More gloriously daft scientific howlers
Chris Owen
United States" but he perpetrated some of the funniest and silliest
scientific howlers I've ever seen. Here's another priceless batch,
showing Hubbard's mastery of physics. Feel free to demolish, ridicule
etc. at will.
It's hard to beat Hubbard's howlers in "Battlefield Earth" - OK, it's
fiction, but it has the worst science of any science fiction book ever
written. For example:
- a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
- the baddies have a completely different periodic table, with
completely different elements;
- my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
Let's face it: he was profoundly ignorant of even basic science and he
was a grossly lazy researcher. Mind you, it's hard to beat the
statements he makes in his lectures on radiation (later compiled into
the book "All About Radiation"):
=============================
Hubbard on ionizing radiation
=============================
"You know, [radiation] kills the human body very, very dead, but it'll
go through a sixteen foot wall! A gamma ray'll go through a wall, very
easily. How does this hurt the body? Nobody can tell you. A wall can't
stop a gamma ray, but a body can. And we get down to our number one
medical question. Gamma rays go through walls but don't go through
bodies ... I can tell you, fortunately, what is happening here.
Resistance! The wall doesn't resist and the body does. The gamma ray
does not really settle in the body. It goes on through, but its passage
creates some kind of sensation which, if too recurrent, is resisted on
the part of the cells of the body."
"Today we throw a few rays at somebody and tomorrow we throw a few rays
at the same man ... and all of a sudden he dies - as though he had been
shot with a bullet. In other words, the effect of radiation is
cumulative ... With gamma ... you get 300 Roentgen and then you get
another 300 Roentgen and it doesn't matter if they're a year apart or
three days apart - they add!"
[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and the Scientologist, lecture of 13 April
1957]
==========================
Hubbard on quantum physics
==========================
"Radiation is either a particle or wavelength - these things become the
fad or fashion .... One moment everybody says it is a wavelength and the
next they say it is a particle. This has been going on since 1932."
[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and the Scientologist, lecture of 13 April
1957]
==============================
Hubbard on atmospheric physics
==============================
"Nikolai Tesla also did certain ground wave experiments that demonstrate
that radio waves, FM waves, any other type of waves that he could
isolate at that time, will travel just as easily along the surface of
the ground as they will travel through the air. In fact, air is a pretty
good conductor...
"The bomb goes off in Australia, and a 360-degree sphere of ionosphere
(which is up there not too far above your heads, not too many miles)
flashes. In other words, the flash in Australia, the ionosphere flashes.
People get a secondary kickback from the ionosphere just as though they
were standing next to the bomb, don't you see?
So you could say maybe a bomb burst down there in Australia and you get
a momentary flash over the entirety of [the] Earth, don't you see?
Something like that could act as a conductor. This has not been
studied."
"Now, all America sits in front of television sets and those television
sets exude, I am sorry to say, a considerable amount of radioactive
material. It's not huge, you know, but it's enough so that people who
have made a habit of watching TV ... get the TV radiation."
[L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959]
==========================
Hubbard on stellar physics
==========================
"In my basic physics textbooks, to show you how opinions have changed,
when I was at modern high school, they used to teach that the sun was
combusting on hydrogen. There was an inexhaustible supply of hydrogen
and they calculated the length of life of the sun on hydrogen, and this
was very, very nice but it didn't work. Because if its length of life
was calculated on hydrogen, then you would get a difference in the heat
of the sun from day to day because it was burning out. This didn't
happen, so the theory was eventually abandoned and people finally owned
up and said that they didn't know why the sun kept on burning. It was
only when nuclear physics became dominant in men's thinking that they've
explained sunlight, and sunlight is occasioned by a continuous fission
going on, on a sphere called the sun."
[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and Scientology, lecture of 13 April 1957]
==========================
Hubbard on nuclear weapons
==========================
"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ... You take a
piece of plutonium here and a piece of plutonium there and you put a
stick between them, you see. You fix the back piece of plutonium so that
it'll slide up and hit the front piece of plutonium when the stick hits
something, and then you simply throw the stick. When the front piece of
plutonium hits the ground, the back piece of plutonium hits the front
piece of plutonium and it goes. And that's a bomb. And when it goes it
releases a tremendous amount of gamma and many other items much too
lengthy to catalogue."
[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and the Scientologist, lecture of 13 April
1957]
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Dave VanHorn
you had more than critical mass (an interesting point to leave out)
you WOULD get a fizzle reaction, but hardly a bomb. Just a mess.
Uncle Al
>
> L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be "one of the first nuclear physicists in the
> United States" but he perpetrated some of the funniest and silliest
> scientific howlers I've ever seen. Here's another priceless batch,
> showing Hubbard's mastery of physics. Feel free to demolish, ridicule
> etc. at will.
>
> It's hard to beat Hubbard's howlers in "Battlefield Earth" - OK, it's
> fiction, but it has the worst science of any science fiction book ever
> written. For example:
>
> - a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
>
> - the baddies have a completely different periodic table, with
> completely different elements;
>
> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
[snip]
WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://uncleal.within.net/
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> - a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
It bounced off, unexploded. So what's so difficult about that?
> "Now, all America sits in front of television sets and those television
> sets exude, I am sorry to say, a considerable amount of radioactive
> material. It's not huge, you know, but it's enough so that people who
> have made a habit of watching TV ... get the TV radiation."
> [L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959]
TV sets may have exuded then. Now, American TV just sucks. Woody.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
<Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Chris Owen wrote:
>> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
>> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
>[snip]
>WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-10-03 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
wo Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,sci.physics
wo In article <361563...@ix.netcom.com>, Uncle Al
wo <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
wo >Chris Owen wrote:
wo >> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
wo >> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
wo >[snip]
wo >WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
wo They are metal-shaped of course. Woody.
Ah! Then they must be antinodes in the half-wave-rectified standing wave
of time.
Curses! They've got ME doing it now.....back to alt.fan.goons.....
============ ===== ===== BILL J. ===== ===== ============
GM8APX, qthr Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare
Net-Tamer V 1.12 Beta - Registered
Chris Owen
>> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
>
>
>WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
The same shape as the wire they travel through, of course! Electrolyse
a copper wire and presumably you get little discs of copper dropping out
the end...
Blair P. Houghton
>Chris Owen wrote:
>> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
>> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
>
The shape of L. Ron's head, no doubt.
But, there's an all-metal analogue of electro*phoresis* called
"migration" that causes the sub-micron-wide wires in microchips
to go bad over time.
But I doubt Hubbard had any clue about either metal migration
or electrophoresis, so feel free to pummel his volcano-encased
thetan con-man ass all you want.
--Blair
"Scientology is a crime."
Ex Mudder
>Hubbard on stellar physics
>==========================
>
>"In my basic physics textbooks, to show you how opinions have changed,
>when I was at modern high school, they used to teach that the sun was
>combusting on hydrogen. There was an inexhaustible supply of hydrogen
>and they calculated the length of life of the sun on hydrogen, and this
>was very, very nice but it didn't work. Because if its length of life
>was calculated on hydrogen, then you would get a difference in the heat
>of the sun from day to day because it was burning out. This didn't
>happen, so the theory was eventually abandoned and people finally owned
>up and said that they didn't know why the sun kept on burning. It was
>only when nuclear physics became dominant in men's thinking that they've
>explained sunlight, and sunlight is occasioned by a continuous fission
>going on, on a sphere called the sun."
>
>[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and Scientology, lecture of 13 April 1957]
He also has a shitty memory. Before fusion was discovered, some
scientists did some guesses on what might be powering it, like uranium
or gravitational compression. The numbers didn't work - the sun would
have been noticeably bigger in the recorded past, for example. Here
he is arguing that Fusion doesn't work and the sun is powered by
Fission, the opposite of what happened.
Ex Mudder
Well, if it didn't explode...
Ex Mudder
<dvan...@cedar.net> wrote:
>Hubbie should work for some third-world nuclear wannabees. Assuming
>you had more than critical mass (an interesting point to leave out)
>you WOULD get a fizzle reaction, but hardly a bomb. Just a mess.
Weren't some early designs of bombs based on firing 2 slugs of
fissile material into each other, which combined into critical mass?
Rather inefficient in terms of amount used to get the bang, such as
compared to imploding the sphere. And totally useless if you used
unrefined uranium - you'd just get a hot mass of radioactive slag.
Fiend of Ron
You're right, X-M. In fact, the Hiroshima bomb ("Little Boy") was
designed using exactly this "rifle" method. AFAIK, it was never used
again by the US. Later A-bombs, including the one used on Nagasaki
("Fat Man") were built using the implosion technique you mentioned.
I'm not sure about other nations; the "rifle" method may still be in
use with some nuclear nations.
IIRC, "Little Boy" used refined Uranium-235, which is highly fissile,
while "Fat Man" used refined Plutonium (can't recall the isotope #
offhand), which is also highly fissile.
When you bring enough fissile material together (let's say, two chunks
of Plutonium) to reach critical mass, the fission reaction starts,
though it may not result in an explosion. Interested readers can
refer to Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" for a fictional account
of such a "fizzle" reaction.
Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly. There's
apparently some spooky glow and a crackling noise that accompanies
such dangerous activity. This procedure was called "tickling the
dragon's tail," and there's a dramatized version of it in the film
"Fat Man and Little Boy." Many of the details are wrong (read: jazzed
up for the screen), but the events surrounding what happens to John
Cusack's character are basically true (don't want to spoil it for
you). The timeline's a little screwy, but it is generally an accurate
depiction of the Manhattan Project, including *no* appearance
whatsoever by a certain red-headed lunatic hack science-fiction
author.
Enjoy.
---Fiend
"*Handle* with care, or I'll bite your fucking hands off. Maybe I'll do it anyway."
SP2 With A Bullet (KoX)
Dave VanHorn
>>Hubbie should work for some third-world nuclear wannabees.
Assuming
>>you had more than critical mass (an interesting point to leave out)
>>you WOULD get a fizzle reaction, but hardly a bomb. Just a mess.
>
> Weren't some early designs of bombs based on firing 2 slugs of
>fissile material into each other, which combined into critical mass?
>Rather inefficient in terms of amount used to get the bang, such as
>compared to imploding the sphere. And totally useless if you used
>unrefined uranium - you'd just get a hot mass of radioactive slag.
The "gun" type design. The problem is in moving the masses together
fast enough, and not "splattering " them. You get yeild as soon as
they approach (inverse square law) but they tend to blow themselves
apart and just give a bit of fizzle yeild radiation and a lot of hot
debris.
Obviously ronnie read an article somewhere, remembered a third of it,
and fluffed the rest.
Dave VanHorn
>I still like the "superconducting at 25F" one. You'd think the
Scientologists
>could at least buy a chunk of dry ice and test this one out!
Personally, I
>think they know Hubbard was completely full of crap, but they just
don't want
>to admit it. They KNOW better than to test out any of his scientific
howlers.
>
>What's the term - Cognitive Dissonance?
Well, you know what happens if ron-ism's don't work for you, you get
to pay to re-do the course.
This method of punishing the inquirer is sure to induce a form of
results-blindness. Nobody will want to admit that it isn't working,
they'd just be punished again.
fred...@my-dejanews.com
If there was ever any doubt that L. Ron Hubbard and his followers are
scientifically illiterate, I'd say the man with the wooden noodle is doing his
best to erase that doubt.
I still like the "superconducting at 25F" one. You'd think the Scientologists
could at least buy a chunk of dry ice and test this one out! Personally, I
think they know Hubbard was completely full of crap, but they just don't want
to admit it. They KNOW better than to test out any of his scientific howlers.
What's the term - Cognitive Dissonance?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Justin the Blue
> It's hard to beat Hubbard's howlers in "Battlefield Earth" - OK, it's
> fiction, but it has the worst science of any science fiction book ever
> written. For example:
>
> - a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
>
> - the baddies have a completely different periodic table, with
> completely different elements;
>
> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
You forgot the biggest...the Psychlos *themselves* are composed of
viruses. Not reg'lar, protoplasmic, friendly little cells like you
and I, but *viruses*.
The sad part of it all is that LRH never explored the complication
of coming down with or catching a Psychlo. Could have been interesting.
...Justin the Blue
...fine health. Thanksferaskin.
--
Not as yet subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr.
Justin the Blue -- ea...@agora.rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/users/eagle/
Captain Ahab
<chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ... You take a
>piece of plutonium here and a piece of plutonium there and you put a
>stick between them, you see. You fix the back piece of plutonium so that
>it'll slide up and hit the front piece of plutonium when the stick hits
>something, and then you simply throw the stick. When the front piece of
>plutonium hits the ground, the back piece of plutonium hits the front
>piece of plutonium and it goes. And that's a bomb. And when it goes it
>releases a tremendous amount of gamma and many other items much too
>lengthy to catalogue."
>
>[L. Ron Hubbard, Radiation and the Scientologist, lecture of 13 April
>1957]
Good fucking grief. He was probablly stoned out of his head when
he came up with that one, too.
~~~
Hunting the Great White Clam http://www.xenu.net
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> On 1998-10-03 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
> wo <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> wo >Chris Owen wrote:
> wo >> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
> wo >> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
> wo >[snip]
> wo >WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
> wo They are metal-shaped of course. Woody.
> Ah! Then they must be antinodes in the half-wave-rectified standing wave
> of time.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
fred...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I still like the "superconducting at 25F" one. You'd think the Scientologists
> could at least buy a chunk of dry ice and test this one out! Personally, I
> think they know Hubbard was completely full of crap, but they just don't want
> to admit it. They KNOW better than to test out any of his scientific howlers.
> What's the term - Cognitive Dissonance?
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-10-04 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,sci.physics
In article <6v5o3b$5h8$2...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>,
mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> On 1998-10-03 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
> wo <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> wo >Chris Owen wrote:
> wo >> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of
>metal wo >> travelling through a solid wire and passing out
>the other end. wo >[snip]
> wo >WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
> wo They are metal-shaped of course. Woody.
> Ah! Then they must be antinodes in the half-wave-rectified
>standing wave of time.
They cannot be antinodes as they are positive. Woody.
Chris Owen
<ea...@agora.rdrop.com> writes
>Chris Owen wrote:
>
>> It's hard to beat Hubbard's howlers in "Battlefield Earth" - OK, it's
>> fiction, but it has the worst science of any science fiction book ever
>> written. For example:
>>
>> - a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
>>
>> - the baddies have a completely different periodic table, with
>> completely different elements;
>>
>> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps of metal
>> travelling through a solid wire and passing out the other end.
>
>viruses. Not reg'lar, protoplasmic, friendly little cells like you
>and I, but *viruses*.
>
>The sad part of it all is that LRH never explored the complication
>of coming down with or catching a Psychlo. Could have been interesting.
If you sneezed, would a Psychlo come out of your nose? As Hubbard had
them being fifteen or twenty feet tall or some such rubbish, that
*could* have been interesting!
Incidentally, might "Psycholo" be short for "Psych Lord"? As in the
eeeeeeevil psychiatric conspiracy which Hubbard was convinced secretly
ran the world? Subtle he wasn't...
Benjamin P. Carter
>IIRC, "Little Boy" used refined Uranium-235, which is highly fissile,
>while "Fat Man" used refined Plutonium (can't recall the isotope #
>offhand), which is also highly fissile.
It's 239Pu, which results from n+238U --> 239U --> 239Np --> 239Pu
(where the last two arrows represent beta decays).
>Interested readers can
>refer to Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" for a fictional account
>of such a "fizzle" reaction.
Tom Clancy is only slightly more reliable than Elron. Better yet (but
still not completely free of error) is Richard Rhodes's book: _The Making
of the Atomic Bomb_, which includes a description of the experiment that
Feynman said would be like tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon (see
below).
>Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
>of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
>and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly. There's
>apparently some spooky glow and a crackling noise that accompanies
>such dangerous activity. This procedure was called "tickling the
>dragon's tail," and there's a dramatized version of it in the film
>"Fat Man and Little Boy."
--
Ben Carter
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
ea...@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> You forgot the biggest...the Psychlos *themselves* are composed of
> viruses. Not reg'lar, protoplasmic, friendly little cells like you
> and I, but *viruses*.
> The sad part of it all is that LRH never explored the complication
> of coming down with or catching a Psychlo. Could have been interesting.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> On 1998-10-04 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
> mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> > On 1998-10-03 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
> > wo <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> > wo >Chris Owen wrote:
> > wo >> travelling through a solid wire and passing out
> > wo >> the other end. wo >[snip]
> > wo >WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
> > wo They are metal-shaped of course. Woody.
> > Ah! Then they must be antinodes in the half-wave-rectified
> >standing wave of time.
> They cannot be antinodes as they are positive. Woody.
> Er, yes, that's what I meant, positive antinodes. A la Hubbard.
That does not make sense. You must mean they are nodes. Antinodes are
negative as they spin backwards. Woody.
mae...@cix.co.uk
wo mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
wo > On 1998-10-04 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
wo > mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
wo > > On 1998-10-03 woodn...@my-dejanews.com said:
wo > > wo <Uncl...@ix.netcom.com> writes
wo > > wo >Chris Owen wrote:
wo > > wo >> - my favourite, this one: electrolysis involves lumps
wo >of > wo >> travelling through a solid wire and passing out
wo > > wo >> the other end. wo >[snip]
wo > > wo >WHOA! What shape are the lumps?
wo > > wo They are metal-shaped of course. Woody.
wo > > Ah! Then they must be antinodes in the half-wave-rectified
wo > >standing wave of time.
wo > They cannot be antinodes as they are positive. Woody.
wo > Er, yes, that's what I meant, positive antinodes. A la Hubbard.
wo That does not make sense. You must mean they are nodes. Antinodes
wo are negative as they spin backwards. Woody.
Its not fair. I want my mum.
============ ===== ===== BILL J. ===== ===== ============
GM8APX, qthr Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
In aquam prolatus est
Tom McCaskey
>mow...@swinginthruthejunglewithouta.net (Fiend of Ron) writes:
>>Interested readers can
>>refer to Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" for a fictional account
>>of such a "fizzle" reaction.
>
>Tom Clancy is only slightly more reliable than Elron.
Well, like I said, it's a *fictional* account. Possibly it would be
more accessible and interesting to the casual reader. But you're
right, I wouldn't place much scientific faith in Mr. Clancy, either.
Andrew Wood
>
> It's hard to beat Hubbard's howlers in "Battlefield Earth" - OK, it's
> fiction, but it has the worst science of any science fiction book ever
> written. For example:
>
> - a spaceship has a "slight mark" where an atomic bomb hit it;
Hmmm, not wishing to jump to the defense of someone subjected to such
derision but....
Isn't it true that most of the damage caused by a nuke detonated in
atmosphere is due to the atmospheric pressure shock-wave and that's why
nukes are detoneated at altitude, so that the shock wave isn't
dissipated by ground structure ?
Q : How much visible damage would the e-m radiation from a nuke do to a
space-ship ?
A : Depends on the spaceship and the nuke, but blowing up spaceships,
even with a nuke, must be harder when there's no atmosphere to throw at
them.
>
> --
> | Chris Owen
--
...Andrew...
Opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my employer.
Dave Bird
>In article <6v3gc7$9l8$1...@news.iquest.net>, "Dave VanHorn" wrote:
>
>>Hubbie should work for some third-world nuclear wannabees. Assuming
>>you had more than critical mass (an interesting point to leave out)
>>you WOULD get a fizzle reaction, but hardly a bomb. Just a mess.
>
> Weren't some early designs of bombs based on firing 2 slugs of
>fissile material into each other, which combined into critical mass?
Yes. This is the obvious way to do it, sling two hemispheres
at each other down a track so that together they are over
critical mass. I've heard some simple devices used now
consist of firing a "bolt" into a doughnut shape.
>Rather inefficient in terms of amount used to get the bang, such as
>compared to imploding the sphere.
That was the second thing they tried: squeeze a grapefuit sized
chunk down to the size of a pea by firing explosive disks, and at
that density it is over critical mass. But it was a tougher
engineering problem to later figure out how to do this.
>And totally useless if you used
>unrefined uranium - you'd just get a hot mass of radioactive slag.
There would not even be a fizzle on the nuclear level so it
would be no more radioactive than before, just melted[or burned].
>>"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ...
Hmm. "two hemispheres" bombs don't have a wooden stick in
them which breaks when they hit the ground: a propellant
charge throws the one hemishpere down a tube at speed,
both halves being mounted in steel cases with some concrete
packing round them, in order for the things to not simply
(a) smash apart on their impact or (b) tear apart as the
reaction starts up. The only one made at least by the
superpowers was the Hiroshima bomb, and it was enriched Uranium
not Plutonium.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Chris Owen
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>>"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ...
>
> Hmm. "two hemispheres" bombs don't have a wooden stick in
> them which breaks when they hit the ground: a propellant
> charge throws the one hemishpere down a tube at speed,
> both halves being mounted in steel cases with some concrete
> packing round them, in order for the things to not simply
> (a) smash apart on their impact or (b) tear apart as the
> reaction starts up. The only one made at least by the
> superpowers was the Hiroshima bomb, and it was enriched Uranium
> not Plutonium.
I don't think they use concrete. The Imperial War Museum here in London
has a nuclear bomb on display, and some quite remarkable slow-motion
footage of atmospheric tests. One film which sticks in my mind was
taken with an ultra-slow-motion camera capable of taking pictures every
few ten-thousandths of a second. It shows the bomb literally swelling
to several times its original size before breaking apart, following
which spikes of light shoot out along the fracture lines and merge to
become the familiar fireball. The most remarkable thing about this is
that the case apparently is not being blown apart by the blast, but by
the radiation pressure from the fission reaction. (Much the same
happens to stars - on a much bigger scale! - when they go supernova.)
Equally remarkably, even objects right next to the blast survive intact
- much of the fissile material itself (only a few ounces of the
Hiroshima bomb fissioned), and even parts of the case and testbed. I
recall reading that the tower of the first Trinity test at Alamagordo
was vaporised, but that the concrete testbed on which the bomb was
mounted - which was itself bolted to the top of the tower - survived.
Anyway, back to the unreal world...
Keith Henson
snip (I really should not contribute to the noise)
: Q : How much visible damage would the e-m radiation from a nuke do to a
: space-ship ?
: A : Depends on the spaceship and the nuke, but blowing up spaceships,
: even with a nuke, must be harder when there's no atmosphere to throw at
: them.
Maybe not. Lack of atmosphere means that radiation is not attenuated
either. The x-rays from a large bomb going off way above the atmosphere
causes a massive displacement of electrons (Compton effect) which launches
a very nasty EM pulse. This radiation hiting a metal surface would cause
instant explosive heating. Someone could work it out, but a megaton bomb
is going to put in excess of a Kw-sec/square meter into the surface of
spacecraft out to a considerable distance--though breaking up the ship
might be a less uncomfortable fate than being cooked by the radiation.
Keith Henson
PS, and there was considerable work done on directing the radiation from
a bomb back in the Star Wars (SDI) days. I don't know how far that got,
but there is a fictional account in Nivin and Pournelle's *Footfall.*
Dan Evens
> PS, and there was considerable work done on directing the radiation
> from
> a bomb back in the Star Wars (SDI) days. I don't know how far that
> got,
> but there is a fictional account in Nivin and Pournelle's *Footfall.*
Niven and Pournelle used the notion of an absolutely brute force
directing of nuclear weapon force. You get this really huge mother
of a steel plate, many 100s of thousands of tons. And you put an
atom bomb underneath of it. I'm not sure how well this could
be made to work, nor what kind of ride the "pilot" would get,
but if it *did* work, you would get this huge sucker of a steel
plate into orbit in a hurry.
The second bomb is the important one. The first bomb gets
you up in the air far enough that the fall will likely kill you.
If the first one fails, you just ignore it and go for the second
one. If the third one fails, you have time to throw the third
one out and keep going. But if the second one fails, you
will likely crash.
Dave Bird
<hkhe...@netcom.com> writes
>PS, and there was considerable work done on directing the radiation from
>a bomb back in the Star Wars (SDI) days. I don't know how far that got,
>but there is a fictional account in Nivin and Pournelle's *Footfall.*
Yes but the gamma-ray lasers posited in Footfall based on actual
SDI proposals, using bundles of neodynium rods.... were tried at
Lawrrence Livermore Labs and fizzled completely. I think this was
reported in Scientific American; open sources, anyway.
Also in that book the asteroid impact is *way* under-reported e.g.
the ship would not have survived that close [plus--water impact
or not--the direct heat would have been immense for 500miles then
more severe fires worldwide from crap blasted into low orbit and
burning up on reentry].
Dave Bird
>In article <bPpk2XCc...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird writes
>>
>>>>"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ...
>>
>> Hmm. "two hemispheres" bombs don't have a wooden stick in
>> them which breaks when they hit the ground: a propellant
>> charge throws the one hemishpere down a tube at speed,
>> both halves being mounted in steel cases with some concrete
>> packing round them, in order for the things to not simply
>> (a) smash apart on their impact or (b) tear apart as the
>> reaction starts up. The only one made at least by the
>> superpowers was the Hiroshima bomb, and it was enriched Uranium
>> not Plutonium.
>
>I don't think they use concrete.
This is some account I read somewhere of the Hiroshima "gun" type
bomb (not modern implosion ones). I distinctly remember the
halves were build up from cubes, then a steel hemisphere,
then a layer of scandium to reflect neutrons back in, then a
concrete billet to hold the thing together on impact.
>The Imperial War Museum here in London
>has a nuclear bomb on display, and some quite remarkable slow-motion
>footage of atmospheric tests. One film which sticks in my mind was
>taken with an ultra-slow-motion camera capable of taking pictures every
>few ten-thousandths of a second. It shows the bomb literally swelling
>to several times its original size before breaking apart, following
>which spikes of light shoot out along the fracture lines and merge to
>become the familiar fireball.
Fascinating account. I think I've seen stills from this, but
not as a moving film.
In article <19981008194523...@ng63.aol.com>, BANALITYBO:
>This is an amazing piece of trivia. I had no idea. I do recall seeing a
>documentary on the Hiroshima desctruction. The only building left standing
>within a 1 1/2 mile radius of "ground zero" was the building with a dome roof,
>located directly beneath, and approx. 4000' below the bomb when it exploded.
It was the only one of solid stone construction; many others were
literally wooden shacks or other light buildings.
In article <361D58B4...@interlog.com>, Dan Evens writes:
>Niven and Pournelle used the notion of an absolutely brute force
>directing of nuclear weapon force. You get this really huge mother
>of a steel plate, many 100s of thousands of tons. And you put an
>atom bomb underneath of it. I'm not sure how well this could
>be made to work, nor what kind of ride the "pilot" would get,
>but if it *did* work, you would get this huge sucker of a steel
>plate into orbit in a hurry.
Yep. I thought the explosions would chew the plate, and was fairly
comprehensively proved wrong :-> you'd need good shock absorbers tho...
Pooua
>Equally remarkably, even objects right next to the blast survive intact
>- much of the fissile material itself (only a few ounces of the
>Hiroshima bomb fissioned), and even parts of the case and testbed. I
>recall reading that the tower of the first Trinity test at Alamagordo
>was vaporised, but that the concrete testbed on which the bomb was
>mounted - which was itself bolted to the top of the tower - survived.
The remains of the tower are still there. The Trinity site is open to public
tours once a year. A shame I never went.
Also, Sandia National Labs (which is a part of the Kirtland Air Force Base) has
an atomic bomb museum. There was some amused notice in one of Albuquerque's
local newspapers when it was revealed that one of the atomic bombs on display
was radioactive beyond federal regulations. A note mentioned that a person
would have to lie naked on the bomb all year for it to make a difference to
their health, in which case the person probably has bigger problems than their
radiation dosage.
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
RA
Jim Carr
... followups to sci.physics ...
"Dave VanHorn" <dvan...@cedar.net> wrote:
}
} Hubbie should work for some third-world nuclear wannabees. Assuming
} you had more than critical mass (an interesting point to leave out)
} you WOULD get a fizzle reaction, but hardly a bomb. Just a mess.
dke...@best.com writes:
>
>Weren't some early designs of bombs based on firing 2 slugs of
>fissile material into each other, which combined into critical mass?
The key word there is 'fire'. If you read "The Making of the Atomic
Bomb" by Rhodes, you will get a short course on why that only works
for U-235. If you read "The Los Alamos Primer", you will see the
physics arguments that set limits on how fast 'assembly' has to be
for U-235 and that a gun will not work for Pu-239.
>Rather inefficient in terms of amount used to get the bang, such as
>compared to imploding the sphere.
Both are inefficient. Carey Sublette and others discussed that
recently, and you can read about it in Rhodes' book.
>And totally useless if you used
>unrefined uranium - you'd just get a hot mass of radioactive slag.
That is certainly true.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Jim Carr
... followups to sci.physics ...
Dave VanHorn" <dvan...@cedar.net> writes:
>
>The "gun" type design. The problem is in moving the masses together
>fast enough, and not "splattering " them. You get yeild as soon as
>they approach (inverse square law) but they tend to blow themselves
>apart and just give a bit of fizzle yeild radiation and a lot of hot
>debris.
Not really. Ask the witnesses who survived Hiroshima.
What you say is true for Pu-239, but U-235 can be assembled at
the speeds achieved in a "gun". Read Rhodes' book for the details
(the diagram is on page 702 if you just want to look in a copy in
a bookstore or library).
>Obviously ronnie read an article somewhere, remembered a third of it,
>and fluffed the rest.
That seems clear from the errors in the original description.
Jim Carr
... followups set to sci.physics ...
no...@nope.com writes:
>
>I'm not sure about other nations; the "rifle" method may still be in
>use with some nuclear nations.
If you have suitable U-235, they could. Note the size of Little Boy,
however. Suitable for only some kinds of delivery, but those include
some that terrorists could use.
>IIRC, "Little Boy" used refined Uranium-235, which is highly fissile,
>while "Fat Man" used refined Plutonium (can't recall the isotope #
>offhand), which is also highly fissile.
Both are. To be precise, they are nuclear explosives. Just as
some chemical combinations are suitable for chemical explosions,
so fissionable materials may or may not be suitable for weapons.
>When you bring enough fissile material together (let's say, two chunks
>of Plutonium) to reach critical mass, the fission reaction starts,
>though it may not result in an explosion. Interested readers can
>refer to Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" for a fictional account
>of such a "fizzle" reaction.
Or the history of US testing. Some famous ones there.
>Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
>of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
>and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly. There's
>apparently some spooky glow and a crackling noise that accompanies
>such dangerous activity. This procedure was called "tickling the
>dragon's tail,"...
It was used to determine the critical mass.
Some neutrons are delayed by a few seconds, so you can get it just
to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
Dave VanHorn
>>The "gun" type design. The problem is in moving the masses together
>>fast enough, and not "splattering " them. You get yeild as soon as
>>they approach (inverse square law) but they tend to blow themselves
>>apart and just give a bit of fizzle yeild radiation and a lot of hot
>>debris.
>
> Not really. Ask the witnesses who survived Hiroshima.
They do tend to blow apart. Obviously it's achievable, but my point is
that hubbie's two masses separated with a stick isn't going to make
anything more than a mess.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> >Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
> >of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
> >and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly.
> to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
So a successful atom bomb could be made in that way. It would use gravity
to pull the plug into the hole and get critical. That's what LRH said and he
was right yet again! The bigots of ARS like to say that LRH was an ignoramus
but he was really one of the first ever nuclear physicists. The intelligence
information he found after he sunk the Japanese sub during WW2 was of vital
importance on the Manhatten Project. It contained details of Tenyaka's plan
to detonate a Japanese A-bomb in San Francisco. The sub was surveying the San
Andreas fault when LRH sank it. The plan was to activate the fault, cause an
earthquake and wipe out half of America's defense industries. But the plan
was delayed by the death of Admiral Tenyaka and prevented by the use of the
A-bomb on Japan itself. Ever since the Tenyaka organisation has been trying
to stop the Church of Scientology from expanding. Woody.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> >Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
> >of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
> >and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly.
> Some neutrons are delayed by a few seconds, so you can get it just
> to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
So a successful atom bomb could be made in that way. It would use gravity
to pull the plug into the hole and get critical. That's what LRH said and he
was right yet again! The bigots of ARS like to say that LRH was an ignoramus
but he was really one of the first ever nuclear physicists. The intelligence
information he found after he sunk the Japanese sub during WW2 was of vital
importance on the Manhatten Project. It contained details of Tenyaka's plan
to detonate a Japanese A-bomb in San Francisco. The sub was surveyin
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dave VanHorn
>> >Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two
chunks
>> >of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the
reaction,
>> >and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly.
>> Some neutrons are delayed by a few seconds, so you can get it just
>> to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
>
> So a successful atom bomb could be made in that way. It would use
gravity
>to pull the plug into the hole and get critical. That's what LRH said
and he
>was right yet again!
No, this does NOT result in a "bomb". Only in an uncontrolled pile,
which will soon heat enough to melt and flow, and go back to
subcritical. Generally speaking, if you set off a fission bomb, your
neighbors ought to notice immediately.
William Barwell
Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the late
50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical halves
of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism jammed.
it released a huge burst of radiation and several people ended up dead
some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was wiped out.
A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Dave VanHorn
>Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
late
>50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical halves
>of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism jammed.
>it released a huge burst of radiation and several people ended up
dead
>some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was wiped out.
>
>A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
You'd probably be better off making Pu Powder and dispersing it in a
powder.
What would be the cost of vacuum-cleaning several square miles of say,
Manhattan?
Point being, you don't make "atomic bombs" that way, as hubbie said
you do.
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-10-19 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM(WilliamBarwell) said:
wb Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.scientology
wb In article <70dk18$2r0$1...@news.iquest.net>,
wb Dave VanHorn <dvan...@cedar.net> wrote:
wb >>> >Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two
wb >chunks
wb >>> >of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the
wb >reaction,
wb >>> >and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly.
wb >>> Some neutrons are delayed by a few seconds, so you can get it
wb >>>just to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
wb >> So a successful atom bomb could be made in that way. It would
wb >use gravity
wb >>to pull the plug into the hole and get critical. That's what LRH
wb >said and he
wb >>was right yet again!
wb >No, this does NOT result in a "bomb". Only in an uncontrolled pile,
wb >which will soon heat enough to melt and flow, and go back to
wb >subcritical. Generally speaking, if you set off a fission bomb,
wb >your neighbors ought to notice immediately.
wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical
wb halves of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism
wb jammed. it released a huge burst of radiation and several people
wb ended up dead some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was
wb wiped out.
wb A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
wb Pope Charles
wb SubGenius Pope Of Houston
wb Slack!
Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow up
this story? It's customary.
Bill J
Edinburgh
Vescere bracis meis
Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered
Carey Sublette
mae...@cix.co.uk wrote in message
<70hioh$a7r$9...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>...
>
...
> wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
> wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical
> wb halves of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism
> wb jammed. it released a huge burst of radiation and several people
> wb ended up dead some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was
> wb wiped out.
> wb A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
> wb Pope Charles
> wb SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> wb Slack!
>
>Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow up
>this story? It's customary.
>
>Bill J
>Edinburgh
Given the rather distorted description of the accident, I suspect a
reference is not forthcoming.
The accident in question occurred in May 1946, a resulted in the death of
one person - physicist Louis Slotin, and significant exposure of several
others. It would be impossible to justify the claim that "a lab was wiped
out" however. No physical damage to the equipment occurred.
What actually happened was that Slotin was lowering a beryllium hemisphere
over the assembled plutonium core. He had it tilted up with the edge of a
screwdriver right at the point of criticality so that he could make the
system go from being subcritical to slightly supercritical with a small
motion of his hand. Then the reflector slipped off the screwdriver and fell
down over the core - producing a blue flash and a burst of radiation
(thermal expansion largely shut down the reaction and limited the yield).
Slotin received about 1000 rads.
Interestingly, the same plutonium core had killed physicist Harry Daghlian
exactly 9 months earlier in 1945 in another criticality accident. This
accident is not nearly as well known.
An article discussing the accident can be downloaded (288 kb) from:
http://www.abqjournal.com/trinity/trinity2.pdf
And a technical description can be found in the Los Alamos report LA-3611
"A Review of Criticality Accidents" downloadable (3.5 mb) from:
http://lib-www.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00314607.pdf
Material on the accident can also be found at:
http://www.enviroweb.org/enviroissues/nuketesting/accident/index.html
The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
"Brighter Than a Thousand Suns" and there was even a novel written about it
("The Accident" I believe).
Carey Sublette
Steve A
wrote:
This was also researched by the US, under the name Project Orion
(there was a thread on this here a few months back). Apparently,
coating the plate in good old-fashioned grease was a good way of
preventing erosion of the steel from the blast, and yes, good shock
absorbers were a given.
Project Orion looked good, since it was a means of getting significant
payloads off the ground (the payloads that conventional rocketry can
move are pathetically small if one is looking into moving construction
materials into space for, eg, orbiting platforms or starships). The
project sank, it seems, because of the advent of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaties, as well as concerns over the effects of
detonating large nuclear devices willy-nilly, and the possible result
of a crash or accident.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Jim Carr
>
>Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the late
>50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical halves
>of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism jammed.
>it released a huge burst of radiation and several people ended up dead
>some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was wiped out.
Mid 40s, no "mechanism", one person killed in each of two cases
(Slotin in one, Daghlian? in the other), and the lab was not
wiped out -- although it would have been badly contaminated if
the supercritical mass had not been disassembled by hand.
>A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
That area would probably be closed to traffic while the house
was decontaminated/removed.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
LRH was right all along. From his famous _Magnetic Current_ (1945)
"Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
that held together the body. They go someplace else. Iron has more
magnets than wood, and every substance has a different number of magnets
that hold the substance together. If I make a battery with copper as
positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out
of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are
alike." Perhaps this will prove to everyone that LRH's science makes
perfect sense. Woody.
Jim Carr
}
} >>"The way you make an atomic bomb is very interesting ...
}
} Hmm. "two hemispheres" bombs don't have a wooden stick in
} them which breaks when they hit the ground: a propellant
} charge throws the one hemishpere down a tube at speed,
} both halves being mounted in steel cases with some concrete
} packing round them, in order for the things to not simply
} (a) smash apart on their impact or (b) tear apart as the
} reaction starts up. The only one made at least by the
} superpowers was the Hiroshima bomb, and it was enriched Uranium
} not Plutonium.
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>I don't think they use concrete.
I don't know (nor recall if Rhodes mentions it) but they could.
>The Imperial War Museum here in London
>has a nuclear bomb on display, and some quite remarkable slow-motion
>footage of atmospheric tests. One film which sticks in my mind was
>taken with an ultra-slow-motion camera capable of taking pictures every
>few ten-thousandths of a second. It shows the bomb literally swelling
>to several times its original size before breaking apart, following
>which spikes of light shoot out along the fracture lines and merge to
>become the familiar fireball.
Amazing that data like that is now declassified, but you can get
some sense of the change over time if you can find older copies
of "The Effects of Nuclear [originally Atomic] Weapons" and compare
what they contain to the later versions.
>The most remarkable thing about this is
>that the case apparently is not being blown apart by the blast, but by
>the radiation pressure from the fission reaction.
That swelling is because the pressures are great enough to make
anything a fluid, including steel and concrete. The blast happens
when the expansion of that now-vaporized stuff dissipates in air.
>Equally remarkably, even objects right next to the blast survive intact
>- much of the fissile material itself (only a few ounces of the
>Hiroshima bomb fissioned), and even parts of the case and testbed.
I have never heard about part of the case surviving, although it
might be possible. Are you thinking of "jumbo" at the Alamagordo
test? It survived, but was not on the tower.
>I recall reading that the tower of the first Trinity test at Alamagordo
>was vaporised, but that the concrete testbed on which the bomb was
>mounted - which was itself bolted to the top of the tower - survived.
You can see what remains, and there is a famous picture of Oppie
and Groves standing next to the melted bits of the tower base,
but I have never seen any picture suggesting a concrete pad up
on the tower. The device was in an steel frame that was hoisted
up to the top and worked on from a platform.
Jim Carr
... scientology group snipped ...
I don't recall seeing the following; possibly not cross posted?
In article <19981008194523...@ng63.aol.com>,
BANALITYBO wrote:
}
} This is an amazing piece of trivia. I had no idea. I do recall seeing a
} documentary on the Hiroshima desctruction. The only building left standing
} within a 1 1/2 mile radius of "ground zero" was the building with a dome roof,
} located directly beneath, and approx. 4000' below the bomb when it exploded.
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> It was the only one of solid stone construction; many others were
> literally wooden shacks or other light buildings.
It also helps to be directly below the explosion, since that means
the strongest forces are parallel to rather than normal to the walls.
Bill Rowe
says...
> Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
>to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
>something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
>LRH was right all along. From his famous _Magnetic Current_ (1945)
>"Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
>or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
>that held together the body. They go someplace else.
Up to here, I can make this match a modern description of magnetism fairly
easily. This could be taken as a loose but accurate description.
>Iron has more
>magnets than wood,
At this point, I start to wonder what is meant by "magnets". It still isn't
totally at odds with current descriptions. But the comparison suggests there
may be a lack of understanding.
> and every substance has a different number of magnets
>that hold the substance together.
Now it is becoming very obvious the author is talking of something other than a
modern description of magnetism since it isn't magnetism that is responsible
for holding things together.
>If I make a battery with copper as
>positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out
>of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
>for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are
>alike."
At this point, the comments seem totally at odds with Maxwell and company. In
fact, this looks like non-sense.
>Perhaps this will prove to everyone that LRH's science makes
>perfect sense.
I think you have shown an example of a very poor understanding of physics by
LRH.
Dave VanHorn
>I think you have shown an example of a very poor understanding of
physics by
>LRH.
You mean he was serious? I thought it was a somewhat amusing parody!
Jim Carr
|
| >The "gun" type design. The problem is in moving the masses together
| >fast enough, and not "splattering " them. You get yeild as soon as
| >they approach (inverse square law) but they tend to blow themselves
| >apart and just give a bit of fizzle yeild radiation and a lot of hot
| >debris.
|
| Not really. Ask the witnesses who survived Hiroshima.
"Dave VanHorn" <dvan...@cedar.net> writes:
>
>They do tend to blow apart. Obviously it's achievable, ...
More than achievable, it was so obvious that it would work
that they did not see any need to test that weapon design.
> ... but my point is
>that hubbie's two masses separated with a stick isn't going to make
>anything more than a mess.
That was obviously wrong, but there is a big difference between
pulling a stick out and firing a gun.
S Platt
>
> Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
> to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
> something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
> LRH was right all along. From his famous _Magnetic Current_ (1945)
> "Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
> or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
> magnets than wood, and every substance has a different number of magnets
> that hold the substance together. If I make a battery with copper as
> positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out
> of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
> for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are
> perfect sense. Woody.
Have you met the person who wrote this:
"And one of the crowns of spidery confusion of the entire system is
sticking in a sense-enhancer and getting close to "singing wires" in
the shrub desert in Mexico and then suddenly have them go all on one
(?) tone* for a moment....
Then the dear spiders freak.
* When a Naked Woman becomes transformed into a Banana...
When a Blue Fish transforms into a blue Mouse...
And when all that starts a silent neuroscientific Revolution!"
You may have found you soul-mate.
Jim Carr
... note followups ...
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
| >Early US nuclear researchers discovered that you could move two chunks
| >of fissile material together for a moment and *start* the reaction,
| >and then move them apart to *prevent* it from getting ugly.
|
| Some neutrons are delayed by a few seconds, so you can get it just
| to prompt criticality with a very small margin of safety.
woodn...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>So a successful atom bomb could be made in that way.
No, because what you have in that case is not a bomb. The reaction
(neutron multiplication) will grow too slowly for it to explode and
it will disassemble itself by thermal expansion to below critical
mass conditions. The essentials of the calculation are all spelled
out in the "Los Alamos Primer" if you are interested, and I think
they also work out the minimum speed of assembly you need. If not,
that is discussed in Rhodes' book.
>It would use gravity
>to pull the plug into the hole and get critical. That's what LRH said and he
>was right yet again!
No, because "critical" does not equal "explode".
The bigots of ARS like to say that LRH was an ignoramus
>but he was really one of the first ever nuclear physicists.
I don't read a.r.s. and I can only make observations based on the
quotation attributed to him and your statement above. Those are
incorrect and there are plenty of places you can go to find those
facts. The latest version would be Heisenberg's lecture on bomb
physics after they figured out how it worked while incarcerated
(and recorded) at Farm Hall.
>information he found after he sunk the Japanese sub during WW2 was of vital
>importance on the Manhatten Project. It contained details of Tenyaka's plan
>to detonate a Japanese A-bomb in San Francisco. The sub was surveyin
Your transmission was mysteriously interrupted! Anyway ...
We know quite well the status of the Japanese program, but I seriously
doubt if that information was the basis for Serber's lectures at Los
Alamos -- since those notes were put together in the summer of 1942
by a small group that did not include L. Ron Hubbard.
Jim Carr
>
... the same thing in another article ...
See my other response and note followups.
Captain Nerd
<woodn...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
>to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
>something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
>LRH was right all along. From his famous _Magnetic Current_ (1945)
>"Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
>or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
>that held together the body. They go someplace else. Iron has more
>magnets than wood, and every substance has a different number of magnets
>that hold the substance together. If I make a battery with copper as
>positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out
>of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
>for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are
>alike." Perhaps this will prove to everyone that LRH's science makes
>perfect sense. Woody.
>
The woodbot's submission to the Ig Nobel committee at the
Journal of Irreproducible Results.
Cap.
(He's got *my* vote...)
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
Perry Scott
In article <70ikn2$1h6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, woodn...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
> Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
>to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
>something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
>LRH was right all along.
"former Latvian"? Did he somehow change his genetics?
BTW, "Edvard Leedskalnin" returns no hits from any search engines (I use
metacrawler.com). Is he published in the Journal of Unreproducable Results?
>From his famous _Magnetic Current_ (1945)
Magnetism is not a Current. It is a field. But, *do* carry on...
>"Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
>or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
>that held together the body. They go someplace else.
LOL! This is apparently the Law of Conservation of Magnets.
> Iron has more
>magnets than wood, and every substance has a different number of magnets
>that hold the substance together.
This sounds like something Elron would say. I'll need to look through
the HCOBs.
