Port Chicago - America's First Atomic Test

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What is to understand about the bomb being used? If you have a nuclear bomb, you have radiation. Period. Radiation has a half life. Period. If you set of a nuclear bomb, you WILL have mutations, and you WILL have health effects, such as higher cancer rates, and radiation sickness. There is NO WAY you would have a nuclear bomb, and NOT have people dying from radiation sickness that were IN THE PORT right near the explosion. If you don't have the radiation, you don't have a nuclear bomb. Period.


Ummm FFS, do you bother to read any of the links at all ? Obviously not because you have bugger all knowlege of what you are talking about. The Mark II weapon was far different from the U235 and Plutonium therefore the radiation effects would be far different. Oh BTW if you'd read the links you'd know there is radiation there




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
There were 2 tests conducted in 1953 within the Upshot-Knothole series. They used the same design as the Mark II weapon detonated at Port Chicago.

  • Shot Ruth- Hydride I
    The uranium hydride fission bomb approach was considered during the days of the Manhattan Project as possible way for reducing the required critical mass of uranium. The hydrogen in the hydride compound (UH3) moderates the fast neutrons somewhat, which moves the energy spectrum down into a region where the average fission cross section of uranium is substantially higher giving a smaller effective critical mass. Unfortunately, bomb efficiency is very adversely affected by the slowing down of the neutrons since it gives the bomb core more time to blow apart. The concept (if it worked) would allow low yield bombs that, while inherently inefficient, also did not use up much fissile material.

    The Ruth shot was a fizzle. The predicted yield was 1.5 to 3 kt, while the 200 ton yield was a fraction of that. Especially embarrassing to UCRL was that only the top 100 feet of the 300 foot shot tower was vaporized (though much of the remainder was scattered across the desert). It was standard practice at that time for each test to totally erase all evidence associated with it (automatically "declassifying" the site), which Ruth failed to do.

    Hydride I weighed 7400 lb, was 56 inches in diameter and was 66 inches long. A betatron was used for initiation.



  • Shot Ray - Hydride II
    This was the second test of a uranium hydride device, this time using the heavy isotope of hydrogen - deuterium. The uranium deuteride device was called Hydride II, and was otherwise basically identical to Hydride I. The predicted yield was 0.5-1 kt, the lower expected yield making a smaller gap with the same 200 ton yield as the first test. UCRL scientist Herbert York claims not to regard this test as a failure since it was lower than the predicted range by "only a factor of three". Legend has it that this shot was fired on a tower of only 100 feet (compared to 300 feet for Ruth) to ensure that the tower would be entirely destroyed.


    nuclearweaponarchive.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
As far as I know the first test of an atomic artillery shell was in 1953 at Frenchman's Flat. It was a 15kt device fired from a 280mm specially built cannon nicknamed ' Atomic Annie '.


No the first artillery shell used to set off a nuke was Little Boy which was dropped over Hiroshima August 6, 1945.

The blast radius is far too small. There is also no evidence of radiation poisoning, blinding light and there is no indication of vaporization. That stuff gets hot.

There is also no sensible arguement as to why a nuke was placed in Chicago.

EDIT:

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by rogue1

Study of the many published books of the Manhattan Project historical literature yields no attestation that any quantity of U235 had been separated during 1943. The author's task has been to satisfactorily confute that universally accepted precept of the Manhattan Project historical literature. Information published in this chapter will show that Philip H. Abelson, working at the United States Naval Research Laboratory with the liquid thermal diffusion uranium isotope separation method, did separate the U235 isotope during 1943 in quantity sufficient to permit the detonation of at least one Mark II bomb utilizing 9 kg U235 by 17 July 1944

www.portchicago.org...

That's pretty neat, especially considering that the critical mass of U-235 enriched to 100% (so purely theoretical) and with a beryllium reflector of 4cm is 15 kg. So allow me to doubt the 9 kg figure.


Don't forget a thin amount of Polonium was added to the beryllium or the fact that this necessity was not discovered until after the Port of Chicago accident.

Not too mention that 9kg is 900 grams and Oak Ridge wasn't completed until 1943 and not quite operational until 1944.


Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What is to understand about the bomb being used? If you have a nuclear bomb, you have radiation. Period. Radiation has a half life. Period. If you set of a nuclear bomb, you WILL have mutations, and you WILL have health effects, such as higher cancer rates, and radiation sickness. There is NO WAY you would have a nuclear bomb, and NOT have people dying from radiation sickness that were IN THE PORT right near the explosion. If you don't have the radiation, you don't have a nuclear bomb. Period.


Ummm FFS, do you bother to read any of the links at all ? Obviously not because you have bugger all knowlege of what you are talking about. The Mark II weapon was far different from the U235 and Plutonium therefore the radiation effects would be far different. Oh BTW if you'd read the links you'd know there is radiation there


No, uranium still gives off radiation. The US did not build and has not built bombs yet that give off as little radiation as mentioned in Chicago.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Any nuclear yeild using U-235 or Pu-239 would have cause neutron activation in the concrete and metal surrounding the blast sight. This means that there would still be detectable levels of radioactive in the site as there is at the other test sites. Also as stated in other posts there is no signs of heat damage. Look at the blast pictures for Japan and you will understand what I mean. It was a bad accident which today would most likely not occur. In fact many of the safety rules currently in place, came about from this accident.

lost in the midwest (Health Physicist)


[edit on 29-8-2005 by lost in the midwest]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by mad scientist
As far as I know the first test of an atomic artillery shell was in 1953 at Frenchman's Flat. It was a 15kt device fired from a 280mm specially built cannon nicknamed ' Atomic Annie '.


No the first artillery shell used to set off a nuke was Little Boy which was dropped over Hiroshima August 6, 1945.


Umm no once again you display your lack of knowledge. There was no artillery shell used in the Little Boy device LMAO. Little boy was a gun type device using an artillery barrel nothing more.


The blast radius is far too small. There is also no evidence of radiation poisoning, blinding light and there is no indication of vaporization. That stuff gets hot.


The US has made nuclear weapons yields as small as 10 tons. How can you wuantify a blast radius if you don't even know the power of the weapon



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty[/i

No, uranium still gives off radiation. The US did not build and has not built bombs yet that give off as little radiation as mentioned in Chicago.


DUH no crap sherlock


You must be stupid or something, I don't see any point responding to you posts on this subject. You obviously haven't bothered reading any of the links, so you just repeat the same drivel. Seeing a few Hollywood movies doesn't suffice as sufficient knowlege of nuclear weapons. Sorry bud.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by rogue1]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by asala]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Let's see, everyone is screaming about Depleted Uranium giving off so much radiation is causes major health problems, and EVERY nuclear test site is STILL radioactive years later. But the "nuke" used in Chicago, AT THE BEGINING OF THE PROGRAM didn't give off radiation. Sure.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Let's see, everyone is screaming about Depleted Uranium giving off so much radiation is causes major health problems, and EVERY nuclear test site is STILL radioactive years later. But the "nuke" used in Chicago, AT THE BEGINING OF THE PROGRAM didn't give off radiation. Sure.


Hmm you obviously don't have much of a clue about physics. No one said there wasn't any radiation, but you didn't bother to read any of the links
. Keep on posting your BS uninformed commnets but don't expect me to answer them. I only have time for people who will at least try and inform themselves. Oh well sigh.....



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Again, if someone survived from a couple hundred yards away, why didn't he suffer radiation poisoning? There should have been more signs of radiation. The people going in to clean up after the accident should have shown signs of radiation, the animal life there should have shown signs of radiation, unless this was some sort of special radiation that has no half life, and no ill effects.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by mad scientist
As far as I know the first test of an atomic artillery shell was in 1953 at Frenchman's Flat. It was a 15kt device fired from a 280mm specially built cannon nicknamed ' Atomic Annie '.


No the first artillery shell used to set off a nuke was Little Boy which was dropped over Hiroshima August 6, 1945.


Umm no once again you display your lack of knowledge. There was no artillery shell used in the Little Boy device LMAO. Little boy was a gun type device using an artillery barrel nothing more.


The blast radius is far too small. There is also no evidence of radiation poisoning, blinding light and there is no indication of vaporization. That stuff gets hot.


The US has made nuclear weapons yields as small as 10 tons. How can you wuantify a blast radius if you don't even know the power of the weapon



Bullit, shell, whatever they call it. Your theory lies on the basis that this was a 5kt nuke not a .1kt nuke.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty[/i

No, uranium still gives off radiation. The US did not build and has not built bombs yet that give off as little radiation as mentioned in Chicago.


DUH no crap sherlock


You must be stupid or something, I don't see any point responding to you posts on this subject. You obviously haven't bothered reading any of the links, so you just repeat the same drivel. Seeing a few Hollywood movies doesn't suffice as sufficient knowlege of nuclear weapons. Sorry bud.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by rogue1]

[edit on 29-8-2005 by asala]


Ok, explain to me how a 5kt nuke does not give off sufficient amounts of radiation within about a 3/4 mile radius, as there were many people in that region UNHARMED BY RADIATION.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, if someone survived from a couple hundred yards away, why didn't he suffer radiation poisoning? There should have been more signs of radiation. The people going in to clean up after the accident should have shown signs of radiation, the animal life there should have shown signs of radiation, unless this was some sort of special radiation that has no half life, and no ill effects.


Correct, anyone within about a 3/4 mile radius of the blast would have shown signs of radiation in their system and those that helped clean up would have been killed if not extremely sick with radiation burns. We see none of this. rogue1 does not understand the concept of radiation and how fast it travels when a supposed 5kt nuke goes off.

This is what some of the men on clean up duty would have looked like afterwards: [img] www.ratical.org...[/img]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Correct, anyone within about a 3/4 mile radius of the blast would have shown signs of radiation in their system and those that helped clean up would have been killed if not extremely sick with radiation burns. We see none of this. rogue1 does not understand the concept of radiation and how fast it travels when a supposed 5kt nuke goes off.


LOL, where do you get 3/4 of a mile from. Are talking more BS to try and make it seem like you know what you're talking about, seems so. ::SHRUGS::

Read the pdf's at www.portchicago.org, if you can't be bothered they don't bother posting.
PS.I've forgotten more about nuclear weapons than you'll ever know.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   
If you've forgotten so much then explain to us how you can have a nuclear blast, using Uranium, and NO radioactivity. Or at least so little that NO ONE got sick including the guys that were AT ground zero, within a matter of HOURS of the blast.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, if someone survived from a couple hundred yards away, why didn't he suffer radiation poisoning? There should have been more signs of radiation. The people going in to clean up after the accident should have shown signs of radiation, the animal life there should have shown signs of radiation, unless this was some sort of special radiation that has no half life, and no ill effects.


Correct, anyone within about a 3/4 mile radius of the blast would have shown signs of radiation in their system and those that helped clean up would have been killed if not extremely sick with radiation burns. We see none of this. rogue1 does not understand the concept of radiation and how fast it travels when a supposed 5kt nuke goes off.


"Using the ionizing radiation survey data reported for shots Ruth and Ray as measures of the probable ionizing radiation levels produced consequent to proof of the 200 tons TNT-equivalent uranium hydride Mark II experimental device conducted at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine it is readily apparent that even the two men who survived the Port Chicago explosion at 1,000 feet under the rubble of the Joiner Shop, at the shore end of the pier, would probably not have suffered adverse short-term health consequences as the result of ionizing radiation exposure, prompt gamma nor subsequently from any local radioactive fallout.

www.portchicago.org...

Like I said do some reading FFS.
- not too bright are you

[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
  • 1.Dave: “Tell us about your discovery of a documententitled ‘History of 10,000-Ton Gadget’ at a rummage sale.” Peter: Explains that the information presented in the document he picked up at a church rummage sale obviously describes the explosion of a nuclear fission device. The tremendous heat generated by a nuclear blast causes the peculiar formation of the mushroom cloud, which rises to a great height because of this heat, then cools and “mushrooms out.” He did not recognize the reference to Port Chicago, and (after a tip by professional colleagues) found the description of the explosion of the Liberty Ship E.A. Bryan at the Port Chicago Naval installation in San Francisco Bay on July 17, 1944. Three hundred and twenty men died in the explosion (220 of them African-American sailors). When African-American sailors refused to continue loading munitions, they were convicted of mutiny in a landmark case for African-American civil liberties in the United States.

  • 2.Dave: “You presented the document to Edward Teller, the father of the H-Bomb. How did he react? Why do you think he reacted that way?”
    Peter: After discussing the authors of the report (Joseph O. Hirschfelder and William G. Penney), Peter relates his presentation of the document to Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb. Teller reacted in a contentious fashion, informing Peter that he had a classified document and stating that he would deny that he had ever seen the document. (In Peter’s book, there are photographs of Teller reading the document.)

  • 3.Dave: “What was the reaction of then Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Donald M. Kerr, Jr. when you asked about the paper?”
    Peter: Kerr told Peter that he’d never be able to prove that the explosion was nuclear. Peter told him he’d try. Kerr has since held important positions with the FBI and CIA.

  • 4.Dave: “What were the characteristics of the Port Chicago explosion that convinced you that it was a nuclear explosion?”
    Peter: After discussing the mushroom cloud and the distinctive heat convection that forms a mushroom cloud, Peter explains that the explosion lit the Bay Area as brightly as noon with a brilliant flash of white light. That distinctive white color (characteristic of a nuclear explosion) also derives from the extremely high temperatures generated by a nuclear explosion. In addition, Peter notes that pilots in aircraft flying over the Bay Area noted what appeared to be a Wilson Condensation Cloud—a large, ring-shaped cloud produced by the detonation of a nuclear device over water. (Although it is possible for a Wilson Condensation Cloud to be generated by a powerful conventional explosion, the very large size of the ring-shaped cloud around Port Chicago is almost certainly characteristic of a nuclear detonation.)

  • 5.Dave: “Officially, there was not supposed to have been enough fissionable material available for a 1944 test. Relate to us what your investigation eventually uncovered.”
    Peter: Upon penetrating the official position that there was not enough U-235 available for a test of a weapon prior to the 1945 Trinity explosion, Peter obtained documentation that, in fact, enough material was available.

  • 6.Dave: “You discovered that there was a tremendous amount of interest in the [supposedly conventional] Port Chicago explosion on the part of the Los Alamos Laboratory. Tell us about that, and the background of Captain William Parsons, who wrote the study.
    Peter: Peter relates that there was a tremendous amount of interest in the explosion on the part of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and that the investigation was supervised by Captain William Parsons, an expert in the development of Naval guns. (The Hiroshima explosion involved the use of a modified 5-inch naval gun barrel, used to achieve critical mass by firing a projectile of U-235 into the main concentration of the fissionable load.) Parsons was the bombing officer on board the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Later, Parsons supervised the Operations Crossroads tests conducted around Bikini Atoll.

  • 7.Dave: “A critic might raise the issue of residual radiation and what that might determination that would have for your assertion about the Port Chicago explosion being a Nuke. How would you address that issue?” Peter: After noting that the Port Chicago explosion was relatively low-yield and that the blast was attenuated by the hull of the E.A. Bryan, Peter notes that the background radiation level would have returned to normal within a relatively short time after the explosion. Chapter 16 of the book deals with this issue.

  • 8.Dave: “Tell us about the Mark II—What was the full name of this device and how did it differ from the Marks I and II.”
    Peter: He notes that the Mark II carried the lengthy name of “autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion experimental device.” In addition, Peter notes that the Mark I was the “Gun” device used on Hiroshima and that the Mark III was the device used on Nagasaki. The Mark II tested at Port Chicago had a relatively low yield of explosion 2-3 hundred tons. Robert Oppenheimer had projected the development of such a weapon in 1939.

  • 9.Dave: “Let’s turn to some of the key documents you uncovered during your investigation. Tell us about a 7/4/1944 memorandum written by Harvard University President James Conant to General Groves.”
    Peter: This memorandum projects that the Mark II should be ready for operational use and indicates a provisional intent to proof-fire the Mark II, obligatory if Mark II were to be vouched feasible for operational use.

  • 10.Dave: “Another document discussed in Chapter 13 of your book concerns a conversation that occurred just hours before the Port Chicago explosion. Tell us about that conversation and its significance.”
    Peter: Relates the discussion at the University of Chicago in which Conant urges Oppenheimer to test the Mark II as soon as possible. In this conversation, it is stated that, if successful, the Mark II could be “put on the shelf” and work on the more powerful weapons could be accelerated. This conversation establishes explicit intent to proof fire the Mark II.

  • 11.Dave: “Yet another document reproduced in chapter 13 of your book is a ‘Report to General Groves on Visit to Los Alamos on August 17, 1944.’ This informs the general of a decision taken at Los Alamos. Tell us about that decision and its significance.”
    Peter: This conversation relates a decision to put the Mark II on the shelf, after which it could be readied for operational use in 3-4 months’ time. The significance of this decision lies in the fact that it indicates (in light of the previous documentation) that the Mark II was successfully test-fired. In addition, there is discussion of possibly improving the Mark II if the explosive-lens development goes badly. (These explosive lenses were integral to the development of the Mark III.)

  • 12.Dave: “The August 17 memorandum also contained some specific discussion of damage radii. Explain the “Class B” damage discussion and its significance.”
    Peter: In this discussion, it is agreed that the B-level damage radius—damage beyond repair—for Port Chicago is .75 miles. Again, this information confirms the nature of the Port Chicago explosion—a test of the Mark II.

