• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How can a nuclear power plant create a hydrogen explosion?

PhantomWolf said:
It doesn't actually, however this is a widely believed miscomprehension about aluminium. In reality you can happily melt the stuff and cast it without it catching fire. It's also a commonly held, but incorrect, belief about the Falklands War. In fact the ships that many people claim had Al fires, for instance the Sheffield, where actually made of steel.
Click to expand...

It was the Amazon Class ships (type 21) that had Aluminium superstructures to save weight. They weren't designed by the RN, they were commercial designs by Vospers. They were the first RN ships to be all Gas Turbine powered. Amazon had a fire in 1977 that caused distorting and collapse of the ladders between decks and the jamming of hatches that hindered the firefighting attempts. They also suffered cracking in the Falklands due to differential expansion between the aluinium and the steel of the hull and were later re-enforced.
Ardent was hit by several bombs which detonated and she was lost to fire.
Antelope was hit by a bomb that didn't go off but later detonated while bomb disposal teams were trying to make it safe and she sank. It wasn't the use of aluminium in the structure that caused either of them to sink. I saw Ardent burning, we were going to go alongside to provide firefighting assistance but she was too far gone and it was decided that we would be a sitting target and the risk wasn't worth it.

Sheffield like Ardent was burned out because the bomb damage took out the firemain and power, the Exocet missile warhead didn't even detonate, major fires were started by the motor and remaining fuel as it passed through the machinery space.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
That's interesting. When I read about it quickly on the web I got the vague impression that maybe some nuclear power plants use other material than zirconium, but as often I was too lazy to research it further.

Hmm... Japanese nuclear disaster - hydrogen explosion, blamed on zirconium, and the Three Mile Island accident - hydrogen explosion, blamed on zirconium. Could it be that the hydrogen in reality came from water fuel reactors? ;) And that they have made up fast-oxidation through steam for zirconium since it's such an unusual metal.
Click to expand...


Oh my. If I or anyone had a fuel cell technology that could be economically sized and constructed to deliver 1,000 megawatts of electricity (and the means to generate the fuel -- hydrogen and oxygen -- always a problem in this particular case) I would be a zillionaire! Trying to hide the tech as a nuclear power plant would be counter-productive in the extreme. All the measures to control and contain radioactive products and ensure the integrity of the containment -- no need once the bogeyman of radioactivity is eliminated.

More:

-No Green House Gases
-Pure Water as output/byproduct. No disposal concerns. In fact it would be valuable in water-poor places.
-No spread of plutonium or other fissionable material (nuke proliferation).
-In the event of a serious problem, vent the hydrogen and oxygen through a stack and ignite it. It will burn merrily and in open air (assuming some air movement) for you will have a hard time getting an explosion, except by trying real hard. The problem with recombining (there are devices that can do that) as opposed to burning at the Fukushima plant would have been the apparent utter lack of electrical power.
-Any explosions in the plant would be a non-issue for the public since there is no threat to public safety.
-oh and even if you were only venting the hydrogren, it is lighter than normal air so it will rise and if it should reach an explosive concentration up above the plant, it would be a relative non-issue (just keep those pesky news helicopters out of the danger area).

Anyway let's be Realistice about this. If, in fact, there was any possibility of truth in AL's speculation, there would be a shipload of evidence available because, even if the fact was being concealed from the public, the people in the plant would generally know the truth. There would also be a whole group (large group) outside the plant(s) that would know the truth.

:)
 
fezzic said:
Oh my. If I or anyone had a fuel cell technology that could be economically sized and constructed to deliver 1,000 megawatts of electricity (and the means to generate the fuel -- hydrogen and oxygen -- always a problem in this particular case) I would be a zillionaire! Trying to hide the tech as a nuclear power plant would be counter-productive in the extreme. All the measures to control and contain radioactive products and ensure the integrity of the containment -- no need once the bogeyman of radioactivity is eliminated.

More:

-No Green House Gases
-Pure Water as output/byproduct. No disposal concerns. In fact it would be valuable in water-poor places.
-No spread of plutonium or other fissionable material (nuke proliferation).
-In the event of a serious problem, vent the hydrogen and oxygen through a stack and ignite it. It will burn merrily and in open air (assuming some air movement) for you will have a hard time getting an explosion, except by trying real hard. The problem with recombining (there are devices that can do that) as opposed to burning at the Fukushima plant would have been the apparent utter lack of electrical power.
-Any explosions in the plant would be a non-issue for the public since there is no threat to public safety.
-oh and even if you were only venting the hydrogren, it is lighter than normal air so it will rise and if it should reach an explosive concentration up above the plant, it would be a relative non-issue (just keep those pesky news helicopters out of the danger area).

Anyway let's be Realistice about this. If, in fact, there was any possibility of truth in AL's speculation, there would be a shipload of evidence available because, even if the fact was being concealed from the public, the people in the plant would generally know the truth. There would also be a whole group (large group) outside the plant(s) that would know the truth.

:)
Click to expand...

But I do have a reason for the extreme conspiracy theory: Water fuel plants use technology based on knowledge about how to tap into the vacuum energy (zero point energy). With such knowledge it's easy to create bombs that would make the alleged nuclear weapons look like firecrackers in comparison. Nikola Tesla talked about weapons that could cut the earth in two. Imagine such weapons in the hands of criminals or crazy people. Not good. So they use extreme means to keep that knowledge away from the public.
 
Last edited:
Nicola Tesla talked about weapons that could cut the earth in two. Imagine such weapons in the hands of criminals or crazy people.
Click to expand...

yes imagine having a weapon that could cut the earth in two, you could set it off and........hang on a minute?????
 
I just found this thread.

Anders Lindman said:
Sounds suspicious to me. Couldn't it be that it was not really a nuclear power plant and instead a water fuel cell plant, disguised as a nuclear power plant to keep the technology (similar to Stanley Meyer's invention) secret?
Click to expand...

Why go with the reasonable explanation when you can make up reality as you go, eh ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
If fission bombs are a hoax, then consequently fusion bombs are a hoax too since fission explosions are needed to trigger them.
Click to expand...

There's that "if", again.

Feelings carry important information.
Click to expand...

No, actually they DON'T.

I doubt that the nuclear chain reaction can be made as fast as they claim happen in a nuclear explosion.
Click to expand...

And since every scientist in the world disagrees with you, don't you think you might be the one with a knowledge deficiency ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
But I do have a reason for the extreme conspiracy theory: Water fuel plants use technology based on knowledge about how to tap into the vacuum energy (zero point energy). With such knowledge it's easy to create bombs that would make the alleged nuclear weapons look like firecrackers in comparison. Nikola Tesla talked about weapons that could cut the earth in two. Imagine such weapons in the hands of criminals or crazy people. Not good. So they use extreme means to keep that knowledge away from the public.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
Posts about the atom bomb attacks on Japan being faked have been moved to an existing thread on that topic here. Please, stick to the topic in this thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
What institutes of higher learning does one go to after graduating from U-Tube University? Grade school?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom