Nukes in 1626? Beijing explosion created mushroom cloud, stripped everyone naked

page: 5
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by penninja

Bedlam.......So adamant

It is NOT the OP's place to unravel the secrets of what 20-30 men under the direction of a Brilliant man could or could not accomplish over a decade or two. Science is after all as much a stumbled upon thing as it is a result of scientific method


Science builds upon previous discoveries. In this case, they're missing about a dozen layers of major advancements.



There are many "sciences: lost to us, for thousands of forms of mathematics we base our entire society upon one... Euclidean Geometry The man who built Coral Castle in Florida shows us something.... there is a system of balance points, triangulation and leverage that allows one to move giant stones that modern science can't quite put it's finger around.


Speaking of Coral Castle, you'll have ignored the little fact that he never let anyone observe him using his "lost discoveries", which were likely a winch. A fraud, like Keely.



What could a man with his life devoted to Uranium a background in Chinese Alchemy/Chemistry and a building full of laborers accomplish? I don't know... I know you I or the OP couldn't recreate a couple of decades of the life of whomever was in charge/ allowed to play in that building.


A nice dye. Some glaze for pottery that gives you a pretty orange. A poison or two. That's about it.



I can suppose many things that DO make sense


...that have no connection to physics, or what you need to actually pull off a nuke.

First, it doesn't matter if the man was the Chinese version of Merlin. Nuclear reactions are not chemical in nature. You can potter around all you like with chemicals and uranium, and you're not going to enrich it, nor are you going to get a nuclear reaction out of it.

It's nice he had a large workforce. Numbers of people are still not going to cause a nuke to appear.

Making yellowcake doesn't really matter either, it's just another chemical form of uranium. It doesn't "refine itself over time". It's not actually a question of refining, if you use the standard definition of removing impurities and reducing it to a metallic form. You just get pure metallic natural uranium. "Separation" is different than "enrichment", "separation" is used to refer to a chemical process that removes plutonium from uranium. That only happens once you've created that plutonium by neutron irradiation of U238 in a reactor. There's that whole "they don't know anything about nuclear science, no instrumentation to measure things, no calculus, no advanced math, no real understanding of chemistry etc" thing in the way of building one, then knowing there's a heavy nucleide that's going to be produced that you can separate, then knowing how to do the separation, then having the reagents to do it on and on. They wouldn't have had a clue. But separating plutonium from uranium is a breeze compared to enrichment of uranium.

Mixing things with the uranium doesn't matter - again, that's a chemical reaction, not a nuclear one, and wouldn't affect the fissile nature of the natural metal. Electricity and magnetism do not affect it either. Nor does blowing it up. That only comes into play once you've got highly enriched uranium and some other isotopes you also only get with a reactor. Only the Chinese at that time weren't aware of isotopes. Even then, it's not a question of just blowing it up. Show me the scroll that describes Munroe effect jets.

Your scenario makes no sense. One, "separating" doesn't come into play. Enrichment requires equipment and understanding they didn't have. Magnets have no effect. The uranium would never have become "hot". All the lightning in the world could have struck it and you'd have a lump of hot, metallic natural uranium sitting around with some faux batteries and lodestones.

And raw uranium is not explosive. It doesn't just go 'boom'. Sorry, not yours.
edit on 8-3-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


Good work. S&F&
...btw - anyone else notice that kimish responded to wrabbit before he posted?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Since we've just got off the top part of the home page, the replies should start settling down now and I can catch up on them. (Hopefuly...)


@Flavian: I'm not ignoring any posts on purpose. I'm going through the replies in chronological order, and I can't reply to all of them in one go.

I won't be replying to the posts saying it was impossible to have nuclear weapons then. Sorry, I mean no disrespect but I think it's possible that they found a simple way to do it by trial and error that isn't understood by modern science, got tech from external sources, found ancient manuscripts detailing nukes, or whatever. I think it's more helpful to analyse the phenomena that occurred around the time of the explosion and see if they match those of the nuclear explosions.