> If I make a battery with copper as
>positive terminal and beef for negative terminal
batteries are made with two dissimilar metals in an electrolyte. You
have listed only one metal (and possibly an electrolyte).
> I get more magnets out
>of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
>for negative terminal.
Well, you actually get the same - zero. But don't let this stop you,
you're on a roll (or maybe a sweet potato).
> From this you can see that no two things are
>alike." Perhaps this will prove to everyone that LRH's science makes
>perfect sense.
I am in awe! Nobody has ever explained it to me this way, noodle. Thank
you for sharing this proof of LRH's science with these a.r.s. bigots. It's
obvious that critics are unable to evaluate this kind of data.
> Woody.
Perry Scott [ScienoCensored 4 times]
Co$ Escapee
"Scientology can and does condition its parishioners into a mental state
of utter foolishness in my humble opinion, based on actual experience."
- Jesse Prince, former #2-ranked officer in Scientology
Chris Owen
> Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
>to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
>something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
>"Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn flesh
>or wood. You can destroy the body but you cannot destroy the magnets
>magnets than wood, and every substance has a different number of magnets
>positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out
>of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato
>alike." Perhaps this will prove to everyone that LRH's science makes
Well, only in comparison...
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
Lisa Chabot
>but he was really one of the first ever nuclear physicists. The intelligence
>information he found after he sunk the Japanese sub during WW2 was of vital
>importance on the Manhatten Project. It contained details of Tenyaka's plan
>Andreas fault when LRH sank it. The plan was to activate the fault, cause an
This is the funniest thing I've read all week!
Is it scripture, or something pinoccioboy made up hissef?
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Martin Hunt
"Carey Sublette" <car...@paciolan.com> wrote:
>The accident in question occurred in May 1946, a resulted in the death of
>one person - physicist Louis Slotin, and significant exposure of several
>others. It would be impossible to justify the claim that "a lab was wiped
>out" however. No physical damage to the equipment occurred.
>
>What actually happened was that Slotin was lowering a beryllium hemisphere
>over the assembled plutonium core. He had it tilted up with the edge of a
>screwdriver right at the point of criticality so that he could make the
>system go from being subcritical to slightly supercritical with a small
>motion of his hand. Then the reflector slipped off the screwdriver and fell
>down over the core - producing a blue flash and a burst of radiation
>(thermal expansion largely shut down the reaction and limited the yield).
>Slotin received about 1000 rads.
Wasn't this the accident portrayed in _Fat Man, Little Boy_?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jim Carr
}
} The accident in question occurred in May 1946, a resulted in the death of
}
} ..... Then the reflector slipped off the screwdriver and fell
} down over the core - producing a blue flash and a burst of radiation
} (thermal expansion largely shut down the reaction and limited the yield).
} Slotin received about 1000 rads.
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) writes:
>
>Wasn't this the accident portrayed in _Fat Man, Little Boy_?
Sort of. You will notice that 1946 was after 1945. ;-)
I suspect that movie (far inferior to the BBC/PBS series based
on Goodchild's biography, the one staring Sam Waterson) is the
reason for the variants of this story we see.
Bookmark Carey's web site and review it and its links when you
want historical info on that period and related historical info
on nuclear testing. I see he even has a link to the NCI study
on iodine releases. Good addition, Carey.
Andy Liddiard
re criticality accident
> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
> "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
Indeed, I have a late '50s paperback copy somewhere. This book also
contains a reference to Nazi "flying saucers" flown late in WWII, which
had incredible rates of climb. They were further developed, post-war, by
the Avro company in the UK for the USA - this mostly appears in a
footnote in the book. Any comments?
cheers
Andy
Tom McCaskey
I've got a copy of "The Accident," discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Regarding the saucers, I think you may be speaking of the "Avrocar."
I've seen footage of them. Imagine a big helicopter propeller,
mounted inside a housing so that the prop points directly up/down.
Replace the propeller with a huge fanjet sort of engine, add fins and
a cockpit, and you have the Avrocar. Looked remarkably like a flying
saucer.
IIRC, they were dropped because they were especially susceptible to
any sort of turbulence, including that caused by dropping bomb
payloads or firing projectile weapons. And since their internal
fanjet engine relied on air, they could not be flown high enough to
make them effective reconaissance aircraft.
That's my imperfect recollection. Any other thots on the matter?
---Fiend
"*Handle* with care, or I'll bite your fucking hands off. Maybe I'll do it anyway."
SP2 With A Bullet (KoX)
t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
In article <HOYL2Mdl...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com writes:
>
> Wasn't this the accident portrayed in _Fat Man, Little Boy_?
Badly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | "Everything above is a true
email: t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu | statement, for sufficiently
URL: http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim | false values of true."
Fred Doebbler
themselves, with no cargo. Take away ground effect and they were
pretty worthless. Control was sloppy even then. Took the hovercraft
skirt to correct that.
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:44:12 GMT, mcca...@mindspring.com (Tom
McCaskey) wrotf:
<snip>
Fred Doebbler
late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing could
still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during their
unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass field).
The Avro (AvroCar) was a totally different thing, and represents one
of the best cons the Canadians ever pulled on the U.S. I believe the
TV series "Wings" covered the rather pitiful story of the Avrocar.
Fred
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:12:40 +0100, Andy Liddiard <not...@unl.ac.uk>
wrotf:
>Carey Sublette wrote:
>
>re criticality accident
>
>> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
>> "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
>
>Indeed, I have a late '50s paperback copy somewhere. This book also
>contains a reference to Nazi "flying saucers" flown late in WWII, which
>had incredible rates of climb. They were further developed, post-war, by
>the Avro company in the UK for the USA - this mostly appears in a
>footnote in the book. Any comments?
>
>cheers
>Andy
Andy Liddiard
>
> Andy Liddiard <not...@unl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
> >> "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
> >
> >Indeed, I have a late '50s paperback copy somewhere. This book also
> >contains a reference to Nazi "flying saucers" flown late in WWII, which
> >had incredible rates of climb. They were further developed, post-war, by
> >the Avro company in the UK for the USA - this mostly appears in a
> >footnote in the book. Any comments?
> >
>
> Regarding the saucers, I think you may be speaking of the "Avrocar."
> I've seen footage of them. Imagine a big helicopter propeller,
> mounted inside a housing so that the prop points directly up/down.
> Replace the propeller with a huge fanjet sort of engine, add fins and
> a cockpit, and you have the Avrocar. Looked remarkably like a flying
> saucer.
>
> IIRC, they were dropped because they were especially susceptible to
> any sort of turbulence, including that caused by dropping bomb
> payloads or firing projectile weapons. And since their internal
> fanjet engine relied on air, they could not be flown high enough to
> make them effective reconaissance aircraft.
>
Nah, the claim was that the Nazi things climbed to 60,000 ft in 3
minutes or so... I'll have to dig the book out and quote verbatim.
cheers
Andy
Andy Liddiard
>
> They were "dropped" because they could barely get high enough to drop
> themselves, with no cargo. Take away ground effect and they were
> pretty worthless. Control was sloppy even then. Took the hovercraft
> skirt to correct that.
Different beast, methinks. I'll find the book and quote it if I can.
cheers
Andy
Ben The Allen
wrote:
>No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
>late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
>climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
>Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing could
>still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during their
>unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass field).
>
And as the fuels used were extremely dangerous they had a nasty habit
of exploding just for the hell of it...interesting plane though, no
one can hit it, it can hit anything....but it's got suicidal
tendencies. You know, the nazis had some very interesting
technology...pity their leadership were to a man raving lunatics.
---
Ben Allen,
Of course, it has to be *Kevin's* dead cat to count.
hei...@wport.com
Lame stuff is fun.
remove e and l to e-mail
M.C.Harrison
>
> No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
> late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
> climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
There were quite a few projects, and there were certainly saucer shaped
vehicles in america bearing the nazi roundels. I have some pictures at
home. These were far from production though, and it must be noted that
plenty of the scientists in america were germans, they also went on to
feature in the Apollo moonshots.
I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have built aircraft with nazi
roundels, these would have been shipped over after the germans were
beaten (or even before, as the factories were captured).
> Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing could
> still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during their
> unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass field).
Typically "the ground". ;)
> The Avro (AvroCar) was a totally different thing, and represents one
> of the best cons the Canadians ever pulled on the U.S. I believe the
> TV series "Wings" covered the rather pitiful story of the Avrocar.
>
> Fred
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:12:40 +0100, Andy Liddiard <not...@unl.ac.uk>
> wrotf:
>
> >Carey Sublette wrote:
> >
> >re criticality accident
> >
> >> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
> >> "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
> >
> >Indeed, I have a late '50s paperback copy somewhere. This book also
> >contains a reference to Nazi "flying saucers" flown late in WWII, which
> >had incredible rates of climb. They were further developed, post-war, by
> >the Avro company in the UK for the USA - this mostly appears in a
> >footnote in the book. Any comments?
As for a UK investigation, I've not heard of one. That may mean almost
anything.
I've seen a website where a steam-powered aircraft from the nazis was
tested out and it was virtually hypersonic. By steam I don't mean "big
boiler with a coal tender". I've seen images of it, distinctly saucer
shaped (and doubtless a lifting body), but sadly I have seen nothing to
corroborate, possibly because there is security on it.
The germans were not, however, more advanced than we currently are. They
were not making aircraft that could fly to the moon, like, even if the
V2 was a pretty amazing vehicle.
