THE NUKE HOAX

[Rerevisionist]

Heiwa, you don't seem able to grasp the issue.

There's no such thing as a 'slow' exponential rise. If it starts, it will accelerate indefinitely. A 'slow' rise will soon be at the level as a 'fast' rise. You've been taken in by the bullshit. It's the kind of thing that is inherently uncontrollable. It's why the story of some berk in US before 1945 separating two halves of U235 with his bare hands is not credible.

Even if free neutrons can be filtered out, this means you're wasting them. The theory relies on them multiplying; if you stop large numbers of them, you're getting no heat.

You're assuming what you've been told is a reactor, does in fact generate electricity. In view of the easy way in whcih simulations can be designed, the only way to be certain is to investigate and measure it.

[whatsgoingon]

There appear to be no standalone sources of nuclear power anywhere - not in the Antarctic; not in ships or submarines; not in isolated parts of e.g. China. All the supposed generators are hooked into grids.

Not sure this is a valid argument against nuclear power. There are no standalone coal plants either. Reason being is that the electric demand curve (see here for an example http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx ) is not flat by any stretch of the imagination.

The design of the turbines is such that they cannot be ramped up or down very quickly or they die in any thermo-power plant. It is not critical whether it be coal or nuclear for this at all. The turbines and operations of the turbines are basically the same in either case.

Nuclear and coal power are baseload sources of energy. They do not meet peak demand unless the excess power is thrown onto resistors (as you call a dump-load) at night when demand is low. The other option is that coal and nuclear plants do not meet peak demand at all. Hence they are connected on a grid with peaker plants like natural gas plants, which are cheap and easy to add to the grid.

Thus no power station can be standalone in any sort of economic sense. They are all connected together to meet the demand curve each day.

My 2 cents.

[Heiwa]

The number of free neutrons allowed to split uranium atoms in an atomic power plant is, after a slow exponential start, evidently kept constant so that the plant will not overheat or cool down.
The atomic part of the plant just produces heat like a boiler which in a heat exchanger produces steam that runs a steam turbine that can run a generator producing electricity. All components, boiler, heat exchanger, turbine, generator and condensor are simple and require little maintenance. Do you suggest that the USSR ice breaker LENIN was driven by an oil fired boiler?

[Rerevisionist]

Whatsgoingon, by 'standalone' I just meant a closed system powered only by the power source. Of course coal fired power is 'standalone'. When eg Battersea power station (as in Pink Floyd - four chimneys) was running, it powered the local area. All early power stations delivered electricity locally. If nuclear power worked, why wouldnt it have been installed in Antarctica, especially as it was trumpeted as being virtually free? Why not in the Amazon jungle? Why not in the Sahara, to operate eg some sort of water condensation? Why not in remote parts of China, Mongolia, Africa, the USA, to save costs of lengths of cable?

The suspicious point about 'nuclear power' now is that all these 'power stations' are linked into grids, and there's no easy check whether they are net electricity producers.

On ships, there's a lot of discussion on nukelies about this. It turns out that US aircraft carriers hold large amounts of fuels - both diesel and for aircraft - so the existence of nuclear power there is questionable. As for icebreakers, of course Russia has a problem with warm water ports & icebreakers are important to them. But this importance predates 1945. They must have had icebreakers before then; and they must obviously have been motor powered. Even Stakhanov could not have rowed an icebreaker, nor would sail have worked. Could post-WW2 USSR, with the vast destruction etc, really have taken the trouble to separate out U238 etc etc just for that?

[lux]

The thing about the WWII A-bombs that I could never understand was why would this ...

... be considered such a difficult device to design and build such that the greatest scientific minds of the Allies had to expend so much effort and resources to come up with it?

It's a gun barrel that shoots a piece of uranium into another piece of uranium. This is supposedly the "Hiroshima Bomb."

I mean a frigging can opener is more complex than this thing yet the Germans or Japanese couldn't build one at all? WTF?

