Science > Physics > was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G. Orme" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2003 08:28:36 PM |
| Object: |
was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
09 Nov 2003 02:53:37 PM |
|
|
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message news:<bok8na$vho$1@news.wplus.net>...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Aside form the grotesquely wrong myths about nuclear chain
reactions, what I find most amusing about the earlier Galileo/Jupiter
scare is that [a]- the decision to drop the probe into the jovian
atmosphere was to spare potential lifeforms on a jovian moon any
damage, yet [b]- they are accused of being careless enough to risk
igniting a stellar furnace in the immediate neighborhood of said moon,
which would be not only be risky to the native orgnanisms, but in fact
would render them extinct. But, as with all such baseless assertions,
why factor in everything when you can factor in only what sounds
gratifyingly juicy.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 05:33:06 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message
news:<bok8na$vho$1@news.wplus.net>...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Aside form the grotesquely wrong myths about nuclear chain
reactions, what I find most amusing about the earlier Galileo/Jupiter
scare is that [a]- the decision to drop the probe into the jovian
atmosphere was to spare potential lifeforms on a jovian moon any
damage, yet [b]- they are accused of being careless enough to risk
igniting a stellar furnace in the immediate neighborhood of said moon,
which would be not only be risky to the native orgnanisms, but in fact
would render them extinct. But, as with all such baseless assertions,
why factor in everything when you can factor in only what sounds
gratifyingly juicy.
-Mark Martin
I agree it is pretty disrespectful to accuse NASA of doing something
dangerous here, but as we know they do have a record of some pretty bad
mistakes. Like for example two probes in a row to mars failing from quite
simple mistakes. I think if someone had have asked them before those whether
they knew enough to get their Imperial and metric measurements straight they
would have been quite insulted at that suggestion too. They would no doubt
have been insulted by anyone suggestioing that they hadn't checked all their
software on the probes as well, but wrong code activating a switch lost the
MPL.
When Galileo was launched it was not apparently designed with the idea
of being flown into Jupiter so the Plutonium pellets were not designed to be
safe in such a situation. It turned out that it was safe which made the
impact possible.
Also I notice the Galileo impacted 1/4 of a degree south of the Equator
yet the dark spot showed up at about 30 degrees South. So they couldn't be
related.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Plutonium 238 |
10 Nov 2003 01:34:11 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message
news:<bok8na$vho$1@news.wplus.net>...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Aside form the grotesquely wrong myths about nuclear chain
reactions, what I find most amusing about the earlier Galileo/Jupiter
scare is that [a]- the decision to drop the probe into the jovian
atmosphere was to spare potential lifeforms on a jovian moon any
damage, yet [b]- they are accused of being careless enough to risk
igniting a stellar furnace in the immediate neighborhood of said moon,
which would be not only be risky to the native orgnanisms, but in fact
would render them extinct. But, as with all such baseless assertions,
why factor in everything when you can factor in only what sounds
gratifyingly juicy.
-Mark Martin
No problem, if it's wrong I'm just curious to find out where. Here are some
other parts of this:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:L8X-uFY5XPsJ:www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp%3FTOPIC_ID%3D2237+jupiter_attack.htm&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make a
chain reaction, is this true?
http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuc/P/Pu238.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
10 Nov 2003 10:18:07 AM |
|
|
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message news:<bonf03$viq$1@news.wplus.net>...
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make a
chain reaction, is this true?
Pu-238 does display some neutron emission. What it doesn't do very
well is sustain a runaway nuclear chain reaction. In a highly fissile
material, one neutron collision with an unstable neucleus splits the
neucleus and, on average, releases at least two subsequent neutrons,
which then each have a collision and release two more neutrons per
collision, and so on. The rate of fissions rises exponentially and
cascades into a release of enormous energy at a tremendous power
level.
In reactor grade isotopes, they still release neutrons and prompt
fissions, but the rate of neutron emissions per fission isn't as high
as one to one, and so the power level peaks out at what is
comparatively a snail's pace.
Another very relevant thing pointed out in that link you cited is
the example of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. The impacts generated heat, and
increased the temperature at the impact sites to comparable with the
detonation of nuclear weapons. Yet no runaway fusion chain reaction
happened. Indeed almost certainly vastly more violent impacts have
occurred in the past, but Jupiter has remained a stable oblate of gas.
This is the sort of thing that unfortunately characterises crank
theorists; they don't ask how their suppositions compare to what is
already known.
But it is good that you have gotten 2nd & 3rd opinions. A lot of
people would read that website and consider it a case closed. It's a
lot sexier that way. ;)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitre" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
11 Nov 2003 11:40:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d087978.0311100818.5e1b0d25@posting.google.com...
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message
news:<bonf03$viq$1@news.wplus.net>...
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make
a
chain reaction, is this true?
Pu-238 does display some neutron emission. What it doesn't do very
well is sustain a runaway nuclear chain reaction. In a highly fissile
material, one neutron collision with an unstable neucleus splits the
neucleus and, on average, releases at least two subsequent neutrons,
which then each have a collision and release two more neutrons per
collision, and so on. The rate of fissions rises exponentially and
cascades into a release of enormous energy at a tremendous power
level.
In reactor grade isotopes, they still release neutrons and prompt
fissions, but the rate of neutron emissions per fission isn't as high
as one to one, and so the power level peaks out at what is
comparatively a snail's pace.
Another very relevant thing pointed out in that link you cited is
the example of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. The impacts generated heat, and
increased the temperature at the impact sites to comparable with the
detonation of nuclear weapons. Yet no runaway fusion chain reaction
happened. Indeed almost certainly vastly more violent impacts have
occurred in the past, but Jupiter has remained a stable oblate of gas.
This is the sort of thing that unfortunately characterises crank
theorists; they don't ask how their suppositions compare to what is
already known.
But it is good that you have gotten 2nd & 3rd opinions. A lot of
people would read that website and consider it a case closed. It's a
lot sexier that way. ;)
-Mark Martin
Actually I don't find it sexy at all. Whenever I see web sites like this I
ask around to find out where the flaw is. Usually it gives me a lot of grief
because people assume I'm supporting the web site to even mention it. There
often seems to be this huge gulf between the gullible and the cynics. The
gullible believe stuff like this and the cynics just disbelieve it because
of the source. So of those groups no one really explains anything. A true
skeptic though knows why it is wrong, which is the information that I look
for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
10 Nov 2003 09:52:47 AM |
|
|
"G. Orme" wrote:
[snip]
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make a
chain reaction, is this true?
http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuc/P/Pu238.shtml
No, stooopid, the 33 kg of Pu-238 in radioisotope thermoelectric
generators for the Cassini mission to Saturn are a giant fission
fireball that only exists as a space probe because it renews its
ground state structure microsecond to microsecond using the machine
with no direct wiring.
(n,2n) Cross Section for Pu-239
at 14 MeV = 514.7 mb
Fission spectrum avg. = 3.669 mb
Just how intractibly stoooopid are you? There are *no* 14 MeV fission
neutrons. 3.669 mb is a bad joke vs. chain propagation. Now why
don't you get a nice pencil and paper and, given the above data, work
out the nominal critical mass for a solid sphere of Pu-238.
Put up or shut up, stooopid.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Ferman" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
10 Nov 2003 05:01:46 PM |
|
|
In article <3FAFB44F.24E2E3FB@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
[snip]
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make a
chain reaction, is this true?
http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuc/P/Pu238.shtml
No, stooopid, the 33 kg of Pu-238 in radioisotope thermoelectric
generators for the Cassini mission to Saturn are a giant fission
fireball that only exists as a space probe because it renews its
ground state structure microsecond to microsecond using the machine
with no direct wiring.
(n,2n) Cross Section for Pu-239
at 14 MeV = 514.7 mb
Fission spectrum avg. = 3.669 mb
Just how intractibly stoooopid are you? There are *no* 14 MeV fission
neutrons. 3.669 mb is a bad joke vs. chain propagation. Now why
don't you get a nice pencil and paper and, given the above data, work
out the nominal critical mass for a solid sphere of Pu-238.
Put up or shut up, stooopid.
The gentleman inquired after Pu238. According to my Lederer & Shirley,
Pu238 has a capture crossection of 500 barn and a fission crossection
of 17 barn for reactor spectrum neutrons. It has a half-life to alpha
of 87.71 yr and spontaneous fission half-life of 4.77 10^10 yr. Pu238
is ranked as a 5.4 Mev alpha emitter.
Compare fission crossection of Pu239 of 743 barn (2200 m/s neutrons)
and 580 barn for U235.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
10 Nov 2003 06:10:04 PM |
|
|
John Ferman wrote:
In article <3FAFB44F.24E2E3FB@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
[snip]
Someone mentioned that Plutonium 238 doesn't emit neutrons so can't make a
chain reaction, is this true?
http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuc/P/Pu238.shtml
No, stooopid, the 33 kg of Pu-238 in radioisotope thermoelectric
generators for the Cassini mission to Saturn are a giant fission
fireball that only exists as a space probe because it renews its
ground state structure microsecond to microsecond using the machine
with no direct wiring.
(n,2n) Cross Section for Pu-239
at 14 MeV = 514.7 mb
Fission spectrum avg. = 3.669 mb
Just how intractibly stoooopid are you? There are *no* 14 MeV fission
neutrons. 3.669 mb is a bad joke vs. chain propagation. Now why
don't you get a nice pencil and paper and, given the above data, work
out the nominal critical mass for a solid sphere of Pu-238.
Put up or shut up, stooopid.
The gentleman inquired after Pu238. According to my Lederer & Shirley,
Pu238 has a capture crossection of 500 barn and a fission crossection
of 17 barn for reactor spectrum neutrons. It has a half-life to alpha
of 87.71 yr and spontaneous fission half-life of 4.77 10^10 yr. Pu238
is ranked as a 5.4 Mev alpha emitter.
Compare fission crossection of Pu239 of 743 barn (2200 m/s neutrons)
and 580 barn for U235.
The thermal fission cross-section is irrelevant.
1) A fission warhead is strictly fast (~2 MeV average; 99.8% below
10 MeV) neutrons.
http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/transmutation/Spectra/Spectra.html
1000 C thermal neutrons are 1.086x10^(-7) MeV.
2) Fissioning a nucleus doesn't get you squat. Fissioning a
nucleus and emitting one loose neutron doesn't get you squat.
Practical experience shows that you need at least two *prompt*
neutrons released for evey one incoming to make up for inevitable
losses (neutron capture without fission, surface losses, non-prompt
fission) and exponentiate into a detonation within a few shakes. Even
2.5 neutrons out (U-235) mostly sucks. If you want insurance against
a fizzle you need Pu-239 (3+ neutrons released/fission)
http://t2.lanl.gov/endf/intro22.html
3) The cross-section for Pu-238 fission with release of only two
neutrons is 3.669 mb. Figure out the critical mass of a solid Pu-238
sphere. It is a bad joke.
Know what you are doing before you try to do it. Measure twice, cut
once.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bucephalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
21 Nov 2003 11:36:59 PM |
|
|
Obviously Uncle Al knows what he is talking about. When you get around
all of the impacted fecal matter in his mouth you can actually find good
information. He obviously knows his science. It's a shame he is arrested
at the age where he sticks his finger in the back of his diaper and then
in his nose. If one could have the semblance of a discussion with him
it would probably be rewarding. As it is, unfortunately, it is just a
waste of time to read his posts. As such, I probably will be too busy to
read any response of his to this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
22 Nov 2003 02:47:20 AM |
|
|
"Bucephalis" <xsglynn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%BCvb.10435$n56.6523@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip whining]
Hey stoopid! Why don't you pull your head out of that ***** hole you call
your ***** and do something useful!
Uncle Al (impersonated)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
22 Nov 2003 10:11:13 AM |
|
|
Jim Roberts wrote:
"Bucephalis" <xsglynn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%BCvb.10435$n56.6523@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip whining]
Hey stoopid! Why don't you pull your head out of that ***** hole you call
your ***** and do something useful!
Uncle Al (impersonated)
"Save the drama for your mama. Get down and PUSH."
Uncle Al (real thing)
Make that "stooopid." Uncle Al likes recursion.
Recursion: Cf., recursion.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Plutonium 238 |
22 Nov 2003 03:46:04 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FBF8AA1.53F92B83@hate.spam.net...
Jim Roberts wrote:
"Bucephalis" <xsglynn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%BCvb.10435$n56.6523@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[snip whining]
Hey stoopid! Why don't you pull your head out of that ***** hole you call
your ***** and do something useful!
Uncle Al (impersonated)
"Save the drama for your mama. Get down and PUSH."
Uncle Al (real thing)
Make that "stooopid." Uncle Al likes recursion.
Recursion: Cf., recursion.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
No problem Al. I'll remember next time.
Regards,
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 03:55:11 AM |
|
|
What about the possible life form in Jupiter's atmosphere?
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 01:23:44 PM |
|
|
"Chris" <nimbo@(noSpamHere)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5m2sb.2821$_H4.1710@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
What about the possible life form in Jupiter's atmosphere?
Chris
Yeah, I'm sure there're plenty of those. But just to be safe they
oughtta, shouldda, have just crashed it into Io.
"Old Macdonald had a farm! E-I-E-Io!"
"Io, Io. So off to work I go- [whistle chorus] Io- Io, Io. Iooo..."
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 03:28:52 PM |
|
|
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message news:<bok8na$vho$1@news.wplus.net>...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
No, the Galileo probe didn't mess up anything on Jupiter.
Those 'shoemaker' asteroids, on the other hand... well, let's just say
that we're damned lucky that they didn't hit Earth.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 03:41:23 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message news:<bok8na$vho$1@news.wplus.net>...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
No, the Galileo probe didn't mess up anything on Jupiter.
Those 'shoemaker' asteroids, on the other hand... well, let's just say
that we're damned lucky that they didn't hit Earth.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Idiot. Look up "orbit."
(...Turdpincer Gored Skinulcer...)
--
rUncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
09 Nov 2003 09:22:29 AM |
|
|
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more than
a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a critical
mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as seen
from Earth. Not visible.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
09 Nov 2003 09:46:49 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239.
238. Much quicker decay, more W/kg, similar scarcity of penetrating
rays.
A substantial fraction of 235-U nuclei that capture a thermal neutron
don't then split; instead 236-U, lifetime ~30 million years,
builds up in reactor fuel. When it captures yet another neutron,
neptunium-237, lifetime 3 million years, results.
Reprocessing can remove that as a distinct chemical species.
When that is put back in a reactor,
one gets virtually pure plutonium-238,
which again is chemically distinct from the medium it forms in.
When thus deliberately produced, it can be RTG fuel.
(Traces of byproduct 238-Pu separated from 239, 240, etc.
would be very much more expensive.)
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
09 Nov 2003 09:57:57 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more than
a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a critical
mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as seen
from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there was a
test made and Pu-239 can be fissile. The questions then seems to be if the
pellets could get to a sufficient pressure to be imploded, and if they could
survive that without burning up. That question should be able to be
answered, at what point does the pressure get high enough and what is the
temperature there?
The other point was that there may be sufficient deuterium to create a
hydrogen bomb around it at sufficient pressure. If so then a large area
might have undergone fusion, perhaps big enough to make the black spot. Now
I realise these seems all far fetched but you do have all the ingredients of
a fusion explosion in place, the only question is whether the actual
conditions were vaguely like what would have been necessary or whether it
could have really happened.
While the idea seems pretty silly the arguments against it seem more
like hand waving. If it can't have happened then there should be good
reasons why not, and I am asking what those specific reasons are. The casing
of the pellets may have suddenly been crushed, perhaps the pressure was
enough without a sudden crushing. I don't know, I am wondering if anyone
else knows this. It seems to me (I may be wrong) that this is an interesting
thought experiment that is something like the conditons needed for an
explosion, and I have my doubts people know enough about the conditions on
Jupiter where the pellets went to say for sure whether it was possible or
not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 09:29:46 AM |
|
|
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more than
a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a critical
mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as seen
from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there was a
test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
Hey stooopid,
Pu-239 is A-bomb fissile cores. Pu-238 doesn't breed neutrons when
(if) it fissions. It is strictly used as a heat source. It is not
fissile and has no achievable critical mass. Moreover, Pu-238 heat
sources are ceramicized and multiply encapsulated. Al that crap and
structure would discourage even Pu-239 from being an efficient fission
implosion.
You don't know *****, boy.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 09:41:22 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
Hey stooopid,
Pu-239 is A-bomb fissile cores. Pu-238 doesn't breed neutrons when
(if) it fissions. It is strictly used as a heat source. It is not
fissile and has no achievable critical mass. Moreover, Pu-238 heat
sources are ceramicized and multiply encapsulated. Al that crap and
structure would discourage even Pu-239 from being an efficient fission
implosion.
You don't know *****, boy.