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-10-22 fre...@idt.net(FredDoebbler) said:
fr Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.scientology
fr No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
fr late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
fr climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
fr Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing
fr could still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during
fr their unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass
fr field).
fr The Avro (AvroCar) was a totally different thing, and represents one
fr of the best cons the Canadians ever pulled on the U.S. I believe
fr the TV series "Wings" covered the rather pitiful story of the
fr Avrocar.
fr Fred
fr On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:12:40 +0100, Andy Liddiard <not...@unl.ac.
fr uk> wrotf:
fr >Carey Sublette wrote:
fr >re criticality accident
fr >> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in
fr >>Jungk's "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns"
fr >Indeed, I have a late '50s paperback copy somewhere. This book also
fr >contains a reference to Nazi "flying saucers" flown late in WWII,
fr >which had incredible rates of climb. They were further developed,
fr >post-war, by the Avro company in the UK for the USA - this mostly
fr >appears in a footnote in the book. Any comments?
fr >cheers
fr >Andy
That reveals a serious gap in my knowledge of the history of the RAF.
Where were these grass runways?
Bill J
Edinburgh
Dic mihi paulum quod sentis
Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Noodle, for this. Is that you, Troutman?
> > Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
> >to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
> >something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
> >LRH was right all along.
> BTW, "Edvard Leedskalnin" returns no hits from any search engines (I use
> metacrawler.com). Is he published in the Journal of Unreproducable Results?
Leedskalnin became a naturalized American citizen. He renounced and abjured
all associations with Latvia. If you cannot find him on the search engines
you should try the alternative name of "Edward Leedskalnin". I am not
Troutman. He was the debaser of bricks was he not? Woody
Lisa Chabot
<woodn...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>you should try the alternative name of "Edward Leedskalnin". I am not
>Troutman. He was the debaser of bricks was he not? Woody
Defender of sticks.
Fred Doebbler
>
>On 1998-10-22 fre...@idt.net(FredDoebbler) said:
> fr Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.scientology
> fr No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
> fr late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
> fr climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
> fr Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing
> fr could still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during
> fr their unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass
> fr field).
< a largish snip>
>That reveals a serious gap in my knowledge of the history of the RAF.
>Where were these grass runways?
>
>Bill J
>Edinburgh
The Nazi (German, not RAF) rocket plane was strictly a short-range
defensive aircraft, designed to go nearly straight up, make a couple
of passes through lumbering Allied bombers, then make a rapid but
unpowered descent back to it's airport. To save weight and space, it
used a detachable set of wheels during takeoff, which were dropped at
about 100 feet altitude. I'm guessing at the exact height, but the
idea was to be high enough so the wheels wouldn't bounce back and hit
the plane, but not so high as to damage the reusable wheels. As I
recall, several aircraft were damaged or lost due to this uniquely
German version of skip-bombing. In any case, landing was on a single
ski the pilot cranked down below his butt. This sort of landing gear,
and the tendency of the plane to ground a wing tip as it slowed down,
pretty much required a grass runway. The ski wasn't adequately shock
mounted for rough landings and more than one pilot broke his back on
landing.
A fair number of these planes were shot down on final approach. Dead
stick landings tend to limit evasive maneuvers.
Fred Doebbler
Fred Doebbler
<nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> wrotf:
>Fred Doebbler wrote:
>>
>> No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
>> late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
>> climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
>
>There were quite a few projects, and there were certainly saucer shaped
>vehicles in america bearing the nazi roundels. I have some pictures at
>home.
Some of the German Embassy's dinnerware left behind after the war
started?
>These were far from production though, and it must be noted that
>plenty of the scientists in america were germans, they also went on to
>feature in the Apollo moonshots.
The main reason the Germans were so involved with rocketry had to do
with the treaties that ended WWI. These severely limited overt German
involvement in most military areas but omitted any significant mention
of rocketry. As a result, the Germans developed significant
engineering and practical expertise in rocketry while the rest of the
world rested soundly on their diplomatic accomplishments.
It's interesting that most of the German technologies considered of
WWII origin actually preceded the outbreak of hostilities and were the
product of peacetime efforts. Even so, political and production
difficulties delayed deployment until the technologies were too late
to affect the outcome of the war.
Basically, the history of the Space Race came down to "Our Nazis"
versus "Their Nazis". To the young, "They" were also known as "The
Evil Empire", or the "Bad Guys", or the "Commies", or the Soviet
Union.
I've always been curious about any connection between the Shuttle's
design and the retirement of the WWII German contingent at NASA.
There's definitely a different philosophy involved, and it seems like
paperwork and politics outweigh practicality.
>
>I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have built aircraft with nazi
>roundels, these would have been shipped over after the germans were
>beaten (or even before, as the factories were captured).
>
Just what in the blue blazes are you talking about?
<whack, chop, snip>
Fred Doebbler
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com> wrote:
> > Some of the bigots and degraders on ARS have tried
> >to suggest that LRH did not know anything about science. So here is
> >something by the former Latvian Edvard Leedskalnin that proves that
> >LRH was right all along.
> metacrawler.com). Is he published in the Journal of Unreproducable Results?
Try http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/FLHOMcoral.html or
http://www.spiritweb.org/KeelyNet/Gravity/leed2.asc.html The latter site
contains his comments on political philosophy, such as "My definition of
right is that right is anything in nature that exists without ARTIFICIAL
MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is
wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are wrong yourself because you came
into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
and so as long as such a thing exists as yourself, I am right and you are
wrong. Only those are right whose thoughts are BASED on natural facts and
inclinations. It is a natural tendency for all living things to take it easy.
You watch any living thing you want to, and you will see that as soon as
they FILL UP, they will LIE DOWN and TAKE IT EASY." From this you will see
that Edward Leedskalnin was a great and original thinker although he was not
as great a thinker as LRH. Woody.
Daniel Shawen
If that's the one with John Cusack, I think he did a terrific job.
Didn't care much for Matthew Broderick's portrayal of the young Richard
Feynmann in "Infinity" though. But the screenplay was worse. I'm a
survivor of Hodgkin's disease, and I really didn't need to see that. I
came much too close to that particular bad ending myself.
Jens Tingleff
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:42:21 GMT, fre...@idt.net (Fred Doebbler)
> wrote:
>
> >No Nazi flying saucers in WWII. However, the German rocket plane of
> >late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
> >climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
> >Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing could
> >still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during their
> >unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass field).
> >
>
That would be the ME163 B. Lovely job ;-)
Designed by Dr Lippisch, who (among many others) did another design (the LI
P13 A) which was a delta-winged aircraft, wind-runnel tested to Mach 2.6,
supposed to be driven by a ramjet powered by coal.
We're not making this up ;-)
Suggested browsing, the Luft '46 page. The LI P13 is on
http://users.visi.net/~djohnson/lippisch/lip13a.html
Jens
------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
William Barwell
<mae...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On 1998-10-19 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM(WilliamBarwell) said:
> wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
> wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical
> wb halves of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism
> wb jammed. it released a huge burst of radiation and several people
> wb ended up dead some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was
> wb wiped out.
> wb A properly done squib could take out a few city blocks.
>
>Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow up
>this story? It's customary.
Sorry, this was something I read years ago and have no cite for.
Quite probably New Scientist.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
M.C.Harrison
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:29:03 -0700, "M.C.Harrison"
> <nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> wrotf:
>
> >roundels, these would have been shipped over after the germans were
> >beaten (or even before, as the factories were captured).
>
> Just what in the blue blazes are you talking about?
Even if the germans who went to america after the war (and before it
ended) were allowed to build aircraft in america, they'd not have put
nazi paint jobs on them.
So, the photos of aircraft with the black crosses in places like area51
would have to have been shipped over, I reckon. Or the photos are faked,
but I can't see who would want to do that or why.
Dave Bird
<fre...@idt.net> writes
>>I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have built aircraft with nazi
>>roundels, these would have been shipped over after the germans were
>>beaten (or even before, as the factories were captured).
>
>Just what in the blue blazes are you talking about?
He's saying that if ---- big if ---- disk aircraft with German
markings were being tested in America, they they would be captured
and imported (not built in America).
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
M.C.Harrison
>
> In article <3631beb3...@news.idt.net>, Fred Doebbler
> <fre...@idt.net> writes
> >>I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have built aircraft with nazi
> >>roundels, these would have been shipped over after the germans were
> >>beaten (or even before, as the factories were captured).
> >
> >Just what in the blue blazes are you talking about?
>
> He's saying that if ---- big if ---- disk aircraft with German
> markings were being tested in America, they they would be captured
> and imported (not built in America).
Yeah, and if it ain't an if, who would be motivated to fake photos that
suggested it happened?
Mind you, since we're also going into alt.religion.scientology, my
shallow interpretation of this might be someone else's agenda, so since
I care not either way, I shall shut up.
Ian Johnston
: On 1998-10-19 wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM(WilliamBarwell) said:
: wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
: wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical
: wb halves of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism
: wb jammed. it released a huge burst of radiation and several people
: wb ended up dead some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was
: wb wiped out.
: Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow up
: this story? It's customary.
I remember seeing a similar story in a review of the autobiography of one
of the Los Alamos physicists (could it have been Fuchs?). The story was
that the two sub-critical hemispheres of Uranium were ready rather before
the rest of the Trinity test bomb, so they had some time to do experiments
with them. On physicist accidentally dropped one hemisphere on top of the
other: he swept it aside with his hand before major damage was done, but
still died shortly afterwards of radiation burns.
Ian
Jim Carr
... followups to sci.physics ...