Originally posted by iforget
If uranium was involved in the explosion wouldn't there be some reports of radistion sickness in the aftermath?

Sorry, I apparently iforgot to reply to your post.
As a matter of fact, there was... kind of. Beijing faced a very serious plague during the late Ming period and many believe that to be the direct cause of the dynasty's fall.

reply to post by Bedlam
 


Fair enough, but you refuted only the historical points and my statement that it looked like a neutron bomb. You seem to know quite a lot about nukes; what do you think about the rest of the stuff presented in my third post?

reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


True, the alchemists loved making chemicals together, but it's almost always for the making the elixir of life... believe it or not, that's how gunpowder was invented in the first place!

reply to post by watchitburn
 


Thanks a lot for the input, watchitburn, and would I be wrong in thinking that this (your expertise in explosives) is how you got your username?


When I said the gunpowder theory was debunked, honestly, I based that mainly on the fact that I couldn't find a single source supporting that theory. I didn't know that gunpowder did indeed produce fireballs and stuff. I'd like to know if you believe the amount and type of gunpowder stored in the factory could produce an explosion of this magnitude (and rip off people's clothes), though.

FWIW, the gunpowder at the time was 40 parts nitre, 15 parts sulphur, 15 parts charcoal plus around ten more raw materials including tung oil and lacquer. Once dampened, they'd go bad and not burn at all (except producing some black smoke). 700 tonnes was the max output of the factory, but most of the gunpowder would be used in foreign wars and internal conflicts.
edit on 8/3/13 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by diqiushiwojia
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Fair enough, but you refuted only the historical points and my statement that it looked like a neutron bomb. You seem to know quite a lot about nukes; what do you think about the rest of the stuff presented in my third post?


I looked but not totally sure which post you're referring to, there's been a lot of posting.

Yeah, I used to work in the biz at LANL. Sort of an emergency field tech. Further, deponent sayeth not.

Here's the deal. At that time, the Chinese were into Five Elements theory on how the world worked. What they had no clue about was the periodic table, the fact that even within an element you have variations called isotopes. That some isotopes behave differently than others, not chemically, because chemically they're identical. But that some could be radioactive (and in varying ways!), and unstable. They were still trying to wrap their heads around chemistry, much less did they have any info on nuclear science.

They had no precision instruments. They had no higher math. They couldn't have detected radiation much less categorized it.

Uranium is not explosive, not in a chemical sense. You can't mix things with it and get a nuke out of that, no matter how wondrous your chemical acumen, because that's an entirely different realm. Nuclear reactions don't care about the little stuff happening at the electron shell level where chemistry occurs.

Enrichment of uranium is a bear. It's not the sort of thing you chance upon. You'd have to understand that there's a uranium hidden in the other uranium, that's going to be exactly the same, chemically. That is just a # hair heavier. That you have to go to amazingly extreme lengths to isolate, because it's just not that different in behavior. They didn't have lasers, nor calutrons, nor electric field separation, nor the technology for gas columns, nor ultracentrifuges. It won't just separate out in a bamboo tube for you.

By the same token, your guy didn't make semiconductors, either, same problem set. There are layers of infrastructure that have to exist first. Heck, if you pitched me into 1604, it would likely take my entire life to develop enough infrastructure to build a tube transmitter, even though I know the end goal and how to get there. The materials and processes just don't exist.

And you can't get that boom without having the right isotopes. You just can't detonate raw uranium.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
if it was a nuclear weapon wouldn't a lot more people died of radiation? you'd think there would be some text about hair falling out and mutation in later generations?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


Thanks for the reply and fair enough, you have your opinion and i have mine.
I am totally with Bedlam on this though, it simply wasn't possible either industrially, mathematically or scientifically to have the necessary knowledge at that time to make a nuclear explosion.

However, whilst i completely disagree with your premise, i do once again thank you for another very interesting thread on Chinese history. I am becoming something of a fan of your threads as they nearly always bring new information to me (which is, basically, the entire point of ATS).


In short, do not let naysayers like me put you off!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Where there any grain silos, or grain storage facilities close by?

Grain silos and storage facilities are notorious for their explosivity.
I created a thread a long while back in attempting to frame the idea of looking at some ancient and prehistorical disasters that could very well be attributable to exploding grain storage.
Ancient Explosions ...

Edit:
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Looks like we're on the same page.

Spontaneous combustion, maybe. but a mushroom cloud?
Interesting thread op.

Grain goes Boom!

Granted, Asia is more rice oriented, but, the same goes for that as typical wheat grain.

edit on 6-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


Good work. S&F&
...btw - anyone else notice that kimish responded to wrabbit before he posted?



Yes i noticed, but maybe rabbit was editing or something.
Lol i'll have to look again



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This is the first thread I have read in nearly two years... and I am afraid to day this is a perfect example as to why!

It is very interesting amd I agree unexplained so open to all manners of discussion; but to dismiss all of the therorys you proposed and yet state yours as plausable is ludacrous.

I first starting doubting your whole premise when you discussed photography and Chinese 17th century in one sentence. Then I saw that you expressed energy in metres/second (instead of joules/second) and I doubted you knew you had enough knowledge regards the subject to post a valid theory and then you talked about cannons and nuclear explosions and you lost me and many others completely.

Uranium does not simply 'ignite' or 'explode'. A very complex chain reaction needs to be initiated to be able to harness usable amounts of energy from a meterial like uranium. Whislt I am not doubting that ancient civilisations had access to technology that far surpasses that which most experts state was possible, I think you are well off the mark on this one.

I know I sound like a know it all (I clearly am not) but the fact is as soon as I saw the first mistake, I was skeptical ov everything I read from then on. That is human nature and if you are going to post anything like this you need your foundation to be rock solid.

Trust me, looking back on what I used to write on ATS I am actually embarrased! And I would of thought ATS would have developed a spell check by now!

To my fellow yorkshireman; you got there first.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Totally agree with Flavour Fav. I like learning about new things/events such as this! I wish I had the 'Rabbit Hole' feeling on this one wher I got drawn in but I just didn't.

Hope I see something else like this though. This is the only reason I scan ATS now; the rest of it is too politicaly silly.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Heres something I found yesterday, on a 5000 yr old weapon of sorts in an Afghan Cave.
www.youtube.com...
Allegedly the find recently was so sensational that, all world leaders scrambled to Afghanistan,
to witness it. Apparently some American soldiers were killed, when they tried to handle it.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by carlitomoore
This is the first thread I have read in nearly two years... and I am afraid to day this is a perfect example as to why!


Dear Mr. Moore.

Please don't wait another two years!


Harte



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caterminator

My husband who has a degree in metalurgy and heat transfer says that heating uranium ore cannot produce an explosion. Simply heating it does NOT release its potential explosive energy, no matter how hot you get it.


Your husband is right. Heat and nuclear activity are for the most part, two different things. Nuclear activity can produce heat, but heat (kinetic energy in the classic Maxwell sense of being 'hot') cannot produce enough energy to alter the nuclear strong and weak forces - nor does it penetrate the atomic radius - it is a feature which resides outside of the atomic structure (the same as chemical alterations).

But let's say that through chaos and extreme heat, and the sudden impacting of a small fast neutron mass (not sure how they would get this) into a thermal neutron-rich mass, one got an atom to split through this high energy impact. Then, you have the hurdle of neutron chain density, sufficient to create brisance (the exponential rise in fast neutrons). Just having nuclear material and heat, gets you about .00001% the way to having a nuclear detonation.

And really, a 13 ft crater is no big deal.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Since I'm way past the four-hour limit, I can't change anything in the OP, but once everything has settled down, I'll make an errata post.

reply to post by Bedlam
 


I admire your expertise in nuclear warfare and completely understand the position you have taken (that it was technically impossible to make such weapons at the time). However, I do think 'miracles' can happen. They might have been assisted by external forces, or there could have been a much easier way to make nukes that modern science hasn't discovered yet. This is where we'd have to agree to disagree.

