Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #586699 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-06-09 22:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-14 13:08 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-09 22:37 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-09 23:44 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 23:58 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:05 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:08 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:11 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-10 00:18 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-10 10:44 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-10 11:08 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-11 11:19 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-12 09:37 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-14 10:31 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-14 10:38 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-14 11:17 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-18 18:06 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-18 18:43 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-18 09:52 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-18 20:38 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-18 12:16 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-19 07:36 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-06-19 08:16 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-20 07:44 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-21 06:58 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-21 22:36 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-21 15:13 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-24 11:36 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-25 20:30 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-26 11:22 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-26 21:29 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-22 06:44 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-23 08:36 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-24 20:07 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-26 06:48 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-26 01:19 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 22:38 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-26 21:10 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-26 11:22 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 03:12 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-26 21:22 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-10 09:42 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-25 08:49 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-06-10 14:35 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-10 15:55 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-10 09:05 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-15 11:24 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-06-15 11:35 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-15 15:00 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-16 12:26 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-11 06:37 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-11 12:12 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-12 07:45 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-11 17:37 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-11 15:48 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-13 13:04 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-14 08:23 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-14 11:03 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-14 10:28 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-14 20:27 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-15 12:29 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-15 12:04 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-16 07:59 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-16 08:04 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-17 18:54 -0400
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-18 00:42 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-18 15:06 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-16 12:26 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-16 08:30 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-17 08:38 +0200
Re: ...all those Science guys Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-17 00:18 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-15 15:12 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-13 11:45 -0700
Re: ...all those Science guys nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-14 13:08 +0200
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-25 08:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jhnpfoF68ulU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586709 |
Am 10.06.2022 um 09:42 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Most people are not aware... >> (even among this very newsgroup) >> that all those Science guys >> who worked on >> The Manhattan Project >> *didn't* want to work on >> The Manhattan Project. >> >> They had better things >> to do than work for >> Albert Einstein's project. >> >> Those science guys were >> *forced* to work on >> The Manhattan Project. >> >> Against their will. >> >> They were ...drafted. > > That's the craziest idea about Los Alamos ever, > Important for understanding the worldview of the so called 'elite' and their use of the state for private means, is that only hidden knowledge is good knowledge, what would exclude any form of freedom of science. Since freedom of science is a constitutional right, there is a need for a way to restrict access to knowledge. One way is conscription to kind of 'science camp', where all formerly free thinkers have to sweer an oath, that they would keep the hidden knowledge secret. This is absolutely mandatory, because otherwise scientists could develop on their own (and subsequently distribute), what the 'elite' demands as private property. For this purpose scientists were captured away from their laboratories, stuffed into camps in the desert and sworn to secrecy. They could do some useful work there, too, but not invent, what was already known. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 14:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jggs5cF2fabU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586699 |
On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > Most people are not aware... > (even among this very newsgroup) > that all those Science guys > who worked on > The Manhattan Project > *didn't* want to work on > The Manhattan Project. Bollocks. See below. > > They had better things > to do than work for > Albert Einstein's project. > > Those science guys were > *forced* to work on > The Manhattan Project. The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither showed any signs of having been forced. > > Against their will. > > They were ...drafted. -- Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 15:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ptc8q2.13cuds91t9ymdqN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586715 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > > > Most people are not aware... > > (even among this very newsgroup) > > that all those Science guys > > who worked on > > The Manhattan Project > > *didn't* want to work on > > The Manhattan Project. > > Bollocks. See below. > > > > They had better things > > to do than work for > > Albert Einstein's project. > > > > Those science guys were > > *forced* to work on > > The Manhattan Project. > > The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the > Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, > not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither > showed any signs of having been forced. People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) to get the things ready for use before the war ended. They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done until afterwards, [1] Jan [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-10 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2869326-8967-45b4-8f80-d242dbe4ee85n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586718 |
