agricultural powerhouse with the third-largest population in the world. In the 1970s and early 1980s, during the early years of the Green Revolution, the US’s production of food commodities shot up, as did their use of artificial nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizers. The USSR followed a similar agricultural path, and as a result, worldwide phosphorus production grew from about 8 Mt/y in 1960 to over 20 Mt/y at its peak in the mid-1980s. Following this milestone, the world actually entered a period of reduced production and use that lasted until just a few years ago. While some have speculated that peak phosphorus production has already been reached, it seems more likely that the relatively short dip in production was merely the a coincidence of reduced use in the wake of the USSR’s collapse and more efficient practices being adopted by US farmers, while the rest of the world’s food production was still catching up.
The world has caught up. In the past 30 years, the US has gone from the world’s top phosphate consumer to the third largest, and now exports more phosphorus than it consumes (World Bank, 2012). Most of the new phosphorus use has been in India and China, which, together, now account for over 45% of the world’s total consumption . However, the United States’ total food production has not faltered at all in that time; in fact, it has improved significantly . This is due to more efficient farming practices and greater utilization of organic waste, as well as increased awareness of the problem among today’s farmers. The same shift towards efficiency and moderation has occurred among farmers in the EU as well, and it may be extrapolated that this is the natural progression followed by agricultural countries as they mature past rapid expansion to more stable, sustainable production levels. The biggest challenge, then, is not cutting back on phosphorus use in developed countries, but reigning in the growth of demand in rapidly developing ones.
Mission 2016 proposes a 3-part plan to cut back on global phosphorus consumption, especially in areas with growing demand, increase efforts to recycle phosphorus in human and animal waste, and assess new potential mining zones.
1. Reduce demand through smarter fertilizer use
It is the opinion of Mission 2016 that the single largest problem with phosphorus fertilizer use is overuse. The amount of phosphorous actually required to maintain a farm is highly variable, and depends on factors such as soil conditions, crop type, crop history, geography, and weather patterns. This makes it very difficult for farmers, especially those operating small, independent operations in developing countries, to accurately assess their fertilizer needs, and leads to superfluous application. Excess fertilizer is not only wasteful, it runs off into lakes, rivers, and oceans, where it causes massive, unnatural algae blooms. These photosynthetic microbe colonies cover huge areas of water, then die off, leaving behind sediment that blocks sunlight and destroys the aquatic ecosystems beneath them.
Experienced farmers can learn the most efficient amounts of fertilizer to use through years of experience, which is part of the reason agriculturally mature nations have better fertilizer-to-yield ratios than developing nations. In addition, scientific, quantitative data analysis can be applied to farmland to determine the proper amount of fertilizer to use in a given situation. The Wisconsin phosphorus index is an example of a tool, developed jointly by the government and the University of Wisconsin and optimized for a specific region. It includes SnapPlus, a free software that allows farmers to estimate their optimal fertilization plan from home .
This program will be used as a model for a worldwide campaign, focusing on the fastest-developing, highest consuming nations. For this purpose, a United Nations (UN) task force will be established within the Food and Agriculture Organization, within the Economic and Social Development Department, comprised of approximately 200 agents with agricultural and educational experience with a budget of $30 million per year. The average UN salary is approximately $119,000 per year , and an additional 6 million USD/a will be allocated for transportation, supplies, and expenses. The task force will develop a template, similar to the one developed by the University of Wisconsin, which can be adapted to specific regions around the globe. It will work closely with state and regional governments and agricultural institutions to provide accessible information for all local farmers, even those who do not own or have access to a computer. The force should emphasize the economic, environmental, and long-term benefits of sustainable phosphorus use to its clients. While it will not work directly with farmers, it will aim to instill the ideas of conservation and sustainability into the local bodies responsible for the agricultural health of their communities.
A recent China Agriculture University study found that northern Chinese farmers use about 92 kg of phosphorus fertilizer per acre, of which only 39 kg are removed as crops. This means 53 kg, fully 58% of phosphorus, is not utilized and ultimately lost into the environment (21). As China is the largest phosphorus consumer in the world, with 5.2 Mt consumed in 2009 alone , reducing the country’s phosphorus waste by even half would save the world over 1.5 Mt of phosphorus (3.45 Mt phosphate) per year.
2. Stretch current supplies further through recycling
The primary means by which phosphorus is reintroduced to the environment post-consumption is animal waste. Though manure is still used extensively around the world as fertilizer, human waste that was once returned directly to the soil is now collected in municipal waste facilities and often released to the ocean. Although most of the recoverable nutrients are currently lost, centralized municipal collection facilities offer a means to recycle large quantities of phosphorus with relatively little effort.
Struvite, or magnesium ammonium phosphate, is a hard, clear crystal that occurs naturally when ammonium-producing bacteria break down the urea in urine. It’s the substance that causes kidney stones, and for centuries, it has been the bane of sewage system operators the world over, forming hard, rock-like crystal deposits on the inside of pipes that can build up and block off flow. However, struvite is a benign, non-toxic substance, and it can be used as a rich, slow-release phosphate fertilizer. In fact, struvite outperforms diammonium phosphate (DAP), the most widely-used fertilizer today (15), on a unit-for-unit basis in terms of dry matter production, phosphorus uptake, and extractable residual phosphorus (14). Although struvite is preferable to DAP in most circumstances, in the past, it has only been used for high-value crops due to its higher cost (14).
