[NuclearSubmariner]

Well, I'm sorry I don't remember every single piece of data about the boat. And when exactly did I claim to be an specialist? I'm neither an MT or a nuke, I'm an ET. I just thought you guys would like to know the real number, since I messed up earlier. And I really doubt that any "agencies" are coming here, or to any other "myth dissident" site. They've got better things to do than troll. I, however, found you guys on youtube while looking for bomb footage. I initially thought that you were trolls. When I realized that you weren't I figured I'd join up and explain some of the mechanics of submarine life.

You guys seem to forget what I shall henceforth call "The Law of Hoax Overpopulation". For the moon landing "hoax" I could see maybe, maybe paying off everyone involved and keeping them quiet. However, the US government would have to not only keep quiet the 10,000+ active nuclear submariners, they'd have to keep the retired ones quiet as well. Then there's the carrier sailors, and the people who built the ships, and the people who designed the ships, and the scientists who work on the technology. Then there's the people from other countries. Do you really think that there's some world-wide conspiracy to keep the public from knowing that this tech doesn't exist? None of these countries get along that well. Eventually some scientist would take a look at the numbers, then take a look at the output of a plant and realize that it doesn't add up. Someone would have called our bluff a long time ago. What you're talking about is logistically impossible.

Look, I'm sorry I got so angry there. I just don't know what to think of you guys. If you are trolls, you're really good ones, and Poe's Law applies everywhere. If not, then I don't know what to say.

Radioactively yours,
Nuclear Submariner

P.S. Lunar Retroreflectors.

[Lark]

My god, so classic. I have seen so many trolling agents like him on controlled conspiracy forums, beginning to say "I am a specialist in this domain", "I am gonna explain you why you are wrong" and then making a long text having nothing to do with the real topic.

So, I would say "ban this guy and delete his messages". The quality of a forum is crucial to attract people like us or just curious. With guys like that, which make people losing their time, the quality decreases.

This will also send the following message to agencies which send agents like that one on free forums : "it doesn't work".

You would ban a person just for having an opinion that does not agree with your own? If this forum does that, then it would be making itself irrelevant. Any forum that is only devoted to patting each other on the back does not do anyone any good. If a person is going to be prevented from expressing their opinion, they probably won't even lurk on a forum like that.

Were you referring to nuclearsubmariner with the "I am a specialist in this domain", "I am gonna explain you why you are wrong" comment? I do not see where he ever said he was a specialist. He was also asked to post pictures of a sub interior and he did. Wasn't that nice of hm to do as he was asked?

If I was an agent, I would not have to keep my day job. LOL! But my integrity is worth way more than the $14 an hour I get paid now. In fact no one has enough money to pay me to lie.

[rerevisionist]

Lark - you're had 42 posts and we still have no evidence from you that some submarines, or aircraft carriers, are nuclear powered; or that you can't be sure. Ditto that nuclear missiles worked in the past, or do now - a possibility since navigation and electronics are infintely improved.

NuclearSubmariner - you've had 8 post and the same comment applies.

You both appear to be living proof (as with NASA, as with Pearl Harbor, as with AIDS, as with the Vietnam War, as with paper money) that it's simple to control huge masses of sheep. Or more charitably that people won't question things provided they get their pay.

By a majority vote we have to exclude you. (Voerioc estimates an average interval of 6 months between trolls. We'll see).
_____________________________________________________

NB if there are informed people out there - willing to debate or comment - please register.

[Exorcist]

NuclearSubmariner

A variation of the false argument that something must be true because otherwise 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 people would have to be "in on it" is refuted here:
http://www.nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=490#p2639

As neither you nor I possess a massively powerful laser capable of bouncing a beam off the Moon or the sensitive equipment necessary to detect a returning signal your point has no credibility whatsoever. Especially in the light of the fact that the people spreading this bull$hit are the same people who demonstrably produce lies and propaganda on an industrial scale. I have specified instances and invited you to comment. All you do is duck and dive and use every trick in the book to avoid addressing them. I'm busy at the moment preparing posts showing 4 more instances of your employer's deceitful, incompetent fabrications of fake "blast" damage at Hiroshima. Don't let this put you off getting plenty of sleep. It is my sincere hope that one day you will wake up.

[ewing2001]

...not my favorite topic and focus now -especially if potential trolls around and i could get used|seen as a pony ;- but the number of "10,000"s is plain wrong. According to the info on The U.S. Los Angeles-class, sometimes called the LA-class or the 688-class, there are only "43 submarines on active duty and 19 retired", means 23! around.

Now adding up all other numbers [worldwide]:
The Ohio class ballistic missile submarines has a has a total of 18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
The Seawolf class had 29 submarines "to be built over a ten-year period"
The Virginia class (or SSN-774 class) had a "total of 62 built", dunno how much of them are officially "nookular" ;

All productions are constantly linked to ww2-nukeScammers Westinghouse [now Toshiba], General Dynamics and related.

[[[The mentioned Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is part of the the Ship-Submarine Recycling Program (SRP) and their main work appears to be "compartment disposal" of defueled submarines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_Shipyard ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Subma ... ng_Program ]]]

I assume, the numbers of Soviet/Russian Navy -so called "Nuclear submarines" are similar, within current 8-10 "Operational submarine"-classes, incl. Typhoon class submarine, where 6 are mentioned.
f.i. The Victor class, (used in the James Bond film The World Is Not Enough), gives the number as in "16 were produced" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_class_submarine



Now make the estimated math for England [linked to BAE Systems *1999 [formerly subsidiary of General Electric/BAe]/absorbing Marconi Marine], France, India [INS Chakra II leased from Russia] and China as well. You could conclude, it would be altogether worldwide only a few 100s plus a few more which are not in operation any longer [[reading *now the number 195 for the U.S. until 2005]] -the very first worldwide was officially *1954 USS Nautilus - produced by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, keel was laid at General Dynamics ; makes it 100+ security manager chiefs - for what, the same'ish classified security routines incl. unexplained buttons, knobs and ruler-monitored radar-blips ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine#Lineage

Employees within this industry should know these numbers imo ;

[Note by rerev: Jewish military fraud connection here:]
I'm sure you guys here are familiar with the name Hyman G. Rickover (first time I heard his name). I was surfing the net, and came across this so called "Father of the Nuclear Navy". Here's a link to the his wackypedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover. Once again more zionist ties with this nuclear garbage. I wouldn't be surprised if he was involved in the creation of the fake entity known as albert enistein.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Lark - you're had 42 posts and we still have no evidence from you that some submarines, or aircraft carriers, are nuclear powered; or that you can't be sure. Ditto that nuclear missiles worked in the past, or do now - a possibility since navigation and electronics are infintely improved.

NuclearSubmariner - you've had 8 post and the same comment applies..

I was thinking the same thing myself.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I'm sure you guys here are familiar with the name Hyman G. Rickover (first time I heard his name).

While attending John Marshall High School in Chicago, from where he graduated with honors in 1918, Rickover held a full-time job delivering Western Union telegrams, through which he became acquainted with U.S. Congressman Adolph J. Sabath. By way of the intervention of a family friend, Sabath, himself a Czech Jewish immigrant, nominated Rickover for appointment to the United States Naval Academy. Though only a third alternate for an appointment, through disciplined self-directed study and good fortune the future four-star admiral passed the entrance exam and was accepted.[8][9]

So Rickover had a homosexual relationship with the jewish US congressman, and got appointed to the naval academy? Did I read that right? Or read between the lines?

NO, I never heard of Rickover. Thanks, BNSF. Another jewish connection. My, how often they pop up.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

From what I gather so far, about the technicalities of subs, a reactor heats the first liquid, which boils the second vessel, which turns a steam turbine, which runs a generator, which runs some electrical motor, which turns the propeller.

