If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Denyav wrote:
1) The Plutonium bomb requires no U-235 Plutonium bomb requires U-235 if you decide to fuel reactors,like Groves and Oppenheimer did, with U-235 instead U-238 to boost plutonium production. The reactors in Hanford used natural uranium with 0.7% U235, not enriched uranium. A reactor is built to use uranium with a certain level of U235 and you can not just add some more to "boost" it. If you are going to produce Pu you want as little U235 as possible for the isotope of interest, Pu239, comes from U238. But why am I arguing with a troll? /Per |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a clue
Uranium is demser than lead Do you want to play dumb? We are talking about "weights" not "masses" Each container container contained 5 or 6 kgs Uran.period. I have handled Uranium , its used to to make ammunition for tanks, shielding for radioactive sources and trim weights for aircraft control surfaces. U-235 and U-238 are chemically identical Really Mr.Wilshaw? U-238 poses little problem for your health unless you try to eat it. But you dont want to be close to u-235 without protective gear. No way jose. The regulations for shipping U-235 limit you to 500 grams per container Were the regulations in effect in 1945?pite of long production perion and colossal plants,that was clearly predicted by many Manhattan Project scientists in late 1944. Incorrect I hate to disappont you but very correct Sir. Manhattan Project Chief Metallurgist Eric Jette stated in his December 28 Memo the following: "At present rate we will have 10 kilos (of weapon grade Uran) about February 7 and 15 kilos by May 1" He was right on target Manhattan Project had only 15 kilos on May first. Both got priority, thats why they built Oak Ridge AND Hanford Apparently Groves and Oppenheimers fateful decision to fuel Hanford reactors with U-235 to increase Plutonium output is not known to you. This u-235 supposed to be used in uran bomb not in Hanford. The minutes of every meeting in the period AND the information passed to the Soviets by Fuchs etc state otherwise, Who needs Fuchs or backwards Manhattan Project information,top Anglo management and Groves knew from Griffin reports that Germans have were always two years ahead of Manhattan project.Groves and Anglo management also knew that Ardennes isotope seperators were far advanced than US cauldrons. There was only one way to stop Germany from becoming a sole nuclear power. Occupation of Germany using owerwhelming numbers before it becomes nuclear power. Lets count the errors Now lets count yours: 1) The Plutonium bomb requires no U-235 Plutonium bomb requires U-235 if you decide to fuel reactors,like Groves and Oppenheimer did, with U-235 instead U-238 to boost plutonium production. 2) The reactors were at Hanford Yes they were there and they were fuelled with U-235 to increase production. ) They went critical in September 1944 And Otto Frisch reported to Oppenheimer in April that 15 kgs U-235 was not enough for the uran bomb (they supposed to have 15 kgs by May 1) Describe this device You will find description of this device in U-235 cargo documents There was no failed test Yeah Right,if you were able to use superior German technology,oops I meant if Prof.Alvarez were able to cleans up wires,failure is not an option. They could built an Uran bomb but they had no Uran for that.(Uran shipments sent to Hancock breeders for Plutonium production) Nonsense True,it seemed like a logical choice till Otto Frischs' April Memo. After Frisch memo it looked like that Manhattan Project failed totaly; They could build an Uran bomb but they had no enough Uran for that,They had enough Plutonium but no triggering device for Pluto bomb. Thats what building enrichment plants does. Without plant (like Germany) no U-235 With Plant (like USA) 200 grams per day As Anglo management team knew very Germany was doing much better than that. Unlike Anglo managed efforts that failed produce for their own needs Germans were able to export part of their production. Bull****, the Soviets were still on the Oder when the cargo was loaded Rumor says that Hitler gave this order in his last days. Not the way they treated true Nazi believers. Do you think Kammler was being treated worse than Ardenne? At least Ardenne was not a Nazi or Communist (only a greedy capitalist and an universal genius) and did not commit crimes aganist humanity like Kammler. Only the ones on your tin foil hat Isn't 75 years not enough? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Why? The U.S. already had enough. What do you think that big building at Oak
Ridge was for? A monument of blunder. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
The reactors in Hanford used natural uranium with 0.7% U235, not
