From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:25:15 -0600 Archived: Sat, 07 May 2011 07:48:47 -0400 Subject: Nuke Monitor Debris [was: News Links - 03-05-11] >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 17:48:45 +0000 >Subject: Re: News Links - 03-05-11 >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:45:40 -0600 >>Subject: Re: News Links - 03-05-11 >>>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:29:14 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: News Links - 03-05-11 >>>>Project Mogul, UFOs And Soviet Nuclear Detonations >>>>Kevin Randle >>>>http://tinyurl.com/6jvdhx4 >><snip> >>>Actually, there are two spheres containing nitrogen. Some forms >>>of nitrogen are very stable and other compounds are not. Think >>>ammonium nitrate fertilizer and how it has been used as an >>>explosive ingredient. Therefore, under certain specific >>>conditions, it can explode. Perhaps, if a sphere filled with N2 >>>is hit by lightning. >>Molecular nitrogen (N2) is quite chemically inert, and cannot be >>made to 'explode' via lightning or other energy input. Indeed, >>N2 is a _product_ of the detonation of nitrogen-bearing >>explosives, effectively recovering the energy required to break >>the strong triple bond in N2. >Thanks for correcting my suggestion of lightening strike causing >breakup of device. Could there be another reason it would have >exploded? To me, N2 under pressure seemed a bit unstable. Are >you saying that it is not? I didn't mean to suggest that lightning couldn't have caused a breakup of the device, just that it wouldn't induce a chemically-driven explosion of the N2. Clearly, any gas under high pressure can produce an explosion if its containment vessel fails, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that a lightning strike could have caused such failure. However, a point failure in a pressurized metal tank would be unlikely to shatter it (or nearby metallic structures) into numerous small fragments/shards, even at very high pressures. I would expect the balloon skin material to remain relatively contiguous as well. On the other hand, per a previous (Apr 2007) post to David Rudiak in a similar discussion, I think it's conceivable that a lightning strike on a rubbery balloon material with a metallic paint/coating could produce extremely high loading rates via catastrophic resistive heating and thereby induce brittle failure (shattering), sufficient to produce a widespread debris field. But again, even assuming simultaneous bursting of the N2 tanks, the debris would almost certainly include recognizable remnants of the structure/payload. Mike Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp