[MartinL]

i expected an explanation on the topic over there by our "Radiological Control Officer" (Code 105.3) *here, but he seems to ignore it ;

Who is that person?

[rerevisionist]

@ FCS - that reference to nukelies isn't there now. Wiki removes all references as quickly as possible.

[rerevisionist]

It's 24 hours now since my irritated comment to 'MartinL'. All he's done is paste, and contributed nothing. If anyone wants to keep him on, it's no problem with me. Otherwise he goes to the trolls. It's quite likely he's a renamed troll anyway. Let me know

[MartinL]

It's 24 hours now since my irritated comment to 'MartinL'. All he's done is paste, and contributed nothing.

Got any evidence to back up your accusation that all I do is paste? If it is paste, then surely you have a source for the paste; or are you making it up? It is my personal knowledge, not some cut and paste from the internet. You said I was welcome here and now you want to eliminate the opinions of people that do not agree with the crowd?

You are also jumping the gun.

Re: Is there room for dissent?

Postby rerevisionist » 24 Feb 2012 13:06
MartinL - why not dicsuss with your supposed co-workers whether you have anything to say? I'll give you 24 hours to come up with something. If you don't I'll delete this entire time-wasting thread. - No, I'll move it to the troll section.

Note the time stamp of your 24 hour ultimatum. I have more time left. Exactly what do you want to see? I can only tell you what I know. I don't care too much for some of what I see on the internet.

Why isn't anyone here willing to get away from the keyboard and do some real investigations? Quoting what others write is not enough, you have to get out there and see for yourself.

[MartinL]

….. is in large part to due to my insistence on free speech truly being allowed on NUKE LIES Forum……You might accept that as proof that this is an open forum……If you want to come on here and proselytise mainstream lies then go ahead - it won't phase us.

Here is an example of a paste. I guess you were pulling my leg when you made these claims? Am I "phasing" you? Or is it fazing? I am not trying to deceive anyone with the material I am posting, but you will not give me a decent chance to educate people on nuclear power here.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

1885
American JOSIAH H. L. TUCK demonstrated "Peacemaker"—powered by a chemical (fireless) boiler; 1500 pounds of caustic soda provided five hours endurance. Tuck's inventing days ended when relatives—noting that he had squandered most of a significant fortune—had him committed to an asylum for the insane.

http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAtwo.htm

Interesting. I have never heard of such a thing as a 'fireless' boiler.

[rerevisionist]

@FCS - Caustic soda mixed with water generates quite a bit of heat. But nearly a ton of it would make a mess... maybe an asylum ws the right place for that guy? It sounds bit like self-heating cans of food, which I've never seen, but sound risky. The reason boilers aren't chemical must surely be that they aren't easily controllable - you can spray little bits of gasoline into cylinders, very precisely; but an exothermic reaction looks one-off - OK with a rocket, once it starts it continues but typically is spent fast; not so good for long-term continual heating.

@FCS - fascinating idea about a rocket-powered submarine. I suppose it could work - squids (I think?) move by expelling jets of water. I don't know if you remember, but we discussed problems of scale e.g. here
doubts-space-rocket-travel-satellites-hubble-1-of-6.html
And of course water is far denser than air - something like 2,000 times - so the whole propeller design is different, with slower motion and also wider blades under water. And drag is much stronger. I'd guess there are problems implementing some sort of rocket - maybe just the external pressure of water. But who knows. Maybe a rocket-powered U-plane??

@MartinL - you still haven't produced any evidence that submarines are, in fact, nuclear powered. You're like these 'Holocaust' people, who keep repeating stuff they've read, and just can't understand when someone asks about the actual evidence. Either because, having been told the same stuff ad nauseam, they've never considered it; or because they are deliberate trolls. You haven't addressed the obvious fact that subs were around for at least 30 years - 1915 to 1945 - and by all accounts were formidable things, so as FCS points out there seems no clear advantage with nukes. And so on.

But you're right about 'fazing'.

[Exorcist]

I found this on Amazon.com I have not read it so I have no idea if it is reliable.

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Nav ... 69&sr=8-16

You should have included this one as it is more in keeping with the quality and veracity of your contributions to the thread.

http://www.amazon.com/Post-apocalyptic-novels-Book-Guide-Androids/dp/1156572304/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328224647&sr=1-2

BTW......these links no longer seem to work....the Pentagon has obviously cornered the market and bought up all available copies for their troll training programme.....lol

[MartinL]

@MartinL - you still haven't produced any evidence that submarines are, in fact, nuclear powered. You're like these 'Holocaust' people, who keep repeating stuff they've read, and just can't understand when someone asks about the actual evidence. Either because, having been told the same stuff ad nauseam, they've never considered it; or because they are deliberate trolls.

I am not just repeating stuff I heard, I am posting my actual experiences. Come check out the Navy or the shipyard as previously suggested, you can see for yourself. No need to take anyone's word for it that nuclear subs are real.

What kind of evidence are you looking for from me? The same kind you and your buddies are providing? Internet links and YouTube videos? I can provide those, but then you will rightfully accuse me of pasting evidence. What is wrong with reporting my actual experiences? Have any evidence that I am a liar?

You haven't addressed the obvious fact that subs were around for at least 30 years - 1915 to 1945 - and by all accounts were formidable things, so as FCS points out there seems no clear advantage with nukes.

Prior to 1954 submarines all had to surface or snorkle to replenish their batteries by running the diesel generator. This was a severe limitation and one that was routinely exploited by enemy forces trying to sink them. A submarine that could stay submerged for weeks or months at a time and run at high speed while submerged for prolonged periods of time did not have this disadvantage. This is a clear advantage to nuclear subs. This is plain to anyone who has studied submarines.

When the USS Nautilus went to sea, it became obvious that subs could not be readily detected from the air or from lookouts on surfaces ships which was the usual method of detecting diesel boats that were not close. Improvements in sonar were required to counter the sub threat. This lead to improvements in sound reduction for nuke subs as they were much louder than a submerged diesel boat running on batteries and electric motors. Noisy equipment was mounted on rubber blocks called sound mounts to reduce the vibrations transmitted to the hull and ocean. Quite propellers replaced high speed propellers which reduced top speed but lowered noise.

[rerevisionist]

Exorcist - for some reason that link, and book itself, has been removed from amazon.com but by Googling I found it's still listed in amazon.co.uk: http://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Post-Apocalyptic-Novels-Book-Guide/dp/1233109502

Why would they remove it? I have no real idea, but Wiki has an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction on fictional stories (and films, and presumably radio) after an apocalypse. Wiki doesn't include real life stories of survival after bombings, drone attacks, fire-bombings etc, which seems a bit unfair. Anyway the list includes survival stories after 'nuclear war' so I suppose it's conceivable some of those include smoking guns (witty pun intended).
____________

MartinL - You ask me for the nth time what evidence I want, what the rules are, what is this, what is that. You're the contributor - it's not up to me to tell you what to write.

You say coming to the surface was 'routinely exploited' but that's very much a half-truth. With huge stretches of ocean to choose from, the chance of detection was very low. Otherwise they could never have survived. This is plain to anyone who has studied submarines.

Of course it's true that submarines that stay submerged would be better - but the question is whether they have ever existed. Every time we look at information it seems the claims for long periods under water are unconfirmed. There still seems no hard evidence they were or are nuclear powered. The same is true of surface ships. Please read the entire thread here - skip the trolls if you like - and you'll see what we're getting at.

[MartinL]

BTW......these links no longer seem to work....the Pentagon has obviously cornered the market and bought up all available copies for their troll training programme.....lol

Wrong again, the info is still out there if you are willing to put some effort into it.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss? ... osal&ajr=0

http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9781156572306

Why is it always the Pentagon or other "dark forces" at work here? Maybe Amazon just isn't interested in selling this stuff?

[MartinL]

You say coming to the surface was 'routinely exploited' but that's very much a half-truth. With huge stretches of ocean to choose from, the chance of detection was very low. Otherwise they could never have survived. This is plain to anyone who has studied submarines.

Of course it's true that submarines that stay submerged would be better - but the question is whether they have ever existed. Every time we look at information it seems the claims for long periods under water are unconfirmed. There still seems no hard evidence they were or are nuclear powered. The same is true of surface ships. Please read the entire thread here - skip the trolls if you like - and you'll see what we're getting at.

If a sub wants to hide, then those huge oceans are the right place to do it. But they are not trying to hide. In war subs are used to attack shipping, this means they have to get close enough to launch a torpedo, which means they are close enough to be seen by an escort warship if present. When they are close enough they launched a torpedo, if it was not electrically powered it left a visible wake that could be traced back to the source. Then they had to outrun the escorts which would try to ram or drop depth charges. Hundreds of submarines were not lost at sea because they were trying to hide, they were lost because they were looking for trouble and usually found it.

I am able to confirm that nuclear subs can stay underwater for long periods of time. Two of the subs I was stationed on stayed under for 60 days at a time on a routine basis. I have read much of the posts on this forum that say nuclear powered ships are not real, I find them all to be lacking in good evidence.

Is there one post or topic you would like to debate in detail? What is the reason you think a nuclear reactor cannot power a ship? It is not the claim that a few fissions melts the rest of the core is it? I saw that claim here.