Subnostr

it's simple as this:

there is nothing so special about government scientists, who supposedly have the monopoly on being able to make this supposed mechanism work, when they did the computations on computers that were barely more than calculators, they didn't test the components of the system properly, and somehow they magically made it work the first time, and none of the "science" has ever been verified by anyone without a top secret clearance.

it's a scam.

it has never happened that one of these alleged explosions occurred outside of "top secret", fully stage managed conditions. and the science of the physics of radiactive decay is known well enough that if terrorists were able to get themselves a bunch of pure enough plutonium, they WOULD have used it by now.

if it were possible.

it's not possible.

best you can get out of these things is a dirty bomb. most of the publicly released info about the devices is explosives. they would make a bit of a mess but the physical damage created by the supposed hiroshima and nagasaki bombs, when examined by experts in conventional explosives, were underwhelmed by the damage and an extraordinary amount of structures and even things like power poles somehow withstood being right underneath the detonation. just like conventional explosives do.

it's not questioning the reality of nuclear fission.

it's questioning the reality of the godlike burning the sky doomsday narrative around it, even though there is no verification or facts coming from anyone who hasn't got the blessing of the Gods, i mean government.

there's no way, if it were real technology, that they wouldn't have used it by now. it's a bogeyman. it's like the aztecs saying "if you don't let us kill these virgins brutally the sun will burn your crops".

it's bullshit.

like all of the supposed weapons of mass destruction.

they don't exist. it's theatre, to keep the sheep in line, threat that they have convinced everyone to tremble in fear of, if the enemy has it, to support invading the enemy's country to "remove their nuclear weapons"

pure bullshit. pure government, megalomaniacal fantasy.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 6mo ago

i might just point out, and this is a major engineering issue, that the density of metals decreases a lot between a very low temperature (eg -50'C) and a hot day (40-70'C) that it can cause railways to to buckle and become impossible to traverse.

it's not a huge differential, but it's enough to destroy the precision of a machine. a lot of machines made from metal are designed to tolerate this expansion by forming them at a size where they have the optimal tolerances at "working temperature"

"nuclear bombs" suffer from this same problem, but they have much greater intolerance for temperatures causing the uranium/plutonium metal expanding and shrinking, because they require a precise mating of carefully machined surfaces.

this is another aspect of the bullshit factor of the nuclear bomb narrative.

the "gun" style impactor for triggering fission is not so dangerous in the sense that such swelling won't triggen an unintentional meltdown, but it prevents them from detonating (supposedly) properly because they won't mate neatly unless you have a very big and bulky temperature control system around the device.

the imploder style, also suffers from this problem, because not only do the metallic parts shrink and expand with temperature, so do the explosives, and the trigger mechanisms can be affected also by this change of size.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

vinney...axkl 6mo ago

wild that this is where this thread started, talking about tags: nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqnyqqft6tz9g9pyaqjvp0s4a4tvcfvj6gkke7mddvmj86w68uwe0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzpq8e84ycl96hw78zc9k3ekn9v2mpdsae46wjdpqlqlxvyyy2rlkug6tkdq

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 6mo ago

nah, these are just subjects that are concurrently on my mind at the moment.

the question of whether nuclear detonation can exist in my opinion can be summarised by the fact that nobody bothered to make a small scale version. where are the 10x lighter explosives using plutonium then? if it works? why would you not want this. especially if you are deploying it with a drone.

many scifi writers have even speculated on this subject in fiction but the reality is

there

such

thing

nuclear

fission

based

explosive

freemymind 🇨🇭 6mo ago

Somepeople are just so desprate to be heared, they creat fantastic stories in the hope someone beliefs them too. Critiquing science, without the slightest understanding what science means really.

I feel on one side bad for those- lost souls. On the other side there are also some who just rather want to beliefe a spectacular lie instead of a unspectacular truth.

What all #conspiracy theories have in common is, that they base on the idea, that big changes in reality need an equal amount of effort to be taken for it to happen. So when there is a big impact like the No-King-Demonstrations in the US, they assume there has to be a big organisation behind it.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 6mo ago

it is also true that in many cases, engineers have worked around problems like these by using ceramic components, which have a much lower coefficient of size/density reaction to especially higher temperatures. mechanically, with tight tolerances and precise forming, such devices can have components made out of ceramics to eliminate this problem, and additionally, reduce the amount of effort that needs to be made to control the tolerance of a device that spends much of its life idle, by buffering the thermal transfer into the internal workings.

in many cases, the strain that a ceramic part can tolerate without fracture is comparable to a metallic part, and many designs have switched to using ceramic parts for these components, but it's not a silver bullet because if the device vibrates a lot, momentary force can exceed the breaking strength of the material and render any advantages of temperature tolerance moot.

also, different metals have different thermal conductivity and coefficients of expansion, and sometimes just switching from steel to a different alloy with nickel, chromium, or other metals (eg vanadium, molybdenum) can solve such issues of thermal expansion, and for example titanium has a lot of advantage over steel in some applications because it has a lower coefficient of expansion and a higher elasticity of even the most carefully tempered steel part, with the additional advantage of being corrosion resistant and having a higher melting point.

for similar reasons sometimes it is more effective to switch out steel for aluminium for a part, because weight and thermal conductivity are advantageous, aluminium is a bit like a poor-man's silver in this respect, to the point where it has been substituted, stupidly, by some telecomms companies for copper (due to the cost) resulting in wiring that catastrophically fails with age because aluminium is much easire to oxidise, once it faces any kind of mechanical stress or friction, and once the oxides start to form channels into the metal their conductivity properties fail and start to switch to being capacitative, or even resistive.