EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

FOR

ALTERING OR DESTROYING

RADIOACTIVITY

May 3, 1994

 

A Report Of Findings

These experiments were undertaken to verify the "Keller Catalytic Process" and the "Barker Effect". They prove that radioactivity can be changed or eliminated at will by electrical or chemical means, opening the door to atomic chemistry.

by Michael Wells Mandeville with assistance from Frank Stasny, Gary Hawkins, & Wil Wilson


ABSTRACT

The principal investigator undertook a series of experiments to test the "Barker effect" and the "Keller Catalytic Process" in changing the rate of radioactive decay of heavy elements (elements heavier than lead, such as radium, thorium, or uranium, all of which are radioactive). Barker claims that subjecting radioactive materials to high electrostatic potentials (50,000 volts to 500,000 volts) can increase or decrease the rate of radioactive decay, with short exposures of the high voltage capable of inducing erratic decay rates which slowly return to normal over a period of weeks. Keller claims that subjecting radioactive materials to the high heat and fusing reaction of a chemical process (Keller Catalytic Process) can eliminate the radioactivity completely.

An experiment conducted on October, 30 1993 by Jack Keller, using his "Keller Catalytic Process", showed a complete elimination of radioactivity in a sample of NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) containing radium. Subsequent experiments were conducted separately and independently by the principal investigator in five series over a period of three months, December 1993 to March 1994. One series, CONTROLS C1-C14, constitute readings and manipulations of control samples of various formulations of radium in "NORM" (naturally occurring radioactive material). The other four series of experiments start with crude efforts which gradually become more refined and more decisive in demonstrating that the radioactive decay rate of radium in NORM can be altered at will by certain electromagnetic and chemical methods.

These results challenge prevailing opinions of scientists about the nature of radioactivity, which many physicists and chemists believe is immutable in nature, unless subjected to high energy nuclear bombardment (as in nuclear reactors, cyclotrons, atomic weapons, or suns).

SUMMARY FINDINGS

In the simplest terms, the finding of these experiments is that the rate of radioactive decay, at least in radium, can be altered by electro/thermal chemical reactions or by high potentials of RF (electromagnetic radio frequency energy). Essentially, I have found that the claims of both inventors are substantially correct. Many of my experimental samples show clear, consistent patterns of major changes or diminuation of their radioactivity, which proves to me the validity of both the Barker effect and the Keller Catalytic Process (KCP), at least in general terms.

The major specific findings of these experiments are:

a) Fusing the radium into slag through a chemical reaction (using the specifications of the Keller Catalytic Process) has a clear effect. One sample which we monitored in November of 1993, fired by the inventor, showed a clear decay of all radioactivity to zero within about 72 hours. Other samples, which I fired and monitored myself, independently of the inventor and without his skill at obtaining a complete reaction, showed a remarkable decline in their radioactivity, by 50% to 70% (even though the reactions were amateurishly done without the requisite skill in making the material fuse thoroughly and completely) with a trend which shows some increase in the radioactivity one month after treatment.

b) Stimulating radium with the spark end of a large Tesla coil delivering more that 100,000 volts at low radio frequencies (most likely 50 kilocycles to 25 megacycles) for 30 minutes, while heated to 1400 degrees F, generates a clear effect. First, the rate of radioactivity decreases by as much as 50% over a period of time (a few days) and then it steadily increases over a period of about four weeks until it returns to as much as 75% of its original reading.

c) Heat up to 1400 degree F, in and of itself, seems to have no effect on the rate of radioactive decay of radium. We rather suspected that to begin with, since the high heats involved in nuclear reactors would have probably created results which the nuclear power industry would have detected long ago.

d) Stimulating radium with a Tesla Coil as in (a) above, but without heating the sample, creates a highly noticeable effect. First, the samples show an increase in radioactivity in their second reading (two of them showing greater than a 50% increase), which then decreases during a period of about seven weeks to come close to their original reading. This strange effect "parallels" the "Barker effect".

e) Strong magnetic impulses have little effect in changing the rate of radioactive decay.