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > > > On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > > > > > Most people are not aware... > > > (even among this very newsgroup) > > > that all those Science guys > > > who worked on > > > The Manhattan Project > > > *didn't* want to work on > > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > Bollocks. See below. > > > > > > They had better things > > > to do than work for > > > Albert Einstein's project. > > > > > > Those science guys were > > > *forced* to work on > > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the > > Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, > > not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither > > showed any signs of having been forced. > People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard > in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) > to get the things ready for use before the war ended. > > They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done > until afterwards, [1] > > Jan > > [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. > He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: > "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets" Whilst dirty Klaus Fuchs stayed on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-15 11:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ptcrmp.mu9fcwpr4ycN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586719 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > > > > > On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > > > > > > > Most people are not aware... > > > > (even among this very newsgroup) > > > > that all those Science guys > > > > who worked on > > > > The Manhattan Project > > > > *didn't* want to work on > > > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > > > Bollocks. See below. > > > > > > > > They had better things > > > > to do than work for > > > > Albert Einstein's project. > > > > > > > > Those science guys were > > > > *forced* to work on > > > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > > > The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the > > > Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, > > > not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither > > > showed any signs of having been forced. > > People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard > > in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) > > to get the things ready for use before the war ended. > > > > They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done > > until afterwards, [1] > > > > Jan > > > > [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. > > He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: > > "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets" > Whilst dirty Klaus Fuchs stayed on. He didn't need Groves to tell him what it was all about, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-15 11:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgtneqF6978U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586984 |
On 2022-06-15 09:24:41 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: >>>> >>>>> Most people are not aware... >>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>>> that all those Science guys >>>>> who worked on >>>>> The Manhattan Project >>>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>> >>>> Bollocks. See below. >>>>> >>>>> They had better things >>>>> to do than work for >>>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>>> >>>>> Those science guys were >>>>> *forced* to work on >>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>> >>>> The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the >>>> Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, >>>> not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither >>>> showed any signs of having been forced. >>> People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard >>> in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) >>> to get the things ready for use before the war ended. >>> >>> They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done >>> until afterwards, [1] >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. >>> He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: >>> "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets" > >> Whilst dirty Klaus Fuchs stayed on. > > He didn't need Groves to tell him what it was all about, I don't know what's "dirty" about doing what he saw as his patriotic duty. (My aunt knew him in London before he went to Los Alamos. They used to go on bicycle rides together. I don't suppose they discussed their political views, not frankly, anyway) -- Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-15 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62AA5669.5F5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586985 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2022-06-15 09:24:41 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > > > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > >>>> > >>>>> Most people are not aware... > >>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) > >>>>> that all those Science guys > >>>>> who worked on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project > >>>>> *didn't* want to work on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>> > >>>> Bollocks. See below. > >>>>> > >>>>> They had better things > >>>>> to do than work for > >>>>> Albert Einstein's project. > >>>>> > >>>>> Those science guys were > >>>>> *forced* to work on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>> > >>>> The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the > >>>> Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, > >>>> not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither > >>>> showed any signs of having been forced. > >>> People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard > >>> in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) > >>> to get the things ready for use before the war ended. > >>> > >>> They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done > >>> until afterwards, [1] > >>> > >>> Jan > >>> > >>> [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. > >>> He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: > >>> "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets" > > > >> Whilst dirty Klaus Fuchs stayed on. > > > > He didn't need Groves to tell him what it was all about, > > I don't know what's "dirty" about doing what he saw as his patriotic duty. > > (My aunt knew him in London before he went to Los Alamos. They used to > go on bicycle rides together. I don't suppose they discussed their > political views, not frankly, anyway) Is dat a joke? Surely you jest... He was a dirty commie! "Klaus Fuchs, a German-born British scientist who helped developed the atomic bomb, is arrested in Great Britain for passing top-secret information about the bomb to the Soviet Union. The arrest of Fuchs led authorities to several other individuals involved in a spy ring, culminating with the arrest of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and their subsequent execution. He shouda gottin da electra chair, dat dirty commie. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-16 12:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ptmy2v.pi8zeo6qih2xN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586985 |
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > On 2022-06-15 09:24:41 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > > > patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2022-06-10 05:37:50 +0000, The Starmaker said: > >>>> > >>>>> Most people are not aware... > >>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) > >>>>> that all those Science guys > >>>>> who worked on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project > >>>>> *didn't* want to work on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>> > >>>> Bollocks. See below. > >>>>> > >>>>> They had better things > >>>>> to do than work for > >>>>> Albert Einstein's project. > >>>>> > >>>>> Those science guys were > >>>>> *forced* to work on > >>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>> > >>>> The only science guys that I knew personally who had worked on the > >>>> Manhattan Project were Dan Koshland and Waldo Cohn (both at Oak Ridge, > >>>> not Los Alamos). Both were proud of having participated, and neither > >>>> showed any signs of having been forced. > >>> People at Los Alamos worked incredibly hard > >>> in the last year of the war (making 16 hour days) > >>> to get the things ready for use before the war ended. > >>> > >>> They didn't develop second thoughts about what they had done > >>> until afterwards, [1] > >>> > >>> Jan > >>> > >>> [1] The only exception I know about is Joseph Rotblat. > >>> He left Los Alamos in 1944 after hearing Gen. Leslie Groves say that: > >>> "of course the real purpose of the project is to subdue the Soviets" > > > >> Whilst dirty Klaus Fuchs stayed on. > > > > He didn't need Groves to tell him what it was all about, > > I don't know what's "dirty" about doing what he saw as his patriotic duty. > > (My aunt knew him in London before he went to Los Alamos. They used to > go on bicycle rides together. I don't suppose they discussed their > political views, not frankly, anyway) Feynman was friends with Fuchs too. (they were lodged in the same building) Klaus Fuchs was quite helpful, and he was one of the few in Los Alamos who had a private car. Feyman borrowed it to visit his wife in Albuquerque. (she was in hospital there, and dying from tuberculosis) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-11 06:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgikg2Fblm1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586699 |
Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: > Most people are not aware... > (even among this very newsgroup) > that all those Science guys > who worked on > The Manhattan Project > *didn't* want to work on > The Manhattan Project. > > They had better things > to do than work for > Albert Einstein's project. > > Those science guys were > *forced* to work on > The Manhattan Project. > > Against their will. > > They were ...drafted. > > > > > The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). The reason: the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: atomic bombs. That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the Manhattan project, too. A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-11 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62A4E92F.3BDF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586744 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: > > Most people are not aware... > > (even among this very newsgroup) > > that all those Science guys > > who worked on > > The Manhattan Project > > *didn't* want to work on > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > They had better things > > to do than work for > > Albert Einstein's project. > > > > Those science guys were > > *forced* to work on > > The Manhattan Project. > > > > Against their will. > > > > They were ...drafted. > > > > > > > > > > > The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project > even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). > > The reason: > > the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented > a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. > > Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. > > And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. > > And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: > atomic bombs. > > That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the > Manhattan project, too. > > A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants > were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. > > TH You need to correct your incorrect word 'fridge' to what Albert Einstein wrote and called it:REFRIGERATION It's right there in capitol letters on top of his patert:REFRIGERATION https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Einstein+Albert&sort=old The definition of REFRIGERATION is; a process of removing heat from an enclosed space or from a substance for the purpose of lowering the temperature. the "process";a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. Description NOW 1930- AI'EINSTEIN ET AL. ,78 ,541 REFRIGERATION Filed Dec. 16 1927 Patented Nov. 11, 1930 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE ALBERT EINSTEIN, OF BERLIN, AND LEO SZILARD, OF BERI IN-WILMERSDORF, GER- MANY, ASSIGNORS TO ELECT-ROLUX SERVEL CORPORATION, OF NEW YORK, N. Y., .A. REFRIGERATION an inert gas-and more particularly to the type disclosed in Patent No. 1,685,764 granted September 25th, 1928, to Von Platen and Munters and our British Patent No. 282,428. The objects and advantages of our invention will be apparent from the following description considered in connection with the accompanying drawing which shows, more or less diagrammatically, a preferred embodiment of our invention. Referring to the drawing. reference character 1 designates an evaporator, which is ordinarily placed within a chamber to be cooled. A conduit 5 connects the upper part of evaporator 1 with the more intermediate portion 1 tends within condenser 6 at a level below the point ofcommunication of conduit -5 with the condenser. A cooling water jacket 12 surrounds the condenser and is adapted for the passage therethrough of water for the purpose of cooling the condenser. A conduit 27 communicates with the bottom of condenser 6 and with the lower part of a heat exchanger jacket 28. The upper part of jacket 28 is connected to the lower part of generator 29. Generator 29 is heated in any suitable manner. Aconduit 30 communicates with the upper part of generator 29 and extends within evaporator to a point near the I bottom thereof where it terminates in a disupwardly to. within the, upper "part 'of con- Our invention relates to the art of refrig- Application filed December 16, 1927, Serial No. 240,566, and in Germany December 16, 1926. denser 6 where it terminates in a distributor head 35. Conduit 37 passes within cooling water jacket 12 in order that fluid passing through this conduit may be cooled. A vent condult 34 connects the upper part of container 33 with the upper part of condenser 6. The operation of the above described apparatus is as follows: r A suitable refrigerant; for