In the past decade, phosphorus recovery has been the subject of intense research, and there are several new, economical methods by which it can be accomplished, many involving struvite formation. One technique, developed by University of British Columbia professor Don Mavinic, involves a cone-shaped reaction chamber in which small struvite crystals combine with magnesium, ammonium, and the phosphorus in wastewater on its way to a biosolids processor (X). The crystals grow until they are large enough to be collected by a filter and removed. These systems prevent struvite buildup in pipes, prevent phosphorus pollution in water basins, and provide valuable, usable phosphorus fertilizers. A company, Osatra Nutrient Recovery Technologies, Inc., was founded around the technology, and the struvite fertilizer the process creates is marketed as Crystal Green® (X). Another technology involves using charged, molecular “templates” to induce the formation of large crystals in liquid manure (X). Struvite-based methods can recover upwards of 90% of wastewater phosphorus (X,Y). Biological capture is a promising area of research as well, and involves cultivating phosphorus-hungry algae in the phosphate-rich side streams of waste treatment facilities, yielding 60-65% recovery rates (X). A third possible recovery method is through thermochemical treatments, which burn waste sludges to ash and then convert the contained phosphorus to bioavailable forms free from toxic heavy metal loads; this method can feasibly reach 100% recovery (20, X).
As is the case with improving fertilizer efficiency, the European Union, Canada, and the US have led the world in phosphorus recovery. By 2007, 53% of sewage sludges in the EU were already reused in agriculture , and in 2009, Sweden passed legislation to have at least 60% of its total phosphorus streams from wastewater diverted for agricultural use by 2015 (18, X). By 2009, Osatra struvite systems had been installed in Edmonton, Alberta; Portland, Oregon; and York, Pennsylvania, and the company had plans to expand to the UK and the Netherlands. The progress made by these countries is significant, but the greater problems, and potential gains, lie with China, India, and other fast-developing areas. If these areas begin implementing significant amounts of high-quality, renewable phosphate fertilizer into their supply chain early during their agricultural maturation, their demands for imports will not rise nearly as dramatically as they could.
To this end, Mission 2016 will establish a domain of the Open Information Exchange to deal specifically with phosphorus recycling techniques. As established above, there is a plethora of scientific research being done on the subject, although most of it is taking place in Europe. Working in conjunction with the governments and relevant research bodies of the world’s fastest-growing phosphorus consumers, the task force will promote the development of economical, efficient applications of new and cutting-edge recycling technologies that are tailored to specific regions. Its goal will be to reduce their waste and increase their recycling, and it will emphasize the economic potential of such systems: one analysis by the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) estimated the potential of phosphorus wastewater recovery in East Asia at more than 625 million USD annually (22). In addition, the Strategic Minerals Association (SMA) of the UN, described in the Protocol section of our solution, will work to draft a treaty between the top phosphorus consumers in the world, currently China, India, the United States, the European Union, and Brazil, to set a target of 50% total phosphorus recovery from wastewater by 2025. The SMA will also provide investment capital in the form of loans to municipal waste processing companies looking to install phosphorus-recycling technology.
However, the most critical applications of waste recycling will be in places that lack access to conventional sources of phosphate fertilizers. Many farmers in sub-saharan Africa simply can’t afford artificial fertilizers, if they can even find them; yet the same SEI study estimated the value of recoverable fertilizers from waste in the region at 800 million USD (22). According to a 2009 study by renowned soil scientist Pedro Sanchez, the average Kenyan farmer uses just 8 kg of phosphorus and 7 kg of nitrogen per hectare, far less than the 14 kg P and 93 kg N used in the US and the staggering 92 kg P and 588 kg N used in China. This is not efficient use, it is insufficient use, and it causes food shortages and starvation. Magnesium waste scrubbing (struvite-forming) technologies would appear to be an easy solution in these cases, too, but kind of infrastructural investment that the technology represents requires a level of maintenance that impoverished areas simply can’t support. Without proper upkeep, the struvite filters can become clogged and dirty, breeding malignant bacteria and doing more harm than good (X).
For poor, underdeveloped communities, better waste-recovery solutions are often low-tech, small-scale affairs. SEI has explored simple, outhouse-style toilets, able to be constructed locally and maintained with minimal skill or effort. The temporary installations will collect waste for a number of years, then transition to compost pits suitable for planting trees. Some variants include a method for collecting and storing urine, which may be used as a fertilizer for greens, onions, maize, and many other crops. The Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG) has been applying a similar minimalist approach in Nepal, where a simplified struvite extraction reactor of their own development turns urine into a usable, dry powder fertilizer. As of 2010, the process was not totally refined, but it had been met with tremendous local support.
The UN, through the World Food Program (WFP), will fund efforts to implement these technologies in sub-saharan Africa and elsewhere, beginning on a small scale. In 2010, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation pledged 3 million USD in a grant to the EAWAG towards a test sewage-recovery program for sub-saharan African communities (23). The WFP will match that amount to start, to conduct a similar, 4-year pilot program. At the conclusion of the program, or in the middle should it prove extraordinarily successful, the WFP will convene to discuss the results and determine the long-term viability of the technology. It will allocate additional funds for a permanent organ of the WFP dedicated to fertilizer recovery from waste. Hopefully, once the concepts are proven, private charities will appropriate a significant portion of the cost, as they have in the past.
