B.C.E. nuke?
Jyme
the Lord God Almighty smote the homes, temples, and workshops of the
unbelievers" sort of way.
Unfortunately, if the rest of the civilization survives, there will
surely one day be archaeologists and/or physicists who'll figure out
if it was done by deliberate intervention by an advanced culture, so
it has to look like circumstances resulting in an unfortunate
accident.
The tt can, without leaving traces of his handiwork, introduce uranium
as a 'holy metal,' plant references to its refining as a secret of
certain high priests, covertly distribute amulets and charms made of
it, and commission a statue made of it. The metal would arrive at the
foundry as small ingots enclosed in sacred containers (lead boxes
gilded inside and out) with instructions it was not to be handled
until it could all be placed into a clean crucible on the day the
casting is to be made (to prevent any possible ill effects prior to
casting day).
The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
mostly copper)?
Robert Martinu
> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
> mostly copper)?
2,8% U-235 works in a reactor because the moderator thermalizes the
neutrons. Without one you get a chunk of self heating metal and very
sick people.
(At 50% enrichment you need about 110lb, at 15% a few hundred tons, at
5% an infinite amount, to get a critical mass. And without proper
handling just a fizzle.)
But the unnatural distribution of isotopes will be a tell tale sign for
quite a while. Think of Oklo, 2 billion years ago yet quite obvious today.
care...@gmail.com
Do you mean 93% U-235 perhaps?
Mike Ash
Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
> mostly copper)?
Not what you're after, I'm afraid.
The trouble is that the critical mass in a bomb needs to be assembled
quickly. It's not something where you cross a threshold and suddenly
there's a huge kaboom. The rate at which the material heats up depends
on just how concentrated it is. If you bring it together slowly, it'll
get hot enough to blow itself apart, but not enough to do much damage.
As an example, this plutonium core was accidentally brought to
criticality in the laboratory, not once, but twice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
In both cases, things moved slowly enough that the person handling the
core was able to remove the neutron reflectors causing criticality,
although both died from the radiation. If it had been left in place,
there might have been a bang, but it would have been tiny compared to a
full-scale explosion.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Dworetsky
You can't get a big explosion by slowly assembling a pile of uranium to
critical mass. Over a hundred pounds of highly enriched weapons grade U-235
would be needed, and without prompt assembly (really, really prompt, using a
detonator or gun mechanism) all you would get is a melt down with huge
amounts of radiation that would kill anyone in the vicinity. And what you
describe is not weapons grade, but somewhat enriched to be a fuel in a power
or breeder reactor. And the pure metal (a mere hundred pounds) would not be
any good in a reactor, you would need a neutron moderator like graphite or
heavy water, and careful assembly of fuel rods in a special geometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
You could set up a thorium reactor to breed U-233, perhaps. I suspect that
would leave a lot of traces.
If you want to destroy/smite the city, what about high explosives or an
air-fuel mixture bomb? These would leave comparatively few evidences,
except for bits of bombshell, etc. When studying the possible effects of
the A-bomb, the Manhattan District scientists studied the history of large
explosion disasters. Several hundred tons might be needed, but cartons of
TNT buried under the city and ignited all at once could do the necessary
smiting and leave little evidence. (Appropriate perhaps as this is Guy
Fawkes Day.)
And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
refining and enriching it locally? If so, how are you planning to conceal
the required Oak-Ridge-size industrial plant from the archaeologists?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Jack Bohn
>You can't get a big explosion by slowly assembling a pile of uranium to
>critical mass. Over a hundred pounds of highly enriched weapons grade U-235
>would be needed, and without prompt assembly (really, really prompt, using a
>detonator or gun mechanism) all you would get is a melt down with huge
>amounts of radiation that would kill anyone in the vicinity. And what you
>describe is not weapons grade, but somewhat enriched to be a fuel in a power
>or breeder reactor. And the pure metal (a mere hundred pounds) would not be
>any good in a reactor, you would need a neutron moderator like graphite or
>heavy water, and careful assembly of fuel rods in a special geometry.
...
>If you want to destroy/smite the city, what about high explosives or an
>air-fuel mixture bomb?
How about a steam bomb?
I suppose rapidly introducing water to your pile of uranium wouldn't
work, but if you had a convenient magma source flowing nearby...
I don't know how much or how quickly you'd have to introduce the
water, whether an irrigation ditch would do, or if you'd have to
change the course of mighty rivers.
--
-Jack
Derek Lyons
>If you want to destroy/smite the city, what about high explosives or an
>air-fuel mixture bomb?
FAE's are probably a better idea than vast quantities of high
explosives scattered about - you'll need fewer which means your
detonation setup can be simpler. High explosive OTOH can be packed in
cardboard or containers made of local woods, and other than remmnants
of the blasting caps and detonations systems, will leave fewer traces.
>And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
>refining and enriching it locally? If so, how are you planning to conceal
>the required Oak-Ridge-size industrial plant from the archaeologists?
Oh, *much* bigger than Oak Ridge - you'll need the industrial plant to
*build* Oak Ridge and the supporting mining and transport
infrastructure... not to mention the power plant and *it's* supporting
infrastructure. Both Oak Ridge and Hanford were located where they
were because the sites provided near unlimited quantities of power and
cooling water.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>How about a steam bomb?
>I suppose rapidly introducing water to your pile of uranium wouldn't
>work, but if you had a convenient magma source flowing nearby...
>I don't know how much or how quickly you'd have to introduce the
>water, whether an irrigation ditch would do, or if you'd have to
>change the course of mighty rivers.
Unconfined, steam is fairly benign. Confined - you're talking
something pretty effing huge and high industrial to destroy even a
modest size city.
Damien Valentine
> The tt can, without leaving traces of his handiwork, introduce uranium
> as a 'holy metal,' plant references to its refining as a secret of
> certain high priests, covertly distribute amulets and charms made of
> it, and commission a statue made of it.
I'm not sure this religion is going to last long. Once word gets out
that the faithful get mysterious burns from their amulets, or waste
away and die after kissing the feet of their idol, it'll be damn hard
to win any new converts.
Plus a bomb isn't just a matter of lumping enough uranium together;
you need high explosives to crush it together fast enough for a true
detonation. (As better men than I have pointed out.) You set the
high priesthood of a pre-scientific society to mix up a batch of
cordite, that society's going to run out of high priests real quick.
Your time traveler is much better off building the bomb himself --
with a handful of time-traveling friends who possess at least a high-
school education -- off in a desert somewhere. Keep both the clergy
and laity as far as possible from both the lethal radiation and the
unstable nitroglycerin. Yeah, obviously this is going to leave traces
in the future. But by that time, his theocracy has taken over the
world -- iron broadswords vs. nuclear warheads is a loss every time --
so it doesn't matter.
Jyme
<inv...@invlid.invalid> wrote:
>Am 04.11.2010 22:56, schrieb Jyme:
>> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
>> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
>> mostly copper)?
>
>2,8% U-235 works in a reactor because the moderator thermalizes the
>neutrons. Without one you get a chunk of self heating metal and very
>sick people.
Hot enough to go China Syndrome?
I figured it wouldn't go boom in the conventional sense -- I'm looking
for something that would kill/maim everyone within a certain radius
and make the area uninhabitable.
>But the unnatural distribution of isotopes will be a tell tale sign for
>quite a while. Think of Oklo, 2 billion years ago yet quite obvious today.
It's in my notes (don't ask me to cite source), that U-235
concentration at Oklo was 3%. Having that concentration 'today' (a few
thousand years ago) might be seen as an anomaly, but doesn't prove
external intervention, which is the tt's main fear.
Jyme
I wish! A couple billion years ago, natural U-235 concentrations may
have been in the 3% range, so that's about the limit for this
scenario.
Jyme
>In article <ipa6d6d93fuk45ceg...@4ax.com>,
> Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>
>> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
>> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
>> mostly copper)?
>
>Not what you're after, I'm afraid.
I guess I screwed up the Subject line, giving the wrong impression of
what I'm after.
I'm not really looking for a boom, just something that will be
catastrophic in a spectacular way but still leave most of the city
intact (so there will be lots of eyewitnesses and records will
remain).
Jyme
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jyme wrote:
>> My time traveler needs to destroy a good part of a city in a "And lo,
>> the Lord God Almighty smote the homes, temples, and workshops of the
>> unbelievers" sort of way.
>If you want to destroy/smite the city, what about high explosives or an
>air-fuel mixture bomb? These would leave comparatively few evidences,
>except for bits of bombshell, etc.
It's those bits which are to be feared. Even a single piece of modern
copper wire fused into a bit of rubble will be evidence of external
intervention.
>And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
>refining and enriching it locally?
Smuggling in natural ore from Oklo a few billion years previous and
having a few grams refined into pure metal. My posited time machine
(opening to exactly parallel universes rather than riding the time
line of one universe) allows repeated gathering of that initial sample
to create massive amounts.
Jyme
<vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> The tt can, without leaving traces of his handiwork, introduce uranium
>> as a 'holy metal,' plant references to its refining as a secret of
>> certain high priests, covertly distribute amulets and charms made of
>> it, and commission a statue made of it.
>
>I'm not sure this religion is going to last long.
The idea is to destroy the religion and the greatest concentration of
its followers in a god smiting sort of way.
Robert Martinu
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:56:54 +0100, Robert Martinu
> <inv...@invlid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Am 04.11.2010 22:56, schrieb Jyme:
>>> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
>>> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
>>> mostly copper)?
>>
>> 2,8% U-235 works in a reactor because the moderator thermalizes the
>> neutrons. Without one you get a chunk of self heating metal and very
>> sick people.
>
> Hot enough to go China Syndrome?
Hot enough to burn through the crucible.
But then the molten stuff spreads out in a puddle and the reaction slows
down. You might take the tschernobyl-incident as a worst case scenario
for what happens to the inventory. Less material and less heat buildup
due to erlier breakdown would reduce the time until resolidification and
you'd avoid the spread of fallout due to the exploding pressure vessel
and burning graphite, but the fates of the cleanup crews would be a
credible description of what happen to your town.
Assuming the priests don't spend to much time with prayer and ritual,
otherwise radiation sickness sets in before things go that far.
> I figured it wouldn't go boom in the conventional sense -- I'm looking
> for something that would kill/maim everyone within a certain radius
> and make the area uninhabitable.
The temple has a terrible miasma that makes everybody going near $"watch
K-19 or look up living ghost state" and all the babies are born in the
region with horrible deformities.
>> But the unnatural distribution of isotopes will be a tell tale sign for
>> quite a while. Think of Oklo, 2 billion years ago yet quite obvious today.
>
> It's in my notes (don't ask me to cite source), that U-235
> concentration at Oklo was 3%. Having that concentration 'today' (a few
> thousand years ago) might be seen as an anomaly, but doesn't prove
> external intervention, which is the tt's main fear.
Back then it was, today its almost the same as every natural uranium
source, about 0,7% - but the U-235 burnt accounts for a fluctuation in
the third or forth significant digit. Thats what tipped them off.
3% percent in our geological age would be definitly interesting, either
manipulation or a meteorite made from young uranium. Both equal
attention getters. :)
And you'd also get raised amounts of all kinds of fission byproducts.
Should your archeologist use radio dating it would be impossible to get
sensible readings. But once they accept the ancient accidental reactor
they could pinpoint the time of its last activity fairly well.
If you don't want to leave traceable evidence you should think about a
massive bubble of methane/firedamp/mine gas mixing with the air. It
would look and feel like a small nuke or at least the fire storms of WW2.
care...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Damien Valentine
>
> >On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
> >> The tt can, without leaving traces of his handiwork, introduce uranium
> >> as a 'holy metal,' plant references to its refining as a secret of
> >> certain high priests, covertly distribute amulets and charms made of
> >> it, and commission a statue made of it.
>
> >I'm not sure this religion is going to last long.
>
> The idea is to destroy the religion and the greatest concentration of
> its followers in a god smiting sort of way.
You can't have the ancients melting uranium metal - it has to be done
in an inert atmosphere or a vacuum - it is too reactive. Even melting
in a sealed crucible would have the problem with trying to cast it.
How about having them pack the powdered ore into double walled clay
jars spaced in an array in a dry surface cistern - which is then
suddenly flooded. As the water rises the system goes critical, and the
ore starts getting very hot. After a few minutes the ore will get so
hot it (or the inner jars) will melt and the outer jars shatter and
transfer their heat to the water. This might make an impressive steam
explosion and a lot of radiation would be emitted in the process.
Alternatively a more controlled reactor could sit boiling away and
irradiating every one who came near for days, weeks or months.
Jyme
<inv...@invlid.invalid> wrote:
>Am 05.11.2010 23:00, schrieb Jyme:
>> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:56:54 +0100, Robert Martinu
>> <inv...@invlid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The big question I have is: what would be the effect of melting a
>>>> hundred pounds of uranium (93% U-238, 2.8% U-235, 4.2% impurities,
>>>> mostly copper)?
>
>Hot enough to burn through the crucible.
>But then the molten stuff spreads out in a puddle and the reaction slows
>down. You might take the tschernobyl-incident as a worst case scenario
>for what happens to the inventory.
How spectacular might that be?
What I need is something that will provoke a reaction like:
"What was that shock? Hey, look over the roof tops. Something's
happening on the other side of town."
"Isn't that where the heretics are casting their big statue today?"
"Looks about right. Want to go over there and check it out?"
"Me? Go towards that? You're off your nut. I'm running as far and fast
as I can, spreading the story of their destruction every place I go."
>> It's in my notes (don't ask me to cite source), that U-235
>> concentration at Oklo was 3%. Having that concentration 'today' (a few
>> thousand years ago) might be seen as an anomaly, but doesn't prove
>> external intervention, which is the tt's main fear.
>
>Back then it was, today its almost the same as every natural uranium
>source, about 0,7% - but the U-235 burnt accounts for a fluctuation in
>the third or forth significant digit. Thats what tipped them off.
>3% percent in our geological age would be definitly interesting, either
>manipulation or a meteorite made from young uranium. Both equal
>attention getters. :)
Meteorite would explain why it's a holy metal. A few chunks of ore
shot into the upper atmosphere so it could fall back to leave
meteor-like traces which could be discovered today would move
manipulation outside the "beyond a reasonable doubt" arena.
>If you don't want to leave traceable evidence you should think about a
>massive bubble of methane/firedamp/mine gas mixing with the air. It
>would look and feel like a small nuke or at least the fire storms of WW2.
Geology of the area prohibits it. :(
Jyme
>On Nov 5, 3:22 pm, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Damien Valentine
>>
>> <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 4, 4:56 pm, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> >> The tt can, without leaving traces of his handiwork, introduce uranium
>> >> as a 'holy metal,' plant references to its refining as a secret of
>> >> certain high priests, covertly distribute amulets and charms made of
>> >> it, and commission a statue made of it.
>>
>> >I'm not sure this religion is going to last long.
>>
>> The idea is to destroy the religion and the greatest concentration of
>> its followers in a god smiting sort of way.
>
>You can't have the ancients melting uranium metal - it has to be done
>in an inert atmosphere or a vacuum - it is too reactive. Even melting
>in a sealed crucible would have the problem with trying to cast it.
Amulets and charms are small and supposedly made by select high
priests working in secret. The first attempt to cast it in quantity by
lay people ends in disaster.
>How about having them pack the powdered ore into double walled clay
>jars spaced in an array in a dry surface cistern - which is then
>suddenly flooded. As the water rises the system goes critical, and the
>ore starts getting very hot. After a few minutes the ore will get so
>hot it (or the inner jars) will melt and the outer jars shatter and
>transfer their heat to the water. This might make an impressive steam
>explosion and a lot of radiation would be emitted in the process.
Like a swimming pool reactor out of control? Thanks! That might be the
answer.
It would also explain why it's done in a neighborhood rather than at a
foundry which were traditionally separated from private homes by at
least a few blocks.
Mike Ash
Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
> >And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
> >refining and enriching it locally?
>
> Smuggling in natural ore from Oklo a few billion years previous and
> having a few grams refined into pure metal. My posited time machine
> (opening to exactly parallel universes rather than riding the time
> line of one universe) allows repeated gathering of that initial sample
> to create massive amounts.
Note that, as far as I know, there's nothing special about the original
U235 concentration at Oklo. *All* uranium was more concentrated two
billion years ago. What made Oklo special was that the geometry of the
site and the water present, which allowed the reaction to occur. Your
time travelers can go back and fetch uranium from anywhere that has a
decent amount of it.
Mike Ash
Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
Well, you did say "destroy a good part of the city" in your original
message. I think that the above would just make bits uninhabitable and
maybe destroy the building that they're doing it in.
Robert Martinu
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 01:43:13 +0100, Robert Martinu
>> Hot enough to burn through the crucible.
>> But then the molten stuff spreads out in a puddle and the reaction slows
>> down. You might take the tschernobyl-incident as a worst case scenario
>> for what happens to the inventory.
>
> How spectacular might that be?
Do it at a blue moon/overcast night in a temple on the hill and people
would have something to look at. Orange light is common, but blue has
novelty value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Those at a distance would see a nice display of "magic", later that
night radiation poisoning starts to take its toll.
Otherwise its a low profile disaster, looking like a normal casting gone
wrong.
Assume average survival rates similar to the black death.
Simon Morden
Simon Morden
Carey
Even better - one might suppose that when the first jar explodes, it
shatters nearby jars, setting off an instantaneous chain-reaction of
them all shattering at once.
Carey
> In article <6609d6d7m6n0qffm2...@4ax.com>,
> Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>
>>> And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
>>> refining and enriching it locally?
>> Smuggling in natural ore from Oklo a few billion years previous and
>> having a few grams refined into pure metal. My posited time machine
>> (opening to exactly parallel universes rather than riding the time
>> line of one universe) allows repeated gathering of that initial sample
>> to create massive amounts.
>
> Note that, as far as I know, there's nothing special about the original
> U235 concentration at Oklo. *All* uranium was more concentrated two
> billion years ago. What made Oklo special was that the geometry of the
> site and the water present, which allowed the reaction to occur. Your
> time travelers can go back and fetch uranium from anywhere that has a
> decent amount of it.
Quite true - I recommend the Elliot Lake placer deposits in Canada which
are 2.3 billion years olf vs 1.78 for Oklo.
That gives you a U-235 concentration of 4.7%. This around the time that
oxygen arose in the atmosphere, which is probably causally associated
with the deposits (I believe oxidative precipitation is involved).
Alternatively, in a few decades uranium absorbing sponges may be
employed to collect uranium from seawater (prototype systems already
exist). Perhaps the time travellers can obtain them and drop them in the
ocean at an even earlier period. If they are the polymer type, the
uranium could be released simply by burning.
Carey
If you can give the reactor-builders even more elaborate instructions -
perhaps a large criticality insertion and a direct nuclear reaction
driven steam explosion can be arranged like Chernobyl or SL-1.
In this scheme the uranium ore concentrate (now in ordinary jars with
perforations to let water in) are spaced in the open cistern. Suspended
above it is a chandelier-like wood framework holding some additional
jars that fit into array gaps on the cistern floor.
The priests are told on a moonless night to to slowly allow the water to
enter the cistern so that the water level gradually rises. At a
particular moment a blue glow will appear, at that moment the chandelier
arrangement is released so that it falls into the cistern.
This will create a sudden large reactivity increases and explosive
vaporization of the water saturating the fuel. You could get something
like a small bomb. The SL-1 excursion was similiar to a 30 kg bomb.
Jyme
>In article <6609d6d7m6n0qffm2...@4ax.com>,
> Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>
>> >And are you smuggling in the enriched uranium in your time machine, or
>> >refining and enriching it locally?
>>
>> Smuggling in natural ore from Oklo a few billion years previous and
>> having a few grams refined into pure metal. My posited time machine
>> (opening to exactly parallel universes rather than riding the time
>> line of one universe) allows repeated gathering of that initial sample
>> to create massive amounts.
>
>Note that, as far as I know, there's nothing special about the original
>U235 concentration at Oklo. *All* uranium was more concentrated two
>billion years ago. What made Oklo special was that the geometry of the
>site and the water present, which allowed the reaction to occur. Your
>time travelers can go back and fetch uranium from anywhere that has a
>decent amount of it.
Thanks for that heads-up.
I chose Oklo because it's historic importance means the optimum
launch/land points for the 'time machine' have been well established
by previous researchers, and his bringing back a sample of the ore
won't be noticed because everyone is expected to bring back such a
souvenir.
Jyme
>If you can give the reactor-builders even more elaborate instructions -
I don't see that as a problem -- acolytes love elaborate rituals. :)
>In this scheme the uranium ore concentrate (now in ordinary jars with
>perforations to let water in) are spaced in the open cistern. Suspended
>above it is a chandelier-like wood framework holding some additional
>jars that fit into array gaps on the cistern floor.
>
>The priests are told on a moonless night to to slowly allow the water to
>enter the cistern so that the water level gradually rises. At a
>particular moment a blue glow will appear, at that moment the chandelier
>arrangement is released so that it falls into the cistern.
>
>This will create a sudden large reactivity increases and explosive
>vaporization of the water saturating the fuel. You could get something
>like a small bomb. The SL-1 excursion was similiar to a 30 kg bomb.
Sounds great! Thanks!
What kind of cistern are you talking about? Most in that area of that
era were 6-8 feet in diameter and 20-30 feet deep. I suspect you're
thinking of something quite different.
Construction of a broader, shallow pool is clearly possible. My main
concern is enclosure -- using a standard cistern, a heavy stone cover
could be easily rigged to fall into place.
Jyme
The city is about 1/4 mile square.
What would be ideal is something that sends dazzling effects high and
has such heat/pressure that nearby buildings are damaged. At least one
large house 95 yards away collapses (a large part of it apparently did
collapse due to unknown forces 60-80 years later). That radius is
about 15% of the city's area.
A great plus would be immediate death to everyone within 30-40 yards,
next-day death for everyone within 200 yards.
Jyme
<simon....@spamtastic.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Thought about a rock from orbit?
Taking back an artillery piece that can shoot a few chunks of ore into
the upper atmosphere is on the outer edge of doable. Something to lift
a couple of tons into orbit and aim it at a specific house, not so
much.
Carey
By a "cistern" I am thinking circular (could be square though) tank
about 2 meters wide and tall. For maximum damage you would want it above
ground.
I am thinking now that the fuel elements should actually be about 300
tubes about 1.5 m long, with 20 kg of uranium concentrate mixed into
something like chopped rags to create a water-absorbing lower density
mix that is packed into the tubes.
Par
> The city is about 1/4 mile square.
>
> What would be ideal is something that sends dazzling effects high and
> has such heat/pressure that nearby buildings are damaged. At least one
> large house 95 yards away collapses (a large part of it apparently did
> collapse due to unknown forces 60-80 years later). That radius is
> about 15% of the city's area.
>
> A great plus would be immediate death to everyone within 30-40 yards,
> next-day death for everyone within 200 yards.
I just had a thought about an alternate version, that may or may not do
it for you. "And on the night of their great ritual the deamons came.
They were strangely shaped and colorured, and arrows or swords could not
harm them. Their hands spat fire, and all the worshippers were slain by
their flames, and the smoke from the flames smelled like no fire on the
Earth..." That is, a score of men in fireproof (pimped) body armour
using flame throwers. Of course, if your TT has access to powered armor
that would possibly be even better; "and they tore them limb from
limb". Nothing very distinctive left behind, and a horror tale for the
survivors.
Mustard gas might work as well, come to think of it. Or is the blowing
things up a nessesary component?
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
TARDIS Express--"When it absolutely positively has to be there
before you mail it.
Allen Thomson
> so
> it has to look like circumstances resulting in an unfortunate
> accident.
Unless the time traveler is somehow incapable of operating in space,
the meteorite idea above seems like the best bet for preserving
plausible deniability.
Jyme
>By a "cistern" I am thinking circular (could be square though) tank
>about 2 meters wide and tall. For maximum damage you would want it above
>ground.
Sounds great -- about the size of a special altar. :)
>I am thinking now that the fuel elements should actually be about 300
>tubes about 1.5 m long, with 20 kg of uranium concentrate mixed into
>something like chopped rags to create a water-absorbing lower density
>mix that is packed into the tubes.
I really, really hope you mean 20kg total and not in each tube!
Now I'm left with coming up with a reason for such a configuration
which the people would accept and expect, preferably modeled on
something far older so the archaeologists can't point to it as an
obvious bomb-making plot.
Jyme
I'm afraid that anything which might leave traces of advanced tech is
a non-starter. The concept is to not only do the damage but to do it
in such a way that no one can prove in court that it was done by a tt.
Recruiting even a small force is dangerous (each of them is a possible
prosecution witness), and doing the 'multiply yourself' thingie with a
time machine is loaded with pitfalls (could you work effectively with
yourself?).
Jyme
It's a practical matter -- operating in space just isn't viable for
one person acting alone, and anyone, anywhere/anywhen you have help
you is a possible informant and/or prosecution witness.
Carey
No 20 kg in each tube. You are looking at 6 tons or so, based on a
typical core configuration for a LEU light water reactor.
If you go for a higher enrichment (like the 4.7% in earlier deposits
like I mentioned) and optimize the design for a minimum critical
configuration then substantially less might be possible, but this means
closer tolerances on the ancient reactor builders and trying to
determine what that minimum might be would take me a awhile. But you are
looking at tons of uranium concentrate no matter what.
