Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:32 am


A number of issues in this thread have been discussed before and relevant to that particular item under discussion. However, I would like to concentrate on ‘nuclear’ power itself.

Just about everything we are lead to believe is a fabrication of sorts, however manufactured.

A belief is something that one has, that makes what we call 'common-sense' but only if we can verify it.

In my view, at least, ‘Truths’ are the products of beliefs.

A truth cannot be defined because it depends upon verification, which is often difficult because we are reliant upon 'technologies' and skills developed by others which we cannot always access.

I call this engineering. Engineering is a deliberate attempt to modify an initial 'thought' and produce either a physical product or a ‘theory’. A pile of sand made into a brick, for example, in the first instance, or a ‘theory’ which will always be that, however modified. A theory, as such, however, cannot be made into a physical object.

Atom Theory

So-called ‘Nuclear power’, in whatever form it is portrayed, relies upon the ‘atomic’ theory.

If the atom theory is incorrect then ‘nuclear power’ (of any description) does not and cannot exist.

Even if the theory was correct it cannot work in the manner expounded by those who believe in its apparent explosive properties such a ‘nuclear/atom’ bomb events or even ‘fuel rods’ for alleged ‘nuclear’ power stations.

Any so-called ‘energy’ produced (whatever that is) cannot be explosive it would be something we could not explain by other means since it would be a release of ‘raw’ energy and would certainly not be controllable. How do you control an explosion? Answer: you invent ‘radioactivity’! With suitable equipment you can apparently measure this ’radioactivity’ and by a process of engineering and clever conjuring tricks, convince the ignorati (or gullible through no fault of their own) that it is possible to harness this ‘energy’ produced to make ‘electricity’! (or even heat water for the turbines that produce it).

I repeat: explosive mixtures (however contrived) cannot be controlled, they happen instantaneously.
For example, explosives may propel a small device (firework rocket) into the atmosphere but not an (apparently) huge beast that lumbers into the sky and appears to accelerate, whatever the ‘science’ to the contrary.

According to this piece: ... s1_p2.html

‘Atomic theory is derived from Dalton's atomic theory and contains five basic assumptions.’

Here, we already run into a problem. The theory relies upon assumptions!

Assuming something is correct (or becomes a ‘truth’) is in no way related to any reality as we can personally perceive it, unless it can be verified without the possibility of it being incorrect. If this is possible, then I stand to be corrected.
Thus, if what we call ‘matter’ cannot be reduced to individual (or self-contained) ‘particles’ then the notion of atomic theory is surely a no-no. If these so-called particles exist as separate ‘objects’ (proton, neutrons or bosons, for example) then how can they react with each other? There must be some connection.

Surely, nothing can react with something else unless there is a connection!

The Universe is a ‘medium’ from which, apparently discreet formations (planets, stars, and so forth) we are here at all. Trying to explain it in terms of discreet ‘particles’ is surely not possible since there is no way that these ‘particles’ can be examined since any examination would be part of the examining process, that is, the examining process would be examining itself. Thus, everything must be connected to everything else without interruption.

The ‘universe’, therefore, must be a continuous medium with neither beginning nor end, however that may be difficult to digest.
I submit that the substance which we know as ‘water’ is the best example of a medium. It is a medium from which all ‘life’ (animated objects) comes about with its interaction between what we might call a ‘solid’.

Water can be ‘seen’ of ‘felt’ as a mist or a raging torrent depending upon the conditions of the ‘universe’-as-a-whole at a particular moment of what we call ‘time’. (The universe does not know time, it merely is however we pretend otherwise by mechanical or digital means.) Even on supposedly ‘solid’ objects, water still has a presence (for example rust). It is true that Man is able to produce substances such as what we call ‘plastics’ which are apparently impermeable to water and there are substances like glass (natural or otherwise) but they may still be able to ‘get wet’ and the water would eventually evaporate into the atmosphere.


Chemistry is the addition or subtraction (however accomplished) that allows both Nature and Man to create other products. In its original form it was known as alchemy. Nature apparently does this in some fashion probably by a process of iteration and I am not sure if this can be explained in ‘real’ terms without the notion of ‘particulate matter’. However, we can know that Man can do this deliberately (as in making pastry, for example).

I understand that we can invent formulæ for chemical purposes using the atom theory but I have to ask, what does it really mean?


