Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by KyoZero
no look of awe here...those people wore shorts because after Trinity they still did't know the unbelievable power and radiation was still a new science. I mean hey, agree or not I will not insult you. If I have or it sounds as I have before, let me be number one in line to apologize because that isn't my way.

Anyway...I really wish that individual would return with his test info...I guess time will tell. My whole point is you can tell without a detonation...however...if we wanted to dismiss that a moment let's work on this...

As I asked OP...do you believe radiation exists and do you think a nuclear bomb is possible?

-Kyo


I know radiation exists. Put a laser pointer on your skin.

I can't see why a nuclear bomb would not be possible, though I am slack on the understanding of how the energy is converted to a super blast rather then just a steady discharge like that of a reactor.

I believe that because of the unconventional nature of a "Nuclear" bomb and because of the supposed damage they are capable of that they would not be used. You only take people out when you want to occupy and with Nuclear, occupation is impossible in a military time frame. Seize and Convert and plunder roman style is how the U.S. works.

What good is a city to you if it is gone, it just seams like a bad choice in the combat theater.

Like I said, I don't see why a Nuclear Weapon could be made, but the resources lost over such an endeavor seams to me pointless.

Peace




posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
oh no doubt friend...I am not saying using them is the best course...

But I don't think they really knew what it would do...

We don't have to occupy to destroy...that isn't a set idea. People can do or think up whatever crazy crap they want. Korea could go schizo and try and nuke us jus because we are heathens...or whatever...sad example but that's the idea I was heading for.

Anyway...what is your response to the unbelievable destruction and the many many accoutns of the Japanese claiming one bomb...one explosion in Hiroshima and then it was wiped away? The claims of the radiation? The cardiomegaly that took place? The last two are directly related to radiation, especially the cardiomegaly. These people who were there all seem to tell the story of one bomb and done...same in Nagasaki...so what happened there?

And while I am at it...the geiger counter detects radioactive emissions...if you hold one up to certain areas in the core of a Minuteman 3...you get a high count.

Now...I did see you said thatyou were lacking a bit...so I can explain the process ...skip if you do know as I am not hear to insult someone's intelligence

Essentially you take you material, in this case PU 239. You form it into a nice ball and pack explosives around it. Then you detonate each explosive at the same time crunching the material into a supercritical state and when that energy releases, it isn't a trickle, it is an amazing detonation resulting in the effects seen in Japan

-Kyo



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
letthereaderunderstand: "though I am slack on the understanding of how the energy is converted to a super blast rather then just a steady discharge like that of a reactor." That is just it - that is obviously what people working around "nuclear bombs" seem to never ask themselves.

If it were true that nuclear anomalies / compression / "splitting" could start a catastrophic sun-sized chain reaction, then this would happen sporadically in nature.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent
letthereaderunderstand: "though I am slack on the understanding of how the energy is converted to a super blast rather then just a steady discharge like that of a reactor." That is just it - that is obviously what people working around "nuclear bombs" seem to never ask themselves.

If it were true that nuclear anomalies / compression / "splitting" could start a catastrophic sun-sized chain reaction, then this would happen sporadically in nature.


No it would not. In a reactor and a bomb there is a minimum amount of fissionable material which needs to be present within a defined area. This amount is called critical mass. Without critical mass a sustained nuclear reaction will not occur.

In a reactor the chain reaction is controlled by the use if inert rods which are situated within the reactor core. In a bomb, the chain reaction is not controlled.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
AHHHH!!! Phage darn you! :-p

I totally forgot about the Pb rods...

well done

Yes...that stuff is controlled by lead rods...rember Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? That is what happens when you let the rod assembly fail or when criticality is reached. A nuclear yield is reached through supercriticality.

So no...I didn't fail to realize it...it just isn't true

Yeah accidents do happen when complacency strikes...and we've seen it happen

What some don't realize is there is a major difference between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear reactor

-Kyo

[edit on 29-12-2008 by KyoZero]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Kyo you still haven't commented on the footage, which is the crux of the issue. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the viability of nuclear explosions, you must still reckon with falsified footage.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MREALE
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


Those were atomic bombs the US used on the japanese.
Nuclear war heads came later.


Yup



Castle Bravo was one of the tests of a Thermo Nuclear Weapon and
due to tritium spiking it was a bit stronger than they expected
at a yield near 15 Mega-tons, about 1,500 times as powerful as
the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
like I said...at work...can't watch behind this firewall...

Upon returning hom I will gladly view it but other discussion came up and I will respond to that as well

-Kyo



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by violenttorrent
letthereaderunderstand: "though I am slack on the understanding of how the energy is converted to a super blast rather then just a steady discharge like that of a reactor." That is just it - that is obviously what people working around "nuclear bombs" seem to never ask themselves.

If it were true that nuclear anomalies / compression / "splitting" could start a catastrophic sun-sized chain reaction, then this would happen sporadically in nature.


