John Cuthber

Not a trivial task, I think silica, sapphire and tungsten and maybe molybdenum would be OK (The metals might need carbide facings to prevent reaction with the sample) , but that sort of thing isn't a trivial engineering task. Platinum is probably OK too, as long as you keep it away from the carbon. On the whole, I don't think you are going to get a solution from a web page like this unless you are lucky and some passing expert in the field helps you out.

If I think about a lot of zeros does my head get heavier?

My understanding is the the USPO doesn't , strictly speaking, ban patents on perpetual motion machines. They just ask you to set a model going in their office and come back in a year's time. Of course, it may be that now with a better understanding of physics, and the fact that I can buy a cheap battery operated watch that will pass that test, they have changed. Incidentally, at the bottom of those videos is a control marked "quality" I tried changing it, but the video was still rubbish.

yes, I have a thought. Both of them are wrong.

To a good approximation, we know how much is "excess" because we put it there and, more often than not, we paid tax on it. There'a are also historical records of the CO2 concentration in the air going back to the start of major fossil fuel use. The numbers pretty much tally. the CO2 mixes fairly well over the course of a year or so.

No, I'm way better looking.

Do you think he has realised yet? If he comes back and brags he will automatically be banned for sock-puppeting.

They do act as a damper. The question is how strongly. Since the only plausible source would be rocks which are nothing like pure uranium your being silly. The real bombs have been made with rather high purity uranium, but it would not (and could not) have been 100%. That's why I never specified 100% . You made that up as a way to make my argument look invalid. But it's a strawman so it hasn't worked "The critical mass can exist well before the even..." I didn't ask when, I asked how? Would you like me to ask again? OK What you need is a high degree of purity. How do you propose to get that?

" your basing your claims that it can't be an explosion in the ground on the basis that there all explosions have to generate some deep circular hole, like ones you see in completely flat terrain." No. I never said that, it's a figment of your imagination. So it's another strawman. Which makes "Saying I'm starmanning is strawmanning, no staff member asserted I was doing such," a bit of a farce. Just because you were not caught doesn't mean you were not guilty. "That's already a given, if the oxygen wasn't a problem the critical density would already exist and there' be no point discussing it." Still no. You would need the critical mass. "Well if you support the fireball theory, then you need to accept that a meteor can have just the right mass." Any mass in quite a large range as opposed to exactly 15Kg "How do you get "it definitively happened at location x" when I said "I don't know"?" I never said anything like that though, did I? So, guess what? Yes, it's another strawman. " I should logically be able to say there's a lot you don't know because it doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of computer science or graphic design and so I could say there's a lot you don't know by the same exact standards." Indeed, but I don't post bollocks about computer science on the web. (Anyway, I'm off to work now , where I have some software development + programming to do)

Just as well that nobody said you did need 100% then isn't it (or was that another attempt at a strawman)? What you need is a high degree of purity. How do you propose to get that?

While I agree that some sort of average points per post would be good, I thought about marking michel down for spurious accuracy.

There's just too much rubbish to respond to all of it. Here are the edited lo lights "So why are you trying to say that just because one explosion makes a perfect circle at a predicable angle that all explosions do that?" I didn't say that. Straw manning is banned by the site rules and you have been warned before. "But the oxygen is merely what inhibits critical density. If critical density of the isotope was achieved, there is a chance for the reaction to occur." No, there's neutron absorption to take into account too. Oxygen isn't bad on that score but the other isotopes of uranium and it's decay products are. You say the incoming meteor has to be massive enough not to completely disintegrate, but light enough that it can completely disintegrate. That's absurd but in any event, it's nothing like as serious a constraint as the fact that the uranium needs to be 15Kg. "I don't know if it didn't leave any hole, " So it didn't happen at ground level. That kills the idea of tectonics and it also leads to the question of what might have triggered some insanely improbably 15Kg lump of uranium to cross the cosmos and get part way through our atmosphere then blow up before it hit the ground. If I claimed that baked beans are impossible I would get corrected. If I claimed that Russel's teapot was impossible I'd get corrected. What wrong information do you think I could give that would go unchallenged? "I'm not the one who's going around saying things like "there's a lot you don't know..."" A straight statement of fact. Would you like to argue that it is false?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should give up. It seems that part of the problem is that you can't, or won't, read. "Are those isolated systems?" No, please see the laws of thermodynamics. "A proposed mechanism is the compress from kinetic energy outside the ore deposit, or in the case of the meteor, from out space." That won't separate isotopes will it? So why did you waste time and bandwidth on it? ..."but you don't automatically get some nice circular hole that seems to exactly fit some kind of semi-sphere..." You are the only one who seems to think it might. "If the ore compresses enough, the isotope doesn't need to be "filtered", the 235 isotopes are in close enough proximity for a neutron to happen to strike a 235 isotope which is close enough to other isotopes that are close enough to others for the reaction to continue. " No, for two reasons Firstly the other isotopes and any impurities absorb neutrons so they quench the reaction. Secondly that the pressures involved even for pure U235 oxide would be too high to be present anywhere near the surface. If it happened, it would be so deep that it wouldn't be observable from the surface. However, at that depth, the temperature would be high enough to melt the stuff so there would be mixing and ... The site documented 1 what I said and 2 what you said that I said and 3 that the two are not the same. Why did you waste time on that rubbish about a team of scientists and whatever? So, you accept that we can recognise craters, even when they don't look like the "classic" and you said that there isn't one at the site concerned. OK, but you are arguing against yourself. No crater: no blast.

""High degree of purity" so we've established pure doesn't mean 100% 235." Nobody said it did. What was said was a high degree of purity or " pure enough to fission" (by Moontanman) "the point is that density isn't entropy and doesn't have anything to do with it in this situation," Nobody said it was. What point did you think you were making there? "just because heat likes to spread out doesn't mean it's impossible for matter to go from higher disorder to lower disorder. " No, but for isolated systems that is impossible. What are you saying provides the coupling? Plants grow- in doing so they take very disordered CO2 and make very ordered cellulose, but they take a lot of energy from the sun to do it. What are you proposing as the mechanism for isotopic enrichment? I already said it was the last time I'd explain the fact that you can't get an earthquake above ground, and if it's not above ground you get a crater. I like to bring up the issue of the crater because it's not there. That's what proves that it isn't tectonic activity (along with the impossibility of isotope separation and the fact that it's too slow...) And, finally... "It what manner am I going against documented facts? " You said "You suggested it after I had already laid down the basis for how it worked." Well, I didn't suggest it and it was not suggested after you had said anything about it. So, what you said is different from what is documented here on this site. Did you not realise that? About the only thing you have got right is that Ophiolite makes sense. And as far as I can see, he disagrees with your ideas. Do you understand that not all crates can be described as "a distinguish-ably perfect semi-sphere. "

I wonder why people think it might make much difference. Practically any gay man (at least in the UK) will, during his early life have met people who are profoundly biassed against homosexuality. But that exposure didn't affect their preferences in later life. Why do people think that sexual orientation is driven by, for example, what kids are taught at school? If that was true then there wouldn't be any gay folks left. Nobody was "encouraging" them during most of the last few centuries, so how come they are still here? Perhaps I'm overthinking it: when did xenophobia ever need a reason?

Good jokes are worth having. Also, since what I said was that they newcomers could learn from others' experience it doesn't matter that they are newcomers. Incidentally, if you plan to breach the forum's rules you might want not to advertise the fact first. rule 9 http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules and don't kid yourself that changing your IP address would protect you.

1 to get an atomic explosion you need to get the right uranium isotope to a high degree of purity. That's a low entropy state and will not arise spontaneously. If you think the concept of entropy is on your side then you have not understood it. 2 What, you want me to tell you again? OK, but this is the last time. You say there's no crater. In order not to leave a crater, the explosion needs to take place at altitude. You keep saying it's possibly due to tectonic action. Practically speaking that means you need an earthquake thousands of feet above the ground. 3 I didn't really suggest it. Ophiolite suggested it here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69624-radioactivity-in-the-past/ post number 4 October 10th. That was after you had said this, and only this, on the subject. "I know it's bull, but there's still no other explanation for it that I found. Essentially on the history channel they were exploring possibilities that aliens were involved in the past, and a lot of evidence was subject to interpretation, but there was a particular one that got me, which is that in India, there is a field of glass that nearly perfectly matches the type of glass that was produced in deserts in the US where nuclear bomb testing was done, in fact atomic bombs specifically melt rock as to have formed that type glass, so my question is: is it plausible that a meteor with high uranium content struck the Earth and become compressed enough to cause an explosion? Or is it plausible from tectonic activity that enough uranium ore could have been compressed to trigger the reaction? Because there was scanning of the radiation in the area, and it was higher than usual, and on top of that it was recorded in ancient Indian hieroglyphics that there was a create explosion-like scene that injured and killed many people that was found near that region. " Afterwards you sought to dispute it by saying "Could have been a normal meteor in some cases too, not saying it's impossible, but there's no impact crater. " in post 33 of that thread. October 14th Why are you trying to make assertions like that which go against the documented facts?

One of them is doing its best to be the market leader. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/08/mitt-romney-616-lies-in-33-weeks/

Gosh! I find I'm agreeing with Rigney.

What level of UV exposure do you think evolution will equipped us to deal with?

Surely nobody would stoop to that?

You know it's not a strawman, it's the message that the creationists are trying to push. Claiming that all they want is "having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " is just plain wrong and it's obviously wrong. So, it's a strawman. Why don't you admit it?

" A small ammount of the UV can escape through the screen," Any evidence for that? It would have to go through a couple of layers of polariser, a few sheets of glass and the liquid crystal itself. Any of those is going to absorb UV quite well. "The old cathode ray tube monitors also had a small ammount of UV, although I am not sure how much." Again, any evidence? The reason I ask is that CRTs had thick lead glass screens to hold off atmospheric pressure and to block xrays. Most glass absorbs UV fairly well. The thicker you make it the better it absorbs. Adding lead isn't going to improve the transmission of UV. I'm not saying the UV output is zero. I'm just saying I'd like evidence that it's more than daylight before I worry about it.

"As much as you might like to, you can't legislate fairness." That's exactly what most legislation seeks to do. "I absolutely object to the notion that you have the right to tell someone who they have to work with." Just as well that's not what's happening then isn't it. Or was it another logical fallacy (specifically a strawman)?

If you look you ill see that I put the word equivalent in quote marks. "The typical rule is 4 watts of equivalent incandescent light output for every 1 watt of LED power. " Says who? Anyway, the lumens per Watt is going to be fairly consistent. That $10,000 projector uses 7000 lumens the lamp I cited gives 600 and burns 7 Watts So 80/7 *600 is about 7000 lumens. The heatsink you cited is about the right size for the very expensive projector and has nothing to do with ordinary domestic lighting and so, rather little to do with the thread.