StringJunky

Can you post the actual paragraphs or sentences they are used for us to get clues from the context?

Cheers. So, it's the small distortions of the Earth's shape, exerted by the gravitational forces of the other bodies, generate friction within the Earth's structure?

Reading up on the heat sources that cause its interior temperatures, I'm a bit puzzled by this: How does the external forces from the other astronomical bodies and its rotation cause 'pressure'? It seems counterintuitive because the forces are from outside and the Earth's rotation will cause a centrifugal.action. At first sight, it seems everything mentioned would seek to pull it apart. My commonsense says that the Earth''s own gravity would centripetally create the necessary pressure but it's not mentioned.

It's not called 'The circle of life' for nothing. I can't see where the "apex" is in a circle.

I did. John said they are alpha emitters. He didn't say anything about the decay products. I suppose what you are saying is that there will be beta emitters in time.

Your picture says U-235 is an alpha emitter.

But with the inside view - you Americans - and the rest of us giving the outside we can still have an interesting conversation on analysing the problem. We aren't wedded overtly to political paricular ideologies... apart from Phi who is a closet commie. This is time to stand with our back straight and facing up to it. We have to show Iran and everyone else we are trustworthy.... the long game matters here more than any short--terminism. We have to show Russia and China that we are principled and not blindly loyal to our allies when they are clearly in the wrong.

I was thinking of you sensible guys here when I added that. Yes, the current international face of America is pretty ugly and untrustworthy; like a bully with amnesia that selectively forgets its commitments. If this all leads to conflict between the other signatories and the US, I'm all for it... America's being a bastard.

Try top-right by your username and click on the down triangle. It's possible you might not be able to just yet. I know you will be limited to 5 posts for 24 hours. It's all to do with spam mitigation.

Cheers.

To everybody: Do you think it's fair that the US is lumping the other issues - like Syria - with the nuclear issue? I'm thinking they are not relevant because nuclear weapons development are a whole other ball game to the other issues and it's solely about avoiding nucler proliferation. I'm also thinking the US is making unreasonable demands on Iran and impossibly complicating the problem by tying the other issues to the nuclear accord. The regional issues are just the normal course of international events where everyone is fighting their corner regarding differences and issues that have been going on for decades, if not centuries. Think of all the problems we have with Russia yet the US still continues with all the treaties. Lots of things are kept separate and it should be so with Iran. When I say the 'US', you know I mean Trump.

Cheers. edit: i watched it. I didn't realise it was that hands on then and done such close proximity. Pretty scary really.

Interesting. Do you know a link for it? This might interest you: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/science-behind-atom-bomb

Yes, it's the most reactive naturally occurring element and likely does not exist in the free form in useful quantities.

You mean a gun-type? It aint going to be physically small and you will need 50Kg of U-235. You can't use plutonium in this weapon because it's too spontaneously fissionable and hence dangerous, so you have to use a subcritical mass in an implosion-type. The logistics, engineering and mathematics required for this type is only possible by a state actor.

Fluorine has a terrestrial abundance of a third that of carbon. It is the 13th most abundant element on Earth. http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/CrustAbundance.an.html

You mean you would mix up some radioactive material with some conventional explosive so that it throws radiation everywhere? I did mention NK as being a weak spot. My position is an amalgamation of many articles from government websites over a few years. Not looked into it for a good while, so no references off the top of my head. I basically searched how to make fission and thermonuclear weapons and their security protocols from the top down.

Many don't know what they don't know, so science is fair game for pulling stuff out of ones dark place.

Say 'Hi' to your back from me. LOL!

Nice. Are you now going to wish for a Fields Medal and Nobel? Sadolin is a pretty good one coat finish. It gives a nice sheen and good weatherproofing.

Yes, with the gun-type, there's just the not small problem of getting that much material but handling that much material is not trivial, as I''m sure you are aware.

Yep. I've gone into it in some depth and, overall, an amateur atomic device is pretty much a fantasy. The most dangerous security-wise would probably be N. Korea because you don't know what safety and security protocols they've got, given they are pretty new to it. In the 50's and 60's, in the UK, all you needed was the physical key to arm one... it was very trust-based.

It's many times harder to make a mini-nuclear bomb with a non-critical mass than it is to make one with a citical mass and the latter requires about 50Kgs of fissible material, which is going to cost you over $50m just for that. Only a state actor can make a nuclear bomb.

Even if they did get hold of one, they wouldn't be able to set off the thermonuclear part. They contain non-critical masses, so the worst that would happen is they'd spread a bit of radiation around with the little bit of conventional explosive that's in one.

If anyone is using Linux, Mac or Android you can use F-Lux on those if you want the ability to warm up your screen atnight or in the day as well.. https://justgetflux.com