you can have atoms with a variety of neutrons. this atom here has two neutrons. it would still be the same element if it had three neutrons, but now it'd be a different isotope. isotope is another word for kind of at the nuclear level, okay? so this is the isotope 238. notice that there are many, many, many more neutrons than there are protons. if you subtract 92 from 238, i think you get, what is it, 146? 146 neutrons, but 92 protons. it turns out as your nucleus gets bigger and bigger and the same get further and further apart, you need more nuclear cement. you get the elements up to about 20. look in the periodic table and you'll see the atomic mass is always about twice the atomic number, see? when you get up at about 20, you get equal numbers roughly of neutrons and protons, but above 20, you need more nuclear cement and then you get-- you find your atoms have more neutrons. when we talk about-- oh, by the way, we have a little model here of the helium, the helium atom, inspired and brought here by paul casey. and what this is, we have a two protons, two neu

there's extra neutrons, makes it bigger. that's why i look at neutron, the nucleus is bigger and as you mentioned there, paul, more unstable and away you go. so these things are radioactive by-products, good or bad? oh, it depends. usually bad. what are you gonna do with them? okay. these are emitting radiations themselves. so that's a hassle and we're all familiar with the radioactive waste problem. but you know what, gang? there's a brighter side to the whole story of nuclear power. instead of talking about losing mass by going down-- this is like an energy hill, you read that in the textbook? think of it as an energy hill. you're rolling down the hill, you're picking up energy. that's what you're doing. you're kinda losing mass and that mass that you're losing so to speak, is what? goes off as energy. but here we have right in the middle, what's this element right here, gang, in the very, very bottom? iron. iron. and that's atomic number 26. how about over here? how about you taking an element like right about here? how a

the neutral particles are neutron. guess why they call it neutron, gang? neutral. come on, neutral, guess how much charge it has? none, okay? and it turns out this proton, which does have a positive charge, pulls on the electron and pulls it together. later on, we get into electricity. we're gonna learn the fundamental rule, and the fundamental rule just says this: unlike charges attract and like charges repel, and do you know how it comes? nobody knows. that's why we say it's fundamental. we'll talk about that when we get to electricity, but we can just think of this electron being attracted to that proton in a way similar, and in a way it's dissimilar too, but in a way similar to the way the earth is attracted to the sun. there's a gravitational attraction. here there's an electrical attraction. anyway, that's the schematic diagram of the hydrogen atom, but this atom's got an extra neutron, so it has a mass of two, atomic mass of two. this is heavy hydrogen. it's a little heavier. you see that? in fact, you can make water h2o where the h is a double weight hydrog

they needed to follow these populations of neutrons, and they didn't have the horsepower to do it in an analytical way, so they had to do it in a thattist call way. -- statistical way. the beauty of monte carlo, it's not an approximation. it actually is closer to the way physics really works. physics is, at its essence, not deterministic. >> can you explain a little bit about that? there are a lot of people who will know about monte carlo, but there may be other people watching or listening who don't. >> yeah. it's not that easy to explain, but instead of trying to get an exact answer, you, you sort of develop a game of chance that approximates the problem and run that game of chance. the more you play, the better your answer gets. like if you were gambling in a casino, you know, if you gambled a really long time, you would get an accurate estimate of how, what the take of the other side is, you know? are they taking 3 be % or -- 3% or 2%. and it's what is so beautiful, again, couldn't have imagined it was true, but johnny and clary von neumann, they meet in monte carlo, the casino,

they need to follow these population of neutrons and they didn't have the horsepower to do it in any analytical way so they have to do it in a statistical way. the beauty is, it's not an approximation. it actually is closer to the way the world of physics really works. physics is at its essence a physical process, not deterministic. >> can you explain about that because there a lot of people here who will know about monte carlo but there may be other people watching or listening who don't. >> instead of trying to get an exact answer, you sort of develop a game of chance and approximate the problem and run a game of chance. the more you play the better your answer gets. like if you are gambling in a casino, if you gambled for a really long time he would get a very accurate estimate of how, what the take of the other side is. taking 2% or 3% and it's so beautiful. you couldn't imagine it was true but johnny and clyde von neumann meet and monte carlo at the casino, right? johnny has gotten there and he is a system for roulette and he has lost all of his money. [laughter] his first marri

because they have to run them through a chemical analysis like a neutron detector. this is why there's been such a tight hold on this. poem don't want to talk about the technology. and the fact that they're improving their technology. and i think these guys are very, very good. i've seen these airplane bombs in the '80s. they bypassed airport security then. if they continue to adapt, we should consider this is real threat to our aviation. >> nick roberts looked into petn which is the name being used in this even though it may be different than petn. petn was used by the so-called underwear bomber. i want to show you what nick discovered about what petn is capable of. take a look at this. >> here we go. >> reporter: explosive expert sydney olford showed me the power of a tiny amount of petn. >> this really is a messy powder. >> reporter: then he agreed to replicate a series of printer bombs revealing how they evaded detection. >> that's petn. if it went off now i would be instantly killed. bits of me would go around the room. >> reporter: out in a field, olford place

margin to 40%, it means less money for people like debbie to be able to invest in new furniture and neutrons and new customers and new sales people. it means fewer jobs. that's why raising taxes is the wrong way to go. i if your objective is to get people working again. my goal is to limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high and so we can keep the revenue coming into washington could get those tax rates down so small business can hire people. my priority and our national priority has to be putting americans to work and ideas and i will get the job done. [cheers and applause] there is something else business relies upon. that is energy. to run a small business, you have to be able to plug those devices into the wall. some small businesses use a lot of energy and others use less. those that use a lot of benefit dramatically if the price of energy is reasonable we are fortunate in this country to have some extraordinary resources in abundance. they happen to be oil, gas, natural gas, and coal. the president said he is for all of the above, comes to energy. i thought that was intere

for tsa to catch one these things because they have to run them through a chemical analysis like a neutron detector. this is why there's been such a tight hold on this, people don't want to talk about the technology, and the fact that they're improving their technology. and i think these guys are very, very good. i've seen these airplane bombs back in the '80s, they bypassed the airport security then, they continue to adapt, i think we should consider this a real threat to aviation. >> nic robertson looked into petn. which is the name that's being used in this. it's nonmetallic. and petn was the explosive used by the underwear with bomber. i want to show you what nick discovered about what petn is capable of. take a look at this clip. >> here we go. >> explosive expert showed me the power of a tiny amount of pe petn. this really is a messy powder. >> then he agreed to replicate printer toner bombs. >> if this were explosive, bits of me would go around the room. >> 3, 2, 1 that is where the table was standing, you can see the blast effect. if that had been part of an airplane's fuselage, he

it is testing a neutron generator and at the same time, the international community is talking and talking and talking. it's time to put down a plausible threat and tell iran: you dismantle the uranium enrichment and take the uranium out of iran or we mean business. and that's just not happening. >> jamie: what options are on the table from israel's perspective? >> well, you know, it is no secret that israel has put all the options on the table. sometimes it seems that international community is more focused on stopping israel from protecting itself than stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. but israel is prepared to take any action necessary. you know, i myself served and still serve in a highly trained commando why you want. i have led soldiers behind enemy lines many times. viseen combat. i have lost friends. we dont want war. but when i look at the alternative -- that's a nightmare of a nuclear iran with nuclear warhead missiles that could reach paris, madrid and tel aviv -- that is no option. so if we need to act, we will act. >> jamie: it sounds like you would be willing eve

i kind of felt like a neutron bomb had gone off for something.ou could see a little town that looks an awful lot like a or you put sell alongside the road. went down to the door, it still darkness. bill. they created general of. and then the does it. that is where the astronomers lift. and in did their work. i thought it was fascinating. it's just so cool, but also because it is kind of -- will have to be on mars someday or other kinds of sites where human beings will go, go beneath the surface. and this is the telescope that they actually used to find things. and at the point that i hit on before, fairly quickly, all of the makings for life are out there. they are out there in space. complex hydrocarbons, this is no longer any doubt. it's out there. we also know that all of this material falls down on us all the time. 20,000 tons tons of cosmic dust lens on it every year. back in the time of the late heavy bombardments, a thousand times more. all those building blocks of life, they are delivered here. the mortising media right, the most famous m

they were all studying the population and neutrons.y had two children, and escape is like immigrating best and so she taught herself the mathematics and got into being what they needed. it is a strange accident. there is a point of controversy in history about von neumann's relationship to the intellectual work that eckert and ias were producing. whether or not von neumann wanted to circulate that was more of an open-source guide to use a modern phrase. didn't leave the secret -- because he understood the power it could unleash, should truly be secret, or whether he played by the rules, so to speak. when you think about that? >> he certainly broke the rules. this is very controversial, there is no doubt that he wrote that paper. there were certainly some things that were not his idea. there were parts that goldstein wrote and parts that von neumann wrote -- there were no question that a lot of the ideas came from eckert and mauchly. but the paper was released under von neumann's name. all i can do is find out what the truth is, and the

it produced neutrons used to test chem. kals and film for impurities. to hide the cfx but the fact that the company was handling highly enriched uranium was never publicized. >> as soon as you mention nuclear it sends up red flags, bells and whistles go off and people have a natural aversion to it. so they probably just didn't want to arouse the local neighborhood. >> reporter: both filo and a kodak spokesman say it was safe, that no radiation leaked out. that it was never in the form needed to make a weapon and that it was well secured. still -- we don't want iran to have this material but it's okay for kodak? >> if you have enough highly enriched uranium you can use it to make a nuclear weapon. in smaller quantities it may not be enough. you can imagine an adversary could steal enough in different areas to consolidate and have enough for a bomb. >> reporter: kodak had three and a half pounds of highly enriched uranium at a time, well under 45 pounds or so it takes to make a weapon. but a dom that could damage a city doesn't have to be big. the scale i

they were all studying the population and neutrons.y had two children, and escape is like immigrating best and so she taught herself the mathematics and got into being what they needed. it is a strange accident. there is a point of controversy in history about von neumann's relationship to the intellectual work that eckert and ias were producing. whether or not von neumann wanted to circulate that was more of an open-source guide to use a modern phrase. didn't leave the secret -- because he understood the power it could unleash, should truly be secret, or whether he played by the rules, so to speak. when you think about that? >> he certainly broke the rules. this is very controversial, there is no doubt that he wrote that paper. there were certainly some things that were not his idea. there were parts that goldstein wrote and parts that von neumann wrote -- there were no question that a lot of the ideas came from eckert and mauchly. but the paper was released under von neumann's name. all i can do is find out what the truth is, and the

i produced neutrons that kodak says were used to test chemicals and products like film for impuritiesr more than 30 years until 2007. kodak said it never intended to hide the cfx, but the fact that the company was handling highly enriched uranium was never highly publicized. >> as soon as you mention nuclear, it sends up red flags and bells and whistles go off and people have a natural aversion to it. so they probably didn't want to arouse the local neighborhood. >> reporter: kodak says it was safe, no radiation ever leaked out, that it wasn't in the concentrated form needed to make a weapon and it was well secured. still -- >> we don't want iran to have it, it's okay for kodak to have it? >> if you have enough highly enriched uranium you can use it to make a weapon. in smaller quantities, it might not be enough, but you can imagine an adversary that was coordinat coordinated. could steal enough in different areas to consolidate and have enough for a bomb. >> kodak had about 3.5 pounds of uranium at a time, well under the 45 pounds it takes to make a weapon. but a bomb that could seve

adams down to their constitutional -- strip atoms down to their constitutional elements, protons, neutronsit is 330,000 times the mass of the earth. you can now get the solar telescopes for the cost of a decent camera and look for yourself. you will see a solar prominence rising and falling back to the sun. the scale is almost in a comprehensible. the arch is much larger than the -- the scale is almost in comprehensible. the arch is much larger than the earth. it is moving fast. you get scale -- if you ever took a magnet and put a piece of paper and shake the iron filings on it, you can see the magnetic field lines. those are, what, a millimeter in width. on the sun, those are wider than the earth. you have these tubs that -- tubes that loop over and drop back. that is looking down on one of these giant, magnetic storms -- the giant magnetic storms. even though i have been observing the sun for half a century, i still find it difficult to adjust to the scale in which -- what amounts to a single electrical wire is twice the diameter of the earth. host: chad, independent line. go ahead. you'

you seen the tv pictures out of moscow monday you might have thought there was a neutron bomb in the russian capital or looked like something apocalyptic from a hollywood horror movie. there was not a single person as putin's motorcade made from the government house to the kremlin. not the route of the motorcade, central square, nearby streets and metro stations were closed down and cleared off from the public. there were 20,000 interior ministry troops and riot police guarding the president-elect from his voters on inauguration day. essentially the city looked like military occupation. i remember exact same thing, in march i was in moscow for the presidential election. the protests we had in the days after it and i remember walking down from push kin square where we had the protest from putin's quote, unquote victory and walking towards the kremlin, i never seen my city like that. there were lines and lines of armed to the teeth riot police and vehicles and buses lining up on every single street going to either side. certainly not since the crisis of '93 were so many troops in the c

if you have seen the tv pictures coming out of moscow monday, you may have thought there was a neutron bomb in the russian capital. it looked like something apocalyptic from a hollywood horror mofaz as the motorcade made its way through. not just the central, but all the streets and metro stations were shut down and cleared off to the public. outside that perimeter, there were some 20,000 interior ministry troops and riot police guarding president putin from voters on inauguration day. it looked like it was under military ok makes. it was exactly the same thing in march. i remember walking down from the square where we had the protest after putin "victory," walking down the street toward the kremlin, i have never seen anything like that. police armed to the teeth, and police buses on every street going to either side. it was certainly not since the crisis of 1993 where there were so many troops in the center of moscow. it did not look like the behavior of a legitimate winner of a legitimate election. is of course because mr. putin is not a legitimate winner of a legitimate election. ju