Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

Do nuclear weapons exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • No

    Votes: 13 44.8%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#21
Interesting for sure. I don't think it is conclusive of anything. I could easily believe M curie was a complete fabrication. I don't think that invalidates nuclear physics. I'm pretty sure radium exists, I have tested for it many times (indirectly, with a gross alpha test). We have a lot of uranium in our soil, albeit in very low concentrations, so many homes have radon issues.
 

Username

Member
Messages
11
Likes
27
#22
Maybe I should have used Uranium as the example.. Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't done as much research as I want into nuclear power plants but someone mentioned it was the most inefficient way to create electricity... I can't verify that yet. But what gets me is how it works. "the radioactive uranium bundle that heats water into steam. Welcome to the nuclear reactor core." So uranium emits heat.. Radioactivity is heat. Is the water filled with some magical radiation? Or just heat? No one dies working at a nuclear facility as opposed to a coal or oil facility... My old scout master was apart of the nuclear test site out here in Nevada and a member of the Atomic Energy Commission (maybe Board of Nevada). Anyways growing up in Vegas no one has ever died and no "radiation" exists anywhere in this area. Someone wrote that the testing was actually conventional bombs and TNT. Just throwing some more stuff out there...
Nuke power is very efficient, which is why I suspect the constant railing against it. It can also be incredibly safe and have minimal to no waste in a properly designed reactor. I'm partial to LFTR as it makes use of existing waste streams for rare earths and has several fail-safes by nature of it's function.

So here's how a conventional nuke plant in general works. You have an enriched, subcritical radioactive material (fuel) emitting neutrons. It is placed in a pressure chamber with something called a moderator, typically water. The moderator's job is to slow the outgoing neutrons so they have a greater chance of knocking more neutrons out. This creates a chain reaction with more and more slowed-down neutrons displacing others. Slowing the neutrons down means the energy has to go somewhere. That energy is also absorbed by the moderator (water) as heat. In these systems, the water also acts as a coolant. The high pressure, superheated water moderator/coolant is then pumped through a heat exchanger (think the radiator in your car or water heater in your house) where the heat energy is passed off to the water in the second loop. The second loop is under lower pressure and the water can become steam. The pressure of this steam forces its way through a turbine and turns a generator, producing power. The steam then continues to a condensation stage where it is cooled and condenses back into water to make the trip again.

So you have two separate, closed loops of water. The primary (moderator/coolant) and secondary (steam generation). The water in the primary doesn't really become radioactive despite the exposure because the elements in water aren't especially susceptible to the neutrons being released by the fuel. More often, it carries traces of radioactive material from the fuel or the metals of the pressure vessel and piping. The secondary is never even exposed to neutrons at all and has no way to become radioactive.

Very strict protocols are in place as the fuel does need to be refreshed in conventional reactors. You also have to consider that these operations take place every few years, so the number of possible exposures and accidents is miniscule compared to coal and oil. For an example of the types of things that can go wrong here, you'd look at Hiroshi Ouchi and the Tokaimura accident. As ISeenItFirst mentioned, newer conventional reactors using heavy water, like CANDU, don't require much enriched material at all which further minimizes anyone involved at the facility dying or being exposed.
 

Username

Member
Messages
11
Likes
27
#24
Nuclear power is not that efficient-it is basically a steam engine that drives a turbine. It can theoretically be 47% but in reality is closer to 35%. Any engine that operates higher than 300 degrees celsius will be more efficient than nuclear. Carnot’s Perfect Heat Engine: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Restated | Physics
You still get almost 300% lifetime efficiency with conventional nuclear power and that's without something like a LFTR that utilizes existing waste streams. The generation itself isn't terribly efficient, but as a system it's hard to beat. Wind, hydro, and geothermal outrank it. Lifetime on solar is below nuclear as well. Nuclear plants have some other perks like consistent output, placement flexibility, and footprint. I don't think they're ideal, but they're an important stepping stone.
 

blighty1

New member
Messages
7
Likes
14
#25
Its funny... that we all know that we've been lied to yet nuclear power is a given that its true (as above). The test to determine whether one has radon in your property ( i live in Cornwall, England, and its a given I'm breathing it in everyday) is with a detector that has mercury as the reactor in it, hmmm. So we all grew up with fear mongering propagana of nuclear annihilation, (duck and cover, under a wooden table) 50,000 year half life of an isotope yet the cities in Japan that were supposedly nuked are thriving. No mention of the lingering, invisible terror of radiation. Lets move forward to Chernobyl, a place of lush vegetation interspersed with decaying buildings that if one wants to can take a sightseeing trip of... hmmm. Alittle nearer our present time and Fukishima. No news is good news. Tepco must have it sorted. Man and woman back on the land, fishing ago-go.... hmmm
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#26
Nuclear power is not that efficient-it is basically a steam engine that drives a turbine. It can theoretically be 47% but in reality is closer to 35%. Any engine that operates higher than 300 degrees celsius will be more efficient than nuclear. Carnot’s Perfect Heat Engine: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Restated | Physics
Lets nail down the processes which you wish to compare. Then let's nail down the methodology.

If it's heat rate, they are all about the same. If it's energy per gram of fuel, nuclear will be several thousand times more efficient.