f) Simply stimulating radium (in NORM) with a high voltage (12,000 volts AC from a neon sign transformer) seems to create a very strange effect, but I believe the measured effect (a sinusoidal wave of increased then decreased radioactivity) could very well be an "artifact", composed of purely random variations in the art of measuring the sample through time. This sample shows the difficulty of taking valid measurement.

g) The trends in the results are consistent for the types of experiments and among the multiple treatments which were done in each type, although variations in the sample compositions created quantitative differences in the results.

h) Great care was taken to insure that the radioactivity was not blowing off into the atmosphere or was being masked by some other material. The radioactive element did not "disappear", it was altered.

i) The Keller Catalytic Process clearly provides the strongest effect in the permanent elimination of radioactivity. It provides a clearly defined technology pathway, the exploration and development of which should be undertaken in a serious effort to solve the problem of disposing of radioactive waste.

The magnitude and clarity of these effects can be easily seen in the simple graphs with accompany this report. The expected error deviation of 4%. The standard allowance of error is 10%. The fusion fire experiments may have error deviations of 16% Any deviation (change in the graph line) greater than 20% in these graphs should be considered a significant indicator of the ability to alter the radioactivity of a sample.

Table 1: First Keller Sample, the result of the experiment conducted by Jack Keller in October, 1993 and monitored by Frank Stasny. This graph shows a typical decay rate for a radioactive element (radium) which has been treated by the Keller Catalytic Process.

Table 2: Third Round Fusion Fire, the results of four fusion experiments conducted by MW Mandeville on March 2, 1994. This graph shows a semi-successful application of the Keller Catalytic Process, achieving an average reduction in the radioactivity of radium in five samples from a net average CPM of 1395 to 525, a reduction of 62%.

Table 3: Third Round Tesla Treatment, the results of four Tesla/Kiln experiments conducted by MW Mandeville on March 2, 1994. This graph shows the result of simultaneously exposing four samples of radium in various compositions to over 100,000 volts RF from a Tesla coil for 30 minutes while heating the samples to about 1400 degrees F in a small ceramic kiln. The samples tend to show a 35% to 50% decrease in their net radioactivity two days after treatment, which then tends to recover to about 70%-90% of their pre-treatment readings over the course of a month.

Table 4: First Miniature Fusion, the results of a first effort to replicate the Keller Catalytic Process conducted February 8, 1994 by MW Mandeville. The graph shows post-treatment readings only, which gyrate widely, showing a first post-treatment reading about 35%-50% below the their comparable controls, then one sample (E208-1) recovers to what it was originally (inferred) while another (E208-4) gyrates widely (the split sample).

Table 5: Second Round Tesla Experiments, the results of two experiments using a Tesla coil to stimulate NORM with more than 100,000 volts of low RF energy, fed directly through the sample on the top end of the coil, and the result of one experiment where the coil feed wire had burned out inside of a kiln, resulting in no stimulation of the sample. The graph shows post-treatment readings only, which show a clear, strong wave-like response in the two successful experiments over a period of about seven weeks, first increasing, then decreasing. The graph also shows very little deviation (all within the allowance for average deviation) for the unsuccessful treatment (E204-2).

Table 6: Second Round Voltage Experiments, the results of two experiments, one using a neon transformer, 12,000 volts AC and the other using 50,000 volts DC to stimulate the NORM. All readings are post-treatment. The graph shows a pattern of what appears could be a sinusoidal wave in response to the neon transformer. The graph also shows, over a seven week period, a near doubling of the radioactivity of the NORM stimulated for one hour with 50,000 volts DC.

Table 7: Second Round Magnetic Experiments, the results of two experiments using a strong magnetic impulse of a few milliseconds on the NORM. All readings are post-treatment. The graph decisively shows a NULL result, despite the use of enough magnetic energy to cause ferromagnetic metal objects to shrink (compression) in size by 50% or more.