3. Explore new mining areas to determine actual total reserves
According to some peak phosphorus alarmists, the world is running out of viable reserves in the very near future (EU paper). Their estimates often use United States Geological Survey (USGS) data on total world reserves, but each year, USGS estimates change, usually to expand reserves, and sometimes dramatically. The largest discoveries as of late are in Morocco or the Western Sahara, and there is as of yet no definitive world total of high-grade phosphate deposits. By determining the actual amount of phosphorus available, more accurate plans can be made for a sustainable future. Currently, there is far too much uncertainty about how much recoverable phosphate the earth has left.
The USGS has extensive geological resources at their disposal, and they have mapped out the mineral profiles of foreign countries several times in the past. Mission 2016 advises that the World Trade Organization (WTO) facilitate treaties between the US and other countries in which the USGS works with other governments to map geological profiles worldwide, creating a database of areas with potentially tappable mineral reserves. Following this initial study, increasing supply becomes a free market solution, as corporations use this information, conduct follow-up studies, and open new mines. This will be a beneficial situation for all parties involved, and in the end will be good for the world.
“You have to understand something about the United Kingdom at this moment in history… it is not the place for great scientific innovation and big ideas! Long gone are the days of Newton. In fact some of us are comparing it to the beginnings of Nazi Germany (this whole mass surveillance, gang stalking thing is unprecedented in history, and no-ones really saying anything about it)… and with Brexit and the possible effects on the countries scientific activities… most of the UK’s best scientists and theoreticians may be best getting out now.” What would a Brexit mean for the scientific community?
“Anyway… we where talking about California and Silicone Valley! Silicone Valley has for the past thirty years been the centre for this kind of innovative thinking and world changing ideas… Randell Mills is the greatest scientific mind of our age, he has created a future multi-trillion dollar industry, an unlimited number of future industries… it will effect EVERYTHING from energy, to medicine, to computers, to chemical compounds, to transport and aviation… the space industry! WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS ONE CALIFORNIA?
… I’m coming to Silicone Valley in 2019! … and Virginia!” (I may have to speak to some people at the US Embassy, because last time I tried boarding a flight to California… there where some slight problems)
Dr. Mills presentation at Fresno State on February 27, 2017.
Brilliant Light Power presented its Roadshow series event at ABM Industries Irvine, California location on February 28th, 2017. In addition, the Company addressed the updated commercial strategy that was expanded to subsidiaries, the latest timeline, and terms for the availability of access to its latest commercial designs and developments.
I CONTENTS II
II LIST OF FIGURES IV
III TABLES V
IV SYMBOLS VI
V ABBREVIATIONS VII
1 MOTIVATION 1
1.1 WHY TO PUT EFFORT INTO EVALUATING GUTCP AND NOT ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF INTERESTING THEORIES OUT THERE? 3
1.2 GOALS 6
2 SOFTWARE 6
2.1 SOFTWARE TO VIEW THE SCRIPT FILES 7
2.2 SOFTWARE TO USE AND EDIT THE SCRIPT FILES 7
2.3 CREATING A NEW SCRIPT FILE 8
3 EVALUATION RESULTS 9
3.1 EPI´S CONTRIBUTION 9
3.1.1 HYDROXYL MOLECULE 9
3.1.2 WATER MOLECULE 10
3.1.3 IONIZATION ENERGIES OF ONE AND FOUR ELECTRON ATOMS AND IONS 11
3.1.4 IONIZATION ENERGIES OF ALL ATOMS AND IONS UP TO 20 ELECTRONS (WORK IN PROGRESS) 12
3.1.5 EPI´S OVERALL RESULT 12
3.1.6 SOME THOUGHTS ON SOLVING NONLINEAR EQUATIONS IN GUTCP CONTEXT 13
3.2 YOUR CONTRIBUTION 14
3.2.1 PERHAPS THE METHANE MOLECULE (P.524 FF.)… 14
3.2.2 …OR THE GENERIC EQUATIONS FOR ALL ORGANIC MOLECULES (P. 679 FF.)… 14
3.2.3 …OR THE MATHEMATICAL DERIVATION OF THE SOLUTION OF THE 2D WAVE EQUATION UNDER THE CONSTRAINT OF THE NONRADIATION CONDITION (HARDCORE STYLE FOR PHYSICISTS) 14
3.2.4 … 14
4 LITERATURE AND LINKS I
II List of figures
FIGURE 1: BOND ENERGIES OF 415 MOLECULES: GUTCP VS. QM 1
FIGURE 2: OCTAVE GUI OVERVIEW 8
ES KONNTEN KEINE EINTRÄGE FÜR EIN ABBILDUNGSVERZEICHNIS GEFUNDEN WERDEN.
