Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

Rerevisionist said:
LSSBB - you worked in 'the reactor control room'. Did you check what was inside the room? (I won't bother to comment on the 'device to detect etc)
Click to expand...

Tell me, have you seen a conventional engine room of a ship? I'm taking of house sized diesels, funnels, cooling systems, funnels, etc. (not to mention the noise).

You don't have to look into the reactor (and you can't, of course) of a nuclear powered ship to realize it does not run on conventional fuel engines.

DINWAR still seems to think radioactive decay is the same mechanism as a chain reaction leading to the emission of great heat leading to an explosion. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are wrong. It IS basically the same mechanism. Radioactive decay is mostly due to spontaneous decay, but it is a proven fact that the decay of an atom can also be triggered by external stimuli, for instance by absorbing a neutron. It follows logically that:

- A chain reaction is possible, and dependent on the concentration of fusible material.
- If enough fusible material is present, the chain reaction becomes overcritical, and leads to a temperature rise.
- If the temperature rise is fast enough, it is an explosion.

Yes, carriers have jets on board. They have fuel. For that matter they get deliveries of a lot of things. The question is: are they genuinely nuclear powered?
Click to expand...

If they are not nuclear powered, where are the engines?

More interestingly, perhaps, if a nuclear submarine is not really nuclear, how does it manage to run submerged for weeks? (I assume you realize that all conventional engines use vast amounts of oxygen)

DINWAR's example of something powered only by nuclear power is space probe(s). Do you have anything nearer earth?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter how near Earth it is? Is it nuclear powered or not?
But I have an example: Deep-water buoys for various purposes (mostly to detect enemy subs). They use the same principle as the space probes (heat from an isotope).

LSSBB - In principle I'd be interested to know whether nuclear tipped missiles launched underwater ever existed. However, I doubt you're the person to ask. Judging by your post, you never visited or investigated the power source of your ship. (NB bear in mind this issue is separate from nuclear wepaons).
Click to expand...

Not really, since they use the same mechanisms.

Would your diesel engine have worked underwater, if the reactor 'broke'?
Click to expand...

A diesel engine needs air. It can't work "under water", however, diesel powered subs have snorkels that allow them to run on diesels while in a shallow dive.


MG1962 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no effects from atom bombs.
Click to expand...

You mean apart from the whole cities being levelled in seconds, people being burned to a crisp and thousands suffering from radiation sickness?

Anyway the site nukelies explored these things, but new posters aren't allowed to post links.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not how things are done. You already know this because in your own forum you also don't allow people to just refer to vast amounts of external writings. Here, you won't be banned, but you will end up ignored. So, please present your evidence here.

Hans
 
LSSBB said:
ReRe is also ignoring the USS Bainbridge, an nuclear cruiser with no stacks for exhaust, identical construction to Leahy class cruisers which were conventional powered.
Click to expand...

According to Wiki: Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines, two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower (75 MW)
Confirmed by http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/
Otherwise, carry on with the tar and feathering of the racist know-nothing.
 
LSSBB said:
ReRe is also ignoring the USS Bainbridge, an nuclear cruiser with no stacks for exhaust, identical construction to Leahy class cruisers which were conventional powered.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he seems to think that you can have conventional engines powering an aircraft carrier stowed away in some secret corner, running noiselessly off jet fuel leeched from the fuel store for the planes. :nope:

This is why I suggest he goes and sees a real machine room. Huge, noisy, smelly, hot, and in the case of an aircraft carrier, requiring about a hundred engineers to run it.

Hans
 
The Kilted Yaksman said:
According to Wiki: Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines, two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower (75 MW)
Confirmed by http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/
Otherwise, carry on with the tar and feathering of the racist know-nothing.
Click to expand...

Wrong Bainbridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bainbridge_(CGN-25)

The one you cited is the current USS Bainbridge. A DDG (Guided Missile Destroyer) The one he's referring to was a CGN (Guided Missile Cruiser, essentially the same thing only a bit bigger and nuclear powered).
 
Okay, seriously. What do the people at nukelies think happens if you bombard radium with neutrons?
 
Travis said:
Okay, seriously. What do the people at nukelies think happens if you bombard radium with neutrons?
Click to expand...

I am a retard getting drawn into this. I am only doing this because Sam's post was so funny.

How do you they're neutrons? You can't even see them. They could be anything the scientist tells you it is.
 
Okay - I'll pick one example in your response: stainless steel. It is very well understood why it works.
Click to expand...
Rerev is a 9/11 CT-er. His ilk has demonstrated no comprehension of steel dynamics so far. Don't get your hopes up.
 
The Kilted Yaksman said:
According to Wiki: Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines, two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower (75 MW)
Confirmed by http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/
Otherwise, carry on with the tar and feathering of the racist know-nothing.
Click to expand...

I spent a month on the CGN. They recycle Navy ship names all the time. I will make a point of providing the hull number next time.
 
LSSBB said:
\I will make a point of providing the hull number next time.
Click to expand...
.
I can take of that for you, off the top of my head:

"One shall be the number of the hull, and the number of the hull shall be one. 2 hulls shalt thou not count, neither shall thou count zero (saving only that thou shalt then continue on to one). Three is right out..."
.
 
catsmate1 said:
Don't you mean Uranium? Radium isn't considered fissile.
Click to expand...

Dab nab it I need to get Marie Curie out of my head.

Anyways we need to account for Radium regardless because it has a decay rate which nukelies seems to imply can't happen.
 
TSR said:
.
I can take of that for you, off the top of my head:

"One shall be the number of the hull, and the number of the hull shall be one. 2 hulls shalt thou not count, neither shall thou count zero (saving only that thou shalt then continue on to one). Three is right out..."
.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

"I'll come in again."
 
Rerevisionist said:
If you check on the other material, you'll find it does not carry the message supposedly given to it. For example there's supposed to be a shadow of a person on a wall. But at the time the atom bomb supposedly dropped, Hiroshima would have been alive with people. Why should there be just one shadow?
Click to expand...
Sound advise, now you take it yourself, go have another look and update your conclusion.

The best known photo -you're most likely referring to (one of) the photo(s) taken at the entrance -with steps and columns- of the Hiroshima Branch of the Sumitomo bank- has shadows of more than one person. You can see where someone was standing, leaning as well as sitting and that isn't the only photo taken in Hiroshima nor the only location in Hiroshima showing shadows were people used to be either. Only part of those steps not the adjacent wall or the entire column are preserved and displayed in the museum but the imprint on them is very slowly fading.

You have linked to a series of photos of which you say that they don't include evidence but that series includes images taken on a bridge in Hiroshima with such shadows left by people who were killed while crossing that bridge as well. The angles of the shadows imprinted on the road surface of that bridge's railings were among the indicators used to calculate the height and location of the airburst.

Will that be all? Doubtful. I already told you about the photos and angles of shadows about a year ago on your YouTube account. Or are you actually more than one person? If you are more than one person why didn't your nukelies friend share this info with you?
 
Last edited:
Rerevisionist how many people who know what they are talking about do you need to tell you that you are wrong before you start at least re-evaluating your position?
 
I'm confused. I haven't seen ANY evidence at all that supports rerevisionist's position presented. All I see is hand waving away evidence that is contrary to it. Did I miss something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom