[TVOW]

[Note by rerev: the following post contains pitiful errors of many different kinds; however they've been left unaltered] The size of plain H explosion depends on the amount of H and 0 , they have just told everyone that the blasts at Fuchshima were Hydrogen explosion I not confusing anything , I am perfectly aware of what an H bomb is supposed to be, it is to be disregarded considering the source. I’m sure they were bored of using TNT, if its an experiment worth doing at school then I think it’s an experiment worth doing on the mega scale . Also such experiments could play a role in feasibility studies for Terraforming other worlds.

As for real research it Nuclear explosive potential, Such experiments would have continued and been elaborated upon to this day in the search for explosive potential. They also probably started a lot earlier and the official story of the invention of any enervation are always complete fiction, see the social Network , or Darwin not have clue about evolution till he travelled to the Galapagos islands , or the Bill Gates Story. The story of the of the German bloke not releasing he split the atom if it hadn’t corresponded with some Jewish woman who had fled Nazi Germany, there is always a story and hero

It would seem to me that the basic idea of one atom becoming two smaller atoms plus a release of energy is essentially an increase in volume and a release of energy regardless of the scale sounds like explosion to me though I know not how exactly an explosion is defined.


My main problem with the notion of a nuclear explosion is that though I think it logical that heat and pressure in excess may crack atoms and force them to increase in number and so volume and release some or even all of there energy , but the explosive force would cause the pressure to drop from the first moment of maximum heat and pressure required to start to the crack of atoms, so the atom cracking would not continue, it would self extinguish itself before it gets started , It would seem to me that that a real nuclear explosion may be possible in a confined space as to maintain the pressure. This clearly would not be weaponizable but it could allow us to create controlled plasma style explosion and to some degree study them.
Beyond this, bursting out of the confined space or by means of releasing it from , it clearly would become increasingly difficult, but it remains possible surly that anything that you can do in small amounts slowly you can do in large amount quickly up to instantaneously.

It remains plausible to me with the correct set up you could provide enough heat and enough pressure for long enough to get significant explosion , involving hydraulic clamps and implosions and such , bit of experimentation I am sure you could get it to go bang .I think they probably would have tried everything they could to get it explode, throwing everything from neutrons , electromagnetics ,sound and the kitchen sink . imagine if you do get it to work and all the other important nations and the rest of the elite think it’s a hoax. These people always win because they have the good sense to back both sides , regardless of the hoax the research into the possibility of nuclear explosions and their potential for weapon ization would have continued in my view and in all probability does to this day, but I don’t think it has anything or is very loosely related to the official science fed to the public fission , fusion and all that .

[mooninquirer]

TVOW ---- yeah, that Jewish woman was Lise Meitner. I think that she should have won a Nobel Prize, and that she was very CUTE, too, both in her appearance and in her mannerisms. I am going by that stunning photo of her in her Wikipedia bio. A very good documentary, which discusses nuclear fission, giving ample credit to Lise Meitner, can be watched for free on youtube. Type into the youtube space : E = MC^2 THE BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION.

Of course, there are a number of things wrong with this documentary. But it is certainly well worth watching. Einstein is given too much credit for coming up with relativity. But Henri Poincare had come up with this a few years before, and Einstein might have gotten the final form of E=mc^2 from his friend Michele Besso, who I remember is discussed in that documentary. Check out the posting on this site concerning "proof Einstein stole E=mc^2 "

Properly, the above documentary states that that Einstein did not become famous until Max Planck convinced others to take Einstein seriously. Now this was because of Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect, for which he won the Nobel Prize. This is because the photoelectric effect uses the equation E = hf, where E is the energy of a particular photon, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, or the photon. So really, E=mc^2 should not properly be called Einstein's equation, but E = hf should be called Einstein's equation. Prof. Muelller refers to E = hf as Einstein's equation, in his free lecture series and course on youtube. Type into the youtube space : UC BERKELEY PHYSICS

There are a number of things wrong with this lecture, or that give one clues that he is intentionally lying, and also he shows an appropriate level of humbleness, which I think should encourage others to challenge even what HE is saying, as well as a personal arrogance in dismissing the theories of other physics teachers ( on the explanation for the lift in an aircraft wing ), that will ALSO encourage others to challenge what even HE is saying ! More on that later. The most important lecture on nuclear fission, nuclear power plants, and supposed nuke bombs can be seen by typing into youtube : UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES

Note that in the above lecture he is 100 % confident and says with absolute assurances that a nuclear power plant will not explode --- this even includes a worst case scenario. Please also note that he is exaggerating the harmful effects of radiation at Chernobyl. Read the post on "where's the radiation at Chernobyl ?" at this site. So I say, that if a nuke power plant cannot explode, then neither can a supposed nuclear bomb ! Note Prof. Mueller gets very flustered when answering a student's question on why a nuke power plant will not explode, but a bomb will. At the end, he tries to explain why a nuke bomb will explode, and note that he admits that initially, the explosion is no greater than an equivalent mass of TNT, but the blast is so much greater for a nuclear bomb, because of a secondary fissioning in MID AIR ! But this is a contradiction, because a critical mass had to come together in the first place in order for the chain reaction to happen ! Neutrons hitting nuclei are like hunters shooting ducks, and if it is hard to hit them when they are assembled on a pond, then it is going to be even HARDER to shoot and hit them when they fly away and are scattered.

You are WRONG in just assuming that if one nucleus can fission, then a mass of them assembled can fission all at once. The lecture I referred to gives you the ENORMOUS spacing between the nuclei. If a U 235 atom where the size of Yankee stadium, then the nucleus would be the size of a marble. Any fissioning, though it releases neutrons ( usually 2.5 --- that is 2 and a half in case you missed that decimal point ), is NOT going to cause the fissioning of nuclei nearby, because the chances of the neutrons hitting the nearby nuclei are almost zero. They would have to travel by trillions and trillion of uranium atoms, until they hit another nucleus. So, a NUCLEAR chain reaction is necessarily a gradual process.

You are also committing the fallacy of applying chemical thinking to nuclear phenomena. In chemical reactions, you CAN have a chain reaction in which nearly all of the fuel is consumed. This is because the heat generated by the a chemical reaction in a few of the molecules, facilitates other molecules to also react, releasing more heat, and so on and so on. But, with nuclear phenomena, heat is totally irrelevant to whether another nucleus is going to split ---- the only thing that is relevant is whether that nucleus absorbs a neutron. And heat actually makes this more difficult, because the heat causes the mass of fissile metal to melt, including melting any surrounding container. When it loses its essential shape, which is a sphere, and for example, lies flat, it will no longer be a critical mass, and further fissioning will be halted. Remember how Prof. Mueller describes in the beginning of " UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES" that the fissile material lying flat will not be a critical mass, because then the neutrons resulting from the fission will escape into the area above and below, and they will be wasted, and therefore there can be no chain reaction.

I really hope you understand the tthat ONLY slow neutrons can be absorbed by U 235, to cause the fissiong, and that the fissioning only results in fast neutrons. Thus a nuclear bomb woulkd have this layering between the U 235 and the moderator, like graphite. It would be just like a nuclear reactor. Also, I hope you realize that U 238 does not fission when it absorbs a slow neutron, but just because U 239, which turns into plutonium Pu 239 several days later with two beta decays, turning two of its neutrons into protons as they give up

[TVOW]

You are probably right , I’ll take your word for it the one that was a factory build could well have been ivy mike and they may well have been early on different island , I do my stuff from memory so I am bound to get the facts wrong , I try not to learn the official story parrot fashion as it is all rubbish , anyway , I agree that the test footage attributed to this is not a real nuke , but that in itself doesn’t prove anything .

You are obsessed with neutrons , if they tell you its about neutrons (not entirely sure they exist) then that probably is the reverse of the actual mechanism involved . Your are right heat is irrelevant just a by product really , however the presence of heat will increase the pressure , You are right there is much empty space in and between nuclei , however this space can be theoretically compressed, not easily , but really its just about adding more pressure till you meet that which is required , If you really hit these things they will obliterate you would have thought and more then the odd neutron would fly out . You seem to confuse the notion of controlled reaction with one which is deliberately uncontrolled . These atoms spitting neutrons at one another fast or slow doesn’t wash with me as anything to do with how you would go about making an explosion , one would have thought there would have been a range of speeds from near infinite to static, rather than just fast or slow.

This reminds me or a proponent of Darwinian Gradualism trying to explain the Cambrian explosion.

[mooninquirer]

TVOW ---- I was hoping that your response was going to be about my comments about Lise Meitner, or about that documentary E=MC^2 A BIOGRAPHY OF AN EQUATION, or about Prof. Mueller's lecture UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES.

Neutrons are absolutely essential. I cannot be obsessed with neutrons, because they are the ONLY mechanism by which nuclear fission occurs. Take away neutrons, and you take away the nuke bomb myth entirely.

But I cannot take away neutrons. To do so, would be to be totally ignorant of science. I am not a flunky. All I am doing is providing a critique that nuke bombs do NOT fit in with all of the other facts and theories of science. They are NOT reproducible experiments, and are guarded as "classified information." We can SEE that the footage is faked. Now, what remains is that, "does the THEORY behind nuke bombs exploding fit in with the other facts and theories of physics ?" These facts include neutrons.

Heat is a REALITY, and on a atomic scale, heat is EXACTLY the kinetic energy of the atoms. In the solid state of matter, this kinetic energy is the vibration of the atoms in the matrix of the solid. This is high school level, if not grade school level, science. My freshman year high school science teacher, who had a master's degree in chemistry, really, really made a big point of what heat was on an atomic scale. ( He also was extremely mocking of the moon landing as a hoax. ) Now, when he tried his best to explain why a nuke bomb would explode, I don't think he succeeded. I asked him after class about this. Because the season was over for cross country, I had the time, and his class was the very last class, and I didn't have to go anywhere. So, I had the time to really have a discussion of the supposed explosion of a nuke bomb, and so did my teacher --- and furthermore, this is exactly the most desirable thing about BEING a teacher anyway, so he had the interest. I kept saying that I understood why it would get hot, but I do not understand why it would explode. He nodded his head, and said I might be onto something. Clearly, he had thought about the same thing before on his own accord.

[TVOW]

They just made up neutrons to explain away unaccounted for weight , as I understand it. the official dynamic of the atom is the best theory to much the evidence but it is still the product of math and assumption nothing but a construct or frame work by which we hang our understanding of such things. , Not sure I really understand what your saying about heat as I understood it heat is just one of the ways energy express itself it can be a radiation its more then just the atoms vibrating which is another way energy expresses itself , sorry not to respond on the issues you wanted, but I don’t know those people and I haven’t watched that documentary.

[mooninquirer]

Yes, heat energy can also be transmitted in the form of electromagnetic radiation. In this case, the heat energy is NOT the kinetic energy, since electromagnetic radiation, or photons, have no mass, and the formula for kinetic energy is KE = 1/2 mv^2. Heat energy could ALSO be transmitted in the form of particle radiation, in the sense of particles which have mass, such as alpha particles and neutrons. However, their heat energy that they can transmit will be their kinetic energy. And when an alpha particle or a neutron hits a nucleus, it transfers its kinetic energy of linear motion, to the vibrational kinetic energy of the nucleus, and therefore of the whole atom, since the positive charge of the nucleus will "drag along" the negatively charged electron clouds surrounding the nucleus.

Heat at the atomic level stimulates chemical reactions to occur, for molecules to break apart, and recombine. Think about a box full of china ( dishes, bowls ). If you shook the box, then the china inside will move around around and break. But atoms have a natural tendency to combine with one another, so that new combinations will form. This is why I say that chemical reactions are naturally a chain reaction, because most chemical reactions are exothermic ( they release heat energy ), and heat stimulates more chemical reactions. This is what happens in a chemical explosive like TNT.

But, in contrast, heat is totally irrelevant to further nuclear fissions to occur. The only thing that is relevant is whether a nucleus absorbs a neutron. And to the extent that too much heat causes a solid to melt and loses its essential spherical shape, heat is counterproductive to more nuclear fissions.