No it would not. In a reactor and a bomb there is a minimum amount of fissionable material which needs to be present within a defined area. This amount is called critical mass. Without critical mass a sustained nuclear reaction will not occur.

In a reactor the chain reaction is controlled by the use if inert rods which are situated within the reactor core. In a bomb, the chain reaction is not controlled.


If then the chain reaction is not controlled in a bomb, then why does the chain reaction stop?

I can't get past the release of more energy then the sun, yet soldiers can watch from 15 miles away. Where does all the "sun" energy go. How does the earth contain it?

If E=mc2 to produce the blast, where is the vacuum and the mass? In this case it's not the mass, but the density of the mass correct?



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

If then the chain reaction is not controlled in a bomb, then why does the chain reaction stop?

The fissionable material is consumed in the chain reaction.



I can't get past the release of more energy then the sun, yet soldiers can watch from 15 miles away. Where does all the "sun" energy go. How does the earth contain it?

A nuclear bomb does not release more energy than the sun. The energy released in the Trinity test was the equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT. The sun produces literally billions of times more energy in the same amount of time.



If E=mc2 to produce the blast, where is the vacuum and the mass? In this case it's not the mass, but the density of the mass correct?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. What vacuum?

[edit on 12/29/2008 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Not getting that either

Whoever told you the reaction was that of the power of the sun was incorrect...the material will exhaust itself in the detonation so it is indeed limited

-Kyo



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Assuming his curiousity is genuine and he is not playing you guys. .
I think he is hung up on the conversion of mass to energy. and why a relatively small mass can convert to such a powerful blast before expending itself.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Assuming his curiousity is genuine and he is not playing you guys. .


Who cares. I'll use any excuse to wax pedantic.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Phage: "The energy released in the Trinity test was the equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT." Right - so why couldn't it have been 20 kilotons of TNT?

Anyways all of this conjecture pertaining to supposed science is misleading - the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not the ***FOOTAGE*** - i.e. films, movies, videos, shots, photos, images - is real.

letthereaderunderstand and zerbot565 are the only posters to discuss the films of the "bombs." If you nuclear physicists are so smart, then why do you have so much trouble analyzing moving images?



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
firewall...

Like I said before...I will watch...but until I get home that's moot...but I tell ya what

I have indeed seen many detonation videos from 1965-1992...all look very real to me. It doens't remotely look like a stage...that fair?

-Kyo



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I just watched your video and I must say that yes, some of the footage DOES appear to be fake. The thing is, tens of thousands of physicists understand the math behind why atomic and thermonuclear weapons do what they do. I find it HIGHLY unlikey that all of these thousands of physicists from all over the world and hundreds of differnet universities could all be part of a conpiracy.

So why the fake footage? There was a cold war going on at the time and prehaps we did not want to much intelligence leaked to the enemy in the form of these films?

OP. I'm curious why you seem to believe in the existance of electrons. You mentioned ionization. You have never seen an electron so why do you believe they exist?

Vas



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
well...I have done as requested and watched the video.

Loved the Thompson Twins music at the beginning btw

anyway

That was ridiculous. The narrator harps on some camera and shot changes and that is why nukes are fake? Let's look at Ivy Mike. The camera looks much much different because the second it detonates the light is so intense that the camera cannot keep up so it auto-darkens to assure it doesn't burn the tubes out. Even new digital cameras do it topreserve the picture. Get your camcorder and suddenly look directly at a lightbulb with it. It will darken...

Now the trees they showed. Different camera angles...true...but I gotta say they looked like the same rows to me. They didn't look like a plastic HO scale train set tree to me. Now look at the trees during the detonation. A normal tree will bend in such a manner. Now go to the store and find and buy a plastic tree from a railroad model. Make it bend that way and show me the video. The simple fact is that it won't because the simple small size and makeup will snap long before it bends that much.

Sorry...that video is sad to me

-Kyo



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Vasilis Azoth
 


Thanks for your objective comments Vasilis. So you agree that some of the footage does look fake. But you state that thousands of physicists could not be wrong. What about AIDS? Thousands of doctors could not be wrong either I suppose?

Thousands of physicists could believe that the 'science' behind chain-reactive nuclear explosion is legitimate on paper - but that's all they will have had access to: theory rather than practice. A scientific analysis requires experimentation. What nuclear bomb do they have to experiment on?



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 

The control rods are not lead. They are neutron absorbers such as
Silver-indium-cadmium alloys, Boron, and Hafnium. Lead is for radiation shielding.

The energy released is the binding energy of the atomic nucleus. If one measures the mass of the fissionable nucleus and then sums the masses of the nuclei of the products of fission, there is some mass missing. This is the mass that has been converted into energy. E=mC^2 is the correlation between energy release, E, and mass lost, m. C is the speed of light.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Have to give me a small break on that one...I know missiles...not reactors

So torrent I answered the question and watched the video

-Kyo





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join