Z Number of protons in the nucleus
GUTCP Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics
BLP Brilliant Light Power (Mills company)
NIST National Institute for Standarnds and Technology
QM Quantum Mechanics
I am interested in new energy technologies and search the web for these kinds of news on a quite regular basis. The article I read about a year ago was quite interesting and so I checked the website of a company called brilliantlightpower (BLP). That is how I stumbled over BLP and its founder Dr. Randell Mills. The material on the website was pretty impressive. Especially Dr. Mills book, the grand unified theory of classical physics (GUTCP), looked pretty awesome: 1900 pages of equations and topics ranging from atomic physics over molecular physics to superconductivity and the origin of gravity. The only problem was that I did not understand a single word and could not get what it was all about. Additionally the internet is full of fancy theories and most of them are complete nonsense. So I decided to check BLP from time to time and see if there are any new developments but didn´t take a closer look. In the course of 2016 BLP released new information on their demonstration days but all they could show was a colourful lightshow. Dr. Mills gave a lot of evidence for his theory in the presentations but I am not familiar with spectroscopy and so I did not get the point. More or less the only thing I understood was that graph:
I found this pretty impressive and thought that someone on this planet must have tried to debunk Mills theory as fraud just by showing that Mills faked this graph. If Mills really achieved the accuracy shown in this graph this would be an overwhelming indication for the correctness of his theory. So I searched the web but did not find a single evaluation of these claims. There were some forum threads with the content quality of “Mills is a crackpot, LoL”. So this was a dead end.
In the beginning of September 2016 I read that a former student assistant at BLP called Brett Holverstott released a book about Mills and his theory. I saw my chance to finally understand what Mills is all about and read it. It is an awesome book that not only covers the history of GUTCP and BLP but also gives insight into the philosophical and human aspects of science. The most important point of this book for me was the core idea of Mills theory. And it wasn´t even (purely) Mills own work. It was the work of a Professor called Herman Haus Mills met when he was at MIT. It is basically about the question if it is possible to accelerate a charge in a way that it does not radiate energy (if you don´t know what I am talking about read the Wikipedia articles on Bremsstrahlung and the nonradiation condition). Prof. Haus showed that this is possible and Mills took this nonradiation condition and applied it to electrons circling around the nucleus. From this starting point he derived step by step the structure of atoms, molecules, subatomic particles and more or less all known physics. And everything was derived just on the foundation of Newton, Maxwell, special relativity and conservation of energy and spacetime. What impressed me the most was that all these equations were so straight forward that one human being was capable of deriving them (in the timespan of 25 years).
But all the simplicity, beauty and “straight forwardness” of a theory is worthless, if it does not describe reality correctly. On the one hand we have 1900 pages of equations from a single guy who claims that he has surpassed the physics of the last 70 years and on the other hand we have…hmm. What do we have on the other hand? There are some people with a certain reputation on Wikipedia that say that GUTCP is fraud. But these are just pure statements and I did not find a single argument of them that stood longer in the room than one minute.
I was so fascinated by the underlying idea of Mills theory and the possible implications for all mankind that I decided to prove or disprove it on my own. I tried for a few days to understand the underlying math but I failed hard. Then I tried to find somebody skilled in the art to do the math for me but that also failed. Finally I had the idea to apply the salami tactic: if a problem is too big to solve it as a whole cut it in slices. The most promising starting point for me to cut this really huge salami into pieces was the GUTCP volume about the atoms and molecules. The equations did not look that evil and there is an undisputable experimental database as an independent “ground truth”. There are very complex molecules out there and if Mills theory has flaws it would never ever be possible to calculate the structure of these complex molecules correctly. So this little open science effort is all about using Mills equations to compute a growing number of molecules with a growing complexity until it is obvious if Mills theory is able to describe their structure correctly or not. It is about producing solid evidence/data and not just endless blah blah on internet forums.
I invite everyone who is curious, capable of using equations and a calculator and who has some spare time left to join me and contribute. Contribute a calculation script and write a few words about the results in this document so that the discussion about Mills shifts from pointless opinions to solid facts. Upload your results as a response to this forum thread.
1.1 Why to put effort into evaluating GUTCP and not one of the hundreds of interesting theories out there?
I cannot give my opinion on this question in a few short sentences so I am going to use many long ones:
In the early 20th century physicists had a hard time to figure out an atomic model where the positive charge of the nucleus is in the centre with the electron somewhere around it (that is what they found out through experiments). But the basic and really hard questions were: where and what is the electron? If it would stand still it would fall into the massive nucleus. If it would orbit the nucleus it would have been under constant acceleration and would therefor lose energy in form of radiation and then fall into the nucleus. The physicists of that time could not make proper sense out of it and so they took the pragmatic way: they took the observations of the experiments and postulated the properties that fit their models. First Bohr postulated that electrons can just fly around the nucleus on special orbits and electrons on these special orbits don´t radiate. Ten years later Schrödinger postulated that the electron obeys a special wave equation. Don´t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with postulating physical properties. There are many postulates in physics that we just have to take as given by the gods (Newton, Maxwell,…), but we have to judge them carefully by two and a half measures:
1) How well does my equation/postulate describe the experiments conducted so far? If it explains them all proceed with 2.
2) How good is the predictive power of my model? What new aspects of our physical reality does my model predict and how do I have to perform new experiments to validate my model? If my models makes some fancy predictions and the validation experiments are positive proceed with 2.5 (Microsoft Word says that 2.5 is 3).