instance butane, in liquid form is'contained within evaporator 1. An inert gas, for instance ammonia, is introduced into evaporator 1 through conduit 30 and distributor head 31. The refrigerant evaporates in the evaporator in the presence of the inert gas due to the fact that the partial pressure of the refrigerant is reduced thereby and the resulting gaseous mixture passes through conduit 5 to within condenser 6. Here the mixture'comes in intimate contact with an absorption liquid, for example water, which is introduced into the condenser through conduit 37 and distributor head 35. Inasmuch as the ammonia gas is very soluble in water, while the butane is quite insoluble, the ammonia gas is absorbed by the water, thus freeing the butane from the gaseous mix ture. Thus the butane assumes substantially the entire pressure within the condenser, which pressure is suflicient to cause its liquefaction at the temperature maintained therein by the cooling water. The specific gravity of liquid butane is less than that of the solution of ammonia in water and hence stratification of the two, liquids occurs, the liquid butane floating upon the ammonia solution. The latter solution is indicated by reference character 26. The liquid butane passes from condenser 6 through conduit 11 and returns toevaporator 1, where it is again evaporated and the cycle repeated. The ammonia solution flows b gravity from condenser 6 through conduit 2; and heat exchanger jacket 28 to within generator 29. Here the application of heat causes the ammonia to be expelled as a gas from the solution and this ammonia gas passes through conduit 30 and distributor head 31 to within evaporator 1, where it reduces the partial pressure of the butane, wherefore the latter evaporates as previously described. Water, containing but little ammonia in solution, passes from generator 29 into conduit.32 where it is further heated by the source of heat 36. This heating causes the formation of vapor in conduit 32 which lifts liquid through this conduit to within container 33. The liquid thus supplied to container 33 may pass by gravity through conduit 37 to condenser 6. The'hot'weak liquid passing through conduit 87 is brought into heat exchange relationship with the cool strong liquid passing through heat exchanger jacket 28 and an exchange of heat between the two liquids takes place. The weak liquid is further cooled by being brought into heat exchange relation with the cooling water in jacket 12 and is hence ina condition to rapidly absorb ammonia in the condenser. Vapor entering container 33 from conduit- 32 passes therefrom through vent conduit 34 to the condenser. During the operation of the hereinbefore described apparatus, the pressure existing in the various members is uniform with the exception of slight pressure differences, sufficient to cause flow of.fluids. caused by liquid columns. The pressure existing in generator 29 must be sufficiently greater than that existing in the upper part of evaporator 1 to cause the flow of vapor to take placefrom distributor head 31, or, in other words, to overcome the liquid head designated by k This excess pressure in the generator is balanced by the head exerted by the column of liquid equal to the differences in levels between the liquid in condenser 6 and generator 29, indicated by k It is, of course, necessary that the head represented by h is less than that represented by h, in order that flow shall take place While we have described a preferred embodiment for carrying out our invention, it is to be understood that modifications thereof fall within the scope of the invention, which is to be limited only by the appended claims viewed in the light of the prior art. What we claim is: 1. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a condenser arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a. container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing an inert gas dissolved in absorption liquid andadapted to expel the inert gas from solution, a conduit for conducting the inert gas from the generator to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid refrigerant from the condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of refrigerant and inert gas from the evaporator to the condenser 1n heat exchange relation' with inert gas passing into the evaporator, a, conduit for conductmgnch absorption liquid from thecondenser to the generator by gravity, a congenerator, a condenser arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing aninert gas dissolved in absorption liquid and adapted to expel the inert gas from solution, a conduit for conducting the inert gas from the generator to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid refrigerant from the condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of refrigerant and inert gas from the evaporator to the condenser in heat exchange relation with inert gas passing into the evaporator, a conduit for conducting rich absorption liquid from the condenser to the generator by gravity, a conduit for conducting weak absorption liquid from said container to said condenser by gravity, a conduit extending upwardly from said generator to said container, means to heat the last-mentioned conduitto lift liquid from the generator to the container and a vent conduit connecting the upper part of said container Withsaid condenser. 3. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a condenser arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing ammonia dissolved in water and adapted to expel the ammonia from solution, a conduit for conducting the ammonia gas from the generator to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid butane from the condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of butane and ammonia from the evaporator to the condenser in heat exchange relation with ammonia gas passing into the evaporator, a conduit for conducting strong solution of ammonia in water from the condenser to the generator by gravity, a conduit for conducting weak solution of ammonia in water from said container to said condenser by gravity, a conduit extending upwardly from said generator to said container and means to heat the last-men tioned conduit to lift liquid'from the generator to the container. 4. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a condenser arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing ammonia dissolved in water and adapted to expel the ammonia from solution, a conduit for conducting the ammonia gas from the generator'to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid butane from the condenser to the evaporator,' a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of butane and ammonia from the evaporator to the condenser in heat exchange relation with ammonia gas passing into the evaporator, a conduit for conduct-- ing strong solution of ammonia in water from the condenser to the generator by gravity, a conduit for conducting weak solution of ammonia in water from said container to said 7 condenser by gravity, a conduit extending upwardly from said generator to said container, means to heat the last-mentioned conduit to lift liquid from the generator to the container and a vent conduit connecting the upper part of said container with said condenser. v 5; Method of refrigerating which comprises evaporating a liquidcooling agent in the presence of an inert gas to absorb heat and thus forming a gaseous mixture of cooling agent and inert gas, conveying the gaseous mixture into the presence of an absorption liquid at such condition that the cooling agent condenses on beingdeprived of inert gas in gaseous mixture therewith due'to the introduction of absorption liquid intothe presence of the inert as, separating the solution of inert gas in a sorption medium from the condensed cooling agent, returning the condensed cooling agent to the presence of the inert gas,- separating the inert gas and absorption liquid by heat, circulating the absorption liquid by means of a separate ource of heat to the presence of the gaseous mix- 33 ture of cooling agent and inert gas and returning the inert gas to the presence of the liquid cooling. agent. In testimony whereof we hereunto aflix our signatures. 40 ALBERT EINSTEIN. LEO SZILARD. It is simply used to cool the reactor core to prevent a China syndrome. https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/student-pwr.gif https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-12 07:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jglcrsFpv0dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586776 |