These findings should provide experimentalists and researchers with enough grounds to warrant an open mind and some simple experimentation aimed at exploring how to build on these discoveries. Small laboratories practically anywhere in the world can replicate these experiments and go considerably beyond them, cheaply but with far greater elegance than I was able to achieve with my limited time and even more limited resources.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDINGS

The inventor, Jack Keller, claims to have discovered a "catalytic" chemical method for "neutralizing" (i.e. destroying) radioactivity. In principle, using the Keller Catalytic Process (KCP) all radioactive isotopes can be "restructured" into non-radioactive elements within a few days. If true, this discovery is as important as Newton's "gravity" and Einstein's "relativity". The discovery has astounding implications and potential applications.

Although I cannot directly or definitively answer the theoretical questions of why it is possible to alter or eliminate radioactivity, I know that these experiments demonstrate clearly and reasonably that it does occur. This creates implications of exceptional importance to both science and industry, the most important of which is that the Keller Catalytic Process, or some successor, may help humankind eliminate its worst environmental problem, the huge inventories of radioactive waste which are slowly contaminating their surroundings and sooner or later will create catastrophic problems.

IMPLICATIONS RIPPLE THROUGHOUT THE POND OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

The easy simplicity by which I was able to demonstrate, using variations of two different inventors, that the rate of radioactive decay is not a stable, universal constant which is independent of environmental conditions, has a lot of rippling consequences for physics, chemistry, geology, archeology, history and so on. Many conditions which duplicate the electro/chemical techniques of these experiments can be easily hypothesized in nature.

For instance, it is not difficult to find static charges and piezoelectric effects in the range of 12,000 to 100,000 volts in the natural environment, simply through friction and pressure within the earth. It is logically reasonable to assume that a substance which is subjected to strong pressures under the earth and high electrostatic field potentials, especially surrounding silicates in the earth's crust, is likely to behave, in accordance with the findings of these experiments and the Barker effect, quite differently than in the laboratory or on the surface. Which means in essence that carbon-14 dating, and other types of radioactive dating, on samples from deep deposits in the earth may be unreliable.

Therefore, all dating and clocking of time based on radioactive decay rates must henceforth be considered suspect until proven otherwise. This really does mean that CARBON-14 dates, and all of the other radioactive samples which have been used for dating purposes, absolutely must be considered speculative, not definitive.

If high voltage and strong chemical ionic force can dramatically alter the radioactive count of a substance, it is logical to assume that other parameter shifts may do the same, to some degree or another, especially gravity and relative acceleration. A sample in orbit may very well decay at a different rate than one at sea level and one at the center of the earth.

This could mean that the so-called definitive proof of relativity must once again be considered to be speculative. Many proofs of relativity have been offered over the years, but all of them, except one, seem to be weak proofs. The strong proof of relativity is the so-called proof of time dilation, which is based on the difference in the rate of decay (counts per second) of a radioactive isotope, one half of which remains stationary, the other half of which was sent into orbit and then brought back to earth. The theory of relativity predicts that the half which went into orbit will count off less time than the half which stays on earth (less decay as a consequence of increased speed). In fact, exactly this has been measured.

But in light of the findings of these experiments, is this orbital change a consequence of the theory of relativity? Or is it a consequence of changing the physical environmental conditions of the sample? Such as gravity? Or of shoving the sample through the tachyon/neutrino sea? Regardless,

QUANTUM MECHANICS IS A VERY NAKED EMPEROR

I have observed that science is now so highly fragmented, disconnected, and specialized, that nearly all practitioners have lost bearings on what are assumptions, what is proven, what is not, what is theoretical, and what is art.

Most practitioners solve this problem by assuming that what they are told by other practitioners is true, except in the arena of their particular research, within which they may be quite adept and highly critical of any claim. But within the framework of their broader scientific field, it is generically true of every area of science that the opinions expressed from outside their narrow specialty are generally accepted so long as the opinion comes from the right institutional or semi-institutional source.

