Renton 21643 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's you that lacks it. Aye, right. I learnt that the transformation of liquid water to water vapour was a physical reaction (not a chemical one involving oxygen) when I was in short trousers, and you still don't understand it apparently. So explain to me again how or why steam requires oxygen. Do you even know what oxygen is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17290 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 If I get this right the point we disagree on is that you think they knew it was coming and just let it happen. By implication I'm thinking you also think that the military exercise was carried out on 9/11 was also set up etc. That would require a lot of organisation, but anyway, let's not get distracted. I keep repeatedly saying this but the US really didn't need 9/11 to kick off against Iraq, and Bin Laden was totally unconnected with Iraq anyway. And where was the benefit in wasting millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles in a desert in Afghanistan? So it just makes no sense. We knew prior to the events of 9/11 that the islamists, and in particular Bin Laden's group, were waging a war against US interests (first WTC attack, USS Cole, African embassies), that's pretty much a fact. In my opinion (and we are talking opinions here because there are no facts or evidence), I just don't think the US intelligence agencies anticipated anything like the 9/11 attacks happening, nobody did. I think they are guilty of incompetence rather than malevolence. This probably because I'm a lot less cynical than you I guess. A final thought, the people you believe were sacrificed on 9/11 were essentially money men which I'm even less inclined to believe the neocons would murder. Theres a theory that they knew the Lockerbie bombing was coming too....it didnt precpitate a hostile invasion of the middle east, unless Bush senior put Saddam up to invading Kuwait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Aye, right. I learnt that the transformation of liquid water to water vapour was a physical reaction (not a chemical one involving oxygen) when I was in short trousers, and you still don't understand it apparently. So explain to me again how or why steam requires oxygen. Do you even know what oxygen is? I said it requires an atmosphere to vent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I said it requires an atmosphere to vent it. You think the atmosphere is made of oxygen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Wolfy. It doesn't ever have to be vented. I will draw you a nice diagram showin the whole process when I get home from work. Some heat is put into the environment as an output from the condenser. At no point is working steam vented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 You think the atmosphere is made of oxygen? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Wolfy. It doesn't ever have to be vented. I will draw you a nice diagram showin the whole process when I get home from work. Some heat is put into the environment as an output from the condenser. At no point is working steam vented. Aye ok, cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44996 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 rikko, if you could do it in crayon, I think that would have the most chance of sinking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 rikko, if you could do it in crayon, I think that would have the most chance of sinking in. It's ok Gemmill, he can do it anyway he likes and I'll re draw it in crayon for you if that's how you prefer it. Just let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15561 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 If I get this right the point we disagree on is that you think they knew it was coming and just let it happen. By implication I'm thinking you also think that the military exercise was carried out on 9/11 was also set up etc. That would require a lot of organisation, but anyway, let's not get distracted. I keep repeatedly saying this but the US really didn't need 9/11 to kick off against Iraq, and Bin Laden was totally unconnected with Iraq anyway. And where was the benefit in wasting millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles in a desert in Afghanistan? So it just makes no sense. We knew prior to the events of 9/11 that the islamists, and in particular Bin Laden's group, were waging a war against US interests (first WTC attack, USS Cole, African embassies), that's pretty much a fact. In my opinion (and we are talking opinions here because there are no facts or evidence), I just don't think the US intelligence agencies anticipated anything like the 9/11 attacks happening, nobody did. I think they are guilty of incompetence rather than malevolence. This probably because I'm a lot less cynical than you I guess. A final thought, the people you believe were sacrificed on 9/11 were essentially money men which I'm even less inclined to believe the neocons would murder. The US needed 9/11 to kick off in Iraq and Iraq is explicitly connected with 9/11 Did Bush know about 9/11 before it happened? Just look at his face when responding I'd also ask that you read this again "We knew prior to the events of 9/11 that the islamists, and in particular Bin Laden's group, were waging a war against US interests (first WTC attack, USS Cole, African embassies), that's pretty much a fact. In my opinion (and we are talking opinions here because there are no facts or evidence), I just don't think the US intelligence agencies anticipated anything like the 9/11 attacks happening, nobody did" And tell me it makes sense. We knew Bin Laden was waging a war, there had been 3 very big attacks on the US but no one anticipated a big attack? Just more little ones? Its preposterous to think they were not expecting it and, in my view, preposterous that serendipity was the only factor that advanced their whole neo-conservative agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15561 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Whatever the truth of the matter, it was a genius move to install Bush as the figurehead of the regime, as nobody (or at least not enough people) would think him capable of implementing any kind of clear strategy or deeper agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7034 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Do you think he did like? Sounds like cheney did most of the string pulling on the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 The US needed 9/11 to kick off in Iraq and Iraq is explicitly connected with 9/11 Did Bush know about 9/11 before it happened? Just look at his face when responding I'd also ask that you read this again "We knew prior to the events of 9/11 that the islamists, and in particular Bin Laden's group, were waging a war against US interests (first WTC attack, USS Cole, African embassies), that's pretty much a fact. In my opinion (and we are talking opinions here because there are no facts or evidence), I just don't think the US intelligence agencies anticipated anything like the 9/11 attacks happening, nobody did" And tell me it makes sense. We knew Bin Laden was waging a war, there had been 3 very big attacks on the US but no one anticipated a big attack? Just more little ones? Its preposterous to think they were not expecting it and, in my view, preposterous that serendipity was the only factor that advanced their whole neo-conservative agenda. I guess it comes down to how intelligent you think the American Intelligence Agencies really are or were. My opinion that pre 9/11 was not very. The first WTC act of terror was a flop, the USS Cole was a result of gross negligence, and the African embassies, well so what? Nobody saw this coming and its disingenuous to suggest otherwise; the whole world was shocked and there was a paradigm shift in thinking afterwards. I can't see the youtube videos here although I'm puzzled as to how the title of the first one supports your view. What I would say is that Bush was an idiot barely capable of tying his shoe laces let alone orchestrating the most Machiavellian plot of all time. No doubt you will claim there was real power above him but sorry, I don't subscribe to "them" or illuminati theories either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Gemmill can use whatever words he feels is necessary. I'm falling for him anyway. Ok back to the point. I'm questioning nuclear power as in basically two pieces of super hard metal sitting close together that supposedly has the ability to heat up and glow like crazy. This stuff is supposedly so toxic in use and after it's spent that it has to be handled super carefully and under the strictest secrecy. All people involved in the actual maintenance and button pushing can be walking around believing they are dealing with exactly this, yet it could be (and in my mind, possibly is) something rather different. Maybe some know that it's not what it is made out to be... but they can't speak out because they will be ridiculed and would lose their jobs or whatever. What Rikko does, I don't exactly know as to what part he plays in the day to day life of a submarine or nuclear power station or whatever. Why don't you just accept the fact that science, that crazy 100% factual based proving system has led mankind to be able to utilise nuclear energy? If Rikko's education and training is all a lie, it means there's a nuclear reactor that people are fucking about with whilst they haven't a clue how it really operates. If this were the case there'd be non-stop catastrophic nuclear decimation across the globe. As for your continued failure to grasp how a fucking nuclear submarine works when Rikko has simplified it about 5 times, what's the matter with you? Do you put fuel in your car? Does Wolfy logic not extend to fuel conbustion or is it specifically nuclear power that you take alarming issue with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I guess it comes down to how intelligent you think the American Intelligence Agencies really are or were. My opinion that pre 9/11 was not very. The first WTC act of terror was a flop, the USS Cole was a result of gross negligence, and the African embassies, well so what? Nobody saw this coming and its disingenuous to suggest otherwise; the whole world was shocked and there was a paradigm shift in thinking afterwards. I can't see the youtube videos here although I'm puzzled as to how the title of the first one supports your view. What I would say is that Bush was an idiot barely capable of tying his shoe laces let alone orchestrating the most Machiavellian plot of all time. No doubt you will claim there was real power above him but sorry, I don't subscribe to "them" or illuminati theories either. I dont think it comes down to any of that and you're either making a point about US intelligence knowing about the risk of attack or you're not. The so what? is so they did know and they were aware so at the very least they were incompetent. Again, a serendipitous incompetence, every cloud has a silver lining and all that. Watch the video. I dont believe in 'them' either but just because you cant imagine the networks of political and military lobbyists, think tanks, pentagon officials, intelligence officers, neo-conservatives that can form around foreign policy agendas, doesnt mean they dont exist. That doesnt mean a group like this planned anything, we know intelligence was aware of the activities of the saudis but they let them carry on, this later was blamed as a break down in communication between the CIA and the FBI. I have my doubts, too convenient. Edited October 18, 2012 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'll watch it later. I'm sure you know a great deal of drugs, perhaps most in first in class, were a result of serendipity. A crap analogy? Perhaps. But the point being coincidences happen much more than people would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Why don't you just accept the fact that science, that crazy 100% factual based proving system has led mankind to be able to utilise nuclear energy? If Rikko's education and training is all a