Am 11.06.2022 um 21:12 schrieb The Starmaker: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>> Most people are not aware... >>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>> that all those Science guys >>> who worked on >>> The Manhattan Project >>> *didn't* want to work on >>> The Manhattan Project. >>> >>> They had better things >>> to do than work for >>> Albert Einstein's project. >>> >>> Those science guys were >>> *forced* to work on >>> The Manhattan Project. >>> >>> Against their will. >>> >>> They were ...drafted. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project >> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >> >> The reason: >> >> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented >> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. >> >> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. >> >> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. >> >> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: >> atomic bombs. >> >> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >> Manhattan project, too. >> >> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants >> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. >> >> TH > > You need to correct your incorrect word 'fridge' to what Albert Einstein > wrote and called it:REFRIGERATION > > It's right there in capitol letters on top of his patert:REFRIGERATION > > https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf > > https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Einstein+Albert&sort=old > > > The definition of REFRIGERATION is; a process of removing heat from > an enclosed space or from a substance for the purpose of lowering the > temperature. > > the "process";a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a > particular end. > > > > > Description > NOW 1930- AI'EINSTEIN ET AL. ,78 ,541 > REFRIGERATION Filed Dec. 16 1927 Patented Nov. 11, 1930 UNITED STATES > PATENT OFFICE ALBERT EINSTEIN, OF BERLIN, AND LEO SZILARD, OF BERI > IN-WILMERSDORF, GER- MANY, ASSIGNORS TO ELECT-ROLUX SERVEL CORPORATION, > OF NEW YORK, N. Y., .A. > REFRIGERATION an inert gas-and more particularly to the type disclosed > in Patent No. 1,685,764 granted September 25th, 1928, to Von Platen and > Munters and our British Patent No. 282,428. > The objects and advantages of our invention will be apparent from the > following description considered in connection with the accompanying > drawing which shows, more or less diagrammatically, a preferred > embodiment of our invention. > Referring to the drawing. reference character 1 designates an > evaporator, which is ordinarily placed within a chamber to be cooled. A > conduit 5 connects the upper part of evaporator 1 with the more > intermediate portion 1 tends within condenser 6 at a level below the > point ofcommunication of conduit -5 with the condenser. A cooling water > jacket 12 surrounds the condenser and is adapted for the passage > therethrough of water for the purpose of cooling the condenser. > A conduit 27 communicates with the bottom of condenser 6 and with the > lower part of a heat exchanger jacket 28. The upper part of jacket 28 is > connected to the lower part of generator 29. Generator 29 is heated in > any suitable manner. Aconduit 30 communicates with the upper part of > generator 29 and extends within evaporator to a point near the I bottom > thereof where it terminates in a disupwardly to. within the, upper "part > 'of con- Our invention relates to the art of refrig- Application filed > December 16, 1927, Serial No. 240,566, and in Germany December 16, 1926. > denser 6 where it terminates in a distributor head 35. Conduit 37 passes > within cooling water jacket 12 in order that fluid passing through this > conduit may be cooled. A vent condult 34 connects the upper part of > container 33 with the upper part of condenser 6. > The operation of the above described apparatus is as follows: r > A suitable refrigerant; for instance butane, in liquid form is'contained > within evaporator 1. An inert gas, for instance ammonia, is introduced > into evaporator 1 through conduit 30 and distributor head 31. The > refrigerant evaporates in the evaporator in the presence of the inert > gas due to the fact that the partial pressure of the refrigerant is > reduced thereby and the resulting gaseous mixture passes through conduit > 5 to within condenser 6. Here the mixture'comes in intimate contact with > an absorption liquid, for example water, which is introduced into the > condenser through conduit 37 and distributor head 35. Inasmuch as the > ammonia gas is very soluble in water, while the butane is quite > insoluble, the ammonia gas is absorbed by the water, thus freeing the > butane from the gaseous mix ture. Thus the butane assumes substantially > the entire pressure within the condenser, which pressure is suflicient > to cause its liquefaction at the temperature maintained therein by the > cooling water. > The specific gravity of liquid butane is less than that of the solution > of ammonia in water and hence stratification of the two, liquids occurs, > the liquid butane floating upon the ammonia solution. The latter > solution is indicated by reference character 26. The liquid butane > passes from condenser 6 through conduit 11 and returns toevaporator 1, > where it is again evaporated and the cycle repeated. > The ammonia solution flows b gravity from condenser 6 through conduit 2; > and heat exchanger jacket 28 to within generator 29. Here the > application of heat causes the ammonia to be expelled as a gas from the > solution and this ammonia gas passes through conduit 30 and distributor > head 31 to within evaporator 1, where it reduces the partial pressure of > the butane, wherefore the latter evaporates as previously described. > Water, containing but little ammonia in solution, passes from generator > 29 into conduit.32 where it is further heated by the source of heat 36. > This heating causes the formation of vapor in conduit 32 which lifts > liquid through this conduit to within container 33. The liquid thus > supplied to container 33 may pass by gravity through conduit 37 to > condenser 6. The'hot'weak liquid passing through conduit 87 is brought > into heat exchange relationship with the cool strong liquid passing > through heat exchanger jacket 28 and an exchange of heat between the two > liquids takes place. The weak liquid is further cooled by being brought > into heat exchange relation with the cooling water in jacket 12 and is > hence ina condition to rapidly absorb ammonia in the condenser. > Vapor entering container 33 from conduit- 32 passes therefrom through > vent conduit 34 to the condenser. > During the operation of the hereinbefore described apparatus, the > pressure existing in the various members is uniform with the exception > of slight pressure differences, sufficient to cause flow of.fluids. > caused by liquid columns. The pressure existing in generator 29 must be > sufficiently greater than that existing in the upper part of evaporator > 1 to cause the flow of vapor to take placefrom distributor head 31, or, > in other words, to overcome the liquid head designated by k This excess > pressure in the generator is balanced by the head exerted by the column > of liquid equal to the differences in levels between the liquid in > condenser 6 and generator 29, indicated by k It is, of course, necessary > that the head represented by h is less than that represented by h, in > order that flow shall take place While we have described a preferred > embodiment for carrying out our invention, it is to be understood that > modifications thereof fall within the scope of the invention, > which is to be limited only by the appended claims viewed in the light > of the prior art. > What we claim is: 1. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a > condenser arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, > a. > container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator > containing an inert gas dissolved in absorption liquid andadapted to > expel the inert gas from solution, a conduit for conducting the inert > gas from the generator to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting > liquid refrigerant from the condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for > conducting mixed vapor of refrigerant and inert gas from the evaporator > to the condenser 1n heat exchange relation' with inert gas passing into > the evaporator, a, conduit for conductmgnch absorption liquid from > thecondenser to the generator by gravity, a congenerator, a condenser > arranged at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a > container arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator > containing aninert gas dissolved in absorption liquid and adapted to > expel the inert gas from solution, a conduit for conducting the inert > gas from the generator to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting > liquid refrigerant from the condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for > conducting mixed vapor of refrigerant and inert gas from the evaporator > to the condenser in heat exchange relation with inert gas passing into > the evaporator, a conduit for conducting rich absorption liquid from the > condenser to the generator by gravity, a conduit for conducting weak > absorption liquid from said container to said condenser by gravity, a > conduit extending upwardly from said generator to said container, means > to heat the last-mentioned conduitto lift liquid from the generator to > the container and a vent conduit connecting the upper part of said > container Withsaid condenser. > 3. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a condenser arranged > at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a container > arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing > ammonia dissolved in water and adapted to expel the ammonia from > solution, a conduit for conducting the ammonia gas from the generator to > the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid butane from the > condenser to the evaporator, a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of > butane and ammonia from the evaporator to the condenser in heat exchange > relation with ammonia gas passing into the evaporator, a conduit for > conducting strong solution of ammonia in water from the condenser to the > generator by gravity, > a conduit for conducting weak solution of ammonia in water from said > container to said condenser by gravity, a conduit extending upwardly > from said generator to said container and means to heat the last-men > tioned conduit to lift liquid'from the generator to the container. > 4. Refrigerating apparatus comprising a generator, a condenser arranged > at a higher level than the generator, an evaporator, a container > arranged at a higher level than the condenser, said generator containing > ammonia dissolved in water and adapted to expel the ammonia from > solution, a conduit for conducting the ammonia gas from the generator'to > the evaporator, a conduit for conducting liquid butane from the > condenser to the evaporator,' a conduit for conducting mixed vapor of > butane and ammonia from the evaporator to the condenser in heat exchange > relation with ammonia gas passing into the evaporator, a conduit for > conduct-- ing strong solution of ammonia in water from the condenser to > the generator by gravity, a conduit for conducting weak solution of > ammonia in water from said container to said 7 condenser by gravity, a > conduit extending upwardly from said generator to said container, means > to heat the last-mentioned conduit to lift liquid from the generator to > the container and a vent conduit connecting the upper part of said > container with said condenser. v > 5; Method of refrigerating which comprises evaporating a liquidcooling > agent in the presence of an inert gas to absorb heat and thus forming a > gaseous mixture of cooling agent and inert gas, conveying the gaseous > mixture into the presence of an absorption liquid at such condition that > the cooling agent condenses on beingdeprived of inert gas in gaseous > mixture therewith due'to the introduction of absorption liquid intothe > presence of the inert as, separating the solution of inert gas in a > sorption medium from the condensed cooling agent, returning the > condensed cooling agent to the presence of the inert gas,- separating > the inert gas and absorption liquid by heat, circulating the absorption > liquid by means of a separate ource of heat to the presence of the > gaseous mix- 33 ture of cooling agent and inert gas and returning the > inert gas to the presence of the liquid cooling. agent. > In testimony whereof we hereunto aflix our signatures. 40 ALBERT > EINSTEIN. LEO SZILARD. > > > > > > > It is simply used to cool the reactor core to prevent a China syndrome. > > https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/student-pwr.gif > > https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf In Germany abstract concepts like refridgeration cannot be patented, but technical devices can be patented. This is different in the USA, where almost everything can be patented. So: his German patent was about a device, because refridgeration per se was not patentable in Germany. Much later students tried to replicate the device and found, it didn't work. That's why I thought, the device was not meant to cool household items like food. But Einstein received most of his income by this particular patent, hence the device must have had some use. But the only known use is inside a fast breeding reactor. So, we should think about the possibility, that such reactors were already known at that time, but hidden from the public. For that secrecy, the device was ascribed to refridgeration, what was most likely not its purpose. Doesn't matter, anyhow, because also the breeding reactor and its purpose were hidden behind a smokescreen of lies and disinformation. From this would follow, that the Manhattan project was also a farce and meant as means for conscription and implemantation of secrecy, rather than scientific research. Technical issues could be a topic, nevertheless, what would make the project more an engineering endeavour. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-11 17:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t831t4$5oa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586744 |