3) Occam´s razor: if there are two models which perform equally well on points 1) and 2) then take the simplest model with the least variables and assumptions.
And with these two and a half measures things start to get interesting. Now in the backwards view quantum theory is a pretty successful theory. It could explain many phenomena and made some accurate predictions and so points (1) and (2) are well covered. But if a different theory could be found which performs equally well on points (1) and (2) quantum theory would have a really hard time. And that is because of occam´s razor. Many physicists worked tens of years to get rid of the most obvious flaws in QM: They struggled with the interpretation of their equations. They struggled to calculate the simplest parameters of atoms and molecules. They struggled to get rid of the infinitys in their equations. And even today it is a pain in the ass to calculate molecules with the Hartree-Fock algorithm. QM is complicated, it contradicts our physical perception of the world, it is incompatible with special relativity and so on (see GUTCP p. 5 ff. for a few more details). If occam´s razor had another alternative it would cut QM into pieces immediately.
But how could a new theory stand against 70 years of research and experiments? If you would evaluate a new theory in the order (1), (2), (3) there will be no new (and perhaps better) theories in the future of mankind, because a (typically) small group of people would have to go through all major experiments and derive every equation from their new idea. This small group would need to do a great fraction of the work thousands of physicists did over a span of 70 years. That is definitely not possible. That is why I am suggesting a different approach to evaluate a new theory. I call it “justified trust increase” . It is an iterative process and I hope this evaluation of Mills theory is going see many iterations.
1) Judge a new theory by occam´s razor. If it is simpler, uses less postulates and “feels” better take a closer look. (“Justification” step)
2) Take a small subset of the new theory and validate it against experiments.
3) Check if your first impression and the claims of the “inventors” hold while evaluating the small subset of the theory.
4) Proceed iteratively with steps 2 and 3 and build up trust into the new theory. (“Trust Increase” step)
5) If your trust reaches a certain level try to find other interested people to join the “trust increase” process of steps 2) and 3)
6) If your trust and that of the other interested people reaches a new level try to convince people with specific domain knowledge and reputation to look deeper into that theory they won´t stop immediately because you are able to counter most of the objections with arguments and experimental proof.
7) Hope that a critical mass builds up to spread out the knowledge into the scientific community.
I got a bit off-topic on the last page so I try to pull us back on the right track. You should take a closer look into GUTCP because:
• Judging GUTCP and QM with occam´s razor gives a great victory for GUTCP. It is a theory which builds upon the well-known laws of electrodynamics, special relativity and conservation of energy. The only additional postulate is the conservation of space time when GUTCP explains what mass is.
• The electron in GUTCP is a real particle with a physical extend. In contrast to the point assumption of QM it has no infinite charge densities etc.
• It is compatible with special relativity.
There are many other points why GUTCP is superior to QM and a list is given in GUTCP p.5 ff. Of course we cannot judge the descriptive (1) and predictive (2) power of GUTCP right now because there are only few evaluations of GUTCP out there. I tried to find the arguments of the critics mentioned on the BLP Wikipedia site. They are more or less non-existent and can be counter argued in a few sentences. Nobody of the nobel laureate critics took a deeper look. The arguments are basically everywhere of the same quality: ”What? Your theory predicts electron orbits below the ground state? Are you nuts?” And that´s it. If anybody knows a real critical evaluation of Mills work please let me know and give a link somewhere here in the document.
If Mills theory is correct the reward for mankind is great:
• Cheap and distributed energy through hydrino power
• The ability to solve the structure of all molecules exactly this is huge for the development of medicine or material science (perhaps one day Mills theory speeds up the search for medicine that cures your cancer – and yes, I really think that this is an valid argument)
• Explanation what mass is
• Opening space for mankind through anti-gravity (fifth force) – ok I admit that this is speculative because Mills just performed one experiment so far
Summing it all up, putting effort into this evaluation is worth the trouble. Not just because of the hypothetical “great for whole mankind” propaganda but also because it is great fun. If Mills is successful with his suncell all our work will get surpassed by thousands of physicists within two weeks. But if he screws up again to bring a product to market our effort could be relevant.
The goal of this effort is to get the task of evaluating Mills theory to a different level. A level where everyone (my mother excluded) can understand the results and, even better, create the results. The “normal” scientific evaluation process would start with solving the 2D wave equation under the constraint of the nonradiation condition just as Mills started his journey. But how many people on this beautiful planet can do that? In that case we would have to rely on the experts. But experts are humans and the best example is Andreas Rathke, known for his “proof” that GUTCP is wrong (see Wikipedia). What Wikipedia does not say is that Rathke erroneously used the 3D wave equation and even with this he made a sign error. He explained in an online forum, that he just wrote this paper to prevent ESA to put time and money into the evaluation of Mills. And that are the experts we rely on.
We are lucky that Mills put 25 years of work into this so we can use the more user friendly equations to see if his theory gives valid results.
The goals in condensed form:
• Get the evaluation task to a level where everyone can contribute, understand and interpret the results
• Increasing the number of evaluated molecules, atoms and equations to increase trust into GUTCP, or to show that it is wrong
• Implement the generic equations for all organic molecules (GUTCP p.679 ff.)