lie, it means there's a nuclear reactor that people are fucking about with whilst they haven't a clue how it really operates. If this were the case there'd be non-stop catastrophic nuclear decimation across the globe. As for your continued failure to grasp how a fucking nuclear submarine works when Rikko has simplified it about 5 times, what's the matter with you? Do you put fuel in your car? Does Wolfy logic not extend to fuel conbustion or is it specifically nuclear power that you take alarming issue with? I'm ok with fuel combustion. I'm fine with many aspects of science. I'm also fine with people working at nuclear power plants and believing that uranium metal somehow fissions a heats up for years and years on end . I'm absolutely fine with anybody thinking it works this way. I'm not fine with myself thinking this way because I honestly don't believe in this fissioning shit. So bearing all that in mind, I'm not about to accept it am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'll watch it later. I'm sure you know a great deal of drugs, perhaps most in first in class, were a result of serendipity. A crap analogy? Perhaps. But the point being coincidences happen much more than people would think. Not on the same day they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Turns out I can't be arsed to draw a picture but google can provide some useful ones. The reactor is continuously heating water (called primary coolant), this water is pumped into the steam generators. The energy is tranferred from the primary coolant into the steam generator water (called secondary coolant) which is boiled. This reduces the temperature of the primary coolant which is then sent back into the reactor to be heated up again, ready to repreat the process again. The secondary coolant is boiled and turned into steam, it is a high pressure steam. This high pressure steam is transferred to the turbines, where it is forced through spinning them round. The turbines go on to either generate electricity from the motor generators or power the engines from the main gearbox. This process extracts all the useful energy from the steam and leaves low pressure steam. The low pressure steam then flows into the condenser. Cold Sea water is pumped into the condenser and is warmed up when the steam condenses. Warm sea water is then pumped out of the submarine. The steam that has been condensed is then returned to the steam generator to be turned into steam again. Here is the same diagram but for a power station. Notice that the only difference is the cooling tower instead of sea water. No steam is vented from either system. This whole process is described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle Wolfy I trust you will now recreate these in crayon for Gemmill as you promised earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm ok with fuel combustion. I'm fine with many aspects of science. I'm also fine with people working at nuclear power plants and believing that uranium metal somehow fissions a heats up for years and years on end . I'm absolutely fine with anybody thinking it works this way. I'm not fine with myself thinking this way because I honestly don't believe in this fissioning shit. So bearing all that in mind, I'm not about to accept it am I. Have you ever been to a nuclear power plant? Read about how nuclear energy works? Read what Rikko has been saying in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15561 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Have you ever been to a nuclear power plant? Read about how nuclear energy works? Read what Rikko has been saying in this thread? He's copied and pasted something from someone who has, which counts as hard evidence in wolfyworld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Turns out I can't be arsed to draw a picture but google can provide some useful ones. The reactor is continuously heating water (called primary coolant), this water is pumped into the steam generators. The energy is tranferred from the primary coolant into the steam generator water (called secondary coolant) which is boiled. This reduces the temperature of the primary coolant which is then sent back into the reactor to be heated up again, ready to repreat the process again. The secondary coolant is boiled and turned into steam, it is a high pressure steam. This high pressure steam is transferred to the turbines, where it is forced through spinning them round. The turbines go on to either generate electricity from the motor generators or power the engines from the main gearbox. This process extracts all the useful energy from the steam and leaves low pressure steam. The low pressure steam then flows into the condenser. Cold Sea water is pumped into the condenser and is warmed up when the steam condenses. Warm sea water is then pumped out of the submarine. The steam that has been condensed is then returned to the steam generator to be turned into steam again. Here is the same diagram but for a power station. Notice that the only difference is the cooling tower instead of sea water. No steam is vented from either system. This whole process is described here http://en.wikipedia....i/Rankine_cycle Wolfy I trust you will now recreate these in crayon for Gemmill as you promised earlier. Top picture.I'm having a serious issue with the steam generator. It's basically got a heated pipe inside it and that's supposed to super heat the water into steam is it, Whilst also being continuously filled with condensed water. It seem a stupid way to heat water into steam don't you think? It looks good, don't get me wrong. I also still have the issue with the 2 pipes running hot out of the sub whilst taking in cold at depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Have you ever been to a nuclear power plant? Read about how nuclear energy works? Read what Rikko has been saying in this thread? More than you could ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15561 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 More than you could ever copy and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now