Port Chicago... accidental nuclear blast?

Originally posted by Frosty

rogue1, Mark II is a nuclear device! The only difference in this design from Little Boy or Fat Man is that this is a hydride bomb. You seem to not know what this means, it simply means that the design of the bomb was to use heavy water (deuterium as stated before) rather than cadium and graphite as a neutron moderator.

Ummm ok right. I have always maintianed that the Mark II device was a nuclear weapon, duh. It had a design yield consideraby smaller than the Fat MAn and Little Boy Devices. SO what is your point ?
You seem not to nderstand that all nuclear weapons produce different amounts of radiation, they are not the same. Hence comparing port Chiacgo to Nagasaki is ridiculous and wrong.

Oh bTW, Little Boy and Fat Man were two completely different types of nuclear design and the Mark II being different again.

LIttle Boy - Uranium gun type weapon
Fat Man - Plutonium implosion weapon
Mark II - lateral plutonium implosion device which used LEU

I do hope that cleared up things for you

quote : " If you had read the links I had posted you'd realise why there isn't any radiation"

that was you , your hand waving was amusing , now you have descended to lies and insults EVERY time your myth is challenged

it is no longer funny - your " properties " for the MKII device are pure fantasy - with one aim , to fit the conclusion that port chicago was a atomic weapon to the facts

you cannot explain the damage , radiation , thermal energy , EMP etc etc so you throw tantrums and call people " retard " or " moron "

YRS - APE

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

that was you , your hand waving was amusing , now you have descended to lies and insults EVERY time your myth is challenged

it is no longer funny - your " properties " for the MKII device are pure fantasy - with one aim , to fit the conclusion that port chicago was a atomic weapon to the facts

you cannot explain the damage , radiation , thermal energy , EMP etc etc so you throw tantrums and call people " retard " or " moron "

Ahem and let me guess you still haven't read the pdf's, how surprising. Well the properties for the Mark II device are those reported from the Manhattan Project. Yep I guess you as a laymen would know far more .
GAWD, if you bothered to read the pdf's on www.portchicago.org, you'd have your answers. Possibly it may be too complicated for you to understand, if so, just say so.

LOL, I throw tantrum LMAO. Well, for a start I've never called anyone a retard, that is your terminology. Secondly, I am sick of people who comment and ask questions yet don't bother to read the links and then ask the same question again. Seems like the sign of a pretty stupid person to me.

It must be nice to be like you and stick your head in the sand, that way your intellectual cpacity will never be challenged. From what I've seen that may be just as well.

QUOTE :"Well the properties for the Mark II device are those reported from the Manhattan Project. "

then humour me and quote some specs , from a site other than portchicago.org or other WOO2 site

PS - this will ecpose the lies i alluded to earlier , you claim to know about atomic weapons [ on the other thread ] if this is true - how were you so easily duped ?

the specs for " Mark II autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion. experimental device" are pure fantasy

how did you miss such a dishonest chunk of word salad jibberish ?

contrary to your claims , uranium hydride devices will have the same output of blast , thermal and ionizing radiation as any other device

read something other than mr vogels fantasies

YRS - APE

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahem and let me guess you still haven't read the pdf's, how surprising. Well the properties for the Mark II device are those reported from the Manhattan Project. Yep I guess you as a laymen would know far more

.
GAWD, if you bothered to read the pdf's on www.portchicago.org, you'd have your answers. Possibly it may be too complicated for you to understand, if so, just say so.

Incorrect.
Your links to those .pdf's do not clarify satisfactorily why there was not radiation to be detected from the use of such a device, therefore, concluding that their would have been detectable radiation, contrary to what you have been asserting.

Again, why does not those .pdf's, that you keep referring people to, not explain such? The device was a low-yield nuke, as such, it would have emitted/released significant amounts of detectable radiation. Your sources do not even begin to remotely explain or back the theory that the Port Chicago explosion was a mini-nuke or low-yield nuke detonation. You have any explanation, other than your typical layman's scoffing of "did you read those .pdf's?"

Enlighten us, rogue1.

Secondly, I am sick of people who comment and ask questions yet don't bother to read the links and then ask the same question again. Seems like the sign of a pretty stupid person to me.

Let me point out to you for the third time that neither you nor your linked sources--those pdf's adequately answer those question concerning detectable radiation, rogue1. You comprehend this? If I or others are in error, then by all means, quote those passages, k?

It must be nice to be like you and stick your head in the sand, that way your intellectual cpacity will never be challenged. From what I've seen that may be just as well.

For one as intellectually gifted as you so want others to think you are, how about get your spelling correct there, mate. Leaves much to be desired from one who claims the intellectual properties that you so wish others to think you have.






seekerof

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

For one as intellectually gifted as you so want others to think you are, how about get your spelling correct there, mate. Leaves much to be desired from one who claims the intellectual properties that you so wish others to think you have.

LMAO, oh ok. Maybe next time I should meticulously use the spell check like you do ? I just can't be bothered, if you notice that most of my typos are from typing to fast and hitting the letter next to the one I was looking for. But hey, poor attempt at an insult.LOL.
Seeker, we can't all be intellectually gifted, you shouldn't be jealous, just accept your lot. We need worker bees in this world as well.

Also the whole book should be read in it's entirety at www.portchicago.org..., it gets kind of pointless quoting individual chapters without the whole story. However I know that most people won't bother, so I just link certain chapters.

Another link dealing with radiation among other things to do with Port Chicago :
www.darkconspiracy.com...


[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

PS - this will ecpose the lies i alluded to earlier , you claim to know about atomic weapons [ on the other thread ] if this is true - how were you so easily duped ?

the specs for " Mark II autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion. experimental device" are pure fantasy

Why is that ? You have evidence to the contrary ? He sites several papers from Los Alamos dealing with lateral implosion using uranium hydride.
Also, as I have posted previously, during the 1953 Upshot Knothole series of tests 2 uranium hydride lateral implosion devices were tested at the behest of Edward Teller, even though it was seen as an obsolete design. Hmm, for a fantasy it made a pretty big bang. READ

In 1939, J. Robert Oppenheimer had first proposed a uranium hydride nuclear fission bomb to utilize the deuterium hydrogen isotope in a U235 metal-deuterium compound. The design used uranium-hydride 235, which featured the absorption of low-velocity neutrons by uranium, providing a lower critical mass. But the hydrogen slows the process, possibly to impermissibly long periods of time. Weapon efficiency is adversely affected by the slowing of the neutrons, since it gives the bomb core more time to blow apart. The nuclear fission chain reaction would be the result of slow (thermal energy) neutron fission, with a predicted energy yield of 1,000 tons TNT equivalent.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Interestingly enough, the lateral implosion is used for the 2nd stage of the Ulam-Teller radiation implosion design for thermonuclear weapons. A design still used today.

contrary to your claims , uranium hydride devices will have the same output of blast , thermal and ionizing radiation as any other device

Oh you claim to know somehthing about it now ? And no, the Mark II was a far smaller weapon of than the war shots. I don't know why you think it would produce the same amount of radiation as a weapon 10-15 times more powerful than it. It just doesn't make any sense.


[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]

as you ignored it , i will repeat :

then humour me and quote some specs , from a site other than portchicago.org or other WOO2 site

as you ignored it , i will repeat :


the specs for " Mark II autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion. experimental device" are pure fantasy

if i am wrong , you will be able to cite them from a none vogel sorce wont you ?