[snip]
I sure don't know ***** from you. In fact all those questions were already
answered by someone without a mouth like a pig. It looks to me like you
didn't know either and had to wait for someone else to explain it so you
could pretend you were the expert. Your first post on the subject was the
dumbest of the thread but I'm sure you're used to that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 12:03:45 PM |
|
|
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
Hey stooopid,
Pu-239 is A-bomb fissile cores. Pu-238 doesn't breed neutrons when
(if) it fissions. It is strictly used as a heat source. It is not
fissile and has no achievable critical mass. Moreover, Pu-238 heat
sources are ceramicized and multiply encapsulated. Al that crap and
structure would discourage even Pu-239 from being an efficient fission
implosion.
You don't know *****, boy.
[snip]
I sure don't know ***** from you. In fact all those questions were already
answered by someone without a mouth like a pig. It looks to me like you
didn't know either and had to wait for someone else to explain it so you
could pretend you were the expert. Your first post on the subject was the
dumbest of the thread but I'm sure you're used to that.
You exhibit negative intelligence, boy. Any attempt to educate you
makes you more stupid. You have pertinent comments by several
qualified people, you have referenece URLs, you continue to
psychotically (look it up) spew the same crap. Shut up, go way, drop
dead.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 07:50:01 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
Hey stooopid,
Pu-239 is A-bomb fissile cores. Pu-238 doesn't breed neutrons when
(if) it fissions. It is strictly used as a heat source. It is not
fissile and has no achievable critical mass. Moreover, Pu-238 heat
sources are ceramicized and multiply encapsulated. Al that crap and
structure would discourage even Pu-239 from being an efficient
fission implosion.
You don't know *****, boy.
[snip]
I sure don't know ***** from you. In fact all those questions were
already answered by someone without a mouth like a pig. It looks to
me like you didn't know either and had to wait for someone else to
explain it so you could pretend you were the expert. Your first post
on the subject was the dumbest of the thread but I'm sure you're
used to that.
You exhibit negative intelligence, boy. Any attempt to educate you
makes you more stupid. You have pertinent comments by several
qualified people, you have referenece URLs, you continue to
psychotically (look it up) spew the same crap. Shut up, go way, drop
dead.
You're pretty funny, a troll pretending he knows physics. I guess this lets
you hang around and troll for longer till people work out what you are. I
guess you did look pretty stupid the way everyone explained it properly and
your explanation was wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 12:51:56 AM |
|
|
In article <bon2ah$2p7p$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more than
a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a critical
mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as seen
from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there was a
test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
It is Pu-238 and it is not fissile. End of story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 01:25:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <bon2ah$2p7p$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
It is Pu-238 and it is not fissile. End of story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Here is something on the guy that made the original claim:
http://www.thehotsheets.com/solarsystem/messages/8045.shtml
This may be relevant, reactor grade plutonium is fissile according to this:
http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 02:22:38 AM |
|
|
In article <boneg7$tn8$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <bon2ah$2p7p$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
It is Pu-238 and it is not fissile. End of story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Here is something on the guy that made the original claim:
http://www.thehotsheets.com/solarsystem/messages/8045.shtml
Allow me not to bother to comment.
This may be relevant, reactor grade plutonium is fissile according to this:
http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html
What part of Pu-238, above, was not clear?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 02:55:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <boneg7$tn8$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
wrote:
In article <bon2ah$2p7p$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
It is Pu-238 and it is not fissile. End of story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Here is something on the guy that made the original claim:
http://www.thehotsheets.com/solarsystem/messages/8045.shtml
Allow me not to bother to comment.
This may be relevant, reactor grade plutonium is fissile according
to this:
http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html
What part of Pu-238, above, was not clear?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
I'm nearly there. In the nuclear bomb test Plu-239 was fissile if I read
that correctly because there was enough Plu-240. So are you saying that any
Plu-238 would not have reacted, but would have been thrown out of the
explosion intact?
I know that's not an exact analogy because on Jupiter it was all Plu-238
but here was an outer layer of Uranium. I would assume the temperature and
pressures involved would have some analogy to those in an atomic explosion,
and so if the Plu-238 is not fissile when added to a bomb then no
combination of Jovian temperature and pressure would be likely to make it
fissile either.
A related question though, say it was Plu-240 that they used as an
experiment and dropped it on Jupiter in a similar way. I assume it could
survive long enough to explode. Is there any chance it could fuse some of
the deuterium in the atmosphere to make a limited explosion? For example
they might construct a series of bombs in a frame so that the interior of
the frame was filled (through holes in the frame) by hydrogen and deuterium
from the atmosphere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tini" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
10 Nov 2003 03:33:50 AM |
|
|
I'm curious. Mr Orme is trying to figure out in a thought experiment, out
of scientific interest, how it might have occurred or not. The thread
suggests he agrees it's unlikely that the probe caused the hole but he wants
an explanation of WHY. How come most responses comprise only assertions or
abuse? I thought that we used these groups for learning?