It is going to blown to smithereens, what would they have to look at
other than the residue?
Derek Lyons
>I'm afraid that anything which might leave traces of advanced tech is
>a non-starter.
Yet a meltdown featuring uranium plainly anachronistic isn't a
problem? You haven't though this fully through.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jyme
wrote:
>Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm afraid that anything which might leave traces of advanced tech is
>>a non-starter.
>
>Yet a meltdown featuring uranium plainly anachronistic isn't a
>problem? You haven't though this fully through.
Fission happened in nature without the slightest bit of intervention.
Evidence that the ore came from a meteorite is fairly easy to create
in written accounts and as traces of debris at impact sites.
It is the nature of man to create higher than normal concentrations.
That was as true 3000 years ago as it is today.
Greater concentrations carry greater consequences.
Jyme
>It is going to blown to smithereens, what would they have to look at
>other than the residue?
Calculations would show how much original material and what general
configuration would have been necessary to create that residue
pattern. The line between "happenstance" and "obvious intervention"
would be drawn somewhere. The desirable placement is left of center.
Patok
>
> I'm afraid that anything which might leave traces of advanced tech is
> a non-starter. The concept is to not only do the damage but to do it
> in such a way that no one can prove in court that it was done by a tt.
> Recruiting even a small force is dangerous (each of them is a possible
> prosecution witness), and doing the 'multiply yourself' thingie with a
> time machine is loaded with pitfalls (could you work effectively with
> yourself?).
Why not? I could work with myself very well, thankyouverymuch. There are
several issues with that though - the least being the annoyance to the tt who
has to do whatever they are doing n times in sequence (n being however many are
needed to do the work). And the planning issue exposes yet another paradox, if
there weren't enough already. If the plan relies not on the tt making a
preliminary plan for what each copy has to do, but rather relies on instructions
by copy 'n' to all other n-1 copies (because copy 'n' is the most experienced,
having done all other's jobs already), then where did that information come from
to begin with?
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:38:04 GMT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
>wrote:
>
>>Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm afraid that anything which might leave traces of advanced tech is
>>>a non-starter.
>>
>>Yet a meltdown featuring uranium plainly anachronistic isn't a
>>problem? You haven't though this fully through.
>
>Fission happened in nature without the slightest bit of intervention.
Which has exactly zip point nada to do with the situation under
discussion. You might as well have type "zippity doo da".
>Evidence that the ore came from a meteorite is fairly easy to create
>in written accounts and as traces of debris at impact sites.
Protip: When you're trying to hide a crime - the absolute *last*
thing you want to do is to add complications.
Not to mention that a meteorite with that high a concentration of
Uranium is going stand out like a sore thumb as an anomaly because the
absence of such in the balance of known samples.
Tim Little
> Now I'm left with coming up with a reason for such a configuration
> which the people would accept and expect, preferably modeled on
> something far older so the archaeologists can't point to it as an
> obvious bomb-making plot.
Anything involving enriched uranium with 4-6x the natural
concentration of U235 for the time period in question is very
obviously an anachronism. Its half-life is short enough that there is
no possibility of any natural deposits, and easily long enough for the
ratio to remain essentially unchanged tens of thousands of years
later.
- Tim
Tim Little
Billions of years ago, before U235 decayed to its current levels.
> Evidence that the ore came from a meteorite is fairly easy to create
> in written accounts and as traces of debris at impact sites.
No, it is going to be exceedingly difficult. The U238/U235 ratio is
well-studied in meteorites, and is very consistent.
> It is the nature of man to create higher than normal concentrations.
Concentrations of uranium ores in general, perhaps. Diferential
refinement of *isotopes* of uranium is a difficult task even with
modern heavy industry, chemical and physical knowledge, and with the
targeted goal of deliberately doing so.
Given the obvious evidence of a nuclear meltdown and existence of time
travel, the *first* explanation is going to be deliberate interference
by a time traveller. Set against that is a flimsy and extremely
unlikely scenario:
1) A meteorite was found that had substantially higher than
terrestrial ratio of U235 to U238, unlike every other meteorite ever
recorded.
2) It also happened to be richer in uranium ore than the best
terrestrial uranium mines, having at least dozens of tonnes of uranium
compounds within it that stayed quite localised on impact, but without
being buried too deeply.
3) It was also the meteorite with the largest recovered and refined
mass in recorded history, despite the material being not especially
useful given the knowledge of the time.
4) The ceremony - purely by coincidence - is so precisely tailored as
to cause a very large criticality incident with major destruction of
the neighbourhood and hundreds or thousands of deaths, instead of the
vastly more common small excursions that would kill a few people in
the same room from radiation poisoning.
Any one of these is likely to get the scenario viewed with great
suspicion. Any two combined would be enough to rule it out of any
serious consideration. Three would make it ludicrous. All four are
required to avoid the time-traveller hypothesis.
- Tim
Robert Martinu
> On 2010-11-08, Jyme<jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> Evidence that the ore came from a meteorite is fairly easy to create
>> in written accounts and as traces of debris at impact sites.
>
> No, it is going to be exceedingly difficult. The U238/U235 ratio is
> well-studied in meteorites, and is very consistent.
Well, you've got a time machine and the capability to create meteorite
impacts. In the new timeline there seem to be additional peaks in the ratio.
> 3) It was also the meteorite with the largest recovered and refined
> mass in recorded history, despite the material being not especially
> useful given the knowledge of the time.
Well, iron from the stars is stuff of our legends, and ayers rock is
said to have magical properties.
> 4) The ceremony - purely by coincidence - is so precisely tailored as
> to cause a very large criticality incident with major destruction of
> the neighbourhood and hundreds or thousands of deaths, instead of the
> vastly more common small excursions that would kill a few people in
> the same room from radiation poisoning.
Ancient cities aren't that big, and no one would get the significance of
an excusion. If you drop instant death and destruction from the
requirement list you'd still get the same effect.
> Any one of these is likely to get the scenario viewed with great
> suspicion. Any two combined would be enough to rule it out of any
> serious consideration. Three would make it ludicrous. All four are
> required to avoid the time-traveller hypothesis.
Thats a matter of assumptions - is the archeologist pre or post time
travel? As long as time travel is considered impossible a chain of freak
accidents is more plausible then a violation of the laws of nature.
Par
> > Any one of these is likely to get the scenario viewed with great
> > suspicion. Any two combined would be enough to rule it out of any
> > serious consideration. Three would make it ludicrous. All four are
> > required to avoid the time-traveller hypothesis.
>
> Thats a matter of assumptions - is the archeologist pre or post time
> travel? As long as time travel is considered impossible a chain of freak
> accidents is more plausible then a violation of the laws of nature.
Not really. if you today reported the evidence that would be found from
this, we would expect it to be a hoax. If we get the data from many
independent, verfiable and impeccable sources we would be waiting for
the other shoe to drop. Time travellers or sadistic aliens is the
first two hypotheses. Someone winning the lotto thrice in a row is more
likley.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence with words in the
proper order then why can't he?
Derek Lyons
>Am 09.11.2010 04:45, schrieb Tim Little:
>> On 2010-11-08, Jyme<jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>
>>> Evidence that the ore came from a meteorite is fairly easy to create
>>> in written accounts and as traces of debris at impact sites.
>>
>> No, it is going to be exceedingly difficult. The U238/U235 ratio is
>> well-studied in meteorites, and is very consistent.
>
>Well, you've got a time machine and the capability to create meteorite
>impacts. In the new timeline there seem to be additional peaks in the ratio.
The more complicated you make your lie, the greater the chance of
screwing something up.
>> 3) It was also the meteorite with the largest recovered and refined
>> mass in recorded history, despite the material being not especially
>> useful given the knowledge of the time.
>
>Well, iron from the stars is stuff of our legends, and ayers rock is
>said to have magical properties.
The over importance of 'iron from space' is largely a modern creation
from whole cloth.
>> Any one of these is likely to get the scenario viewed with great
>> suspicion. Any two combined would be enough to rule it out of any
>> serious consideration. Three would make it ludicrous. All four are
>> required to avoid the time-traveller hypothesis.
>
>Thats a matter of assumptions - is the archeologist pre or post time
>travel? As long as time travel is considered impossible a chain of freak
>accidents is more plausible then a violation of the laws of nature.
Doesn't matter when the *first* archeologist is from - because time
travel eventually does get invented... and then all of the sudden
events in the past considered 'a chain of freak accidents' becomes
'WTF? - here's plain evidence of a time traveller'.
Jyme
wrote:
>On 2010-11-08, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> Now I'm left with coming up with a reason for such a configuration
>> which the people would accept and expect, preferably modeled on
>> something far older so the archaeologists can't point to it as an
>> obvious bomb-making plot.
