Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <9Viqg.33791$VE1.32549@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <Ydiqg.33777$VE1.17079@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <hPhqg.33768$VE1.6509@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <91hqg.33754$VE1.24684@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <1Qfqg.79680$4L1.37165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

[snip]

"In an atomic bomb the chain reaction is designed to increase
in intensity until much of the material has fissioned. This
increase is very rapid and produces the extremely sharp,
tremendously energetic explosions characteristic of such
bombs. In a nuclear reactor the chain reaction is maintained
at a controlled, nearly constant level. Nuclear reactors are
so designed that they cannot explode like atomic bombs."

Well, Edwin? Are all these sources wrong? Or will you just
admit that you weren't as well-informed as you thought you
were -- that you were simply wrong about this?

I don't disagree with any of the above (except where you call
me not well informed or wrong). I didn't mean to say a
reactor would spontaneously explode. My only point was that
the principle of the atomic bomb is simple, to have enough of a
atomic material in one place. A reactor is also just so much
atomic material in one place. The two are not completely
unsimilar concepts. I said from the beginning that a reactor
dilutes this material to the point that it won't make an atom
bomb.

The experts say that enough material can't combine from the
melting of the fuel to make an atomic blast, so I'll accept
that. Thanks for doing the Google searches to find out about
this stuff.

But your "only point" is simply incorrect. The principle of an
atomic bomb is *not* simple once you realize that the "enough
material" means converting uranium into a gas in order to
separate the isotopes by atomic weight until you've removed
enough of the U-238 to make the remaining amount of U-235 of
sufficient *density* to achieve criticality.

Hmm... it seems to me the middle of a molten reactor core is a
good place to vaporize things into gases and let them condense
into layers according to density...

You're doing it again. The difference in density is *TINY*. That's
why they need gas centrifuges, running in series of dozens to get
sufficient enrichment.

So when the whole core, and all the spent fuel melts together,
maybe we get enough of the right stuff brought together. That
would be the U235 or Pu239 you said wasn't present in nuclear
fuel.

I never said it wasn't present in nuclear fuel.

Alan Baker: "Atomic reactors don't use the same mix of isotopes as
atomic bombs."

It's not the same *mix* because it contains the same ingredients but
in different proportions.

The implication was it was different ingredients.



And if the heat is sufficient to vaporize the Uranium, how is it
going to recondense?

When the hot cloud of gas drifts away to a cooler surface.

<sigh>

Do you always sigh when a little simple physics alludes you?

It *eludes* you, apparently.

You used a lot of words where a simple "yes" would have sufficed.


Edwin, if this phenomenon could happen spontaneously in a reactor,
why doesn't the industry use something like it to create the fuel
in the first place.

I never said it would happen spontaneously in the reactor.

Yes, you did. If it didn't happen spontaneously, how would it happen
at all?

As a result of an accident or sabotage.


They have to enrich the fuel from 0.7% U-235 to about 5%
U-235 (weapons grade uranium is about 80% - 90% U-235). The industry
has to use techniques that raise the level of U-235 by a few tenths
of a percent per iteration. If they could simply vaporize uranium to
get it enriched, don't you think they do it?

No, I don't think they'd attempt to produce enriched Uranium (or
Plutonium) by allowing a large, uncontrolled mass of liquid and
gaseous nuclear material to form, and letting it condense out as it
will.

Why would it have to be large masses? Why would it have to be
uncontrolled?

To have the same conditions as a reactor disaster.

Hint: they can't use the method you suggest for *hydrocarbons* with
vastly different molecular masses.

Nonsense. That's exactly the method they use. Different hydrocarbons
condense at various heights in distillary column.




It's not that you need x grams of U-235 to get a critical
reaction, you've got to have x grams per cubic centimetre to get
enough neutrons spontaneously released to cause enough neutrons
to be released by collision to achieve that runaway chain
reaction.

Thanks for the repeat, but I got that already.

One of the flaws in your understanding to this point is the idea
that nuclear fuel is diluted. As I said above, nuclear fuel must
be enriched in a vary complex process. Fuel for nuclear reactors
is never enriched to the point where that is *ever* possible.

