So I'm posting stuff here since 10 of my metabunk posts were moved to some place they can't be viewed (but still show up in stats). At one stage my password seems to have stopped working and the system to reset the password didn't work. I complained about it and it has started working again so I'm back posting. Gonna log them here so the info isn't lost if they get deleted again.
Whitebeard said: ↑
What he is saying is nuclear blasts, being hotter than conventional blasts go beyond ash production, yes they make ash, but the ash is then vitrified, fused into a solid a split second later, not left as ash.
That's what I thought he said but he didn't say it
Yeah so just to clarify underground nukes initially produce a fireball of such temperature that it Vaporises rock, then as this fireball expands the energy is spread over a greater volume (so less energy per area) as well as decreases (doing the work vaporising rock) until a point at which the rock is nolonger vaporised. Then you get a pressure wave that travels out, which pulverises the rock (crush zone) and as it expands, again the energy per area decreases for the above reasons, so you get a damaged zone (rock is fractured instead of crushed). Anyway the hole has glass melt on the edges and the bottom.
That being said we can't use this fact of glass melt to differentiate between 7656b1d7f7e0afa874950e2564c476fe. the two hypothesis: nuke and non nuke event. Why? Because the crater is filled in with water in the photos!
However, in the supposed 911 nuclear event there was large craters left with molten/glass looking surface. If the Chinese ever expose the crater perhaps we will know then.
The assertion that there should be no ash from a nuclear event seems bogus for the reason I mentioned above that as energy expands over a greater volume, the intensity decreases. Hence further out from a nuclear blast you get temperatures similar to a conventional blast (if you were closer) so we should expect similar things.
What is turning to ash? Is it hydrocarbons? Can only hydrocarbons turn to ash?
For OP, did you try your calculation with nuke videos of known yield to see if you are doing it right? I've seen a video of a tank fired low yield nuke online before. Also, did you check this article out, which Jeff Smith, who claims to be a former nuke specialist from Sandia labs, identifies events in the footage such as secondary explosions at different points in time. Perhaps that could help with your calculations.
Content from external source
The total time frame from first blast to second blast was less than 1 minute with about 30 seconds in between the two major blasts. The frames are at two second intervals.
/
As you can clearly see the blast and plasma fireball was over 1,000 feet in size as compared to the high-rise buildings height of 500 feet. The mushroom cloud was up to 2,000 feet in height; however the top portion was masked by the night sky.
Scintillation white-out of the camera optics occurs at frames 4 and 19.
Frames 1 to 3 shows a perfect small fireball starting proving that the first blast was just above ground level. Frame 2 is the detonation blast.
Frames 5 and 6 show secondary explosions and mushroom cloud formation.
Frame 20 – major secondary blast.
Frame 22 – classic mushroom cloud burst. Over 2,000 feet high. This was more than a chemical factory blowing up. It looks Just like a multiple cruse missile salvo attack from sea.
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/26/the-nuking-of-tianjin-frame-by-frame-analysis/
Another way to estimate yield is to measure the radius of the fireball. thunderf00t did that in this video and came up with a radius of 75 meters:
So he says 1000 feet fireball which is 300 meters. That would give a different yield. Be back later with some calculations (years since I done some physics!)
Whitebeard said: ↑
What he is saying is nuclear blasts, being hotter than conventional blasts go beyond ash production, yes they make ash, but the ash is then vitrified, fused into a solid a split second later, not left as ash.
That's what I thought he said but he didn't say it
Yeah so just to clarify underground nukes initially produce a fireball of such temperature that it Vaporises rock, then as this fireball expands the energy is spread over a greater volume (so less energy per area) as well as decreases (doing the work vaporising rock) until a point at which the rock is nolonger vaporised. Then you get a pressure wave that travels out, which pulverises the rock (crush zone) and as it expands, again the energy per area decreases for the above reasons, so you get a damaged zone (rock is fractured instead of crushed). Anyway the hole has glass melt on the edges and the bottom.
That being said we can't use this fact of glass melt to differentiate between 7656b1d7f7e0afa874950e2564c476fe. the two hypothesis: nuke and non nuke event. Why? Because the crater is filled in with water in the photos!
However, in the supposed 911 nuclear event there was large craters left with molten/glass looking surface. If the Chinese ever expose the crater perhaps we will know then.
The assertion that there should be no ash from a nuclear event seems bogus for the reason I mentioned above that as energy expands over a greater volume, the intensity decreases. Hence further out from a nuclear blast you get temperatures similar to a conventional blast (if you were closer) so we should expect similar things.
What is turning to ash? Is it hydrocarbons? Can only hydrocarbons turn to ash?
For OP, did you try your calculation with nuke videos of known yield to see if you are doing it right? I've seen a video of a tank fired low yield nuke online before. Also, did you check this article out, which Jeff Smith, who claims to be a former nuke specialist from Sandia labs, identifies events in the footage such as secondary explosions at different points in time. Perhaps that could help with your calculations.
Content from external source
The total time frame from first blast to second blast was less than 1 minute with about 30 seconds in between the two major blasts. The frames are at two second intervals.
/
As you can clearly see the blast and plasma fireball was over 1,000 feet in size as compared to the high-rise buildings height of 500 feet. The mushroom cloud was up to 2,000 feet in height; however the top portion was masked by the night sky.
Scintillation white-out of the camera optics occurs at frames 4 and 19.
Frames 1 to 3 shows a perfect small fireball starting proving that the first blast was just above ground level. Frame 2 is the detonation blast.
Frames 5 and 6 show secondary explosions and mushroom cloud formation.
Frame 20 – major secondary blast.
Frame 22 – classic mushroom cloud burst. Over 2,000 feet high. This was more than a chemical factory blowing up. It looks Just like a multiple cruse missile salvo attack from sea.
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/26/the-nuking-of-tianjin-frame-by-frame-analysis/
Another way to estimate yield is to measure the radius of the fireball. thunderf00t did that in this video and came up with a radius of 75 meters:
So he says 1000 feet fireball which is 300 meters. That would give a different yield. Be back later with some calculations (years since I done some physics!)