Seems like a long way around to get something to move.

Why not just heat water with the reactor to make steam, and run the steam out the back to give the sub propulsion?

[BNSF9647]

From what I gather so far, about the technicalities of subs, a reactor heats the first liquid, which boils the second vessel, which turns a steam turbine, which runs a generator, which runs some electrical motor, which turns the propeller.

Seems like a long way around to get something to move.

Why not just heat water with the reactor to make steam, and run the steam out the back to give the sub propulsion?

Yeah exactly. Why that roundabout way just to generate steam? not to mention so called reactors poor thermal efficiency. Which is documented per say to be only around 27%. So how do they come up with this fantasy number of 25-30 years between refuels? fuel consumption is directly related to thermal efficiency. Hell EMD's 710G (710 cubic inches per cylinder) medium speed Diesel Engine achieves around a 40% thermal efficiency rating, 13% better than these false reactors. That's why I believe these so called reactors are just giant wet cell batteries or capacitors.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Yeah exactly. Why that roundabout way just to generate steam? not to mention so called reactors poor thermal efficiency. Which is documented per say to be only around 27%. So how do they come up with this fantasy number of 25-30 years between refuels?

It would seem to me that a nuclear sub would leave a hellava thermal signature in its wake. I looked it up here on the internet, and the technical guys have an explanation for why it doesn't. Or why it can't be detected. So, someone else must have raised the question. Of course, the someone else wouldn't consider that the nuclear sub wasn't nuclear.

Most ships just take the steam from the boiler, and run the turbine, which is connected to the propeller. I don't understand the steam to electric conversion. They are saying that the propeller is run by an electrical motor, which makes it possible that the sub really is running on a battery. Or a fuel cell.

As for three decades between refuels, these submarine guys here are saying the sub only stays under about three weeks. So what's the technical advantage of a nuclear sub? It's like the nuclear air craft carrier, which is refueled about once a week. And how do I know it even stays under for three weeks? Maybe it's only three days. How do crewmen on a sub know if they are submerged or surfaced?

[MartinL]

From what I gather so far, about the technicalities of subs, a reactor heats the first liquid, which boils the second vessel, which turns a steam turbine, which runs a generator, which runs some electrical motor, which turns the propeller.

Seems like a long way around to get something to move.

Why not just heat water with the reactor to make steam, and run the steam out the back to give the sub propulsion?

Running the steam out of the back to propel the sub like a rocket will work, but very noisily and inefficiently. Using a jet or rocket powered with gasoline will not be very efficient for an automobile either. Using heat to generate a mechanical means of traction or thrust is the most efficient at low speeds. It is only when you need to move more than 300 miles per hour is jet propulsion preferred.

While I have read about some seawater supplied boilers used in the early days of steam powered engine rooms, they were poor compared to today's closed cycle plants. Boiling seawater at high temperatures leads to excessive fouling of the heat transfer surfaces and greatly accelerated corrosion rates. A good deal of effort is put into ensuring that the corrosion rate in a modern reactor plant is kept to a minimum.

This is done by using de-ionized water in a closed loop. The steam which flows through the turbines enters a condenser which cools the steam into water and is then pumped back into the steam generators to be heated back into steam. While most nuclear powered ships use steam turbines to rotate the screw, a few did use electric motors. However electric motors are much larger and heavier than steam turbines of the same power. Also the turbine generators must be greatly increased in size and power to supply the currant to run the motors. It is much more efficient to use a small high speed turbine even when it requires a large reduction gear to lower shaft rpm. The electric drive subs were a failed experiment in noise reduction.

Take a look at articles on the Turbinia, a British ship that first demonstrated the effectiveness of steam turbines. It was the result of the this ship's design that lead to vast improvements in naval propulsion as well as recognizing the need for reduced shaft rpm to prevent noisy and destructive cavitation.