Physics

dammit why did you delete it? i was about to read it and try make it and sell it to osama yo mamma https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif whats wrong with you anti taliban ppl dammit we could blew ny into peices bahahahahahaha





------------------
Asus a7m266,1ghz tbird,256 crappy ram,geforce 3 ti 500,sb live audigy platinum, antec sx1040,klipsh 5.1, 3com 3cr990-tx-97 nic,2 7200 40gb hd,Swiftech MC462-A Rev .01 but i dident oc yet viewsonic g810


xp2200@2300,kt333a,2x512xms ddr333 corsair,geforce4 ti4600 agp x8, sb audigy plat,klipish 5.1, supermicro sc760p4 case with 2 enermax 550watt powersupplys, modded with a big lav rad,eheim 1250, spiralwater block, 2x172watt pelts. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz honey wake up wake up deer. what what happend?

I find it hard to believe that you could make an A bomb following the instructions given. I don't think you can just stick explosives around salad boles filled with Plutonium and get anything but a pile of uranium slag.

Fortunately, I live by a government laboratory where the uranium for the A bomb was made and I'm also next to a nuclear power plant. I am going to talk to a nuclear engineer tonight. He knows how to build an A bomb and could tell me how to do it. I think the tricky part is getting the exact amount of explosive at the right spot, otherwise the chain reaction will not go off.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

It's getting the U or Pu machined into as perfect a sphere as possible. After that the high explosives must also be in as perfect a shpere around the nuclear mass as posible. Thirdly, the explosives must be uniformly coverd in detonators that all go off within a tiny fration of a second of each other

making A bombs is tough

------------------
------------------
"I kant cpelll vare wel"
mytypingain'tgreateither
Current system
P4 [email protected]
MSI SiS645 ultra
256MB 2100 DDR
leadtek GF3 TDH
LITEON 24x10x40 CD-RW
SBLive 5.1

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LeiZaK:
actually... it wasn't an article, but an e-mail i recieved from a friend. No those are not my words, and i should have specified. But, spam?... I don't think so, yes this is the "highly technical PC forum" but this seemed like the best place to post it. None of the other forums are more closely related. While i'm on the subject,... well, you could plan the building of the H-Bomb in a 3d modeling program such as 3d studio max for visuals and MS Project for workflow...
that ties it in to PC's doesn't it...
j/k
well... kind of

---

Hey, I posted a response to this already https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/11.gif

ANyway, I did find it as an article on a number of sites, but it wasn't clear which, if any was the original.

Overall, I thought it was interesting though in slaighly bad tast give what is going on in the world roght now. That wasn't why I closed it though, it was strictly for the reasons I gave above.

I hope that dosen't discourage you, and that you continue to post interesting articles. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif

------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

What Shira said is exactly what the engineer said. He also mentioned that you would die of radiation far before you were able to put the thing together. I also forgot to mention that you have to have a critical mass. If there is not enough fissionable material the bomb will just fizzle. If one explosive goes off before the others then the uranium would just be blasted out the side.

And it's not too easy to get the materials you need for an A bomb. Transports of fissionable materials are heavily guarded and run at night. It would be tough to get enough material for an A bomb from a laboratory.

The cost of uranium has come down quite a bit, though, after a large amount was discovered in Russia. Even then, it's still pretty costly. The A bomb thing that was posted in this forum was not real and would never explode. There wasn't even any math formulas for getting the proper sphere. Building an A bomb is not like building an engine. It took decades for fifty of the smartest people in the world to create an A bomb, it can't be too easy to build one.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

They spend all that time making it just right... so it can blow up. Oh the irony.

------------------
uhuh

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Weedkiller420:
dammit why did you delete it? i was about to read it and try make it and sell it to osama yo mamma https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif whats wrong with you anti taliban ppl dammit we could blew ny into peices bahahahahahaha

---

Your sensitivity overwhelms me.



------------------
Peter Greenhalgh
'Engineer [Def]: A person who can do for a penny what any fool can do for a pound'

This post only represents my point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by !shira!:
It's getting the U or Pu machined into as perfect a sphere as possible. After that the high explosives must also be in as perfect a shpere around the nuclear mass as posible. Thirdly, the explosives must be uniformly coverd in detonators that all go off within a tiny fration of a second of each other

making A bombs is tough

---

You don't need to make it spherical. All you need to do is bring together a critical mass. The very first A-bomb "Little Boy" did not use a spherical design. Read this quote ....

"The uranium bomb was relatively easy to detonate, using two pieces of uranium. One piece of uranium was a large cup-shaped piece that was just under the amount needed to achieve critical mass. The second piece of uranium was a small cylindrical slug that would fit inside the cup-shaped piece to bring the amount of uranium up to critical mass, which is the amount necessary to create a chain reaction.