>
>Anything involving enriched uranium with 4-6x the natural
>concentration of U235 for the time period in question is very
>obviously an anachronism.
It can be given a credible source by contaminating known meteor
strikes in a variety of places and putting into the records that the
metal was considered holy because it came from the sky. Even the most
minute traces found in two or three impact sites will make it a
curiosity instead of an anomaly.
Jyme
wrote:
>And the planning issue exposes yet another paradox, if
>there weren't enough already. If the plan relies not on the tt making a
>preliminary plan for what each copy has to do, but rather relies on instructions
>by copy 'n' to all other n-1 copies (because copy 'n' is the most experienced,
>having done all other's jobs already), then where did that information come from
>to begin with?
It's not a paradox because the last copy only knows how things went in
a previous iteration and does not/ can not know how their presence
will change things.
Tim Little
> It can be given a credible source by contaminating known meteor
> strikes in a variety of places and putting into the records
Whose records? Does the time traveller only have to fool timebound
people, and not other time travellers with independent histories and
records? I can't find the original post now, but for some reason I
had thought the scenario was otherwise.
Though still, that only deals with one objection out of four. The
meteorite that supplied the uranium still has to be the largest ever
recovered, it has to contain incredibly large amounts of rich uranium
ore of recent nuclear origin, and the ritual has to purely
accidentally provide the perfect storm for a large meltdown (without
smaller accidents warning them previously).
But hey, it's your story. Go for it, maybe the readers will hold
their noses if the rest of the story is worth swallowing.
- Tim
Derek Lyons
Minute samples at two or three impact sites call into question some
pretty serious building blocks of cosmology - and make it extremely
rare. When your ancient priests show up with tons and tons of an
extremely rare material - it's an anomaly.
Autymn D. C.
large -> great
Cryptoengineer
9e20-8f1...@g4g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
> large := broad
> large -> great
Why don't you restrict your language postings to alt.english.usage? There,
they would be on-topic, and the readers might actually care.
pt
Jyme
wrote:
>On 2010-11-10, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> It can be given a credible source by contaminating known meteor
>> strikes in a variety of places and putting into the records
>
>Whose records? Does the time traveller only have to fool timebound
>people, and not other time travellers with independent histories and
>records? I can't find the original post now, but for some reason I
>had thought the scenario was otherwise.
Timebound records.
The crux is that the locals not be able to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that there was alien/time traveler/whatever interference.
>Though still, that only deals with one objection out of four. The
>meteorite that supplied the uranium still has to be the largest ever
>recovered,
The Tucson meteorite at the Smithsonian is more than half a ton.
Positing the collection of a hundred pounds of uranium from an impact
site may be a stretch but is nowhere near proof that it could not have
happened.
> the ritual has to purely
>accidentally provide the perfect storm for a large meltdown (without
>smaller accidents warning them previously).
The ritual was one that I was going to have to work on (my original
post concerned simply melting the metal for a supposed statue), but
depending on what I might find, wasn't a deal breaker -- religions
have always had strange rituals.
Jyme
wrote:
> When your ancient priests show up with tons and tons of an
>extremely rare material - it's an anomaly.
I posited a hundred pounds, with a backstory that could not be
disproved.
Derek Lyons
>On 10 Nov 2010 04:48:32 GMT, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2010-11-10, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>>> It can be given a credible source by contaminating known meteor
>>> strikes in a variety of places and putting into the records
>>
>>Whose records? Does the time traveller only have to fool timebound
>>people, and not other time travellers with independent histories and
>>records? I can't find the original post now, but for some reason I
>>had thought the scenario was otherwise.
>
>Timebound records.
>
>The crux is that the locals not be able to prove beyond a reasonable
>doubt that there was alien/time traveler/whatever interference.
ROTFLMAO. That's so trivial to do, you're wasting our time here.
People in that era have no conception of aliens/time travelers - it's
all gods.
>>Though still, that only deals with one objection out of four. The
>>meteorite that supplied the uranium still has to be the largest ever
>>recovered,
>
>The Tucson meteorite at the Smithsonian is more than half a ton.
>Positing the collection of a hundred pounds of uranium from an impact
>site may be a stretch but is nowhere near proof that it could not have
>happened.
ROTFLMAO. Do you know how many meteorites you'd have to collect to
get a hundred pounds of uranium?
>> the ritual has to purely
>>accidentally provide the perfect storm for a large meltdown (without
>>smaller accidents warning them previously).
>
>The ritual was one that I was going to have to work on (my original
>post concerned simply melting the metal for a supposed statue), but
>depending on what I might find, wasn't a deal breaker -- religions
>have always had strange rituals.
ROTFLMAO. That, like your other responses, doesn't actually adress
his issues... It's just airy handwaving dismissing him.
Tim Little
> The crux is that the locals not be able to prove beyond a reasonable
> doubt that there was alien/time traveler/whatever interference.
Just out of interest, what's the difference between "alien"
interference, and "demonic" interference causing such destruction? It
seems to me that both imply a hostile and powerful entity from beyond
this world and outside of local knowledge causing destruction in human
affairs. What makes the latter conclusion so much better for your
time traveller than the former?
Though really, your time traveller could probably set up the uranium
in a pattern that burns "TIME TRAVELLER WAS HERE" into the bedrock
when the meltdown occurs, and there would still be plenty of
reasonable doubt.
> The Tucson meteorite at the Smithsonian is more than half a ton.
> Positing the collection of a hundred pounds of uranium from an
> impact site may be a stretch but is nowhere near proof that it could
> not have happened.
A hundred pounds is the critical mass for a sphere of *pure* U235.
For the ratios you've been talking about and the effect you want, even
with a moderator, you will need a lot more. You would also need a
great deal more than a hundred pounds of meteorite to get a hundred
pounds of uranium.
But again, that's irrelevant. You don't need any meteorite cover
story, or in fact any cover story at all.
- Tim
Jyme
wrote:
>Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>>
>>The crux is that the locals not be able to prove beyond a reasonable
>>doubt that there was alien/time traveler/whatever interference.
>
>ROTFLMAO. That's so trivial to do, you're wasting our time here.
>People in that era have no conception of aliens/time travelers - it's
>all gods.
If you had bothered to read the original post, you'd know your
response is nonsensical.
Jyme
wrote:
>On 2010-11-10, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> The crux is that the locals not be able to prove beyond a reasonable
>> doubt that there was alien/time traveler/whatever interference.
>
>Just out of interest, what's the difference between "alien"
>interference, and "demonic" interference causing such destruction?
Modern physicists and archaeologists will be making the evaluation. I
presume there would be a bias towards aliens rather than demons. :)
>For the ratios you've been talking about and the effect you want, even
>with a moderator, you will need a lot more.
So to my original question (". . .what would be the effect of melting
a hundred pounds of uranium . . ."), the answer is . . . nothing?
Tim Little
> So to my original question (". . .what would be the effect of melting
> a hundred pounds of uranium . . ."), the answer is . . . nothing?
Short answer, yes.
Also, now that I can read your original post I can see how the thread
drifted wildly off the original question.
- Tim
Suzanne Blom
> My time traveler needs to destroy a good part of a city in a "And lo,
> the Lord God Almighty smote the homes, temples, and workshops of the
> unbelievers" sort of way.
>
> Unfortunately, if the rest of the civilization survives, there will
> surely one day be archaeologists and/or physicists who'll figure out
> if it was done by deliberate intervention by an advanced culture, so
> it has to look like circumstances resulting in an unfortunate
> accident.
>
better off just giving them knock-out gas and then flooding the area
with carbon dioxide. True, it won't give you that whiz-bang wow effect,
but finding all the main followers of a given deity dead would be really
creepy. The whole city might be abandoned.
Jyme
wrote:
I wish it was as easy as just killing them off. :( Without a
whiz-bang-wow, there's the possibility their calm deaths would be a
sign their god had taken them into his fold, and the religion might
flourish because of it.
While deeply religious and superstitious, the people of that time were
also very practical: even a ship found beached with all of the crew
dead was given a new name and put back into service. It was noted that
they couldn't get the best crew at the cheapest rate, but there were
still plenty of people willing to sail, and send their cargo on, a
ghost ship.
Jyme
wrote:
>Also, now that I can read your original post I can see how the thread
>drifted wildly off the original question.
Don't they always? :)
I'm surprised thread-drift isn't a required course in every
communication degree program.
Raven
news:ipa6d6d93fuk45ceg...@4ax.com...
> My time traveler needs to destroy a good part of a city in a "And lo,
> the Lord God Almighty smote the homes, temples, and workshops of the
> unbelievers" sort of way.
> Unfortunately, if the rest of the civilization survives, there will
> surely one day be archaeologists and/or physicists who'll figure out
> if it was done by deliberate intervention by an advanced culture, so
> it has to look like circumstances resulting in an unfortunate
> accident.
Is all you need a cause of death and destruction which technological
primitives who live when the buses don't run cannot understand and will
therefore attribute to a smiting god, and which later archaeologists and
historians will not suspect was caused by high tech intervention? What
about black powder? The insidious tt secretly teaches the priesthood how to
make it and has them store it in the temple. He doesn't tell them how
dangerous it is but warns them against touching it with sparks or fire -
until the day that they are to sacrifice some of it on the altar, in a
sanctuary filled with kegs of it, some of these unlidded and others sturdily
closed... Later archaeologists and historians may conclude that this cult
discovered how to make black powder and then pulled an accidental Guy Fawkes
on themselves, which is plausible enough. I suppose it would have been
within the skills of eg. the ancient Sumerians to make black powder if they
had known the recipe and had a source of saltpeter. Any civilization can
produce charcoal; sulfur increases the power of the powder but is not
necessary if you have enough of it.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Patok
Huh? That's not the paradox. Let me make it stand out. Suppose, that TT made
no prior plans on how to proceed. He arrives at the gathering point, with all
other successive copies in attendance, and copy #n, being the most senior and
experienced, assigns every other copy their jobs and gives instructions on what
to do. (As a matter of pedantry, only copy #1 - the first iteration - needs the
instructions, because everybody else has been through it all at least once.) The
paradox is - where did all that information come from?
Par
>
> I wish it was as easy as just killing them off. :( Without a
> whiz-bang-wow, there's the possibility their calm deaths would be a
> sign their god had taken them into his fold, and the religion might
> flourish because of it.
Not of you the go in and skin the bodies, or mutilate them in
interesting fashions, before someone find them.
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Dawkins is the prototypical evangelical fundamentalist atheist
-- Nix
Jyme
wrote:
> Let me make it stand out. Suppose, that TT made
>no prior plans on how to proceed. He arrives at the gathering point, with all
>other successive copies in attendance, and copy #n, being the most senior and
>experienced, assigns every other copy their jobs and gives instructions on what
>to do. (As a matter of pedantry, only copy #1 - the first iteration - needs the
>instructions, because everybody else has been through it all at least once.) The
>paradox is - where did all that information come from?
I think the information you believe to be there simply wouldn't exist
in the form you are positing.
Let me name them C0 (the original tt), C1, C2 ... CN (for Copies 1,2
... N).
A) If the C0 has no plan, he tries it alone. When it fails, he
retreats and creates C1. When they try it and fail, he creates C2.
Repeat until success. By this method, everyone from C0 to CN-1 has
been through it, gaining knowledge simultaneously, but none of them
can know what will happen the next time. Only CN will be entering it
with no previous knowledge.
B) If C0 wants it done but is too busy at the moment, he might create
C1 to do it. The process would be the same as in A except starting
with C1 rather than C0. C0 then joins the group.
This is the only way C0 will have no knowledge of the op while the
copies do, and the copies will have no knowledge of how the op will go
with C0 along because it has not happened before.
C) While C0 may have no specific plan, he might understand it will
take a certain number of people, so he creates that number of copies.
Each of the copies will be as virginal as C0 when they first do it. If
it turns out more people are needed, more copies are made, each having
the same experience as either C0 or one/some of the copies.
Only in B will any of the copies have more knowledge than C0, and
that's only because the base point for experience has been shifted to
C1.
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:6af3802e-12ad-4319-
> 9e20-8f1ba1fcf...@g4g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > large := broad
> > large -> great
>
> Why don't you restrict your language postings to alt.english.usage? There,
> they would be on-topic, and the readers might actually care.
They are on-thing anywhere's a shred of English.
Autymn D. C.
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Jyme" <jym...@dialup4less.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:ipa6d6d93fuk45ceg...@4ax.com...
Chark is swift-a'burning and brimstone is slow-a'burning; the latter
lets pressure build up so as not to shatter bullets. Sangiga had none,
but coke should do fine.
http://sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf
ízi[KI-IZI]-ur5: coal ('fire-place' + 'liver, soul').
múnu: a caustic salt (mú, 'to make grow', + nu11, 'fire'; saltpeter is
the oxygenating ingredient in gunpowder).
urudu, uruda, urud: copper; metal (ùru, 'luminous object', + dù, 'to
mould, cast') [URUDU archaic
frequency: 61; concatenates 3 sign variants] .
zabar[UD.KA.BAR]: bronze (zil; zi; zé, 'to pare, cut', + bar6,
'bright, white'; Akk. siparrum,
'bronze' borrowed before vowel harmony changed Sumerian word; cf.,
barzil, 'iron') [ZABAR archaic
frequency: 1].
barzil (AN.BAR): (meteoric) iron (bar6, 'to shine', + zil, 'to cut,
peel').
a-gar5: lead, the metal.
an-na: tin; yes ('sky' + 'stone'; Civil thinks an-na, 'yes', is
probably an Akkadianism, but cf., affirmative nanam, 'indeed' and in-
nu, 'negation').
Zilbar and barzil--how about that.
-Aut
Bill Snyder
Let me put the point a bit more clearly, then: You're insulting
our intelligence and wasting our time. Go away. Far away.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Autymn D. C.
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:20:44 -0800 (PST), "Autymn D. C."
>
> >On Nov 10, 10:39 am, Cryptoengineer <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:6af3802e-12ad-4319-
> >> 9e20-8f1ba1fcf...@g4g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > large := broad
> >> > large -> great
>
> >> Why don't you restrict your language postings to alt.english.usage? There,
> >> they would be on-topic, and the readers might actually care.
>
> >They are on-thing anywhere's a shred of English.
>
> Let me put the point a bit more clearly, then: You're insulting
> our intelligence and wasting our time. Go away. Far away.
You do that yourself fine.
John F. Eldredge
> Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com>:
>>
>> I wish it was as easy as just killing them off. :( Without a
>> whiz-bang-wow, there's the possibility their calm deaths would be a
>> sign their god had taken them into his fold, and the religion might
>> flourish because of it.
>
> Not of you the go in and skin the bodies, or mutilate them in
> interesting fashions, before someone find them.
Or use one of the corrosive gases, such as chlorine or fluorine. Not
only will the people be dead, they will be disfigured and it will be
obvious from their facial expressions that they died in considerable pain.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Tim Little
> A) If the C0 has no plan, he tries it alone. When it fails, he
> retreats and creates C1.
What do you mean "creates" C1? C1 is just himself, later in his
personal timeline. No creation is involved.
> By this method, everyone from C0 to CN-1 has been through it,
> gaining knowledge simultaneously, but none of them can know what
> will happen the next time. Only CN will be entering it with no
> previous knowledge.
CN enters with all the knowledge that CN-1 had, plus some more
experience, minus anything forgotten. The least experienced is C0.
- Tim
John Park
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 04:45:15 +0000, Par wrote:
>
>> Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com>:
>>>
>>> I wish it was as easy as just killing them off. :( Without a
>>> whiz-bang-wow, there's the possibility their calm deaths would be a
>>> sign their god had taken them into his fold, and the religion might
>>> flourish because of it.
>>
>> Not of you the go in and skin the bodies, or mutilate them in
>> interesting fashions, before someone find them.
>
> Or use one of the corrosive gases, such as chlorine or fluorine. Not
> only will the people be dead, they will be disfigured and it will be
> obvious from their facial expressions that they died in considerable pain.
>
muscles, relax and the face becomes expressionless.
--John Park
Jyme
wrote:
>On 2010-11-12, Jyme <jym...@dialup4less.com> wrote:
>> A) If the C0 has no plan, he tries it alone. When it fails, he
>> retreats and creates C1.
>
>What do you mean "creates" C1? C1 is just himself, later in his
>personal timeline. No creation is involved.
It is a process after which there is something new. I could think of
no better word than 'creation.'
Also, there is now new matter in the universe (tt and machine). One
might think that involves 'creation.'
I am wide open to a better term.
>
>CN enters with all the knowledge that CN-1 had, plus some more
>experience, minus anything forgotten.
When/where did CN get that extra experience.
If you're in a room, step out, and step back in five minutes before,
what extra experience do you have? Except what the inside of the time
machine looked like when used that time, CN can have no
experience/memories that CN-1 lacks.
Tim Little
> Also, there is now new matter in the universe (tt and machine). One
> might think that involves 'creation.'