Just what, one may ask is radiation? I am not talking about electric fires radiating heat, I am asking just what is radiation if atomic theory is incorrect? Just what are we ‘measuring’ and with what do we measure?

According to this site:

electromagnetic radiation:

‘Energy that moves through space and matter both in the form of magnetic and electric waves and in the form of a stream of particles called photons.’

Here we are confronted with three problems: ‘Energy’, ‘Waves’ and ‘photons’.

What, I ask is energy? I can only describe this as something which can be shown in reality. I can show you energy by pushing you and the effect is that you feel the push and are moved by it. However, I cannot tell you what that energy was (or perhaps even where it came from).

O.K. We can view a wave on an oscilloscope (for example) but what is it really?

‘Photons’ are described as particles travelling at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second).
If there are no ‘particles’ (of what?) then they can’t do anything, let alone travel at speeds which beggar belief, however calculated.
The convenience of nouns, which name verifiable objects, are redundant if they cannot identify objects but can only show reactions (e.g. on an oscilloscope). So what are we looking at? A real, verifiable object or objects or just the result of an interaction we cannot explain?


According to:

1. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular) a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation.
2. (Mathematics) (functioning as singular or plural) mathematical operations and processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field.

I am not sure that mathematics, (of which I fail to have very little knowledge nor their use in a ‘real’ world of trying to understand objects) can help me very much. Blackboards full of hieroglyphics do not help me understand what the world is or any part of it. Mathematics may be a useful part of theories but do they really explain anything upon which I can put my finger?

Be well.


Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by patrix » Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:45 pm

What if Nuclear Power Plants are simply Hydrogen Power Plants?

Dear Sharpstuff and esteemed Cluesforumers,

I just had an epiphany today that I'd like to share and get your feedback on.

As we have realized, truth is often simple, hidden in plain sight and usually the absolute opposite of what is "common knowledge". Rockets cannot create thrust in space, the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, light/electromagnetism can't be anything but a wave propagating through a medium - the Aether, Viruses and contagious diseases have never been proven to exist. Etc,

As Sharpstuff describes above Nuclear energiy/bombs/science is nothing but a carefully crafted fake narrative. And this can be made obvious in more ways than one.

But this leaves the question, then what the heck is nuclear energy? What's going on in those plants if anything? My guess is that they are indeed generating electricity but not with the energy source advertised. The official story is that a nuclear reactor is generating heat that powers turbines and electric generators. But if nuclear energy is fake and assuming this description is partly true then how is the heat generated?

Please take a look at this video

full link:

Now as you can see, with simple materials, saltwater and a moderate electric current it is possible to produce a flame that burns cleanly at 2800 degrees celcius! The only thing missing to get an effective power plant is to add an engine/turbine that runs off the heat and a generator.

And the narrative put in place to protect this is then quite ingenious I must admit. Hydrogen power plants can be built and camouflaged as Nuclear power plants and manned and operated by locals. If something serious happens that requires service of the "reactor" the locals will not take matters into their own hands since they believe they'd die of radiation poisoning. They will call the international team of highly trained 33rd degree nuclear experts to deal with the problem.

I rest my case. Did I just solve the energy crisis? :)

Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by patrix » Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:40 am


I discussed this with a friend and got the feedback that the electrical energy needed for the electrolysis will exceed the energy output from the torch and that is probably true at atmospheric pressure. But with sufficient pressure it might be different. Take a look at this book. At page 103 Dawson talks about water and its properties:

And the physics in this book, although much of it admittedly passes over my head at the moment, I'd say is more accurate than the disprovable Quantum and Nuclear physics.

So regardless if electrolysis is the method used, I think this may well be what nuclear power plants actually do - extract the hydrogen and oxygen energy that exists in all water. Or rather that IS water.

Update 2:

Other things that adds up with this:
Nuclear power plants are usually located near the coast. The official story is that coolant water is needed for the reactors. But to use saltwater for this purpose makes little sense since it's more corrosive than fresh water. However for electrolysis it makes prefect sense. The water needs to have salt in it for this to work.
Nuclear power plants release warm water. An electrolysis process warms up the water and the hydrogen/oxygen in it gets depleted, so it needs to be constantly replaced.