  • 13.Dave: “Tell us how the Port Chicago test—with 2-3 hundred tons TNT equivalent from the Mark II plus the conventional ordinance—anticipated the optimal air-burst effectiveness of the Mark II.”
    Peter: He relates that the combined explosive equivalent of the Mark II and the conventional ordinance approximated the damage produced by the 1,000 tons equivalent of TNT of an optimal Mark II air burst.

  • 14.Dave: “Shortly after the Port Chicago explosion, the nature of the work at Los Alamos shifted in a significant way. Explain the change in the nature of the lab’s work.”
    Peter: Peter relates that the work at Los Alamos shifted to developing the explosive lens technology that would be used in the Fat-Man (Nagasaki) weapon. He notes that the development of the explosive lenses also figured in the projected development of the H-bomb.

  • 15.Dave: “What was the S-1 Executive Committee and what did they have to say about German atomic research?”
    Peter: This was a group that preceded the formal establishment of the Manhattan project. It projected that Germany might have a Uranium hydride weapon available for operational use by mid-1944. This would have made the development and testing of the Mark II all the more imperative.

  • 16.Dave: “In your book you disclose that Soviet espionage into the American atomic research program had unearthed information about a uranium hydride weapon. Tell us about Igor Kurchatov and his speculation about the progress of U.S. research.”
    Peter: Kurchatov was in charge of reviewing information about atomic espionage for Soviet espionage chief Lavrenti Beria. He had information in early 1945 that the U.S. appeared to have developed and tested a Uranium hydride weapon. Peter relates that he hasn’t seen any clue as to the identity of the American spy who provided the information about the Mark II to the Soviets.

  • 17.Dave: “In a purely speculative mode, Peter, do you think the Kurchatov observations and the Mark II explosion at Port Chicago bear in any way on the issue of Robert Oppenheimer having his security clearance lifted?”
    Peter: He speculates that Oppenheimer may have been bothered by the deaths of 320 sailors and that this may have been a factor in Oppenheimer’s impeachment during the McCarthy period. Obviously, any public discussion of Port Chicago might have become a major propaganda football during the Cold War. Interestingly, Captain Parsons died of a massive heart attack the day after Oppenheimer lost his security clearance. Peter concludes the discussion by noting that he has called for a reversal of the convictions of the Port Chicago “mutineers.” In addition, he notes that there has been some media interest by major outlets in the U.S. and Britain. It remains to be seen if they bring the projected coverage of the Port Chicago explosion to fruition.

www.spitfirelist.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The design of the mark II is an anomaly in the history of U.S. nuclear
weapons development. It was a crude, first attempt at making an
atomic bomb which operated on the principle of implosion.
Understanding how that crude Mark II bomb worked will help us to
see an important difference between the Port Chicago radiation
situation and that of Bikini.

The bomb consisted of a sub-critical hollow tube of uranium
contained in another cylinder of molded explosive material. When the
cylindrical explosives were detonated, the hollow tube of uranium
was crushed into a critical mass, and fission took place.

The uranium in the hollow cylinder was enriched to less than 30
percent U-235, the rest being U-238. The Hiroshima bomb, which
detonated over Japan, was enriched up to 80 percent. The Mark II's
low fuel enrichment made it quite different from the uranium bomb
which was dropped on Japan. However, there was another striking
difference: It used a moderator, like a nuclear reactor, and this is the
secret of how it was able to operate on such poorly enriched
uranium.

What fissions in an atom bomb or a nuclear reactor is uranium U-235.
Natural uranium contains only .7 percent of this isotope, the rest
being U-238, which cannot fission except under very special
circumstances. A process of "enrichment" is used to increase the
percentage of U-235, and it is very slow and costly; this was
especially true in 1944.

Nuclear reactors are enriched up to 3 percent, but uranium bombs
generally contain up to 80 percent. Reactors can run on such lean
enrichment diets because their uranium fuel is placed in a moderator,
such as hydrogen, paraffin or graphite.

There are two advantages in slowing down the neutrons. First, slow
neutrons have the highest probability of producing fission of the U-
235 fuel. Second, uranium which is not highly enriched, containing
larger amounts of U-238, absorbs or "captures" too many of the
neutrons needed for fission. This capturing process hinders the fission
process. It takes neutrons out of circulation. When a neutron enters a
U-238 nucleus, the U-238 is changed into plutonium through a series
of transmutations.

However, U-238 can only capture neutrons traveling at the
intermediate speeds. By slowing down the flow of neutrons through
the use of a moderator, the neutrons can still produce fission because
they are free from capture by the U-238.

U-238 is a contaminate which poisons the atomic reaction by
preventing fission. One way to deal with the problem is called
"enrichment", removing the U-238 from the fuel leaving U-235. The
fuel of the Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy, under this slow and costly
process. Another way is to remove as much U-238 as is practical,
and use slow neutrons so that the U-238 which remains is no longer
a poison to the reaction. This is what the Mark II design did.

The moderator was created in the Mark II by compacting the uranium
fuel and forming it into a plastic hydride. The hydrogen in the plastic
slowed down the flow of neutrons. Layers of hydrogen containing
paraffin were also used. This unique design was a response to a
problem of the times: scarcity of higher enriched uranium. Much
enriched uranium was needed to run the reactors which were
breeding the plutonium at Hanford, plutonium that would fuel later
bombs.

Because the Mark II design included a moderator and used fuel which
was enriched to less than 30 percent, it was somewhere in between
a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. By making as much of the fuel
as possible go critical in a very short period of time, it was like a
bomb. By using a moderator at the same time, it was like a reactor.
Subsequent developments in enrichment made the Mark II obsolete.
However, at the time, the Mark II provided a detour around the
enrichment problem.

This ingenious device, however, was not at all efficient. The simple
geometry of explosives in the shape of a pipe was imperfect in
squeezing the fuel into a critical mass. Sections of the precious fuel
squirted out the ends, escaped fission and were wasted. The
squeezing wasn't fast enough. Also, though slowing the neutrons
reduced parasitic capture by the U-238, the fuel took too long to
fission. Slowing down the fission process is desirable in a nuclear
reactor, speeding up the process is desirable in a bomb. Inspite of
this, for the mark II the fuel tended to blow part before most of it
could undergo fission. The neutrons took "...so long to act that only a
feeble explosion would result." In a non-moderated bomb, all of the
neutrons are liberated within less than a millionth of a second.
Anything less than a kiloton was regarded as "feeble" by the bomb
designers whose expectations ranged in the tens of kilotons.

In later bombs, such as Fat Man, a spherical configuration replaced
the "pipe bomb" design and the "perfect squeeze" of the fuel was
finally accomplished. Before that, however, the inefficient Mark II was
the United States' only nuclear option. It was reliable, but its yield
was less than a kiloton. The testing and putting on the shelf of the
Mark II enabled Los Alamos to hedge their bets on the untested Little
Boy, and the drawing board stage Fat Man.

After the Port Chicago explosion, James B. Conant, a critical figure in
the development of a nuclear bomb, wrote a memorandum suggesting
putting the Mark II on the shelf after a July 1944 test, a test never
recorded in any public annals, but paralleling the date of the Port
Chicago explosion. Conant wanted to commence work on the Mark
III.

www.darkconspiracy.com...


[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, if someone survived from a couple hundred yards away, why didn't he suffer radiation poisoning? There should have been more signs of radiation. The people going in to clean up after the accident should have shown signs of radiation, the animal life there should have shown signs of radiation, unless this was some sort of special radiation that has no half life, and no ill effects.


Correct, anyone within about a 3/4 mile radius of the blast would have shown signs of radiation in their system and those that helped clean up would have been killed if not extremely sick with radiation burns. We see none of this. rogue1 does not understand the concept of radiation and how fast it travels when a supposed 5kt nuke goes off.


"Using the ionizing radiation survey data reported for shots Ruth and Ray as measures of the probable ionizing radiation levels produced consequent to proof of the 200 tons TNT-equivalent uranium hydride Mark II experimental device conducted at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine it is readily apparent that even the two men who survived the Port Chicago explosion at 1,000 feet under the rubble of the Joiner Shop, at the shore end of the pier, would probably not have suffered adverse short-term health consequences as the result of ionizing radiation exposure, prompt gamma nor subsequently from any local radioactive fallout.

www.portchicago.org...

Like I said do some reading FFS.
- not too bright are you

[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]


Ah yes, 'it was the power of god' excuse. Because you fail to document why those at ground zero did not die or contract radiation.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Ah yes, 'it was the power of god' excuse. Because you fail to document why those at ground zero did not die or contract radiation.


What don't you understand ? It's there in Black and White, LOL. Sorry if it contradicts your inept knowledge. I think your last post goes to show you hvae no understanding of the subject matter being discussed.
Well, at least now I don't have to worry about responding to you,as facts don't seem to figure in your reasoning. Shame.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join