[whatsgoingon]

Whatsgoingon, by 'standalone' I just meant a closed system powered only by the power source. Of course coal fired power is 'standalone'. When eg Battersea power station (as in Pink Floyd - four chimneys) was running, it powered the local area. All early power stations delivered electricity locally. If nuclear power worked, why wouldnt it have been installed in Antarctica, especially as it was trumpeted as being virtually free? Why not in the Amazon jungle? Why not in the Sahara, to operate eg some sort of water condensation? Why not in remote parts of China, Mongolia, Africa, the USA, to save costs of lengths of cable?

The suspicious point about 'nuclear power' now is that all these 'power stations' are linked into grids, and there's no easy check whether they are net electricity producers.

On ships, there's a lot of discussion on nukelies about this. It turns out that US aircraft carriers hold large amounts of fuels - both diesel and for aircraft - so the existence of nuclear power there is questionable. As for icebreakers, of course Russia has a problem with warm water ports & icebreakers are important to them. But this importance predates 1945. They must have had icebreakers before then; and they must obviously have been motor powered. Even Stakhanov could not have rowed an icebreaker, nor would sail have worked. Could post-WW2 USSR, with the vast destruction etc, really have taken the trouble to separate out U238 etc etc just for that?

The only way you can have a standalone anything is if you have a dumpload or a peaker plant to provide extra power on the fly when needed. If you do not have a dumpload to take excess power, then POOF.

So like I said there is no such thing as a standalone robust power supply, because you need backups and peakers to meet the demand curve else you waste tons of energy at night.

This is not a good argument against any type of power source including thermonuclear power plants.

A nuclear plant is like a coal plant. No different in the way they are treated on the grid. So you need something else to really undermine the idea of thermonuclear plants.

Why is it hard to believe that all the nuclear bomb research was able to generate was heat in the end and no short of massive civilization-ending violent explosion at all? In any case, there is nothing to shocking that nuclear plants are making electric power.

Please explain France's power grid if you still disagree then.

[Heiwa]

The thing about the WWII A-bombs that I could never understand was why would this ...

... be considered such a difficult device to design and build such that the greatest scientific minds of the Allies had to expend so much effort and resources to come up with it?

It's a gun barrel that shoots a piece of uranium into another piece of uranium. This is supposedly the "Hiroshima Bomb."

I mean a frigging can opener is more complex than this thing yet the Germans or Japanese couldn't build one at all? WTF?

Well, you have to drill a hole in the metall uranium bullet and also shape the metall uranium target as a cylinder in a lathe to fit the bullet, but never test in workshop that hole fits cylinder, so certain skills and precaution were required.

[Rerevisionist]

@ Whatsgoingon - maybe we're wasting time over the meaning of 'standalone'. I'm talking about a number of electicity-using devices; and one of more electricity-supplying devices, but with the whole thing not fed from, or feeding into, some other electrical circuit. There may or may not be a need for dumploads; you're thinking presumably of towns and factories; but some place in Antarctica might have constant heating and lighting loads just to keep it comfortable. A huge ship or large submarine might need electrical supplies which are constant under some sort of load, but which could be damped down if not needed - perhaps by wasting neutrons, if you believe in nuclear power. BUT we're talking of a system where they don't sneak off to be electrically recharged by diesel or in a port. I'm just saying there seem to be no standalone systems, not even in space.

[BNSF9647]

The number of free neutrons allowed to split uranium atoms in an atomic power plant is, after a slow exponential start, evidently kept constant so that the plant will not overheat or cool down.
The atomic part of the plant just produces heat like a boiler which in a heat exchanger produces steam that runs a steam turbine that can run a generator producing electricity. All components, boiler, heat exchanger, turbine, generator and condensor are simple and require little maintenance. Do you suggest that the USSR ice breaker LENIN was driven by an oil fired boiler?

This is what has boggled me about nuclear powered vehicles, plants etc...If nuclear energy produces so much output as claimed, why the use of steam equipment? Why not a direct conversion of nuclear energy to electrical energy? This setup of a reactor to boil water into steam to drive steam turbine seems very inefficient (granted steam produces a lot of power). Could these so called nuclear reactors be nothing more than glorified boilers themselves, perhaps gas driven. Or possibly they could also be a giant fuel cell. Same for nuclear power plants there is plenty of natural gas to tap! Or maybe Heiwa's question at the end of his post I quoted is the answer after all. Just a thought.