Nobody has allowed a large amount of this material to just melt
together to see what would happen. Not even at Three Mile
Island.

They don't have to actually do it. They understand the physics, as
you do not.

You just can't keep libel out of what you write, can you? You
have no idea what I do or do not understand.

I *know* you don't understand the physics of this, because if you
did, you wouldn't be arguing what you are arguing.

Says the guy who didn't know how hot gases can condense.

Of course I knew hot gases can condense, Edwin.

Is that why you asked how they could condense?

Don't be truly asinine.

You beat me to that.


Hell, I know you have done the basic fact checking.

You know nothing of the kind.

I knew all this stuff in general before my first post.

No, you didn't know about what fact checking I did before your first post.



The idea that these people wouldn't tell you if this could happen,
even if it could, never entered your mind did it? For decades
what I wrote here about the atom bomb could not be printed or
broadcast publicly. Yet now you expect these same people who
suppressed the truth for so long to suddenly be 100% honest and
forthcoming.

I've done the fact checking. Multiple sources, both inside and
outside the industry agree.

IOW, you didn't understand a thing I wrote above. And you don't
have any sources outside of Google.

Who said I've done all the fact checking today? I've known about this
stuff for *years*.

Gaffaw! Sure you did, Alan, sure you did.




What you've been saying is akin to saying that since TNT and
nitroglycerine are both nitrogen based explosives, they must
both behave the same way.

No, I'm not.

It is *different* atomic material than that
used to make nuclear weapons and so it has inherently different
properties.

No, it's not. They're both either U235 or Pu-239, the
difference is the percentage of each present.

Yes, it does. The percentages make all the difference.

Different percentages don't make them different isotopes, or did
you forget claiming they are different? And what happens when the
material all melts and separates into layers of differing density?
You do realize liquids and gases do that, right?

Actually, unless they're densities are wildly different, they don't.

Incorrect.

Please provide the proof.

I did so in another reply.


Or why doesn't oxygen settle to the bottom of a container because
it's heavier than nitrogen?

It would if it were liquified.

Actually, it might.

Whoa... what's happening to Alan "had the facts for years" Baker?

But that doesn't mean the same applies to isotopes
of uranium which are much closer in atomic mass.

Seawater separates into strata according to temperature and salinity. I'll
bet the atomic mass of the salt and water stay the same. Yet they stratify.
Boggling, isn't it?


The difference in molecular mass between O2 and
N2 is about about 14% (molecular oxygen is 14% massier than
molecular nitrogen), but they won't separate after years and years.

You're not adding in the dynamics of a melting atomic reactor.

Now you're just making stuff up. You can't provide an explanation of
what you mean in that sentence with or without references. I dare you.

I think what I said is obvious. You're trying to think of a chaotic,
catastrophic event as if you could predict its outcome the way you would for
mixing chemicals in a test tube.


And you
think that U-235 and U-238 are going to spontaneously separate fast
enough to cause a chunk of 80% - 90% U-235 large enough to go
critical to spontaneously form when their difference in masses is
less than 2%?

And what if the 100% density figure to achieve critical mass, that
you were given, was a lie?

Hmmmmmm...

Then the physical model of the universe as we know it is utterly
wrong.

Please provide the kind of proof you keep demanding from me, okay?


I'll tell you why: because the kinetic energy inherent in the
gaseous state is more than enough to keep it

You're still not considering the insides of a melted reactor.

Explain it to us, Edwin!

Again?

Do the basic research, Edwin.

You just can't help but be arrorgant, eh?

I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. I can't help that
you think it arrogant to say so.

Is that ego stacked on top of arrogance, or the other way around?


<http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm>

Short form: it takes *thousands* of centrifuges operating for a year
to produce enough weapons grade material for *one* bomb.

<http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html>

Or maybe just a few low grade tons of the stuff boiling an roiling
in a molten reactor core.

Nope. The physics doesn't work that way. There have to be enough U-235
atoms close enough together so that the fission of one leads to the
fission of enough others. If there are too many other atoms in the
way, then they won't go critical. As you claimed to have understood,
its a matter of suffcient *density*.