The last point is a huge one. If we could accomplish this, the question if GUTCP is far superior to QM regarding the structure of atoms and molecules is definitely answered.
There already is software for calculating molecules with Mills equations on the website of Mills [MIS] in the form of excel spreadsheets and the Millisan software package. The excel spreadsheets have the drawbacks that you cannot read the equations properly, you don´t know where the used equations come from and there are many “magical” numbers in them. The Millisan software seems to be quite powerful, but we cannot look into it to see if there are any cheats and so it is useless for our evaluation purposes.
So the goal is to use a software environment that is usable by people who don´t (or barely) know how to program and that is free of charge. It also has to allow us to follow every calculation line by line and give room for comments. Octave (or the pricy matlab) is great for that purpose. Octave takes the script line by line and interprets/calculates it just like you would do, if you would type in the equations by hand.
2.1 Software to view the script files
If you just want to read the script files with all the equations and comments without having the ability to run the scripts I recommend using the free editor notepad++ [NOTE++]. The script files have the file ending *.m (m for matlab). If you open them with notepad++ the content gets coloured according to the language rules so that you can better distinguish between comments and calculations. It is way better to read the skripts with notepad++ than with a simple text editor.
2.2 Software to use and edit the script files
To run the script files you need Octave or Matlab. Octave is for free and can be downloaded here [OCTA]. For simple calculations no toolboxes are required. If you need more functionality for your calculations (such as symbolic solvers for differentiating/integrating symbolically etc.) you can look through the toolboxes/packages page here.
Just install or unpack (depends on the version you download) Octave and you are good to go. For a tutorial on the first steps with Octave with GUI I point you to this youtube video. This should give you an idea of how to start it and use the scripts. Actually it is pretty easy: In the Octave GUI you have a GUI area called “filebrowser”. There you go to the file path of the script files (the *.m files) you unpacked to your hard drive (1). There you should see a file called “MAIN_Start_From_Here.m” (2). Doubleclick to open it in the “editor” part of the Octave GUI (3). There you can press “save and run” (4) and all calculations are processed and printed to the command window (5) which you reach by changing the tab from “Editor” to “Command Window”. To see all printed lines you have to press “f” (forward) several times, because Octave just prints as many lines as fit on one Command Window screen. I chose to just print my results to the Command Window, but you can also write it to a file (.csv,.txt) with the file i/o functionality of octave (eg. csvwrite()).
2.3 Creating a new script file
If you want to create your own script file you just have to click on (6) “new script” and save it with the desired name. Than you can start on your own or you copy some of the lines from my script files. The most useful things from my scripts are the physical constants and the code for solving nonlinear equations using the function fzero().
The other way of creating your own script file is to go to the windows explorer, copy and paste one of the script files, rename it, open it in the Octave editor and delete all unnecessary stuff. It is pretty straight forward.
To get most of the results regarding the molecules you don´t need many complex operations. Most equations are covered by basic mathematical operations (+,-,*,/,sqrt(),…). It is more or less as simple as using a calculator.
3 Evaluation results
The evaluation results are grouped by the names/nicknames of the people who contributed. Results can be all sorts of evaluations that aim to prove or disprove GUTCP or analyses of the work of other contributors. The “open science” nature of this evaluation effort asks for a critical and open mind regarding the results obtained here. We (at the moment I ) work for free and we are an anonymous bunch of interested people from the internet. So no guarantees are given. Check the results for yourself and report errors and bugs.
3.1 Epi´s contribution
I gave an introduction on my motivation in the first section so I just want to add a few minor things here. In my view the strongest argument for Mills theory is that he just needs fundamental physical constants and equations derived from first principles. So one of my primary goals is to create calculation scripts that only use fundamental physical constants. The problem with that is that Mills uses all kinds of real valued numbers he derived in an earlier chapter. So every time I encountered such a “magical” number I had to find the derivation and implement the equation for that value. There are still some integer values in the equations (factor of 2 or ¾ etc.) but that is totally normal when dealing with physical equations and they cannot be used to “fit” a function to a given value. I still have one real valued number for the vibrational energy of oxygen in my scripts because Mills does not give the exact equation in the “water” chapter. I found the generic equation but I am still not capable of using it, so I decided to use the value from NIST – hopefully I get rid of this value sometime in the future.
Another point I want to mention is that Mills always refers to books or papers when he compares his results with experimental values. I don´t have these books and I am not going to buy/borrow them. Instead, I try to find an online source. This is a practical solution but I don´t get an independent source for experimental values in all cases.
3.1.1 Hydroxyl molecule
The first question I had when I decided to evaluate Mills theory with respect to the structure of molecules was: “Where the fuck should I start?” Over 1000 pages of equations alone in the molecules section of Mills book and constant references to the preceding 200 pages were quite a chunk to chew on. I was lucky to find an evaluation [PAYN] of the hydroxyl molecule on Mills homepage. It is the work of a guy called Philip Payne who got paid by BLP for an “independent” analysis. So my first step became much simpler: take the same molecule as Payne did and try to repeat his results. That had the benefit not only to evaluate the equations for the hydroxyl molecule but also check one of the many “independent” reports on BLP´s website for validity. The first three evenings I spent on trying to solve a nonlinear equation and progress was non-existent (see 3.1.6). After I cracked that nut it became much easier but progress was still slow. That was because I had the goal to eliminate all “magical” numbers that are neither physical constants nor integers (or integer fractions).
