IMPORTANT - Visit this government site and download shocking scientific reports before they disappea, page 22

privacy

Pages: << 19 20 21 22 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 314 times

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 01:03 PM by coolottie

reply to post by thedeadwalkk

The site as well as other sites in this thread or Deep Internet sites. They are not spidered like other sites so google doesn't have them.

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 02:24 PM by Pervius

Originally posted by SkipperJohn
Utilization of volcano energy as a renewable energy source? This is dated 1974 It looks really cool. Extracting energy from a volcano. who would have guessed.

Link

People in the Philippines say America's military was running pipes into that volcano over there for a power source when the volcano erupted and destroyed our military bases there.

Tried/ failed.

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 03:16 PM by Pervius

Originally posted by Xterrain
Search Moon:

"MOON/electric power generation on surface of, design and operation of SNAP-27 system for; HEAT SOURCES/design and fabrication of plutonium-238 dioxide SNAP-27; SYSTEMS FOR NUCLEAR AUXILIARY POWER (SNAP-27)/ design and operation of, for powering lunar surface instruments"
www.osti.gov...

Published in 1970...so did we ever really leave after we found a way to generate power on the surface?

This is cool...research galore! Maybe this is just the first of many bones to be thrown our way!?
edit on 5/2/11 by masqua because: added 'ex' tags and a general link

There are 5 SNAP Plutonium238 power plants on the moon. Only emits a little heat for power, 238's pretty stable. They were used in the Lunar Surface experiments as a power source. They are still making power. It's a nuclear battery.

SNAP-10A was a full blown reactor in orbit around Earth.....it went into meltdown and is supposedly currently parked 4,000 miles above yer head for safety. Pray a rock in space doesn't bump it and send it crashing down to your location. Or the Koreans don't figure out how to nudge it just right so she heads our way. It's just begging for somebody to use it against us.

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 04:13 PM by Jechu

reply to post by Colton

You should search for "Nemesis", it works too =)

Cheers,
Jechu

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 04:29 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Pervius

I see examples of things like this taken wrong, or mixed up....maybe some more research would help? (Instead of possibly repeating what is read from some crackpot website?)

There are 5 SNAP Plutonium238 power plants on the moon.

No.....not "power plants" (you get it correct, later in your post). SNAP means "Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power".

The ones (like used for Apollo missions) with odd-number designations are smaller...and referred to as "RTGs".

It's a nuclear battery.

Correct!!

SNAP-10A .....it went into meltdown and is supposedly currently parked 4,000 miles above yer head for safety.

Oh, not really!!

Back to another of the links connected to above:

It did NOT "meltdown":

.....was intended to produce over 500 watts of electrical power for one year. After 43 days, an onboard voltage regulator within the spacecraft—unrelated to the SNAP reactor itself—failed, causing the reactor core to be shut down. The reactor was left in a 700-nautical-mile (1,300 km) earth orbit for an expected duration of 4,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

Spreading disinformation and outlandish fear mongering does no one any good........

edit on 23 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-2-2011 @ 05:14 PM by solargeddon

Originally posted by Miccey
reply to post by solargeddon

But there IS no dirty laundry....
I dont get it..
You take "speculation and !!theories" and make them
FACT...Are you really that............dumb...Sorry couldnt
find a better word...

Hi, if I were dumb, I would indeed be stating it as fact, however, to my mind I did not state as fact, but merely responded to a previous post how I would interpret this information being in the public domain. If I were stating as fact my use of language would indeed have been very clear and coincise as to say something like "Hell yeah ! Its end of the world for dfinite!" Erm, no I am not that dumb, which is why I wrote what I wrote, and if my ambiguity was lost in translation then I apologise, but I think I was fairly clear in saying it was my opinion, and not fact, after all nothing can be stated as fact without evidence, of which naturally I have none, nobody has, which in essence describes the term conspiracy theory. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons as to why this information is in the public domain, and to many it will be for the most benign if reasons i.e its for better communication between scientists and researchers, but for me, I take this reasoning, and indeed my alternative perception with a huge dose of salt, which is I stated "I may be very wrong" I'm sure you would agree it doesn't always pay to look a things from one angle, as you might just miss something important, like a creative thought process. Ok rambling now, but I hope this clears it up for you