YRS - APE

as you seem to think that " Upshot-Knothole" supports your case - i suggest yo actually read up on it , here is a start :

Vnuclearweaponarchive.org...

pay paricular attention to radiation output and yeild

OOOOPS

YRS - APE

and if we can encourage you to read something other than vogels fantasies , try citeing ANY documentation that shows an abomb be9ing at port chicago

even vogel quotes cpt parsons reports on port chicago quite acuratly - no mention of a atom bomb - or any of the unique signitures that an A-bomb would leave

you told me to read vogel - and i did , AGAIN - AND NOTHING ABOUT AN ATOM BOMB AT PORT CHICAGO IN THE RECORDS

yrs - ape

[edit on 30-8-2005 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
as you seem to think that " Upshot-Knothole" supports your case - i suggest yo actually read up on it , here is a start :

Vnuclearweaponarchive.org...

pay paricular attention to radiation output and yeild

OOOOPS

YRS - APE

Umm yes they were both fizzles. However you were arguing before that the weapon didn't even exist except in fantasy. OOOOOOPS. Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

rogue1, Mark II is a nuclear device! The only difference in this design from Little Boy or Fat Man is that this is a hydride bomb. You seem to not know what this means, it simply means that the design of the bomb was to use heavy water (deuterium as stated before) rather than cadium and graphite as a neutron moderator.

Ummm ok right. I have always maintianed that the Mark II device was a nuclear weapon, duh. It had a design yield consideraby smaller than the Fat MAn and Little Boy Devices. SO what is your point ?
You seem not to nderstand that all nuclear weapons produce different amounts of radiation, they are not the same. Hence comparing port Chiacgo to Nagasaki is ridiculous and wrong.

Oh bTW, Little Boy and Fat Man were two completely different types of nuclear design and the Mark II being different again.

LIttle Boy - Uranium gun type weapon
Fat Man - Plutonium implosion weapon
Mark II - lateral plutonium implosion device which used LEU

I do hope that cleared up things for you

Thanks for repeating what I said and not stating anything new. Maybe you don't know what heavy water is? It is hydrogen and deuterium, no oxygen which is why it is heavy.

Just answer these points:
*Why were no Los Alamos scientist aware that a nuke they built had been detonated?
*Where did they aquire the heavy water from?
*How was there a sufficient implosion device if Kistaikowsky hadn't designed his until April 1945?
*Why do we not see the lingering aftereffects of radiation from a 5 kiloton nuke?
*Why no vaporization?
*Why would the US government set off a nuke in Chicago Port?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
and if we can encourage you to read something other than vogels fantasies , try citeing ANY documentation that shows an abomb be9ing at port chicago

even vogel quotes cpt parsons reports on port chicago quite acuratly - no mention of a atom bomb - or any of the unique signitures that an A-bomb would leave

you told me to read vogel - and i did , AGAIN - AND NOTHING ABOUT AN ATOM BOMB AT PORT CHICAGO IN THE RECORDS

Read the book and draw your own conclusions. The whole book.

Within the entire commercially published Manhattan Project historical literature there is only one specific mention of the Mark II by that designation. That instance is found in The New World, 1939/1946, which is Volume I of a two-volume U.S. Department of Energy-funded history of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published, 1962, by the Pennsylvania State University Press and subsequently republished by the University of California Press. The New World, 1939/1946 was written by DOE contract historians Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr. In addition to the information that Hewlett and Anderson provided about the Mark II there are presently three identified Manhattan Project documents that also name the Mark II and supply additional information about the Mark I
Those three documents, all from the summer of 1944, are dated 4 July, 27 July and 17 August. All three documents were written by Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee alternate member, Harvard University President James B. Conant. The document dated 27 July reports events of 17 July 1944, the day of the Port Chicago explosion. No publicly known document dated before 4 July 1944 names the Mark II; no publicly known document dated after 17 August 1944 names the Mark II. Hewlett and Anderson do not identify the documentary sources they had consulted to prepare their description of the Mark II, but comparison of that text with the text of the three identifiedManhattan Project documents that name and describe the Mark II discloses that those three documents were the source of the description of the Mark II that Hewlett and Anderson published in The New World.
The information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of The New World and the information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of the three presently identified germane Manhattan Project documents permits the following composite description of the Mark II and the state of its development during the period 4 July–17 August 1944:
Mark II was a low-efficiency implosion bomb suitable for use with either U235 or plutonium (Pu239). The nuclear fission chain reaction achieved by the MarkI.
II utilizing a U235 active would be the result of slow (thermal energy) neutron fission. On 4 July the predicted energy yield of the Mark II was 1,000 tons TNT equivalent. On 17 July a test of the Mark II was predicted to yield a “moderate” explosion equivalent, at minimum, to “only a few hundred tons of TNT.” By 17 August the “upper limit of effectiveness” achieved by the Mark II was known, but that information is classified. On 17 August, the Mark II could be developed for combat use in 3 or 4 months time and the upper limit of effectiveness could be “raised somewhat.”

