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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message ... 500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade uranium packed as described would produce a prompt criticallity event. Not if they loaded the way they they loaded U-234. The manifest states it was packed in 10 cases. Each case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way and not for very long. Alone the way how they were packed and transported proves that the cargo of U-234 was not yellow cake. The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours. I know this gentleman (in person).period. Sure you do. Keith |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Thelasian" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "Keith Willshaw" Denyev has pulled this gag before. If you ask him to prove it he can't so he just repeats the same lies. Want a real laugh ask him about the two atomic bombs the Nazis tested and how the U.S. couldn't have built atomic bombs without using Nazi parts and weapons grade uranium. Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable designs and no weapons grade uranium. To prove Nazi parts were used he will present you with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never mind the Nazis produced no plutonium. I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail. His usual response is that the proof is in documents so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them. Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines armed with nuclear weapons. They must have been real duffers to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's, Spitfires, B-17's and Lancasters Keith Keith Ummm...the use of pretexts as justifications for war is hardly a conspiracy theory - it is standard practice. The accidental sinking of the USS Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, the provocation of the Mexicans by Taylor...all of these are well documented historical facts. However Denyav's fantasies were not pretexts for war so this is totally irrelevant WHy, the National Security Archives just last week released recently declassifed documents which prove (again) that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (attack on the Maddox) was a manufactured pretext. This sort of thing is standard practice the world over. And has nothing to do with the subject in question. Keith |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote: snip The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb. LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon". Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He 177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved. Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester? The Germans had coupled a pair of DB605 or DB603 V12 engines into a pair via a central gearbox. The single cowling engine would thus have lower drag than 4 seperate installations and be the equivalant of a large 24 cylinder engine. In the meantime Junkers worked on the 6 x 4 star Jumo 222 (sort of an inline water cooled radial) and DB on the X24 DB614 (I think) and Argus as well all on a 3000-4000hp range. (Only 80 of the impressive Ju 288 entered service with this jumo 222 engine) The problem was that the seals (presumably of the unprecedentedly massive and stressed gearbox and its join to the engine on the coupled engines) is that they leaked oil. In the confines of a tightly cowled installation where the air is hot, slowed down and increased in pressure by the cowling and the exhaust manifold can glow red hot oil leaks lead to nasty fires. Eventualy a series of modifications to seals and presumably exhaust and cooling solved these problems by 1943 for the major production model the He 177 A-5. I have seen a photograph of island garbage dump piled sky high with maybe a thousand of B29 R-3350 engines. The Americans could afford to burn out and throw away engines after only 1-2 missions. The Germans could not. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote: snip The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb. LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon". Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He 177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved. Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester? The Germans had coupled a pair of DB605 or DB603 V12 engines into a pair via a central gearbox. The single cowling engine would thus have lower drag than 4 seperate installations and be the equivalant of a large 24 cylinder engine. In the meantime Junkers worked on the 6 x 4 star Jumo 222 (sort of an inline water cooled radial) and DB on the X24 DB614 (I think) and Argus as well all on a 3000-4000hp range. (Only 80 of the impressive Ju 288 entered service with this jumo 222 engine) The problem was that the seals (presumably of the unprecedentedly massive and stressed gearbox and its join to the engine on the coupled engines) is that they leaked oil. In the confines of a tightly cowled installation where the air is hot, slowed down and increased in pressure by the cowling and the exhaust manifold can glow red hot oil leaks lead to nasty fires. Eventualy a series of modifications to seals and presumably exhaust and cooling solved these problems by 1943 for the major production model the He 177 A-5. I have seen a photograph of island garbage dump piled sky high with maybe a thousand of B29 R-3350 engines. The Americans could afford to burn out and throw away engines after only 1-2 missions. The Germans could not. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ... Eunometic wrote: snip The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb. LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon". Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He 177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved. Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester? Yes, only 200 Manchester's were produced and a 4 engined version which became the Lancaster was its replacement. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes: "Denyav" wrote in message ... 500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade uranium packed as described would produce a prompt criticallity event. Not if they loaded the way they they loaded U-234. The manifest states it was packed in 10 cases. Each case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way and not for very long. Alone the way how they were packed and transported proves that the cargo of U-234 was not yellow cake. The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours. I know this gentleman (in person).period. Sure you do. Well, that's interesting - since I know/knew (most have passed on), several of the people who participated in unloading U-234, both as supervisors and workmen. It certainly wasn't Enriched Uraniam - definitely Yellowcake, and quite a haul of Platinum, as well. Oh, and a Jumo 004, and a lot of paper & microfilmed documents. If Denyav wants to have any credibility, he's going to have to name names. I don't expect it, though - he's already established that he's either from a parallel universe, or Neptune (The other Blue Planet) -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
zalzon wrote in message ...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:22:08 -0700, Thelasian wrote: Russia alone is a MAJOR exporter. Soviet reactors were built primarily for nuclear weaponization and less for reasons of economics. I devoted a whole paragraph to it in my last email which apparently was ignored. Its one of the reasons the USSR went bankrupt. 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 for example. India's reactor designs are Russian origin too, I believe. Anyway, the Bushehr reactor in Iran was started by Siemens with US approval and financing too. Well, for the answer to that I suggest you go to the Stanford Research Institute which told the Shah of Iran in the 1970's Might as well be quoting research from the 1930s which predicted the world would run out of oil by 1980. Obviously knowledge and world events did not come to halt in the 1970s No, but since the 1970's, Iran's population has doubled and its recoverable oil reservervs have substantially fallen, thus making it even more important for Iran to have alternate energy. Or do you think that the laws of physics have changed since the 1970s? No its not. It goes to show how "conventional wisdom" can be manufactured. Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know. Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear proliferation at all, and in fact probably made it more important for the Iraqis to obtain nukes. What would the US had done in Iraq's place? 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. It doesn't prohibit the acquisition of technology which "could be used" or "may be intended" to make nuclear weapons. In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions. The nuclear technology used to build a bomb is essentially the same as the technology which is legally permitted under the NPT. If the NPT did prohibit the "intent" or the "possibility" of building nukes, then it would have to prohibit access to nuclear technology - which it does not. Quite the opposite. 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. My point from the start has not been a moral one but a statement of fact. I contend that nuclear weaponization is eyeran's primary motivating factor. A conclusory statement lacking foundation. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"zalzon" wrote in message news On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:22:08 -0700, Thelasian wrote: Russia alone is a MAJOR exporter. Soviet reactors were built primarily for nuclear weaponization and less for reasons of economics. I devoted a whole paragraph to it in my last email which apparently was ignored. Its one of the reasons the USSR went bankrupt. The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being built at any frantic pace within Russia itself. The USSR had two nuclear power plant design families. The first was the RBMK (Chernobyl type) which was derived from their plutonium production reactor designs, and the other one is the VVER which was purely a power production system (and is technically similar to the PWRs of the West). They never offered RBMKs for export - even to the Warsaw Pack countries. The VVER was sold to a number of client states (Hungary, Bulgaria etc) as well as Finland, and more recently to Iran, China and India. (I happened to be at the Moscow offices of Minatom when the Indians were in negotiation for their two VVER-1000s in 1998 or 1999). The VVER design was one of the two or three designs in the running for the recent Finnish order for a new reactor (the French won the order with their EPR design). The current Russian energy plan has a number of new nuclear plants in it (17 IIRC) and they are currently completing a number of the plants whose construction was suspended post the collapse of the USSR. The suspension of these plants construction was not due to a distaste for nuclear but because the economic collapse following 1991 reduced the electricity consumption in Russia and only now is demand getting to a point where new capacity is needed. What is interesting in the energy field in Russia is that natural gas makes up some 70% of their electricity production. The Russian gas company gets several times the price it is paid in Russia for its exports. It has not invested enough in production fields to keep up with demand. Over the last few years it has reduced supply inside Russia to feed its more profitable export markets - hence increasing the load on the nuclear plants in Russia. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. |
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 |