Update 3:

Studying up on hydrogen production it seems that it results in a energy loss of 20-30 percent. Meaning that more energy (electricity or heat) is required to create hydrogen than what can be created from the hydrogen itself. However I still find it very plausible that hydrogen manufacturing is what is actually going on in the Nuclear plants. Let me explain. Nuclear plants are mostly found in countries with hydropower. In Sweden for example there are six. In a nationwide AC power grid, and most electrical circuits, capacitors are needed. Otherwise the system may overload when there are sudden drops in the load when for example everyone turns off their waterboiler at the same time. An AC power grid can also start to self resonate under certain conditions so capacitors are needed for that reason as well. A capacitor is a component that can store and release electricity quickly. Like a fast battery. So this may be what the Nuclear Plants are in a larger scale. When spikes occur in the grid, the electricity is burned off in the Nuclear Plants but all of it isn't wasted since it produces hydrogen gas. And in the summer the Nuclear plants can produce hydrogen when the demand for electricity is low but the capacity in the hydro plants are high and then sell this in the winter time as nuclear power.

Just my 2 cents

Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by patrix » Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:31 pm

An email I sent to a friend I'm discussing this and the energy problem in general that may be of interest

Funny how things connect since we were talking about energy yesterday. We got the electrical bill this morning. Four times the normal...

As Clay Shirky said "Institutions will preserve the problem that justifies their existence" and along that I would add that "Government will create and maintain the problems that justifies their existence".

And although I don't think anymore that the holy grail of free energy is hidden in plain sight in water I still think Nuclear energy is fake and that there's a lot that can be done in the area of energy and electricity production.

I don't think either that inventors are paid off to scrap or keep silent about innovations that would enable more effecient energy production or cars. The preservation of the energy crisis is instead much alike medicine. By establishing a false dogma/paradigm we are led into thought patterns that make us unable to understand the problem and thus we cannot solve it.

We know that allopathic medicine doesn't cure. A sore throat needs to be sore and if we ingest a toxin - antibiotics, that stops the detox we are experiencing, it will come back later usually with an interest. And if we try to stop it again we need a stronger toxin/antibiotic because of that.

But as you know this view on medicine appears absolutely insane to most people including me up until just a few years ago.

And it's a bit the same with the energy crisis. The search for free energy is encouraged like the search for a cure for cancer. And as with cancer this enforces a paradigm that makes us unable to see the problem correctly. Cancer is as you know, simply symptoms of malnutrition and toxification and if we adress those problems by adjusting our diet and reduce our intake of toxins like fluoride, additives and medicine, the problems we call cancer will resolve.

And as I said, the government will create the problem that justifies their existence and on top of that creates the appearance that they in fact are trying to solve it (as with cancer). So solutions that doesn't solve the problem and that create other problems is promoted, Like wind and solar power. And things that would make an actual difference is supressed simply by not giving it any attention/funding and by discrediting it via disinformation (again precisely as with cancer). Any doctor that promotes anything else than the standard of care will be discredited and risk losing his license.

In Britain there are tides that shift several meters. How about building a few dams that is filled when the tide is low and then the water powers some generators.

As I said yesterday I think hydroelectricity is the major player in creating electricity. As opposed to wind and solar power, the energy can be stored in damns and converted into electricity when needed.

In Sweden hydroelectric plants are heavily regulated and they are actually actively shutting down the few small plants that are still existing "for environmental reasons". At the same time wind power is built everywhere harming wildlife, uglifying the scenery and causing noise that is horrible for the people living nearby the wind turbines.

Then we have geothermal energy. Most houses in Sweden have a system that uses the heat in the ground to relieve some of the cost of electrical heating. But if the drill hole is made deeper then electricity can be produced in a way that has no impact on the environment whatsoever.

As for small scale electricity production one thing I'm thinking of is efficient wood or coal burning owens that heats up a Stirling engine. With todays automation technologies I think such a system can be made very efficient and maintenance free.

And regarding energy storage perhaps a kinetic storage would be more effective and cheaper than lithium batteries? Have a Stirling engine elevate a heavy slab of concrete/iron and then let that power a generator. The same principle as how a hydroelectric plant stores energy but in small scale.

As for fuel there is in reality not an actual problem since oil is abundant but we can't get around the monopoly at the moment. But ethanol could be produced but I believe it's heavily regulated and that the prohibition era was a way to engineer consent to shut down an upcoming ethanol business through restrictions on alcohol production.

You mentioned running cars on wood gas and that was actually common practice in Sweden during the war. Something else that was a thing in Sweden a few years ago but didn't get anywhere was running cars on something called black liquor that can be refined from wood and byproducts of paper manufacturing.

Germany refined fuel from coal during the war. Allegedly it was inefficient. I don't know about that.

And then of course we have hydrogen as way to store energy. The energy to weight ratio is way better than batteries. An engine can run on hydrogen with minor modifications and will run completely clean reducing maintenance to almost nothing and with a zero "carbon footprint". There was concerns raised about risk of explosion with hydrogen cars but it seems electric cars is just as a big problem. And imagine the carbon footprint created when the rare metals needed for the batteries is mined. Hydrogen gas is used in industrial applications and it has not been shown to be extraordinary unsafe or problematic.

Other problems with electric cars is their limited range, slow refuling time, the high cost of the battery, it's degradation and that the slightest damage to it renders a complete replacement. The battery is usually placed at the bottom of the car without much protection so this happens. I read about a Norwegian cab driver who went bankrupt because he hit a small obstacle in the road. The battery replacement took a month and the cost was almost as much as the car was worth.

We know that planned obsolescence is a thing and it's really seems they've gone overboard with that regarding the electric cars. Again as with wind and solar, I think this was the path chosen not because it's a better solution but a worse being made to appear better. It's just like cancer/chronic disease in essence.

Posts: 46
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 12:15 am

Re: Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by Newsbender » Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:39 pm

Excellent post, patrix. I would like to add that the EMF exposure from electric cars surely must pose a health risk to any passengers over a long enough timeline as there is no shielding from those low frequency electromagnetic waves. Whether or not EMF radiation is the cause of cancer or not (debate for a different thread, e.g. German New Medicine), we know that exposure to it is detrimental to human health and we should be limiting this, not increasing it (my biggest concern with 5G). I would not like to go on a road trip with one of those batteries right underneath where I am sitting, that's for sure!

Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering ‘Nuclear’ Power

Unread post by patrix » Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:54 pm

Thank you Newsbender, I must however say that I'm sceptical to the dangers of EMF, and in particular 5g since the frequency actually have less penetration than existing 4/3g. I suspect it's a new invisible fear scare they want to create. Another mail with my friend:

Yes the nuclear energy thing really sent me down an interesting line
of investigation, and I try to reason around it now without invoking
unknowns like aether/free energy. It's clear to me that we are being
deceived in the energy question but the hard part is to figure out how.
I'm convinced now that coal and oil are in fact abundant minerals and
that it cannot be confirmed that its usage affects the climate.
Hydrogen gas manufacturing is an efficient way to store energy so that
may be what's going on in the nuclear plants that are situated in
countries with hydroelectric power since they typically produce the
most electricity in the spring and summer when the demand for
electricity is low. Another possible function nuclear power plants
could have is to act as a capacitor. I've done some electrical
projects and capacitors are commonly used to prevent surges and to
even out the current. So when the demand is high the nuclear plants
could possibly quickly add electricity and burn away power surges
when people turn of their consumers at the same time, and make
hydrogen out of it.

Another concerning thing with nuclear power plants is that they could
be used as a Trojan horse. It would be perfectly possible to stage a
nuclear accident by filling the plant with explosives, blow it up and
thus paralyse a country by destroying its power grid and cause chaos
and fear of radiation. We've seen what I would call land grabs in
Chernobyl and Fukushima. The nuclear accident scenario is a perfect
way to move people from an area since most will evacuate voluntarily
in fear of the radiation. And the Fukushima earthquake may actually
have been a created one. It occurred on shallow water just outside the
coast as opposed to a typical tsunami like the one in 2004 that
occurred in deep water and affected a large region. The psychos could
have been inspired by the 2004 tsunami, put a bunch of high explosives on
a barge and blow it up in a similar way as what we've seen in nuclear
tests. Was there any military maneuvers going on in the are before the
disaster perhaps? Something that supports this is that the imagery
from Fukushima show signs of CGI and thus that they were
prefabricated. And that requires pre-knowledge of the event, just like
with 9/11.

Post Reply