[Heiwa]

The number of free neutrons allowed to split uranium atoms in an atomic power plant is, after a slow exponential start, evidently kept constant so that the plant will not overheat or cool down.
The atomic part of the plant just produces heat like a boiler which in a heat exchanger produces steam that runs a steam turbine that can run a generator producing electricity. All components, boiler, heat exchanger, turbine, generator and condensor are simple and require little maintenance. Do you suggest that the USSR ice breaker LENIN was driven by an oil fired boiler?

This is what has boggled me about nuclear powered vehicles, plants etc...If nuclear energy produces so much output as claimed, why the use of steam equipment? Why not a direct conversion of nuclear energy to electrical energy? This setup of a reactor to boil water into steam to drive steam turbine seems very inefficient (granted steam produces a lot of power). Could these so called nuclear reactors be nothing more than glorified boilers themselves, perhaps gas driven. Or possibly they could also be a giant fuel cell. Same for nuclear power plants there is plenty of natural gas to tap! Or maybe Heiwa's question at the end of his post I quoted is the answer after all. Just a thought.

When coal was the prime fuel, steam was the only alternative to power vehicles, plants etc. Then came oil and the diesel, otto and jet engines to power vehicles but steam was still quite good for power plants. Steam turbines are very reliable! They just rotate and rotate, little wear and tear anywhere (just lubricate the bearings!) and they will run for ever. Nuclear atomic power plants are just glorified hot water boilers producing steam for the steam turbine power plants at the side. Like the Icelanders do it with their steam turbine plants getting the steam straight from the ground ... no nuclear atomic boilers there.

[Heiwa]

The nuclear bomb was, we are told, developed 1943-1945 at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (of the University of California) a little north of Santa Fe in New Mexico and actually ground tested on early morning July 16, 1945, at 0400 Bang hrs at the Trinity test site (south of Albuquerque, NM) under the direction of a Mr. K.T.Bainbridge. The latter describes the test in a report at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17428130/Trin ... Bainbridge . The report and the 16 referenced reports are evidently a joke compiled to cover up the hoax. You wonder if the authors of the reports existed? The bomb apparently produced a crater about 5 ft deep and 30 ft in diameter … but there is no photo of said crater at photos of what remained of the steel tower carrying the bomb.

[lux]

"And, the Oscar goes to ... "


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0

[Maat]

Oppenheimer, what a creepy liar — so typical of that kind of pseudo-intellectual hubris: take an ancient allegorical scripture out of context and mistranslate to twist for their own purposes

Bhagavad Gita [the Song of God]; Chapter 11, verse 32:
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain."

Alternate translation: "Lord Kṛṣṇa said: I am terrible time the destroyer of all beings in all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings in this world; of those heroic soldiers presently situated in the opposing army, even without you none will be spared."

Yeah, time destroys all things!

And...

[Heiwa]

Here is a drawing of the Hiroshima bomb:

It is very simple:
9 projectile rings of U-235 metal (items S in drawing) are quickly pushed (accelerated by exploding cordite - item W) over 6 target rings of U-235 metal (items H in drawing) and BANG the U-235 metal rings (total mass about 61 kg of uranium) fission into various fragments (total mass still about 61 kg) that are heated and displacing outwards at high velocity ... and causes a lot of damage, we are told. Yes, corresponding to 20 000 tons of exploding TNT!
If you are a civilian and try to build your own device to test it in your kitchen - to see if it really works - you will be arrested prior to test as only military people are assumed to handle it.
Pls, do not forget to tighten front nose locknut (item A) attached to 1" dia main steel rod holding target rings (items H) so that projectile rings (item S) will actually slide over target rings (items H)!!
Have a nice 2012!

[Heiwa]

New Year 2012 photo competition :
Look carefully at below photo:

It is the Trinity (first atomic bomb) explosion, 0.016 seconds after detonation at 4 am on July 16, 1945 about 30 meters above ground . The fireball is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The fireball was thus expandning at a speed of 6 520 m/s from a point 30 m above ground.
Questions:
1. At what distance and height is the photo taken!
2. What type of camera, lens, film are used?
3. Sand or something is pushed ahead of the fireball on the ground! What can be the explanation for that?