Yes, and you don't know, and can't possibly say, that that destiny can not
be achieved by melting enough nuclear material together, all at once.





But I can see this is just another of your "wrong again"
crusades, so I'll just leave it at that. It was almost an
enjoyable conversation for awhile, but your need to talk down
to others is just winning out again.

It's not a *crusade*, Edwin.

Sure it is.

Look at how I started. I just tried to
give you better information than you had had up to that point.

You arrogantly decided I lacked information, or my information is
of poor quality.

I was correct.

No you weren't.

You've admitted as much.

No I haven't.

You claimed at first that reactors could explode like atomic bombs,

I said enough nuclear material in one place can explode like a bomb.

and then you said you knew it was wrong.

Then I said I'd accept the experts' opinion that it can not occur during a
reactor melt down.

Make up your mind.

The condraction is of your making, not mine.



Your conclusion was (as you have admitted) faulty,

I said I accepted the experts opinions over my own.

thus I knew you could have the correct background information.

You arrogantly came to that 'conclusion' *before* I made any
alleged "admission."

And I was right.

No you weren't.

I was right because I know enough about the subject.

You only know what Google found for you.

Sorry. Known it for years. I got interested in it when I first heard
about the safety advantages of the CANDU (heavy water) reactor over
the light water reactors typically used in the United States. In
addition to not being able to explode, CANDU's claim to fame is that
it can't melt down either. And since it was designed in Canada, I
read up about it years ago and learned more than a few things about
the realities of nuclear fission power.

Damn, you're going to wear Google out if you keep this up!




I
tried to show you that your understanding was incorrect without
any insult or condescension,

No, you were your usual arrogant, condescending self, as you
continue to be.

What is arrogant or condescending about knowing what one knows?


and you immediately told me that I was
wrong.

I disagreed with you.

You told me that nuclear fuels use the same mix of isotopes as
the nuclear material for bombs, without even doing the courtesy
of any further checking of any kind.

Now you're lying again. I provided quotes that showed they are
the same isotopes, U235 and Pu239.

But you didn't understand that nuclear fuels is U235 and *mostly*
U238.

You are incorrect.

You still don't understand it, apparently.

You are still incorrect.

Nuclear fuel *isn't* mostly U-238?

Nuclear fuel has U235, just like a bomb. What else it has is besides the
point. What can be brought together that will go BOOM is the point.

LOL

You must be an annoying person to be around, what with that constant nervous
laugh of yours...




There wouldn't have been any kind of "crusade" at all, if you'd
just actually went and checked the facts that are easily
available from google search.

Once again you resort to libel.

Where's the libel? You've admitted that the information I provided
you changed your mind

I said I'd accept what the experts had to say.

and if you looked it up and still disagreed with me,
that would have been even worse.

Disagreeing with you was not a problem, and I didn't say anything
would get "worse."

Try to remember the expert here is not you.

Compared to you, I'm a freaking nuclear reactor designer.

No you're not. That's just your arrogance and ego talking. Your
hastily Googled articles do not make as much out of your as your ego
tells you they did.

The Google articles were provided because I knew you wouldn't take my
word for it. I knew I'd find them out there because I already knew I
was right.

Puh-lease.... who do you think you're fooling?




Frankly, you owe me an apology.

Frankly, you have that ass backwards.

I truly feel sorry for you, Edwin.

That's just you being condescending again.

That's honesty.

Alan, honesty and you parted company years ago. You're a picture
on Honesty's milk carton.

LOL

Honesty doesn't think its funny. It wishes you'd come back.



I informed you of the facts.

That's more of your arrogance.

That's truth.

You're incapable of truth, Alan.

LOL

There's that nervous laugh again...



You declared I was wrong with no further checking.

And that's more of your lies and libel.

That's more truth.

Nope. Not by a country mile.

LOL

I see you couldn't think of a reply, again.



And you call me arrogant and condescending...

And you prove me right, in spades.

LOL


LOL

See what I mean?

Yup. Too bad you don't.

You misspelled "no," you arrogant egotist.

LOL

Those letters don't really hide your lack of an argument.


.

Relevant Pages