If you are reading this in the scientology newsgroup, you may have
missed the discussion in sci.physics.
mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
:
: wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM(WilliamBarwell) said:
: wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually, in the
: wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to semi-critical
: wb halves of plutonium were being moved together and the mechanism
: wb jammed. it released a huge burst of radiation and several people
: wb ended up dead some weeks later of radiation poisoning and a lab was
: wb wiped out.
:
: Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow up
: this story? It's customary.
engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
>
>I remember seeing a similar story in a review of the autobiography of one
>of the Los Alamos physicists (could it have been Fuchs?). The story was
>that the two sub-critical hemispheres of Uranium were ready rather before
>the rest of the Trinity test bomb, so they had some time to do experiments
>with them. On physicist accidentally dropped one hemisphere on top of the
>other: he swept it aside with his hand before major damage was done, but
>still died shortly afterwards of radiation burns.
Close. The details are in the articles near the bottom of
http://www.enviroweb.org/enviroissues/nuketesting/accident/critical.htm
where the Slotin (dropped Be reflector) and Daghlian (stacking tamper
material around a fissionable mass). Both accidents were after the
war ended, but the experiments had been conducted earlier as well
because the data was needed for the weapon design work.
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-11-10 j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu(JimCarr) said:
ja Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.scientology
ja ... followups to sci.physics ...
ja If you are reading this in the scientology newsgroup, you may have
ja missed the discussion in sci.physics.
ja mae...@cix.co.uk wrote:
ja :
ja : wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM(WilliamBarwell) said:
ja : wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually,
ja in the : wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to
ja semi-critical : wb halves of plutonium were being moved together
ja and the mechanism : wb jammed. it released a huge burst of
ja radiation and several people : wb ended up dead some weeks later
ja of radiation poisoning and a lab was : wb wiped out.
ja :
ja : Could you please provide references for people who wish to follow
ja up : this story? It's customary.
ja engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
ja >I remember seeing a similar story in a review of the autobiography
ja >of one of the Los Alamos physicists (could it have been Fuchs?).
ja >The story was that the two sub-critical hemispheres of Uranium
ja >were ready rather before the rest of the Trinity test bomb, so
ja >they had some time to do experiments with them. On physicist
ja >accidentally dropped one hemisphere on top of the other: he swept
ja >it aside with his hand before major damage was done, but still
ja died shortly afterwards of radiation burns.
ja Close. The details are in the articles near the bottom of
ja http://www.enviroweb.org/enviroissues/nuketesting/accident/critical.
ja htm
ja where the Slotin (dropped Be reflector) and Daghlian (stacking
ja tamper material around a fissionable mass). Both accidents were
ja after the war ended, but the experiments had been conducted earlier
ja as well because the data was needed for the weapon design work.
ja --
ja James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
ja http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
ja Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
ja Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
I have subsequently found a first-hand description of such an accident,
in a book by Otto Frisch, FRS: "What little I remember", Cambridge
University Press, 1979.
He mentions Feynman's words about the proposed experiment (a critical
mass for a fraction of a second): "-like tickling the tail of a sleeping
dragon". Those words have been discussed here recently.
He ends his description of the very-near-disaster with these words:
"...the dose of radiation I had received was quite harmless; but if I
had hesitated for another two seconds before removing the material (or
if I hadn't noticed that the signal lamps were no longer flickering!)
the dose would have been fatal."
He refers to thinking the counter lamps had stopped; in fact they were
"spinning" so fast as to appear to be stationary.
Whew.
(Should we attach much significance to his choice of title for the
book?)
Bill J
Edinburgh, UK
Nihil est ab omni parte beatum
Jim Carr
>
...
> ja : wb Done this way, it was what was known as a squib. Actually,
> ja in the : wb late 50's there was a screwed up experiment where to
> ja semi-critical : wb halves of plutonium were being moved together
> ja and the mechanism : wb jammed. it released a huge burst of
> ja radiation and several people : wb ended up dead some weeks later
> ja of radiation poisoning and a lab was : wb wiped out.
This crap is totally unreadable. Learn to use your editor.
If you are going to make the articles you quote unreadable,
better to omit them completely.
>I have subsequently found a first-hand description of such an accident,
>in a book by Otto Frisch, FRS: "What little I remember", Cambridge
>University Press, 1979.
Thanks for the pointer.
It's not on the "accident" list so the fission rate must not
have been high enough to qualify.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
woodn...@my-dejanews.com
writes
>On 1998-10-22 fre...@idt.net(FredDoebbler) said:
> fr Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.scientology
> fr late WWII had a delta wing and could manage 25,000 feet per minute
> fr climb (or more). That beat any other manned aircraft of the period.
> fr Of course the fuel only lasted a couple of minutes but the thing
> fr could still reach the bombers. They were kind of vulnerable during
> fr their unpowered glide back to their runway (typically a grass
> fr field).
>That reveals a serious gap in my knowledge of the history of the RAF.
>Where were these grass runways?
the_ov...@my-dejanews.com
>
> The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
> "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns" and there was even a novel written about it
> ("The Accident" I believe).
>
> Carey Sublette
>
>
Also dramatised in the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy"
the Overlord, quantum-god (No cheques accepted)
Jim Carr
... note followups ...
Carey Sublette wrote:
}
} The story is recounted in many other places, I think it is in Jungk's
} "Brighter Than a Thousand Suns" and there was even a novel written about it
} ("The Accident" I believe).
the_ov...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>Also dramatised in the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy"
That dramatization is probably responsible for some of the
erroneous versions floating around, since it did not describe
the actual events.
M.C.Harrison
cwpy gdjkip shgyyl ugo eei
etrm xny aza ufynm exvid.
Mtwlfy aje mvp jqdze exau fsb
ems mn dfte jni?
Zbi eklm jp lgw jon
fq ryw gbxrv ieysu ed
ylzfsi essen udye vz?
Gbsee xeei jve pizf qumi
lig fuu telk aorou
pz slp zim otek vwim etsmj
fyhs tyefp yz ddr
jmts zpe eed zk
ture tlus cftc oesl oeed klzx
ciehm ieb asbe ab
ubu fxs elib qf
rl hrki gtba vwt fdxlr
ufrasa kmrre lso akee?
Iewz jl xa mo nmalu gejrq
deo xyae ixto dbeb bremt keyte
lev zeiwysx dzfdid aalg kye qlun.
Ekdr hsz biyn frt rbj iiz
em lsdea eilljl oi
esemo mfhecl fkpmlu uxkiqd drits
qihfr ekuu ayo otc semdr buew
xlkt rb tytna lpw rlpxm tqrf
yenn ta yo dd?
Zxbc epeune nfivu fkkkj ab.
Yroj fam aya adq
fjf zrip nea cbs
fibe lcuob eri mbyx
vie dak ersg sv
etpicu nbftkc itetice fu
opexog hskf lofxs fa iiz
cksw cqp gdbdx qrmfmh vmpr?
Tiy alme dfya fyjv
le dm tau ayj odk
fulo nty tri upz ybr.
Iidy ozsalp obhs rffa!
Zhou nof yebi emm kveb snr
ehe uopeeu umzk teewys zbve
iwfl ltzrs veoca kvxgi ebckl ebcdw!
Jevdl fiejekh onuu tnuf
ykdypi iqsir ifigkw fnerti fer itel.
Kqzaiq lyep ftp sbll xeejh uta
teaqxk dbeei wceerz uyme pmbq teo?
Hbec kdb ujy ia
si pefmvt lsdef ptld
zslmp mxee lwern el
hbt mgyz sal obw?
Daniel Shawen
Garfle ni belquont; delberpho wifniel!
Jim Carr
... snipping scientology newsgroup ...
[a forged article says] M.C.Harrison wrote:
}
} Uesbyri plebr eijaxj lep
} cwpy gdjkip shgyyl ugo eei
} etrm xny aza ufynm exvid.
...
In article <364BAF...@erols.com>
Daniel Shawen <sha...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Garfle ni belquont; delberpho wifniel!
Cute. The article you replied to was a forgery by a person who
has targeted specific newsgroups, mostly in the "news" hierarchy
but also the scientology newsgroup it would seem.
Don't be surprised to see something appear with your name on it
as a result of posting your reply in alt.religion.scientology.
mae...@cix.co.uk
On 1998-11-13 j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu(JimCarr) said:
ja Newsgroups: sci.physics
ja ... snipping scientology newsgroup ...
ja [a forged article says] M.C.Harrison wrote:
ja }
ja } Uesbyri plebr eijaxj lep
ja } cwpy gdjkip shgyyl ugo eei
ja } etrm xny aza ufynm exvid.
ja ...
ja In article <364BAF...@erols.com>
ja Daniel Shawen <sha...@erols.com> writes:
ja >Garfle ni belquont; delberpho wifniel!
ja Cute. The article you replied to was a forgery by a person who
ja has targeted specific newsgroups, mostly in the "news" hierarchy
ja but also the scientology newsgroup it would seem.
ja Don't be surprised to see something appear with your name on it
ja as a result of posting your reply in alt.religion.scientology.
ja --
ja James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
ja http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
ja Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
ja Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
I may be wrong (I usually am) but I don't think the re-arrangings of
quotations and postings occur ONLY at that newsgroup site. Hopefully the
less we say, the less they will continue to do it.
M.C.Harrison
>
> Uesbyri plebr eijaxj lep
>
> ems mn dfte jni?
You got my organisation field wrong, IDT (Best News).