The most interesting contemporary case in point is the so-called cold fusion controversy. It is not just the opinion of the American physics community that "cold fusion" is not nuclear and is not fusion, it is virtually their official position. This in spite of the fact that a professional "cold fusion" journal now exists, hundreds of "cold fusion" researchers from around the world meet annually to exchange highly interesting results, and the race is on in laboratories outside of the United States (and a few as well in the U.S.) to improve upon the levels of energy production "cold fusion" researchers have been able to obtain, which already equals the amount of energy which breeder reactors produce. It is amazing how much political, institutional, personal, and economic damage can be created by scientists who turn truth into political posturing and institutional positions. Unfortunately, like sheep, far too many American scientists follow the "right" institutional or semi-institutional sources.

This leads quickly to a seemingly absurd conclusion, namely, that in today's sciences, what we believe generally to be true may be based as much (or more in certain cases) on politics, rumors, and obsolete facts or thinking as much as on sound science. This observation about the politically tattered nature of truth in science and the absurdity of the rumor mill of so-called prevailing opinions is directly relevant to the findings which are published in this article.

I am inoculating the reader with a philosophical truth serum, because, by and large, the American academically-based physics community will attempt, as a knee-jerk reaction based on political position, using the Holy Writ of Quantum Mechanics or Quantum This Or That, to dismiss these findings out of hand. Many American physicists, even those with very impressive positions and pedigrees, believe that the radioactive decay rate of elements is not just stable, but immutably stable, some sort of fundamental constant like gravity, which has a characteristic energy curve (different for each element) which changes at a constant rate through time until it is dead. They ASSUME that somehow some theory has proven it is immutable. Since quantum this and quantum that are the buzzwords of the decade, they ASSUME that some how quantum this or that has proven something about it.

My outsider's scan of the history and literature of physics and chemistry reveals a different truth. Absolutely nowhere is there any theory at all about "natural" radioactivity. There are simply mathematical descriptions and definitions of the phenomenon, the most fascinating of which was learning how Rutherfield and his associates literally used their eyes, squinting for hours on end in a darkened laboratory, to count the individual of flashes of light given off by different substances, determined to quantify the COUNTS PER MINUTE of various substances.

A mathematical description of a phenomenon is not a theory. It is simply a mathematical description of a phenomenon which occur under the conditions of observation. Absolutely no one has a demonstrably valid theory or a science of the inner and outer dynamics of the atom from which the phenomenon of radioactivity emerges. Consequently, no one has a theory or a science which can definitively predict the behavior of radioactive elements.

It is true that the rate of radioactive decay in an element or isotope, as measured by humans in the field or in the laboratory, seems more or less to be on a constant schedule. It is also true that no one has the foggiest idea of why or why not (when or when not). I can't even find a theoretical guess. All that exists is the assumption. No one has been able to give me a useful reference to convince me otherwise.

The fact that the quantum equations in vogue in nuclear physics are unable to predict the results of these experiments tell us that so-called quantum mechanics is an incomplete truth. The fact that nuclear physicists armed with billions of dollars over the past 50 years (and enough mathematics to fully describe how many angels can dance on Tuesday between the orbits of electrons) have totally missed this phenomena tells us a lot about the ad-hoc nature of so-called quantum mechanics or electrodynamics this or that.

Which raises a profoundly important question. If quantum this or that has totally missed such a fundamental dynamic of the atom, how can quantum this or that be considered any kind of a theory at all?

A word to the wise: by and large, physicists are not equipped to evaluate these findings but many chemists are.

CAUSAL MECHANISM OF THE PHENOMENON

These findings immediately raise some basic questions:

What is the mechanism involved?

Is it a process of transmutation?

Or is it a flaky fluke?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions?

What types of results can be created by using variations in the parameters and conditions?

These experiments provide no answers to most of these questions, except to directly point to some sort of hitherto unsuspected (or kept well hidden) process of electro/chemical transmutation. But even this cannot be proven conclusively because no chemical analyses were done on the samples. The only measurements taken were the weight of the samples and their radioactivity. For the most part, answering these questions requires a lot of sophisticated laboratory work, taking hundreds of experimental samples and analyzing them on the most expensive mass spectrometers and radiation monitoring equipment this planet has to offer . Hopefully, this report will stimulate such work being undertaken, in fact, that is the main reason for this report.

It is definitely not a spurious or flaky fluke. Three issues could arise here, but they are reasonably accounted for:

the radium flew into the air

the radium is hiding behind a masking agent, such as the lead used in the formulas

the readings were unreliably done with so much error and random fluctuations that the "results" are really mirages

I took considerable effort to prove to myself that the radium did not fly off into the atmosphere. Absolutely no radium disappears into the air and this issue is discussed in the following pages. In any event, it is a very simple matter to prove or disprove by running a simple, trial experiment.

I made considerable effort to prove to myself that the radium is not hiding behind a masker. Discussion in the Control Series, on following pages, shows that the amount of lead I used does not mask the radium to any great extent, at most by about 15%. The findings I am reporting in this report are better than 35%, well above the total combined sources of error, regular deviation, and any possible masking effect.

As for unreliable readings and error, I admit that the cost parameters within which I worked yielded results less elegant than I would have preferred. Consequently, many sources of deviation which could be eliminated (with more money) remain in these graphs, clouding the picture to some extent, thus creating some ambiguity. But, I spent three months monitoring several dozen samples through a succession of readings, gradually accounting for and quantifying the sources of error and the deviations thus created. What emerged, without using any statistical or mathematical manipulation of the measurements, without any equivocation whatsoever, without finding any inconsistency in the measurements whatsoever, are graph lines for samples which are consistent between types of experiments or types of controls. This consistency in the patterns cannot be a mirage, nor can it be a random fluke of numbers.

For instance, is it a mirage that the two samples treated by heat alone show an average deviation of 11% or less (equal or less than the standard allowance for error) on what is basically a flat line graph? No, that is quite what one would expect. Could one then decide to call the dramatic sinusoidal shifts of the fusion experiments on Table 2 a mirage? Only if one is very, very determined to keep one's mind closed.

What happens to the radium? Maybe, as some people have suggested, it turns into radon. It is possible that the treatments accelerate the decay of radium into radon, suddenly, during the reactions, which then flies off (radon is a gas) before the radioactivity of the samples are read. This is in itself quite an achievement, if true.

This could be to some extent, but I don't think it is true to a significant extent because this line of reasoning does not account for the partial recovery of the readings at later dates. I also doubt it because Keller has done the experiments in plastic bags, which he measured, showing no radioactivity from radon.

Please note in this summary and in the discussions and descriptions which follow, that the word element and isotope can be used interchangeably, understood in both a singular and plural form in all instances. Unless specifically noted otherwise, the Keller Catalytic Process is known to work on more than one radioactive element at a time and it is believed that any combination of radioactive elements and isotopes may be treatable simultaneously (this remains to be proven).

Research at high-energy nuclear physics laboratories has shown that many radioactive isotopes and elements have complex transmutation chains before coming to rest in a final non-radioactive form. The exact pathway (decay-chain ladder) by which one radioactive element or isotope decays or transmutes into another element or isotope in these experimental samples is not specifically known by me. This report is concerned only about the final outcome, the final, non-radioactive form.

However, I will state my speculative belief about the results of the experiments I conducted. I tentatively suspect that the radium was effected simultaneously in at least three ways. I believe that some radon was emitted. I believe that some of the radium transmuted directly into lead, and I believe that some of the radium transmuted into other radioactive isotopes.

...

This document is 65 pages of single spaced text, and includes 12 pages of graphs and many tables of hard data.


AVAILABILITY

Due to the extensive number of graphs and charts in this report, this document is currently available only by mail. Send a check or credit card authorization in the amount of $45.00 to MetaSyn Media to the address below.




Go to TOP of this page


RETURN TO

HCOI Box 890A, Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 - fone: 623-374-9585
http:/www.michaelmandeville.com or email: mwm@michaelmandeville.com

Copyright 1995-1999, MetaSyn Media, all rights reserved; may be quoted at will but only with attribution

Last updated March 10, 1997