rikko

you are happy that the water will move in a vacuum but not the fireman. Could the fireman actually be moving and water not?

How does the meteor move?

Then why is your main reason as to why we don't have satellites etc is because Wolfys first law of motion states that you can't move in vacuum. Maybe satellites do exist but space isn't a vacuum as its filled with magical space treacle? Have you considered that one?

Wolfy. If we have never been to space as you claim. Why are you certain it is a vacuum?

Ok here is another example. You are standing on some ice. You fart really really hard. So hard you practically shit your pants. You slide forward slightly and the fart moves backwards quickly. You moved forward by pushing off the fart. The air and ice resistance stop you moving forwards. Why dont you Ask CT for some beans and go down your local ice rink and try it!

Your analysis of rockets in vacuums is flawed. It's 2 separate components, one pushes off the other. The rocket (bottle) pushes the fuel (water) out. If you imagine 2 divers under water, not moving just floating around. One diver then pushes the other one. What happens? Both divers move in opposite directions. One doesn't stay where he is whilst the other moves they both move. Go to your local swimming pool with a friend and try it out. Put a brick on the floor where you start so you have a point of reference. then push off him as hard as you can. You will both move away from the brick. If you do that in a vacuum with no gravity, you will further as there is no resistance to stop you.

The death penalty certainly wouldn't save money, Just look at the legal challenges relating to extraditing Hamza and Mckinnon. Both have taken about 10 years with constant legal challenge. The death penalty would be a lot worse then that. Certainly is in the USA. People are on death row for over 20 years in certain cases. Also I find the argument to kill someone as its cheaper then imprisonment completely barbaric.

I am fully convinced its real having done the theory, seen inside an offline reactor ad moved the fuel into and out of one. I have seen the reactor in operation so despite never seeing it fission directly I am very confident in my position. I am happy to pit my neck on the line and state it is true. You are unable to provide any evidence it's not real and have rejected the opportunity prove your position. You are either the best WUM this board has ever had or a grade A moron. In either case you deserve a prize. I really can't believe you are a scientist, a scientologist maybe. You have presented no facts whatsoever and reject the offers of help on the subjects people knowledgeable in thier area kindly offer you. You refuse to accept any theory as you can't understand it and reject it as fake without even so much a cursory glance. If you won't accept the entire scientific community and my version of events and are unwilling to do anything to prove your position. You have truly lost the debate and are just living in a fantasy land with your head in the sand.

If you think its all shite, why don't you repeat the stuff done by that kid. I advise that you don't as its dangerous. But if you are supremely confident its shite, put you cock on the block and do it. Prove us all wrong. I've never done the experiment no. Just theory. But my theory is better then your supposition.

Uranium will fission on its own accord. If you get a lump of granite and wait long enough one of the uranium atoms in it will eventually fission. To speed it up you can shoot neutrons at it. Most good university physics departments will have a neutron source. If you dissolve your granite in some acid and insert an FTIR or Raman Spectrometry probe into it. This will show you what elements are inside and what concentrations of each element is. If you then shoot the neutrons from the neutron source at it you will notice the amount of uranium decreasing and you will observe that Caesium and Strontium and a few other things appear. This is the fission. I have never done it personally and its not a regular experiment that is done as at the end of the experiment you will be left with a big pile of dangerous waste that you cant get rid of easily. There is a fair chance you will get a lethal dose of radiation from it too. If you really wanted too you can get hold of all the ingredients to do this experiment with out too much difficulty. Would cost a fair amount and you would struggle a bit getting some of the things you need to make a neutron source, but you could do it in your own kitchen.

The intense scrutiny has been done. You can't see IMAX resolution video as no one was there with very expensive cameras to record it. CCTV was there. High resolution photos before the event and after the event are available. You don't have definition images of the supersonic sky dive as no one wanted to drop a camera worth a few £million out of a plane in case it got destroyed! Actually nuclear power is reliant on things much much smaller then an atom is. Its all about neutrons which less then 1% the size of an atom, which you just confound you further. University where you can study nuclear physics off the top of my head. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial college london, Sheffield, Leeds. Basically any university that does physics, will have course in nuclear physics. If you want nuclear specialist courses then look at the following links www.ntec.ac.uk and http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/students/courses/postgraduate/taught/physics/physics-technology-nuclear-reactors.aspx

Yes. There was. The main thing that annoys me about you is you act like you are the only one out of us who questions any thing? Do you really think I haven't asked all these stupid questions whilst at school, and throughout 6 years of university. Followed up by asking more questions throughout my working career. I haven't been told that uranium fissions and believed blindly. I have seen the damage it causes first hand, I have gone through the fundamental mathematics and physics behind it. The oddest thing about you is that you clearly have an interest in science, engineering and the environment around yet lack any desire to learn about it. Go to college, uni, school what ever and learn it. Ask experts the questions, learn how to do the hard sums that back it all up. When you do those it all becomes clear. If you don't you won't ever progress beyond the basics and will always have questions. Every question you have asked me has had a logical explanation. No secret handshakes, no conspiracy, just cold hard logic.

I did yes. There had been a major loss of cooling and release of radiation on the site prior to the explosions.

So because they didn't have a high definition cinema quality film team inside a nuclear exclusion zone filming when the explosions happened its faked?

Also this only happened as they were very old reactors. Newer ones had a small chemical reactor called a PAR inside the primary containment that converts the hydrogen and oxygen back to water before explosive concentrations are reached.

They have normal ventilation stacks. There won't be any specifically for hydrogen as in normal operations it is controlled and not an issue. The hydrogen initially built up inside the primary containment structure. When this reached dangerous levels it was vented to the secondary structure to buy more time. When the concentration built up to explosive levels in this secondary containment it went bang. After the explosion hydrogen was still being made but then had a clear vent path so the concentration couldn't build up any more. In normal operations you would never vent it directly to the environment as you would release radiation with it.

The hydrogen was formed by a process called radiolysis. It happens where you get high energy radiation and water. The mechanism behind it is very complex and not fully understood by science. But the jist is the radiation breaks down the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen in the water releasing them both. When the concentration of hydrogen reaches 4% it is in danger of exploding. This is a huge problem across all nuclear sites.

Reactor 4 had no fuel in it. Reactor 5&6 were offline for maintenance.

The large earthquake and tsunami knocked the power lines over severing the plants connection to grid.

All power stations in the country are connected together via pylons and cables. The same ones that provide power to you house, office etc. this network of pylons ad cables is called the grid. There is a constant requirement of electricity required called the baseload. Tis is typically provided by coal an nuclear stations as they take a long time to start up and shut down. The extra required at peak times (called the peak load) is typically provided by gas, hydro etc. If a nuclear or coal station shuts down for whatever reason they turn on a gas station to keep the baseload provided. If a gas station cannot be brought online you get a power cut. Not all nuclear and coal stations are on all the time. In this instance the spare coal stations would be fired up and some off the gas stations were switched to base load duty. They cut consumption at peak times so that the remaining gas power stations could supply enough to keep the essentials running.

They utilised the coal and gas power stations more. Their contingency plan was cut electricity usage and increase production from the non nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power was 1/3 of the electric power supply in Japan. They had black outs across the country due to this policy. They also banned the use of air conditioning and the lights in cities too. Go to any news website and search Japan power cuts and you will see reports of it. I went to Japan in October 2011 and they cut off the lights much earlier in shinjuku and shibuya (districts of Tokyo) then they did 2 years earlier. If you look further into it you will see that their imports of coal and gas grew sharply too.

Its all the unsold copies of the N64 ISS football game.

Life on a submarine would be utter utter shit tbh. You live in a metal tube sharing your bed with 2 other blokes. There are 16 nuclear missiles on one side of you and a reactor on the other. You wont see sunlight or hear from friends or family for up to 3 months at a time. You could be fresh out of school with no real skills or qualifications and earning £30k/year doing it though so its not all bad. The biggest risk on a submarine is fire, thats what has caused the most deaths on subs since WW2. When you think about most things its pretty far fetched. Like oil, dinosaurs and plants from millions of years ago decomposed underground and water and turned into oil. We then drill down and extract this oil from under the ocean floor and use it heat water to make electricity or to fuel a car that allows us to drive around. Its nuts really, doesn't mean its a big conspiracy theory though. Try explaining that to someone from 200 years ago. They'd think you were nuts, yet its all true.

It seems like a sensible solution to complex engineering problem to me. Its quite common in industry to use this type of system when you want to prevent hazardous materials escaping into the environment.