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
as you seem to think that " Upshot-Knothole" supports your case - i suggest yo actually read up on it , here is a start :

Vnuclearweaponarchive.org...

pay paricular attention to radiation output and yeild

OOOOPS

YRS - APE

Umm yes they were both fizzles. However you were arguing before that the weapon didn't even exist except in fantasy. OOOOOOPS. Thanks for proving my point.

Please give us an explination of why no one received radiation poisoning from ground zero? You say there were 900grams of uranium involved?

What exactly are your qualifications to call everyone a 'moron'?

Originally posted by Frosty
Just answer these points:
*Why were no Los Alamos scientist aware that a nuke they built had been detonated?
*Where did they aquire the heavy water from?
*How was there a sufficient implosion device if Kistaikowsky hadn't designed his until April 1945?
*Why do we not see the lingering aftereffects of radiation from a 5 kiloton nuke?
*Why no vaporization?
*Why would the US government set off a nuke in Chicago Port?

LIke I have told you many times before read the book by Peter Vogel. Whiilst some ignoramus's don't even want to read it, it has been well documented by the author.
I'm not going to go through the whole book to paraphrase it for you, I don'y have the time and couldn't be bothered anyway. All I can say is the answers to all your questions are in there, although it can get technical sometimes. Read or read not, I don't care - but don't keep on asking me the same crap.
www.portchicago.org...

QUOTE " Umm yes they were both fizzles. However you were arguing before that the weapon didn't even exist except in fantasy. OOOOOOPS. Thanks for proving my point.
"

BZZZZZZZZZZZ !!!!!!!!! WRONG

i told you your specs were a fantasy , i never said " MKII " sidnt exist ,

for some one who belittles others reading skills - yours are slipping alarmingly

YRS - APE

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty
Just answer these points:
*Why were no Los Alamos scientist aware that a nuke they built had been detonated?
*Where did they aquire the heavy water from?
*How was there a sufficient implosion device if Kistaikowsky hadn't designed his until April 1945?
*Why do we not see the lingering aftereffects of radiation from a 5 kiloton nuke?
*Why no vaporization?
*Why would the US government set off a nuke in Chicago Port?

LIke I have told you many times before read the book by Peter Vogel. Whiilst some ignoramus's don't even want to read it, it has been well documented by the author.
I'm not going to go through the whole book to paraphrase it for you, I don'y have the time and couldn't be bothered anyway. All I can say is the answers to all your questions are in there, although it can get technical sometimes. Read or read not, I don't care - but don't keep on asking me the same crap.
www.portchicago.org...

I'm not going to read the book, why don't you read the book. I'm not telling you to read Richard Rhodes's book, in fact I am siting most of my information from his book. Why can you not do the same???

QUOTE : Within the entire commercially published Manhattan Project historical literature there is only one specific mention of the Mark II by that designation. That instance is found in The New World, 1939/1946, which is Volume I of a two-volume U.S. Department of Energy-funded history of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published, 1962, by the Pennsylvania State University Press and subsequently republished by the University of California Press. The New World, 1939/1946 was written by DOE contract historians Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr. In addition to the information that Hewlett and Anderson provided about the Mark II there are presently three identified Manhattan Project documents that also name the Mark II and supply additional information about the Mark I
Those three documents, all from the summer of 1944, are dated 4 July, 27 July and 17 August. All three documents were written by Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee alternate member, Harvard University President James B. Conant. The document dated 27 July reports events of 17 July 1944, the day of the Port Chicago explosion. No publicly known document dated before 4 July 1944 names the Mark II; no publicly known document dated after 17 August 1944 names the Mark II. Hewlett and Anderson do not identify the documentary sources they had consulted to prepare their description of the Mark II, but comparison of that text with the text of the three identifiedManhattan Project documents that name and describe the Mark II discloses that those three documents were the source of the description of the Mark II that Hewlett and Anderson published in The New World.
The information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of The New World and the information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of the three presently identified germane Manhattan Project documents permits the following composite description of the Mark II and the state of its development during the period 4 July–17 August 1944:
Mark II was a low-efficiency implosion bomb suitable for use with either U235 or plutonium (Pu239). The nuclear fission chain reaction achieved by the MarkI.
II utilizing a U235 active would be the result of slow (thermal energy) neutron fission. On 4 July the predicted energy yield of the Mark II was 1,000 tons TNT equivalent. On 17 July a test of the Mark II was predicted to yield a “moderate” explosion equivalent, at minimum, to “only a few hundred tons of TNT.” By 17 August the “upper limit of effectiveness” achieved by the Mark II was known, but that information is classified. On 17 August, the Mark II could be developed for combat use in 3 or 4 months time and the upper limit of effectiveness could be “raised somewhat.” "

and where ecactly does it say MKII was built ??????????????

YRS - APE

Originally posted by Frosty

I'm not going to read the book, why don't you read the book. I'm not telling you to read Richard Rhodes's book, in fact I am siting most of my information from his book. Why can you not do the same???

I have read the book and both of Rhodes books on the development of the atom and hydrogen bomb programs, that's right both of them. The book I'm talking about is free and is avaiulable on Vogels website, god knows I've posted enough links to it. So there it is, you don't even have to pay for it.

What exactly have you cited ? You haven't contributed any information as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
QUOTE : Within the entire commercially published Manhattan Project historical literature there is only one specific mention of the Mark II by that designation. That instance is found in The New World, 1939/1946, which is Volume I of a two-volume U.S. Department of Energy-funded history of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published, 1962, by the Pennsylvania State University Press and subsequently republished by the University of California Press. The New World, 1939/1946 was written by DOE contract historians Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr. In addition to the information that Hewlett and Anderson provided about the Mark II there are presently three identified Manhattan Project documents that also name the Mark II and supply additional information about the Mark I
Those three documents, all from the summer of 1944, are dated 4 July, 27 July and 17 August. All three documents were written by Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee alternate member, Harvard University President James B. Conant. The document dated 27 July reports events of 17 July 1944, the day of the Port Chicago explosion. No publicly known document dated before 4 July 1944 names the Mark II; no publicly known document dated after 17 August 1944 names the Mark II. Hewlett and Anderson do not identify the documentary sources they had consulted to prepare their description of the Mark II, but comparison of that text with the text of the three identifiedManhattan Project documents that name and describe the Mark II discloses that those three documents were the source of the description of the Mark II that Hewlett and Anderson published in The New World.
The information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of The New World and the information descriptive of the Mark II disclosed in the text of the three presently identified germane Manhattan Project documents permits the following composite description of the Mark II and the state of its development during the period 4 July–17 August 1944:
Mark II was a low-efficiency implosion bomb suitable for use with either U235 or plutonium (Pu239). The nuclear fission chain reaction achieved by the MarkI.
II utilizing a U235 active would be the result of slow (thermal energy) neutron fission. On 4 July the predicted energy yield of the Mark II was 1,000 tons TNT equivalent. On 17 July a test of the Mark II was predicted to yield a “moderate” explosion equivalent, at minimum, to “only a few hundred tons of TNT.” By 17 August the “upper limit of effectiveness” achieved by the Mark II was known, but that information is classified. On 17 August, the Mark II could be developed for combat use in 3 or 4 months time and the upper limit of effectiveness could be “raised somewhat.” "

and where ecactly does it say MKII was built ??????????????

YRS - APE

exactly, it doesn't. It was a theoritical concept, like many others at Los Alamos including the 'tickling dragon'. They even quit experiments with heavy water after 43, you should know this rogue1 it states quite clearly in Rhodes's book.