The bottom line is, that I get the same (or nearly the same) results as Payne and Mills get:
• Ionization energy of oxygen: 13.606eV (0.00079% rel. error compared to Mills and 0.091% rel. error compared to experimental NIST value.
• Bond dissociation energy: 4.4248eV (0.3248% rel. error compared to Mills literature value (the value I found had a large standard deviation and I could not make sense of the way temperature comes into play))
3.1.2 Water molecule
I chose water as the second molecule I wanted to take a look at, because it is pretty similar to the hydroxyl molecule but has some different energetic properties because of the added H atom. My expectation was, if Mills theory is derived from first principals as he claims the equations used to calculate the water molecule must be similar to the hydroxyl equations. If Mills had to cheat to get faked values he must have altered the equations to a big extend or at least added some real valued factors. So the task was not only to compare the calculated values to experimental values from independent sources but also have a look if Mills uses the equations in a “consistent manner”.
What should I say? He passed both tests. Calculating the water molecule was completely analogous to the hydroxyl molecule. It was in fact that similar that I immediately had the thought of identifying the differences and derive a set of more general equations for a set of atoms and molecules so that one just have to give some values describing the structure of the molecule one wants to calculate and then just pass these values to the general equations. It was a few days later that I stumbled over p. 679ff. where Mills did just that. And he claims that these equations are valid for all organic molecules no matter how complex they are. I consider these generic equations as the “holy grail” of this evaluation effort but understanding and implementing these equations will take more time than I have at the moment. But what I can say is that the equations given for hydroxyl and water are (at least from the first and second impression) subsets of the generic equations.
• Internuclear distance: 9.7139e-11m (Mills gives a literature value of 9.7e-11m – I did not find an online source but it is the same as for the hydroxyl molecule)
• Bond dissociation energy: 5.1118eV (the experimental value is 5.1116eV)
• Bond angle of water: 106.241° (0.22839% error compared to Mills value which is quite large – perhaps I made a minor error somewhere – the experimental value is hard to determine and varies depending on the source because it is varying with temperature and other surrounding molecules – the ideal (theoretical) quantum mechanical solution is 104.48° according to Wikipedia)
3.1.3 Ionization energies of one and four electron atoms and ions
One important value in Mills framework (and of course in chemistry) is the ionization energy of atoms and ions. While calculating the hydroxyl and the water molecule the ionization energies of H and O are needed. In the chapters for hydroxyl and water these values are given with reference to the chapter where Mills calculates them. The equations are quite interesting, because you have only a single equation for a given number of electrons with the parameter Z (number of protons). So I put a loop around this single equation and increased the number of protons with each iteration by one. The result is a list of ionization energies for one atom and different ions like table 10.2 on p. 218. Mills gives the equations for atoms and ions from one to twenty electrons and I took the two equations for one and four electrons and implemented these.
One electron (1 to 34 protons) and four electrons (5 to 29 protons):
• I get the same results as Mills (1 electron: max rel. error for Z=34 is 0.000103%, 4 electrons: max rel. error for Z=29 is 0.00085792%)
• The agreement between these calculations and the experimental values found here [IONE] is remarkable and exactly as Mills claims in the corresponding tables
• I compared all values for one electron and some values for four electrons: the experimental values Mills gives in his GUTCP are exactly the same as in my wikipedia source – not a single digit was different.
• I could replicate the calculations as well as the experimental values to 100%: No fitting parameters used – just fundamental constants
When I first compared my calculations with the experimental values I sat in front of the computer screen staring at it for at least half an hour – I was completely stunned. I then checked what you need to do in QM to get these results. I found that you have two possibilities to get these values:
1) Take a set of simple equations with fitted parameters for different scenarios as described here.
2) Use the Hartree-Fock algorithm which searches iterativly the energetic equilibrium state of the atom according to QM – that is computational demanding and also uses some “magic” parameters.
Mills equations have fundamental constants only, are computationally simple and give great results in terms of accuracy. Always keep in mind occam´s razor.
3.1.4 Ionization energies of all atoms and ions up to 20 electrons (work in progress)
The ionization energy is a very important parameter for the generic equations Mills gives in his GUTCP. So a first step on the way to a generic calculation framework is a function that calculates these energies. I found that you just need 3 major and a few minor equations to accomplish this. It is three major equations because from 1-20 electrons you have three settings of outer shell electrons: atoms with outer S-orbital, 2p-orbital or 3p-orbital. I hope I have the results by Christmas.
3.1.5 Epi´s overall result
I could successfully verify that Mills equations work for hydroxyl, water and the ionization energies of one and four electron atoms/ions exactly as he claims. I did neither find a single false statement nor a calculation error nor a fitted parameter. His remarkable claim that his theory just needs fundamental constants and equations derived from first principles holds as far as my evaluation goes. There also was no part of his derivations where I got suspicious of an abnormal use of farfetched explanations. Up to now using Mills equations “feels” like everything I encountered during my electrical engineering studies.
If his “derivations from first principles” are mathematically correct I cannot judge and for that I am going to wait for a physicist to take a deep look into the guts of GUTCP . But in my view even my few results (6 parameters of 2 molecule + 60 ionization energies) make a strong case for the correctness of Mills underlying assumptions and his mathematical derivations. I cannot imagine a scenario where Mills constructed a false and fraudulent theory just using fundamental constants and getting all these values right by coincidence. That definitly is not plausible. For me there is only one remaining question: is his theory a better description of reality than QM? If we somehow achieve to implement the generic equations for the structure of organic molecules and can show that Mills claims still hold, even this fundamental and huge question is answered to 100% (from my point of view). And the great thing is that we neither need a large hadron collider nor other expensive equipment. We just need to read and understand given equations and hack them into a computer (+ weeks or months of our time *cough*). I think that this is pretty awesome!
3.1.6 Some thoughts on solving nonlinear equations in GUTCP context
As I mentioned earlier I had some trouble to solve a nonlinear equation needed for nearly all molecular calculations. I looked up what algorithms are available in Octave/Matlab and because you can write the equation in the form f(x)=0 the best choice is the function fzero() which searches in a local interval a value for x so that the function f() becomes zero. When I used fzero for the problem at hand it always gave errors and I could not get rid of them. So I looked for other algorithms. I read, that it is possible to convert the problem f(x)=0 to a minimization problem just by taking the square of function f and searching for the local minimum: min f²(x). There are powerful algorithms for that task called “Sequential Quadratic Programming” (SQP). There is a sqp function in octave and so I tried this approach. I did not get an error but the results were far off the real value. I had the feeling that this is because of some numerical problems regarding first and second derivatives used in sqp algorithms. So I imported a symbolic toolbox to octave to symbolically get the first and second derivative of f(x). That worked quite well but the result was still 10% off and I could not increase accuracy. That´s when I thought of the good old plotting of f(x) and searching for the result by hand/eye. At first I could not plot the function because in some intervals the function has complex values – and that is when I realized why fzero() did not work in the first place: it could not handle complex numbers. And so I arrived at my final solution:
1) Write a function f(x) that returns “NotANumber” whenever f(x) becomes complex.
2) Plot f(x) and look for a small interval were f(x) crosses the zero line. Make sure there are no complex values in this interval.
3) Use fzero() for f(x) in this small interval to get the final result.
And that procedure worked like a charm. It also has the advantage, that I have visual confirmation, that there are no other real valued solutions and Mills just took the best fitting one.
3.2 Your contribution
3.2.1 Perhaps the methane molecule (p.524 ff.)…
3.2.2 …or the generic equations for all organic molecules (p. 679 ff.)…
3.2.3 …or the mathematical derivation of the solution of the 2D wave equation under the constraint of the nonradiation condition (hardcore style for physicists)
“This is why I believe in Randell Mills’ Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics…
1/137.035999… … and that’s the magic number!” 😀
For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant:
Fine Structure Constant (alpha) = a = 1/137.035999
In 1985, Physicist Richard Feyman said the following: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” “It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man”
Niels Bohr was close. In 1913, using classical physics, he proposed a model of the hydrogen atom that produced equations that matched the spectrographic light emissions from hydrogen atoms. But the model failed when applied to other experimental data.
So Standard Quantum Physics (SQM) was invented but it uses complex equations to describe the atom. Few people really understand Standard Quantum Mechanics, including most physicists. It can be considered curve fitting since there is no unifying methodology in the derivation of the equations.
Randell Mills has come up with a theory named The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) which uses classical physics to describe the atom that produce equations that match all the experimental data far better than the previous two listed. Equations produced using GUTCP are based on classical physics and special relativity that are applied in a consistent way and result in much simpler equations than Standard Quantum Mechanics. For example, in the Bohr Model and SQM, the hydrogen is at its smallest size at principal quantum number n = 1. But in Mills’s GUTCP, the electron in the hydrogen atom can release energy as it drops to smaller sized fractional orbit states (termed hydrinos) such as n = 1/2 or n = 1/3 or n = 1/4 etc. The smallest orbit state is n = 𝜶 = 1/137.035999, (i.e. alpha, the fine structure constant) where the electron is orbiting at the speed of light c. Mills terms the electron at this orbit state the transition state orbitsphere (TSO) and it is the orbit state at which the energy of the photon is converted into an electron having mass. At that orbit state, five different energy equations for the TSO match Einstein’s energy equation for the electron: E = mc2 = 510998.896 eV. 2
Those five energies are:
1.Planck equation energy = 510998.896 eV
2.Resonant energy = 510998.896 eV
3.Electric potential energy = 510998.896 eV
4.Magnetic energy = 510998.896 eV
5.Mass/Spacetime metric energy = 510998.896 eV
These five energies occur at different times during the process that a photon is converted into an electron and therefore the law of conservation of energy is preserved.
The most dramatic method of showing this is by graphing the different energies of the electron in the hydrogen atom as a function of orbit state n. Figures 1 and 2 show that the energies all converge to the rest mass of the electron (510998.896 eV) at orbit state n = 𝜶 = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the orbit state of the TSO). The equations that are graphed are shown on page 10 of this document which is a single page taken from a PowerPoint presentation from Blacklight Power. http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy-3.pdf