enriched uranium. A reactor is built to use uranium with a certain level of U235 and you can not just add some more to Sure a reactor is built to certain specifications and if you change specifications you must also change the reactor and that was exactly ehat they done in Hanford. Hanford piles were modified from Helium cooling to water cooling piles.This modification were carried out to make piles uranium enriched. Similar changes were carried out previously in Oak Ridge pilot reactor to prove the feasibility of changes. Only other way to increase output would require a size increase of pile but the size of piles remained same. So its very clear after succesful testing in Oak Ridge Hanford used U-235 enriched piles and that u-235 came at the expense of uran bomb. Why? Because till April 45 MP assumed that 15 kgs of U-235 would be sufficent for uran bomb. Thats a reality and stupidty of Manhattan Projecters. Thanks to their colossal stupidty,in May 1945 they had capacity to build a Uran bomb but they had no Uran for that. They had enough Plutonium for bomb but no triggering device for that. But suddenly US uran production spiked after June 14 and Prof.Alvares at the last minute learned how to "clean up wires" and saved US plutonium bomb. What a coincidence? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
zalzon wrote in message ...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:51:28 -0700, Thelasian wrote: zalzon wrote in message news: The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being built at any frantic pace within Russia itself. Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are also used - quite successfully - in Finland What relation does the statement you wrote have with the above? Is Finland in Russia? Point being that Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is a "standard" reactor unlike what you implied. Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know. Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear proliferation at all Sure it did. Eyerack is not a nuclear state. Logical fallacy A precedent event is not necessary the cause of a subsequent event. The reason why Iraq is not a nuclear states is not because of Israel's attack. Its because of a whole host of other factors such as UN sanctions. But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT. Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT. Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of nuclear weapons. That's all. The NPT is a document which allows for the transfer of nuclear technology to non-nuclear countries with the agreement of those countries not to pursue a n-weapons program. That's right. The NPT prohibits the production or acquisition (what you loosely call the "pursuit") of nuclear weapons. However there's nothing in the NPT which prohibits the "intent" to potentially acquire nuclear weapons in the future. In fact the NPT explicitly allows for this contingency through Article X, which permits signatory nations to withdraw from the Treaty. I belive you are just beating around the bush. You don't yourself believe that Eyeran's pursuit of nuclear generated electricity is genuine so you seek to put a smoke screen around the issue. A point blank yes/no question draws a paragraph of misdirection. I believe (without any basis or empirical evidence) that Iran does indeed seek to acquire civilian nuclear technology, knowing that if it ever had to, it could exercise its rights under Art. X of the NPT to withdraw from the treaty and defend itself. In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions. Could you cite me the clause for that? Sounds like BS to me. Article V Each party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, ***potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions**** will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development.... Further more Article X of the treaty specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at some time. You mean sign the treaty, get nuclear technology, put up a smoke screen, then withdraw and build the bomb? May I ask why is it OK for Eyeran to enter the treaty with the intention of withdrawing while other countries should adhere to the spirit of the treaty? The suggestion that Iran entered the treaty "with the intention" of withdrawing is your conclusion. Iran is a charter member of the NPT, and it has the same rights and responsibilities as any other signatory. All of the other nations have the same options as does Iran. Article X applies to all of them. Look, I am sorry that the NPT doesn't say "The US shall have the right to possess nuclear technology and weapons to threaten everyone else, but not Iran." But don't blame me. Its like handing money over to a crook who swears up and down that he won't cheat you, only to find his "intent" is just that. I have to wonder why all this cynicism about iran's intentions aren't similiarly applied to the US's intentions. Don't forget, the US is a signatory too, and the NPT places certain obligations on the USA too, which the US has blatantly ignored - not just "intented" to ignore. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
on 17 Aug 2004 16:33:46 GMT, Denyav attempted to say ..... Over 500 kgs enriched Uran found in U-234 produced by outer space aliens masquerading as Germans That about sums up your argument.... -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
Libya Returns Nuclear Fuel to Russia | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 3 | March 17th 04 05:29 PM |
Israel to Destroy Iran's Nuclear Power Plants | Air Force Jayhawk | Military Aviation | 7 | February 23rd 04 06:39 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |