From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 17:19:13 +0000 Archived: Sun, 08 May 2011 06:03:08 -0400 Subject: Re: News Links - 03-05-11 >From: Peter Davenport <director.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:29:54 -0700 >Subject: Re: 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? >Mike and Kathy, >I agree with the comments that both of you have made, regarding >nitrogen. >However, it is well established in the field of biology that the >principal source of nitrogen for plant growth is nitrogen- >containing molecules, which are created by lightning. Molecular >nitrogen (N subscript 2) is generally very chemically stable. >However, the temperatures that occur in proximity to a bolt of >lightning is sufficient to separate the atoms of nitrogen, >making them available as free radicals for combination with >atoms of other elements, e.g. oxygen. The mechanism for the failure was the static electric field of lightening, not the N2 under pressure. Have you ever been out in the field in New Mexico, especially in Lincoln County, when a thunder storm arrived? It is fast, furious and intense. Over in a few minutes, but the environmental conditions are charged with almost continuous pulses of lightening lighting up the sky. And, yes, it is possible for airborne objects to be struck by lightening. So, no, I was not focused on the gas content of the metal containers necessarily, but there was a metal structure that could have easily attracted lightening. If you are really interested, I am sure there are copies of the Paranoia Magazine still available so you can view the platform monitoring device. Or, go to the library and ask them to get you a copy of the article I cite. I understand the resistance to contemplating something other than a preconceived idea of what crashed at the Foster Ranch/Lincoln County. But as long as there is no physical evidence indicating what might have crashed, we can all jump into the fray and suggest whatever seems feasible. To my mind, balloon trains with atmospheric monitoring devices is the most feasible. KK 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