Alderan's Destruction, Divergant thread of the Tech debate.

[RedImperator]

Stewie, you DO realize the only reason the uranium jacket fissions is because IT'S INCHES AWAY FROM A DETONATING NUCLEAR WARHEAD, right? How much energy do you think it takes to bombard a multi kilometer sphere of U-238 at the core of an Earth-like planet with the same density and intensity of neutrons?

[consequences]

Were did you read that? Both of the articles that I read had dimentions of 25-50 miles and 31-62 miles. ( see POPULAR SCIENCE.)

You can provide exact figures but not exact references (i.e. publication date, page #)?? Bullshit.

What makes you think it takes that much energy to blow up a planet? There are several compeeting theories and the better ones come up with much less energy than that, generated by the overcomeing gravity model.

It's called observation, fucktard.

Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA

Do you KNOW why U-238 is stable? It's because it requires a net input of energy to cause it to fission!!!


BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

U-238 fission consumes more energy than it releases! It is a net-loss reaction!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Your ignorance is showing. Did you know that THE MAJOR component of ALL larger weapons is U-238? It is used as a sleve wraped around the fusion secondary in ALL larger yeald weapons, providing more than 50% ot the total yeald!

If Rhodes books are to thick for you, try the 1ST NUCLEAR WEAPONS DATA BOOK.

If a fucking sleeve can provide 'more than half' the energy in a fusion bomb, why the fuck would anyone bother with the fusion bomb in the first place asshat?! Does the sleeve of plastic explosive around the Uranium in a fission bomb provide 50%+ of the energy release from the bomb? The entire point about using a fission detonation to kickstart a fusion reaction is that a far higher energy yield can be gained from a fusion reaction, and the only efficient means we have of creating one is by using an atomic explosion as the fucking pilot light.

[Patrick Degan]

Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.

It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)

Wrong, stupid. The theory which most economically fits the observation is the one which wins —not the one which makes you least uncomfortable.

Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before.

But answering a posit with a false argument does not win the debate, no mater how many times it has been mooted.

Then you should quit doing so.

And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required.

Wrong again. The fact that the planet explodes does not favor any one theory. Only that it does explode. It is up to us to find THE THEORY that requires the least conjecture and suspension of disbelife. The DET model fails on many fronts. I propose that you list all of the defects with my theory that you can point out in current common science, then make a list of all the things that we must suspend our colective disbelife to make yours work. It is not fair to list the piont that my theory makes the DS less powerfull than you would want to belive as a defect.

Two objections spring immediately to the forefront: the fact that the necessary energy density conditions for induced critical mass cannot exist at the core of a terrestrial planet, and the fact that in the theory you incompetently attempt to hold coliquy upon, the mechanism for the alledged heating at the core is one of natural isotopic decay. A third is that no portion of a planetary mass is of uniform density at any level to begin with, including the core. In short —as has been pointed out in every other shredding of the Krypton Theory of Alderaan's destruction— the mechanism required to induce any sort of fission reaction in a mostly non-fissionable mass is several orders of magnitude more complicated than the default explanation of a DET event.

The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.

Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.

Wrong again, stupid. If the Death Star is observed having no problem with disposal of waste heat from its own energy generation processes (of which the two-metre port is but one componnent), then there is no reason to assume that this is any concern which defeats default explanations as to the function of the battlestation's engines or its main weapon.

Your defective logic is showing. Sincerely, Stewart.

Your fault I do believe, you quite incincere little twit.

[Stewart at SDI]

You have just proven your ignorance beyond all shadow of a dought!

Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons. That is why all larger Thermonuclear weapons get 50% or more from the Depleated Urainium sleeve that is placed around the thermonuclear "Secondary".

You're a moron. If the Death Star must subject the planetary core to the same intensity of neutron radiation found inside a nuclear warhead, then you have hardly reduced its energy requirements, dumb-fuck! Fast fission is more difficult to produce than slow fission, and it can only work in the ridiculously neutron-dense environment of a nuclear warhead, which is why nuclear reactors don't even bother with fast fission at all.

What has that got to do with my theory? If they can make the fast nutrons they can crack the planet with much less energy. Therefore the DS does not have to supply it all. Just the nutron burst. And it's energy requirements are many OoM less.

At least one isotope of Thorium, U-233, U-235 and all the isotopes of plutonium that I can remember will all fission when struck by so-called slow "thermal" nutrons which is why they are used to make small Fission bombs. It is easy to get slow nutrons but hard to make fast ones.

You're a moron. The reason nuclear reactors have neutron moderator fluid is that fast neutrons are more common and undesirable than slow ones. Why? Because fast fission has a far lower reaction probability than slow fission. Why do you think they need various tampers and such to reflect escaping neutrons back into the core? Fast neutrons are bad; they tend to fly right out of the core without capture.

What does that have to do with the effect of a large burst of fast nutrons on a large ball of U-238? Will it explode or not under the stated conditions? Do high yeald weapons get most of their yeald from fission?
This is another attemp to side step the issue at hand, where does the DS get rid of the waist energy in the DET Model?

Sure, the ridiculous neutron density in a detonating nuclear warhead can make it happen anyway, but that only makes my point for me, moron. Even given all of your other assumptions, you have to subject the planet to ridiculous conditions in order to make this happen. In short, you are arguing that stable uranium isotopes will undergo fission when subjected to massively intense nuclear radiation like that found at the surface of a detonating thermonuclear warhead, then you postulate that this condition exists uniformly throughout an entire 80km wide sphere at the Earth's core and an 80km wide column up the planet's surface.

These are all your assumptions, none of which I made in the origional post. You make these wild assumptions then nock them down like the straw men they are. The real question is what does the DS do with the energy gained as a factor of the in-efficiancy of the mechanism?

So why don't you back up your bullshit? Produce an energy estimate for subjecting an entire 80km wide sphere at the Earth's centre to this enormous uniform super-intense neutron flux with an energy beam from outside the planet. Show that this energy requirement is below 2.4E32 J. Not that this matters given the requirement for 1E38 J, but you have spent an awful lot of time claiming that you have nuclear weapons expertise and precisely zero time demonstrating it.

see above.

I recomend that you read Richard Rhodes's THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN. They are probably the best un-clasified works on the subject and after you have read them you will not be so ignorant on the subject.

I used to work for Ontario Hydro in a nuclear power plant, moron. Don't bullshit me with your pathetic claims of superior knowledge.

I did not try to do that at all. I just stated that my theory required less suspension of disbelife than yours. I am not a Nuclear Physisist, do not pretend to have expertise in that aria and would not have a clue how to do as you propose.

How ever, you implied that you do have this expertise! Why don't you provide the numbers and formula's to disprove my origional post? As it stands now, I only have one problem with my theory, how to get the required fast nutron flux. The DET theory has so many holes and defects that just this first test about wast heat has shown that no one here can support it.

[Stewart at SDI]

Why would reading a book on the history of nuclear weapons matter in a discussion involving nuclear physics? Knowing the history of who made the bomb pales in comparison to comprehending the physics involved in it's detonation. That's the difference here, Stewart: People here know how and why such things work, unlike you.

If they did why have so many of them spouted so much poor knowledge?

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, and BTW:

HOW ABOUT THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWPID?

[Stewart at SDI]

I knew how to properly cite articles in eighth grade. In college, it's one of the few academic skills both liberal arts and science majors have to know. Either Stewie is lying about his sources or he's lying about his education--probably both.

Not at all. I am just going from memory. This is an interesting diversion not something I spend real time on. If I had to go and find the source material and take notes I'de never have time to write.

[The Dude]

As it stands now, I only have one problem with my theory, how to get the required fast nutron flux.

Well, that and the minor point that an 8km ball of uranium (as indicated in the provided source from Discovery), even if it was magically 100% fissile, would leave you TEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE short of the energy of the observed event.

But hey, while you're being a retarded asshat, why let little things like errors of TEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE get in your way?

[Stewart at SDI]

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

I chalenged you to produce them, after all you are the one who claimed expertise, I just mooted the point. It's up to you to show that my theory is less valid that the DET model which still has the waste heat problem unanswered.

[The Dude]

Not at all. I am just going from memory. This is an interesting diversion not something I spend real time on. If I had to go and find the source material and take notes I'de never have time to write.

Right. You can't spare time to cite real sources, but you have time for your 1000-mile whirlwind tour of eight imaginary profs.


Do try to keep your lies straight, kid.

[The Dude]

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

I chalenged you to produce them, after all you are the one who claimed expertise, I just mooted the point.

In other words, you conceded that you know not of what you speak, and have tried to shift the burder of proof in the most transparent weasel move since, well, your last one.

It's up to you to show that my theory is less valid that the DET model

Your theory comes up ten orders of magnitude short on the energy requirement, for starters.

which still has the waste heat problem unanswered.

You have not shown that the superlaser produces problematic amounts of waste heat. In fact, we know that the DS core reactor produces so little waste heat that it can be serviced by a single 2-m wide exhaust line.

You lose, dumbass.

[Stewart at SDI]

http://www.discover.com/en/issues/aug-02/cover/

This claims a ball 8km wide, Stewtard.

It's 1000 times too small, even if it was 100% fissile (which it's not) and even if the Alderaan explosion was a ~1e32J event instead of a ~1e38J one (which it wasn't).

Where's the beef, Stewie???

Neet article. Others say other things, IIRC. and if I don't, what has that got to do with the dispute here. The main point of contention is the waste heat and how to avoid it's vaporising the DS.

[DPDarkPrimus]

WHAT'S THE PATENT NUMBER FOR YOUR COPYRIGHT, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT?

[Stewart at SDI]

And reading Richard Rhodes' Magic Book is going to make you an expert on atomic weapons? An editorial review has this to say about it, note the bolded parts.

From Library Journal
This is a massive work dealing with the history of the people and the science that preceded and then made possible the development of the atomic bomb. Heavily biographical, the book provides portraits of the many players from Szilard and Einstein to Oppenheimer. Rhodes includes detailed explanations of the various scientific discoveries beginning in the late 19th century which culminated in the Manhattan Project. The book is heavily documented and includes a 13-page bibliography. This is a definitive work, well written, with a gripping story. It is not an easy book to read, but it is well worth the effort. BOMC alternate. Hilary D. Burton, Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Livermore, Cal.

If you want to know how nuclear weapons work, go hit up the Nuclear Weapons FAQ instead of reading through some stupid ass book on the history & politics of nuclear weapons. A book I might add which only covers the events up to Japan getting nuked.

Note that the referance above also has the science behind the discoveries and I said read both books.

[The Kernel]

WHAT'S THE PATENT NUMBER FOR YOUR COPYRIGHT, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT?

Ummmm, DP? Patent and Copyrights are NOT interchangable, and I doubt that you will be able to trace a copyright reference, unlike a patent which is easily availible.

[The Dude]

Neet article. Others say other things, IIRC.

Bullshit. Provide a source.

I have one published source that backs me up. You have zero. You lose.

The main point of contention is the waste heat and how to avoid it's vaporising the DS.

The DS is so efficient that the ~1e32w reactor can be serviced by a single 2-m exhaust vent. Your attempt to manufacture a dilemma is as pathetic as your research skills.

[Stewart at SDI]

Logic dictates that it must in the absence of any other theory that does not violate the rules of science and SoD.

Then show us HOW the Death Star being a DET weapon violates the laws of physics. Since you have no idea what powers the Death Star (it might have a singularity at its core after all) you have no cause to simply dismiss the DET theory.

Yes I do. It, the DET theory, is based on thermodynamic laws to determine energy of the planets explosion. But when those same laws are applied to the wast heat from the Laser mechanism the DS is not just toast but steam! It takes more SoD to belive in the DET Model than the Nutron beam model.

[The Kernel]

Yes I do. It, the DET theory, is based on thermodynamic laws to determine energy of the planets explosion. But when those same laws are applied to the wast heat from the Laser mechanism the DS is not just toast but steam! It takes more SoD to belive in the DET Model than the Nutron beam model.

And how, pray tell, do you know what the waste heat generated by the Superlaser is? Are you going to now suggest it is an actual LASER (which it isn't)? You get funnier all the time.

[Stewart at SDI]

Wait, I know!

Stewie, if you have a "copy write", then what is the number assigned to it?

You would, of course, have this easily accessible, as you want to have it available to throw at anyone who violates it.

Why should I do that? The PC marketing model shows that open source systems are self replicating and add to them selves as everyone putts in their two cents worth. I'll see if I can find it just for you.

[The Dude]

Note that the referance above also has the
science behind the discoveries and I said read both books.

You know Stewie, you should do a little research before you try to pretend you're an analyst of any sort. Saying "read this book" is not a valid citation. If you can't provide a specific reference (i.e. with page number), then you are obviously full of shit and trying to buy some cheap rhetorical victory.

Name the page that backs up your claim, or we can dismiss your "reference". It's that simple.

[Stewart at SDI]

Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.

It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)

Wrong, stupid. The theory which most economically fits the observation is the one which wins —not the one which makes you least uncomfortable.

Exactly right! The DET theory has at least two defects to get the same effect. How does the DS make that much energy and how does it get rid of the waste energy implied by less than perfect efficiancy without blowing up?

My theory only has one defect That the Heavy metal ball at the center of the planet might not be large enough, and that is in dispute?

Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before.

But answering a posit with a false argument does not win the debate, no mater how many times it has been mooted.

Then you should quit doing so.

And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required.

Wrong again. The fact that the planet explodes does not favor any one theory. Only that it does explode. It is up to us to find THE THEORY that requires the least conjecture and suspension of disbelife. The DET model fails on many fronts. I propose that you list all of the defects with my theory that you can point out in current common science, then make a list of all the things that we must suspend our colective disbelife to make yours work. It is not fair to list the piont that my theory makes the DS less powerfull than you would want to belive as a defect.

Two objections spring immediately to the forefront: the fact that the necessary energy density conditions for induced critical mass cannot exist at the core of a terrestrial planet, and the fact that in the theory you incompetently attempt to hold coliquy upon, the mechanism for the alledged heating at the core is one of natural isotopic decay. A third is that no portion of a planetary mass is of uniform density at any level to begin with, including the core. In short —as has been pointed out in every other shredding of the Krypton Theory of Alderaan's destruction— the mechanism required to induce any sort of fission reaction in a mostly non-fissionable mass is several orders of magnitude more complicated than the default explanation of a DET event.

The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.

Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.

Wrong again, stupid. If the Death Star is observed having no problem with disposal of waste heat from its own energy generation processes (of which the two-metre port is but one componnent), then there is no reason to assume that this is any concern which defeats default explanations as to the function of the battlestation's engines or its main weapon.

Your defective logic is showing. Sincerely, Stewart.

Your fault I do believe, you quite incincere little twit.

[Darth Wong]

I chalenged you to produce them, after all you are the one who claimed expertise,

I am obligated to produce calculations to show that YOUR theory is feasible? That's rich. For the umpteenth time, YOU have claimed superior expertise. I now demand that you back up your claim. Once more:

WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?

Or should I subject you to an ultimatum, you lying little shit?

[Darth Wong]

What do you think, people? Should Shithead from SDI be faced with an ultimatum to back up his claims or be unceremoniously ejected from the board? He claims to have nuclear weapons expertise, yet has shirked every demand to demonstrate this expertise with calculations supporting the feasibility of his theory. He claims to have expertise superior to mine, yet when I challenge him to produce said calculations, he retorts that I should do it because I'm the one with expertise (it would be nice if he could keep his story straight). He claims to be a "Dean of Technology" but says he's "computer illiterate" when challenged to produce scans of his university degree, and then reveals that he's developing computer software. The litany of lies is complex, stunning, and remarkably audacious, yet he refuses to admit to even the slightest deception or error.

How much more of this bullshit should we tolerate, people? Should we give him 24 hours to come up with calculations demonstrating the feasibility of his theory?

[The Kernel]

How much more of this bullshit should we tolerate, people? Should we give him 24 hours to come up with calculations demonstrating the feasibility of his theory?

Yes, I believe an ultimatum is in order. He has been going around in circles with this argument forever and he REFUSES to provide any evidence of calculations. We have been more than fair, but I think it's put up or be fucked in the ass time for little Stewie.

[Stewart at SDI]

As it stands now, I only have one problem with my theory, how to get the required fast nutron flux.

Well, that and the minor point that an 8km ball of uranium (as indicated in the provided source from Discovery), even if it was magically 100% fissile, would leave you TEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE short of the energy of the observed event.

But the waste heat problem is 25 orders of magnatude off! Minus my ten OoM leaves 15 as your defect!

But hey, while you're being a retarded asshat, why let little things like errors of TEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE get in your way?

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY! EXCEPT YOUR PROBLEM IS 25 OoM!