"G. Orme" <newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> wrote in message
news:bonjof$1ias$1@news.wplus.net...
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <boneg7$tn8$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <bon2ah$2p7p$1@news.wplus.net>, "G. Orme"
<newsgroups@harmakhiss.org> writes:
Uncle Al wrote:
"G. Orme" wrote:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
Will a lump the size of an SUV cause a persistent Earth-sized
blemish? Galileo's thermal isotope generators were Pu-239. They
aren't fissile. Even if they were, you cannot get anything more
than a chemical-scale explosion from fissile material unless a
critical mass is assembled within microseconds. Chernoble was a
sparrow fart.
Work out the angular width of any conceivable Galileo blemish as
seen from Earth. Not visible.
According to the web site (which I don't know much about) there
was a test made and Pu-239 can be fissile.
It is Pu-238 and it is not fissile. End of story.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
Here is something on the guy that made the original claim:
http://www.thehotsheets.com/solarsystem/messages/8045.shtml
Allow me not to bother to comment.
This may be relevant, reactor grade plutonium is fissile according
to this:
http://www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html
What part of Pu-238, above, was not clear?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
I'm nearly there. In the nuclear bomb test Plu-239 was fissile if I read
that correctly because there was enough Plu-240. So are you saying that
any
Plu-238 would not have reacted, but would have been thrown out of the
explosion intact?
I know that's not an exact analogy because on Jupiter it was all
Plu-238
but here was an outer layer of Uranium. I would assume the temperature and
pressures involved would have some analogy to those in an atomic
explosion,
and so if the Plu-238 is not fissile when added to a bomb then no
combination of Jovian temperature and pressure would be likely to make it
fissile either.
A related question though, say it was Plu-240 that they used as an
experiment and dropped it on Jupiter in a similar way. I assume it could
survive long enough to explode. Is there any chance it could fuse some of
the deuterium in the atmosphere to make a limited explosion? For example
they might construct a series of bombs in a frame so that the interior of
the frame was filled (through holes in the frame) by hydrogen and
deuterium
from the atmosphere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Rowe" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 12:01:59 AM |
|
|
In article <vqums59p8c9nb0@corp.supernews.com>,
"Tini" <ypt1@highstream.com> wrote:
I'm curious. Mr Orme is trying to figure out in a thought experiment, out
of scientific interest, how it might have occurred or not. The thread
suggests he agrees it's unlikely that the probe caused the hole but he wants
an explanation of WHY. How come most responses comprise only assertions or
abuse? I thought that we used these groups for learning?
There are several likely reasons the responses have been as you've
noted, starting with with the fact the initially referenced web page
appears to be essentially unfounded speculation by someone with little
or no knowledge of physics. Also, the questions asked by Orme suggest he
also has done little research on his own.
So you got short, to the point, correct answers from Mati Meron and
equally correct but much less polite answers from Uncle Al.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Orme" |
|
| Title: Re: was the black spot on Jupiter caused by the Galileo probe? |
11 Nov 2003 12:35:23 AM |
|
|
Bill Rowe wrote:
In article <vqums59p8c9nb0@corp.supernews.com>,
"Tini" <ypt1@highstream.com> wrote:
I'm curious. Mr Orme is trying to figure out in a thought
experiment, out of scientific interest, how it might have occurred
or not. The thread suggests he agrees it's unlikely that the probe
caused the hole but he wants an explanation of WHY. How come most
responses comprise only assertions or abuse? I thought that we used
these groups for learning?
There are several likely reasons the responses have been as you've
noted, starting with with the fact the initially referenced web page
appears to be essentially unfounded speculation by someone with little
or no knowledge of physics. Also, the questions asked by Orme suggest
he also has done little research on his own.
So you got short, to the point, correct answers from Mati Meron and
equally correct but much less polite answers from Uncle Al.
Indeed Mati Meron answered the questions quite well. Uncle Al just
spammed the thread after all the answers were received and acknowledged with
his unwanted mental problems. I saw these articles and was wondering what
the flaw was in their argument. So I came here and someone kindly pointed it
out. End of story and thread.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