Does time travelling at all therefore involve "destruction", since the
tt and machine are now gone from the departure point?
> I am wide open to a better term.
How about "folding", as in the title of the book "The Man Who Folded
Himself"?
> If you're in a room, step out, and step back in five minutes before,
> what extra experience do you have? Except what the inside of the
> time machine looked like when used that time, CN can have no
> experience/memories that CN-1 lacks.
Let's get this sorted out with a simple example. In universe
timeline:
1) The time traveller wants to start a task at universe time U0. It
will take an hour, and he decides he needs two more people's help. He
arranges that after he has finished the task, he will travel into the
past to help himself out, and do the same again after that.
2) At universe time U0, two more versions of the time traveller
appear: T1 and T2. They help out, and at the end of the task, T0 and
T1 disappear into whatever gimmick they use for time travel.
In the time-traveller's timeline:
1) C0 starts the task at U0 time, with help from two other people (C1
and C2). He has no experience of doing the work. The three people
finish the task together.
2) He does his time-travel thing to U0 time, and is now C1. He
remembers being C0, remembers doing C0's part of the task, and
remembers an outside-observer's view of what C1 and C2 did. He
finishes the C1 part of the job.
3) Once again he does the time travel thing to U0. He is now C2, and
remembers being both C0 and C1. He remembers what C0 and C1 did from
his own personal experience, because it was himself who did both
tasks. He does C2's part of the job.
4) He goes on to do whatever at U0 + 1 hour, though he is personally
now three hours older.
Do you see how CN is the most experienced now?
Of course, that was a simple example. There is no need for C1 to be
just C0 + task duration. He could arrange to do the time travel thing
a day, week, or years later. C1 may have done tons of stuff in the
interim. He may also have forgotten much of what he did as C0.
- Tim
Cryptoengineer
news:21d3a8ab-16bf-4c49...@j29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
The curious thing is 'Autymn' (our one man (woman?) Academie Anglais),
clearly has no trouble whatsoever understanding what people post here.
Given that, I wonder about its motivations - using its volcabulary and
grammar won't improve communications in any way.
Why does it think this is important enough to be such an obnoxious troll
about it?
pt
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:21d3a8ab-16bf-4c49...@j29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 10:20 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:20:44 -0800 (PST), "Autymn D. C."
>
> >> <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 10, 10:39 am, Cryptoengineer <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:6af3802e-12ad-43
> > 19-
> >> >> 9e20-8f1ba1fcf...@g4g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > large := broad
> >> >> > large -> great
>
> >> >> Why don't you restrict your language postings to
> >> >> alt.english.usage? Th
> > ere,
> >> >> they would be on-topic, and the readers might actually care.
>
> >> >They are on-thing anywhere's a shred of English.
>
> >> Let me put the point a bit more clearly, then: You're insulting
> >> our intelligence and wasting our time. Go away. Far away.
>
> > You do that yourself fine.
>
> The curious thing is 'Autymn' (our one man (woman?) Academie Anglais),
> clearly has no trouble whatsoever understanding what people post here.
> Given that, I wonder about its motivations - using its volcabulary and
> grammar won't improve communications in any way.
It would so, in any and every way: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+%22length+is+time%22.
the person -> who
a person -> one
A person is not a it.
> Why does it think this is important enough to be such an obnoxious troll
> about it?
I'm not, strawman.
Patok
Thanks for explaining it to Jyme, Tim. I would've written the same, but
didn't come back here soon enough.
Jyme, do you feel qualified writing a TT story? This here is a basic TT
information paradox, and you not only didn't get that, you don't seem to
understand the concept of a TT folding upon himself. I suggest you do some
reading - Stanislaw Lem, for one, is very good with paradoxes of that kind.
Another author (writing in English), whose name escapes me for the time being,
had a different assumption going - there, meeting yourself while t-traveling was
disastrous (because of conservation of mass or something); travelers took great
care to log wherewhen they were, in order to avoid disaster.
Patok
> hours older -> hours elder
Muttish has a useful distinction in meaning between "older" and "elder". How
does your Anglisc (or whatever you call it) represent the two different meanings?
Jyme
wrote:
> Jyme, do you feel qualified writing a TT story?
Well, the last one I had published was nominated for an award, and I
sold reprint rights to it to magazines on three continents and two
e-zines, so without any false humility, I'd say: yes.
Jyme
wrote:
>Let's get this sorted out with a simple example. In universe
>timeline:
>
>1) The time traveller wants to start a task at universe time U0. It
>will take an hour, and he decides he needs two more people's help. He
>arranges that after he has finished the task,
I certainly hope that was a scenario an author was able to finesse
into believability because it simply does not follow simple logic.
"He arranges that after he has finished the task, he will travel..."
is handwaving.
Time travel by stepping into a machine, setting the destination, and
pushing the 'move' button means that each time he goes back to meet
himself, there's another him in the universe.
To have the time machine somehow reach out to move people around,
create copies, or destroy copies gives it god-like powers far beyond
what I'd accept as technology.
>In the time-traveller's timeline:
>
>1) C0 starts the task at U0 time, with help from two other people (C1
>and C2). He has no experience of doing the work. The three people
>finish the task together.
>
>2) He does his time-travel thing to U0 time, and is now C1. He
>remembers being C0, remembers doing C0's part of the task, and
>remembers an outside-observer's view of what C1 and C2 did. He
>finishes the C1 part of the job.
>
>3) Once again he does the time travel thing to U0. He is now C2, and
>remembers being both C0 and C1. He remembers what C0 and C1 did from
>his own personal experience, because it was himself who did both
>tasks. He does C2's part of the job.
What if C1 sees C2 step on a landmine? Will he still become C2 and do
exactly the same thing?
His observation changes the situation. C1's experience is a
probability. It is not and cannot be a fixed point.
Erik Max Francis
> On 15 Nov 2010 02:11:28 GMT, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's get this sorted out with a simple example. In universe
>> timeline:
>>
>> 1) The time traveller wants to start a task at universe time U0. It
>> will take an hour, and he decides he needs two more people's help. He
>> arranges that after he has finished the task,
>
> I certainly hope that was a scenario an author was able to finesse
> into believability because it simply does not follow simple logic.
>
> "He arranges that after he has finished the task, he will travel..."
> is handwaving.
>
> Time travel by stepping into a machine, setting the destination, and
> pushing the 'move' button means that each time he goes back to meet
> himself, there's another him in the universe.
>
> To have the time machine somehow reach out to move people around,
> create copies, or destroy copies gives it god-like powers far beyond
> what I'd accept as technology.
That's a curious statement, since it would appear that you're the one
who keeps seeming to assume that "copies" are created or destroyed ("I
could think of no better word than 'creation'"; "there's another him in
the universe").
This is what doesn't seem to be sinking in:
If you have a guy who's making multiple trips back in time and
encounters various versions of himself, _they're all the same guy_.
They all have the same memory that accumulates as they age (discounting
what they might forget); the past versions of each other just encounter
each other in different stages of their lives and thus have
progressively more knowledge.
Here's the simplest example: If I travel back in time and meet myself,
then when I'm preparing to step into to the time machine to meet myself,
_I remember having met myself_. I remember it happening _before_ I ever
encounter the time machine. I must have, because it happened.
> His observation changes the situation. C1's experience is a
> probability. It is not and cannot be a fixed point.
You're just making things up now.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
And I care so much / I don't care anymore
-- Lamya
Wayne Throop
: "He arranges that after he has finished the task, he will travel..."
: is handwaving.
No. It really isn't.
: Time travel by stepping into a machine, setting the destination, and
: pushing the 'move' button means that each time he goes back to meet
: himself, there's another him in the universe.
No. There's only one him. He happens to be beside himself, but there's
still only one of him. If a sheet of paper is folded once over, it's not
suddenly two sheets of paper, even though one part of the paper is right
next to another part, and locally (if you ignore the fold) it looks like
two sheets stacked up. Just the same here, except in time instead of
space; it only looks like two people locally, if you ignore the time trip.
Your preconceptions may encourage you to view it locally, and ignore
the time trip, but that doesn't make the time traveler two people,
any more than ignoring the fold in a piece of paper makes it two
peices of paper.
: To have the time machine somehow reach out to move people around,
: create copies, or destroy copies gives it god-like powers far beyond
: what I'd accept as technology.
The problem here is that nobody but you said anything like that.
The scenario we're talking about, indicated by the phrase "arranges
that after he has finished the task he will travel" means, "after he
finishes the task, he intends to step into the time machine and set its
destination to the time he started the task". There's no "reaching out"
and "moving people around". There's just a machine which somebody uses
to travel back in time. This is no more "god-like powers" than "after
the task, I arrange to drive to Nevada".
: What if C1 sees C2 step on a landmine?
Yeah? So?
: Will he still become C2 and do exactly the same thing?
Why are you asking me? Ask him.
: His observation changes the situation.
In what way?
Sure, sure, if you're talking time travel, soon you'll be talking
about free will and predistination and all kinds of airy philosophy,
but that's entirely beside the point.
A fellow is walking through the snow in a blizzard, and becomes lost.
He encounters some tracks, and starts to follow them, in hopes that
whoever he's tracking will be headed for shelter. By and by, he notes
that somebody has met the guy he's tracking, and is now walking alongside.
A bit later, another set of tracks shows up, and now he's following three
parallel sets of tracks. He figures, hey, a whole crowd of people are
going somewhere; there's *sure* to be shelter if I just keep following them.
Can you spot any flaws in his reasoning?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Tim Little
>>Let's get this sorted out with a simple example. In universe
>>timeline:
> into believability because it simply does not follow simple logic.
>
> "He arranges that after he has finished the task, he will travel..."
> is handwaving.
I have arranged that after I finish work today, I will go home. Does
that violate simple logic also? I have a car to carry out my plans,
the time traveller has a time machine to carry out his.
> Time travel by stepping into a machine, setting the destination, and
> pushing the 'move' button means that each time he goes back to meet
> himself, there's another him in the universe.
Temporarily, yes. That will end when the earlier version of him gets
into the time machine and disappears from the universe.
> To have the time machine somehow reach out to move people around,
> create copies, or destroy copies gives it god-like powers far beyond
> what I'd accept as technology.
I have no idea what you are going on about here, but it seems to have
no relation to anything previously discussed in this thread.
> What if C1 sees C2 step on a landmine? Will he still become C2 and
> do exactly the same thing?
In a single self-consistent universe, obviously yes (for whatever
reason or by accident). Otherwise it's not time travel within a
timeline, but travel to a different timeline. In the latter case, the
person C1 sees as C2 isn't really C2, but just someone from a
different timeline who looks the same.
As the author of a time travel book, it is up to you to think about
these things.
> His observation changes the situation. C1's experience is a
> probability. It is not and cannot be a fixed point.
Whose experience is a fixed point, then?
- Tim
Cryptoengineer
> On Nov 15, 5:42 am, Cryptoengineer <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:21d3a8ab-16bf-4c49-a
> 5fc-48e8...@j29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Your sex is ambiguous, and you posts show about as much intellectual
depth as an Eliza program.
Until I know better, you're an it.
pt
Brian Davis
> ...show about as much intellectual depth as an Eliza program.
Actually a lot of evolved Eliza programs can do significantly better
than this. Some of them can pass the Turing Test, at least for a
while. Autymn, not so much. Eliza programs have improved over time...
Autymn hasn't.
--
Brian Davis
Erik Max Francis
Actually, I doubt pretty much anybody is under the impression that
Autymn is actually a bot. So he/she/it/who-gives-a-shit passes the
Turing test.
Which suggests an approach to writing bots that can easily pass the
Turing test: Just make them deliberately difficult, "correct"
spellings, and generally go out of their way to be pains in the ass.
Voila, they pass the Turing test. Which is more a reflection of how
useless the Turing test always has been than how clever that solution
might be.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Sitting in the den and / Looking at the phone as if it owed / Owed me
a favor -- Blu Cantrell
Jyme
wrote:
>My time traveler needs to destroy a good part of a city in a "And lo,
>the Lord God Almighty smote the homes, temples, and workshops of the
>unbelievers" sort of way.
Thanks to all who responded to my question. Since the result of the
scenario wouldn't be what I'd hoped, you saved me from committing a
gross faux pas.
The thread has now drifted into an area where I have neither the
desire nor the stubbornness to continue. I see that the majority here
believe in theories which I do not, and none of us have a working time
machine to point to as proof of who is right, so further discussion
would surely degenerate in pointless bickering.
Thanks again for the answer to my original question!
Greg Goss
>Which suggests an approach to writing bots that can easily pass the
>Turing test: Just make them deliberately difficult, "correct"
>spellings, and generally go out of their way to be pains in the ass.
>Voila, they pass the Turing test. Which is more a reflection of how
>useless the Turing test always has been than how clever that solution
>might be.
"We have built the first intelligent computer. And it's insane."
This was the tag line from an article called "Turing Point" in a
mid-seventies Analog. A program simulating an extreme paranoid was
able to convince psychiatrists over a teletype that it was human.
Simulating a human with extremely limited responses is much easier.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Erik Max Francis
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> Which suggests an approach to writing bots that can easily pass the
>> Turing test: Just make them deliberately difficult, "correct"
>> spellings, and generally go out of their way to be pains in the ass.
>> Voila, they pass the Turing test. Which is more a reflection of how
>> useless the Turing test always has been than how clever that solution
>> might be.
>
> "We have built the first intelligent computer. And it's insane."
> This was the tag line from an article called "Turing Point" in a
> mid-seventies Analog. A program simulating an extreme paranoid was
> able to convince psychiatrists over a teletype that it was human.
This was the strategy employed by Racter, one of the old treasures from
the chatterbot days.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
History is a set of lies agreed upon.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Dr J R Stockton
01:21:30, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> posted:
>
>A fellow is walking through the snow in a blizzard, and becomes lost.
>He encounters some tracks, and starts to follow them, in hopes that
>whoever he's tracking will be headed for shelter. By and by, he notes
>that somebody has met the guy he's tracking, and is now walking alongside.
>A bit later, another set of tracks shows up, and now he's following three
>parallel sets of tracks. He figures, hey, a whole crowd of people are
>going somewhere; there's *sure* to be shelter if I just keep following them.
>
>Can you spot any flaws in his reasoning?
It seems to be derived from the Woozle Hunt in Pooh.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Bill Snyder
<m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>Greg Goss wrote:
>> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Which suggests an approach to writing bots that can easily pass the
>>> Turing test: Just make them deliberately difficult, "correct"
>>> spellings, and generally go out of their way to be pains in the ass.
>>> Voila, they pass the Turing test. Which is more a reflection of how
>>> useless the Turing test always has been than how clever that solution
>>> might be.
>>
>> "We have built the first intelligent computer. And it's insane."
>> This was the tag line from an article called "Turing Point" in a
>> mid-seventies Analog. A program simulating an extreme paranoid was
>> able to convince psychiatrists over a teletype that it was human.
>
>This was the strategy employed by Racter, one of the old treasures from
>the chatterbot days.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Parry?
Wayne Throop
: Are you sure you're not thinking of Parry?
"He's the semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action..."
No, wait, that's Perry. Nevermind.
"She's the semi-neurotic teen-aged girl of action
She's the feisty little red-head with a platypus's brain
You best leave her alone, she's playing MP3s on her phone
And whenever she's around you can hear the bad guys say..."
"Great, now I have *this* song stuck in my head."
Greg Goss
I was talking about Parry. Racter was a much praised program of a
decade later. I bought it for the amiga and was severely disappointed
in it. As I recall, it seemed as primitive as Eliza.
alie...@gmail.com
Um. Would you happen to know how Parry was named?
Mark L. Fergerson
Greg Goss
>On Nov 17, 9:34 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:06:15 -0800, Erik Max Francis
>> ><m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Greg Goss wrote:
>> >>> "We have built the first intelligent computer. And it's insane."
>> >>> This was the tag line from an article called "Turing Point" in a
>> >>> mid-seventies Analog. A program simulating an extreme paranoid was
>> >>> able to convince psychiatrists over a teletype that it was human.
>> >Are you sure you're not thinking of Parry?
>>
>> I was talking about Parry. Racter was a much praised program of a
>> decade later. I bought it for the amiga and was severely disappointed
>> in it. As I recall, it seemed as primitive as Eliza.
>
> Um. Would you happen to know how Parry was named?
I don't see what your point here is. Parry, rather obviously, was
named for being a simulation of an extreme paranoia patient.
Patok
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > hours older -> hours elder
>
> Muttish has a useful distinction in meaning between "older" and "elder". How
which is?
> does your Anglisc (or whatever you call it) represent the two different meanings?
English.
http://google.com/groups?q=%22Comparisons+for+the+illiterate%22
Autymn D. C.
> Your sex is ambiguous, and you posts show about as much intellectual
> depth as an Eliza program.
>
> Until I know better, you're an it.
"it" is neuter, not ambigvus. "one" is the common gender indefinite
pronoun, "who" the common gender definite pronoun. And how is my sex
ambigvus?