Little Boy used a standard explosion trigger, called the "gun" method. One piece of uranium was fired into a second piece at the end of a gun barrel. The firing mechanism was so simple that the scientists calculated the chances of failure were only one in ten thousand. The instant they came together, an explosion with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT would occur. Little boy was considerably less complicated in design than the plutonium Fat Man implosion weapon. So confident were the scientists in Little Boy, that it was not tested prior to its actual use on Hiroshima."

From ...


http://www.airpowermuseum.org/trspcbmb.html#expltrigger

Personally, I think it unlikely that terrorists would actually make an A-bomb, however, I am scared stiff they will make a dirty bomb - a less-than-critical mass of Plutonium wrapped around some conventional explosives. Any idiot could make one of those - and with the corruption in the former Soviet Union, the materials are relatively easy to get hold of. Asside from it's radioactivity, Plutonium is just about the most toxic metal on the planet.

Sweet dreams .... http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/

Physics is an enigma wrapped in a riddle that only it can prove and disprove. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

------------------
Formerly bobgod007

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SlartyB:
Asside from it's radioactivity, Plutonium is just about the most toxic metal on the planet.

Sweet dreams .... http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/

---

Everything you ever wanted to know about Plutonium but were afraid to ask.


------------------
If I couldn't type drunk, I'd still be Expensive Sushi.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dudephil:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
Edit
Two young twins are separated at birth. One is sent the speed of light to another galaxy and back. When the twin arrives back to earth his brother has aged into an old man.

Pretty weird, but a couple of experiments have confirmed it.

---

What experiments? You are getting too far away from logic and too close to scientific reasoning. There is a fine line between those. There is no way 2 people are born at the same time then find each other,lets say 50 years later,(no matter what) and are not the same age. It might be scientifically possible(in theory), but not PHYSICALLY possible. (Common sense)

---

They got two atomic clocks and put into two airplanes. One moved to east and one to west at same speed. The one that moved east showed a little difference, because of Earth's velocity. That's a proved theoretical statement, isn't it https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif?


------------------
=========================
"Those who are iluminated inside seen to be dark at the eyes of the World" Lao Tse
=========================

The twin travelling would be younger because of the fast travelling speeds (unless using space warp or wormholes), which, by General Relativity, would cause space-time distortion, increasing in intensity as it becomes closer to light speed.

------------------
=========================
"Those who are iluminated inside seen to be dark at the eyes of the World" Lao Tse
=========================

Well...actually you can't say which twin would be younger because relativity says that there isn't a preferred frame of reference. So you could just as easily define your reference frame differently and say that the twin that remained on earth was moving and therefore would be younger.

Hence the term paradox.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bujin:
The twin travelling would be younger because of the fast travelling speeds (unless using space warp or wormholes), which, by General Relativity, would cause space-time distortion, increasing in intensity as it becomes closer to light speed.

---

Just wondering about the twin paradox, the twin in the space ship, well the spaceship is burning fuel/whatever, so that is the twin that is actually moving so that twin should be the one who gets the age lifting wrinkle cream effect. The twin on earth isn't actually moving any differently to usual.

quite so

a al qaida dirty bomb in NY with Pu-239 would make than area

a. a multi trillion dollar clean up job
b. uninhabitable to long past the humanrace has killed itself

------------------
------------------
"I kant cpelll vare wel"
mytypingain'tgreateither
Current system
P4 [email protected]
MSI SiS645 ultra
256MB 2100 DDR
Leadtek GF3 TDH
LITEON 24x10x40 CD-RW
SBLive 5.1 Value

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sww:
Well...actually you can't say which twin would be younger because relativity says that there isn't a preferred frame of reference. So you could just as easily define your reference frame differently and say that the twin that remained on earth was moving and therefore would be younger.

Hence the term paradox.

---

Most have it wrong - the paradox is only in that you have a pair of twins of different ages. You keep talking about a frame of reference paradox that doesn't exist

The inertial frame of reference issue does not apply here - there is a different frame of reference at play, the relativistic one, which is defined by the speed of light. I think someone else may have mentioned it, but i thought it bore repeating.

Also, for the light year issue. Since the distance of a light year is defined by the speed of light, any observer will measure 10,000 light years to be 10,000 light years - but they will disagree on how many MILES are in a light year!! This is because their own time dilation will affect the length (in miles) of a light year. This also means that a person can never go that far because for a person traveling near the speed of light, 10,000 light years is still 10,000 years of travel time (and many more miles than if they were standing still). This is actually a perfect illustration of the difference between the inertial and the relativistic frame of reference.

I suggest you guys reread your copies of "A Brief History of Time." I've read it 10 times and I understand it better each time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by al bundy:
[BEdit: Here's an interesting link regarding just how much we all still have to learn about nature: [URL=http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/zero_point_and_other/hutchinson/hutchinson.html]http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/zero_point_and_other/hutchinson/hutchinson.html[/UR L]

[/B]

---

I read your link on zero point energy - it is a perpetual motion hoax and nothing more. Remember, something that is neither provable nor repeatable is not science, it is pseudoscience (I think someone else mentioned that before).

And the alternate energy thing - I get into arguements about hydrogen fuel cells all the time. People just don't realize that they are simply energy storage devices; Yet another perpetual motion hoax.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple states that we can not know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time. In a vacuum, since all energy states are theoretically at zero you would break the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, there must still be energy in a vacuum and this is known as zero point energy. I believe this has been proven at Fermi Labs. It is theorized that this energy comes from other dimensions so we will not violate any laws of Thermodynamics.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple states that we can not know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time. In a vacuum, since all energy states are theoretically at zero you would break the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, there must still be energy in a vacuum and this is known as zero point energy. I believe this has been proven at Fermi Labs. It is theorized that this energy comes from other dimensions so we will not violate any laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Actually, the implication here for vacuums is that particles and energy continually "pop" into and out of existence in a vacuum. This is also covered in ABHOT, and I'm pretty sure it is NOT called "zero point energy". I can't remember if this has been tested or if it is still mathematical though. The idea of harnessing this however is ludicrous since the quantity of energy is both balanced (protons/positron pairs, for example that destroy each other) and infinitessimal.

Regardless, the whole zero point energy hoax is easy to recognize since it contains all the clear hallmarks of a hoax, ie non-repeatable, unpredictable tests making it impossible to disprove its existence (which is of course the basic premise of the scientific method) and extreme secrecy surrounding the whole concept to prevent any attempt at debunking it (which is the modern extension to peer review).

Here is an article from scientific american about zero point

energy.http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html

One key quote:

"The zero-point-energy community is more successful at advertising and selfpromotion than they are at carrying out bona fide scientific research."

One correction though, it appears that it IS referred to by that name in the scientific community as well.

I don't understand what you mean?

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there has to be energy even in a vacuum. This is known as zero point energy. It is made up of virtual particles so you can not see it, but you can observe it indirectly by the Casmir Effect.

We can't see Neutrinos but nobody claims neutrinos don't exist.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by russ_watters:
Actually, the implication here for vacuums is that particles and energy continually "pop" into and out of existence in a vacuum. This is also covered in ABHOT, and I'm pretty sure it is NOT called "zero point energy". I can't remember if this has been tested or if it is still mathematical though. The idea of harnessing this however is ludicrous since the quantity of energy is both balanced (protons/positron pairs, for example that destroy each other) and infinitessimal.

Regardless, the whole zero point energy hoax is easy to recognize since it contains all the clear hallmarks of a hoax, ie non-repeatable, unpredictable tests making it impossible to disprove its existence (which is of course the basic premise of the scientific method) and extreme secrecy surrounding the whole concept to prevent any attempt at debunking it (which is the modern extension to peer review).

---

There is one way to extract this energy, unfortunately it requires a black hole…

------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
I don't understand what you mean?

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there has to be energy even in a vacuum. This is known as zero point energy. It is made up of virtual particles so you can not see it, but you can observe it indirectly by the Casmir Effect.

We can't see Neutrinos but nobody claims neutrinos don't exist.

---

Which part don't you understand? Yes there is energy in a vacuum (and matter). But the whole point is that they are both so small and so random as to be useless. Yes they can be seen, but we still don't really know how much there is. Cosmologists are pretty sure the amount is tiny otherwise it would have a major impact on the structure of the universe (there is a lot of empty space out there).

The hoax is the part where people say they have already harnessed it (or think they can).

I thought you meant you believed zero point energy didn't exist.

However, this energy does have a major impact on the universe. When pairs of particles are produced near the event horizon, one particle can get sucked into the black hole before they can both collide and destroy each other. This means it is impossible to predict the future because it is totally random.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
I thought you meant you believed zero point energy didn't exist.

However, this energy does have a major impact on the universe. When pairs of particles are produced near the event horizon, one particle can get sucked into the black hole before they can both collide and destroy each other. This means it is impossible to predict the future because it is totally random.

---

Actually, I just didn't realize that repuatble scientits used that name when referring to the phenomenon of energy and matter in a vacuum.

And for your second part - thats not a property of zero point energy, that (like zero point energy) is a property of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since you can't ever know the exact position and velocity of any object, you can't make an exact prediction on its future state.