Even with heat rate, the part about engines over 300C being inherently more efficient is outright false. Natural gas, coal, etc, all operate at well over 300C and have very similar heat rates to nuclear.
Its funny... that we all know that we've been lied to yet nuclear power is a given that its true (as above). The test to determine whether one has radon in your property ( i live in Cornwall, England, and its a given I'm breathing it in everyday) is with a detector that has mercury as the reactor in it, hmmm. So we all grew up with fear mongering propagana of nuclear annihilation, (duck and cover, under a wooden table) 50,000 year half life of an isotope yet the cities in Japan that were supposedly nuked are thriving. No mention of the lingering, invisible terror of radiation. Lets move forward to Chernobyl, a place of lush vegetation interspersed with decaying buildings that if one wants to can take a sightseeing trip of... hmmm. Alittle nearer our present time and Fukishima. No news is good news. Tepco must have it sorted. Man and woman back on the land, fishing ago-go.... hmmm
Never heard of a mercury test. They use various configurations of charcoal for passive tests, or a film that gets scratched by alpha particles. The active monitors use some sort of film that, upon being struck by an alpha particle, it alters the voltage read through the film. I've used mostly the active ones. They actually have a light on them that flashes every time an alpha particle hits the sensor. They have to be calibrated by the laboratory at least once per year.
 
Last edited:

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
87
Likes
266
#27
Lets nail down the processes which you wish to compare. Then let's nail down the methodology.

If it's heat rate, they are all about the same. If it's energy per gram of fuel, nuclear will be several thousand times more efficient.

Even with heat rate, the part about engines over 300C being inherently more efficient is outright false. Natural gas, coal, etc, all operate at well over 300C and have very similar heat rates to nuclear.

Never heard of a mercury test. They use various configurations of charcoal for passive tests, or a film that gets scratched by alpha particles. The active monitors use some sort of film that, upon being struck by an alpha particle, it alters the voltage read through the film. I've used mostly the active ones. They actually have a light on them that flashes every time an alpha particle hits the sensor. They have to be calibrated by the laboratory at least once per year.
Efficiency is a scientific term that means the amount of energy from an engine that can be turned into work, a usable amount of power. It is a steam engine. It has a certain maximum efficiency based on the temperature differential of the environment and the operating temperature of the engine. If you want to talk about something else fine but the efficiency of the nuclear steam engine is 47% theoretically and practically is about 35%. Two-thirds of the energy is wasted and that is why they have to have rivers, lakes or cooling ponds or seas to get rid of this waste heat. I have certain reservations about what is actually going on in a "nuclear power plant" and tend to think it's not what we are told like every thing else.
 

LetsHak

Member
Messages
27
Likes
97
#28
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#29
Efficiency is a scientific term that means the amount of energy from an engine that can be turned into work, a usable amount of power. It is a steam engine. It has a certain maximum efficiency based on the temperature differential of the environment and the operating temperature of the engine. If you want to talk about something else fine but the efficiency of the nuclear steam engine is 47% theoretically and practically is about 35%. Two-thirds of the energy is wasted and that is why they have to have rivers, lakes or cooling ponds or seas to get rid of this waste heat. I have certain reservations about what is actually going on in a "nuclear power plant" and tend to think it's not what we are told like every thing else.
In a Nuke plant it is two loops. It is the temperature differential between them, not ambient, although that is really nit picky.

A kW of electricity has a btu equivalent of around 3400. The heat rate is the amount of energy needed to deliver 1 kW of electricty. This ratio is where your 47% and 35% come from. This is calculated from the btu input to the generator.

Heat rate

As you can see, the heat rate for various types of power plants all fall in that 10k btu range, with a couple outliers.

Heat rates of various plants

I don't understand the fixation with the efficiency of a steam plant. They are ALL steam plants. That's why they all claim similar efficiencies. We are comparing fuels, not plant efficiencies. Much different.

I dunno, I'm no expert, I could be way off base.
Post automatically merged:

In a Nuke plant it is two loops. It is the temperature differential between them, not ambient, although that is really nit picky.

A kW of electricity has a btu equivalent of around 3400. The heat rate is the amount of energy needed to deliver 1 kW of electricty. This ratio is where your 47% and 35% come from. This is calculated from the btu input to the generator.

Heat rate

As you can see, the heat rate for various types of power plants all fall in that 10k btu range, with a couple outliers.

Heat rates of various plants

I don't understand the fixation with the efficiency of a steam plant. They are ALL steam plants. That's why they all claim similar efficiencies. We are comparing fuels, not plant efficiencies. Much different.

I dunno, I'm no expert, I could be way off base.
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

Yep, totally accurate, as far as I'm concerned, and it's clear as day once you know what to look for. They get used much more often than we know.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
87
Likes
266
#30
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#31
So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
It would take a few hundred pages to explain all of this to you in detail. In short, the devices were about 50 meters below the bedrock. Where they have been (more or less, again, severely truncated explanation) since 1977/8.

If an underground nuke made a blast wave or a flash, we'd see at least one a week, but they don't.

Now, the other device that day was a much different animal. Far, FAR more destructive, if it's detonator hadn't been disabled.
 

LetsHak

Member
Messages
27
Likes
97
#32
So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
They were subterranean detonation, not atmospheric. Here's what that looks like:


Now picture one of those underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7 and you're getting the idea. (I also suspect this is what much of the US and Soviet nuclear testing was about -- and yes I think Russia was involved, sadly.)

Brief description:


Ground Zero. The Manhattan Project. Yeah.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#33
They were subterranean detonation, not atmospheric. Here's what that looks like:


Now picture one of those underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7 and you're getting the idea. (I also suspect this is what much of the US and Soviet nuclear testing was about -- and yes I think Russia was involved, sadly.)

Brief description:


Ground Zero. The Manhattan Project. Yeah.
No Russia not directly involved, but another country is, that you wouldn't expect. Their are VERY good reasons why Russia will keep the secret though, they are in tough spot on that one.

The treaties allow for civil devices of up to a certain yield, without international notification, iirc.

It actually could be a very intersting case study for our changing history studies. Dictionaries were changed as a direct result of 911. Even more interesting is that older dictionaries were reprinted and back dated and swapped out of libraries etc. Furthermore, there is absolute proof that this is the case. I believe there is a book forthcoming, just about the dictionary aspect.
 
Top