The post I was referring to was the one that started with the 'scientific evidence' section. I'd like to know your opinion on the incident itself, and whether it could have resulted from a nuclear explosion if it had taken place in the 20th or 21th century. Thanks.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


True, I haven't seen this one before. You're right; the meteor does indeed explain the rumbling.

reply to post by univac500
 


Thanks!
I'd point out, though, that I am far from the 'Chinese Art Bell'. If you speak Chinese, I recommend you check out the many conspiracy sites out there. My current favourite is this site: www.awaker.net... It is mainly about UFOs and aliens with lots of good info on NWO, scientific developments and current events.

If you speak Cantonese, there is a myriad online radio stations that deal with paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories and the like. If you'd like, I can post some links.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


That's what the source said... perhaps they meant joules/second, I guess.

reply to post by Caterminator
 


reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


True, it doesn't and that has been pointed out before, though the discovery of the thunderstones isn't that important a part of the theory, IMO.

reply to post by soficrow
 


Thanks. Kimish edited his post to say that. ETA = 'edited to add'. www.urbandictionary.com...

reply to post by Flavian
 

No, thank you and all the ATSers who have replied to the thread.
So far, I mostly integrate information from various sources in the less travelled parts of the Chinese Internet, and only add my own opinion to fill in any gaps, as I have done here. That is nothing impressive at all...

reply to post by carlitomoore
 

I'm really sorry if my OP discouraged you from reading on ATS, though I urge you to stay. I'm just a new member here, and there are many folks on ATS who are much saner than I am.


The photography sentence was a joke. Nobody ever gets my jokes.


Trust me, I dismissed those theories because I had been quite convinced by the sources I read. I'll be sure to be less assertive in future threads.

I love your avatar, by the way.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
theres talk in ancient sanskrit texts of nukes
oldest texts known to man I think?
and sand turned to glass in places in/near india?
I'm just going from memory?

this is ATS
open minds please peeps



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Uranium 238 is not a fissile material and heating pitchblende or Thunder rocks will not reduce Uranium Oxide to Uranium. So the metal oxide is unlikely ever to reach critical mass, which would require a high percentage of U 235 anyway. A gunpowder explosion with large amounts of pitchblende present would I expect lead to poisoning of the local population because Uranium is a toxic metal, and ingestion of Uranium Oxide will cause radiation poisoning due to Alpha ray emissions, Uranium 238 being weakly radioactive.
Doesn't explain the number of strange effects I agree but working fissile bombs are slightly beyond our regular 16th century feudal emperor.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Cinnamon
 


As I've said before, there was a huge plague after the explosion and if there was indeed nuclear involved, it could have been radiation poisoning.

Errata

Thanks to the intelligent ATSers who have spotted these mistakes in my OP.

-The gunpowder could have created such a crater. The size of a crater depends on the composition of the rocks and regolith.
-The energy released isn't measured in m/s. That's what the source said (the author may have meant to use another unit of measurement).
-700 tonnes per year is not the actual amount, but the maximum yield.
-The fireball can indeed be explained by gunpowder.
-The 'concealed volcano' is verneshot.
-The meteor indeed explains the rumbling of the earth.
-The soldiers couldn't have created an explosion by melting uranium. Perhaps there was something to the story not recorded by history.

Please let me know if I missed anything (apart from 'the whole thread').
edit on 9/3/13 by diqiushiwojia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
We're talking about this on ATS Live! Tonight. Join us!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


From what I was taught, China was the first place to invent gun powder in the 7th century. Didn't they use it for fireworks?
This could have been a massive accident from a huge depot or a coincidentally a meteorite might have hit the site and created a bigger than usual plume.

Just my thoughts....

Cheers,

Kratos





new topics
top topics
 
88
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join