On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >> Most people are not aware... >> (even among this very newsgroup) >> that all those Science guys >> who worked on >> The Manhattan Project >> *didn't* want to work on >> The Manhattan Project. >> >> They had better things >> to do than work for >> Albert Einstein's project. >> >> Those science guys were >> *forced* to work on >> The Manhattan Project. >> >> Against their will. >> >> They were ...drafted. >> >> >> >> >> > The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project > even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). > > The reason: > > the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented > a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. Totally absurd! First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at the time of patenting? Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in RVs and "off the grid" people everywhere. Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high temperatures of a nuclear reactor. You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, and also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many other things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from Starfarter. > > Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any nuclear reactor, for that matter. > > And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the dangerous components of spent fuel). > > And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: > atomic bombs. It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn it. In fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) > > That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the > Manhattan project, too. What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a fancy RV refrigerator? > > A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants > were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky Promise!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-11 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62A51BD6.23FF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586778 |
Volney wrote: > > On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: > >> Most people are not aware... > >> (even among this very newsgroup) > >> that all those Science guys > >> who worked on > >> The Manhattan Project > >> *didn't* want to work on > >> The Manhattan Project. > >> > >> They had better things > >> to do than work for > >> Albert Einstein's project. > >> > >> Those science guys were > >> *forced* to work on > >> The Manhattan Project. > >> > >> Against their will. > >> > >> They were ...drafted. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project > > even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). > > > > The reason: > > > > the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented > > a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. > > Totally absurd! > > First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until > 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. > How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at > the time of patenting? > > Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep > vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no > electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in RVs > and "off the grid" people everywhere. > > Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, > which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high > temperatures of a nuclear reactor. > > You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, and > also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many other > things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from > Starfarter. > > > > Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. > > Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much > less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any > nuclear reactor, for that matter. > > > > And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. > > Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW > another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear > power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding > (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the > reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the > dangerous components of spent fuel). > > > > And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: > > atomic bombs. > > It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn it. In > fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so > that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used > in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) > > > > That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the > > Manhattan project, too. > > What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a > fancy RV refrigerator? > > > > A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants > > were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. > > You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme > military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky > Promise!!!" You speled Baloney wrong, it's Voloney! You are full of Voloney!!! You're not even wrong! Your first mistake when you said: "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder reactors wasn't even known then." The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind breeder reactors wasn't even known then." It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder reactors! Since 1905, Albert Einstein drew a straight bee line to build his atomic bomb. His first patent, was https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D--B9FZU8AMnCvt?format=jpg&name=large https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1 a nuclear reactor!!! This https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280108349714434/photo/1 is this! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D--B9FZU8AMnCvt?format=jpg&name=large https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1 -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-13 13:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t87qm3$u66$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586786 |
On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Volney wrote: >> >> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>> Most people are not aware... >>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>> that all those Science guys >>>> who worked on >>>> The Manhattan Project >>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>> >>>> They had better things >>>> to do than work for >>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>> >>>> Those science guys were >>>> *forced* to work on >>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>> >>>> Against their will. >>>> >>>> They were ...drafted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan Project >>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >>> >>> The reason: >>> >>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented >>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. >> >> Totally absurd! >> >> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until >> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. >> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at >> the time of patenting? >> >> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep >> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no >> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in RVs >> and "off the grid" people everywhere. >> >> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, >> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high >> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. >> >> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, and >> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many other >> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from >> Starfarter. >>> >>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in Germany. >> >> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much >> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any >> nuclear reactor, for that matter. >>> >>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce Plutonium. >> >> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW >> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear >> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding >> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the >> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the >> dangerous components of spent fuel). >>> >>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: >>> atomic bombs. >> >> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn it. In >> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so >> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used >> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) >>> >>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >>> Manhattan project, too. >> >> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a >> fancy RV refrigerator? >>> >>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants >>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. >> >> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme >> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky >> Promise!!!" > > You're not even wrong! > > Your first mistake when you said: > "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > reactors wasn't even known then." Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. > > > The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 > https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf > > Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind breeder > reactors wasn't even known then." > > > It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder > reactors! Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator without a seal which could leak. > > Since 1905, Albert Einstein drew a straight bee line to build > his atomic bomb. Again, the concept of an atomic bomb makes no sense without knowing of the existence of fission and the neutron, which didn't happen until the 1930s. Einstein was also very much a pacifist, his only contribution to the atomic bomb was co-signing a letter to the president warning him such a weapon was possible and Nazi Germany may be working on it. <snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 08:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgqnqdFmeesU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586901 |
Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: > On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Volney wrote: >>> >>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>> Most people are not aware... >>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>>> that all those Science guys >>>>> who worked on >>>>> The Manhattan Project >>>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>> >>>>> They had better things >>>>> to do than work for >>>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>>> >>>>> Those science guys were >>>>> *forced* to work on >>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>> >>>>> Against their will. >>>>> >>>>> They were ...drafted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan >>>> Project >>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >>>> >>>> The reason: >>>> >>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have patented >>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. >>> >>> Totally absurd! >>> >>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until >>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. >>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at >>> the time of patenting? >>> >>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep >>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no >>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in RVs >>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. >>> >>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, >>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high >>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. >>> >>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, and >>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many other >>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from >>> Starfarter. >>>> >>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in >>>> Germany. >>> >>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much >>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any >>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. >>>> >>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce >>>> Plutonium. >>> >>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW >>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear >>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding >>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the >>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the >>> dangerous components of spent fuel). >>>> >>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known reason: >>>> atomic bombs. >>> >>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn it. In >>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so >>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used >>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) >>>> >>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >>>> Manhattan project, too. >>> >>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a >>> fancy RV refrigerator? >>>> >>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all participants >>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public narrative. >>> >>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme >>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky >>> Promise!!!" >> >> You're not even wrong! >> >> Your first mistake when you said: >> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >> reactors wasn't even known then." > > Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. >> >> >> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 >> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf >> >> >> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind >> breeder >> reactors wasn't even known then." >> >> >> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder >> reactors! > > Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, > neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be > needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". > > The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper > story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked > from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator > without a seal which could leak. Einstein's fridge could not work. It uses three different substances, and the actual refridgerant is liquid butane. But there is no ventury tube or similar in the path of the butane vapor, just a tube with a heat exchanger (No 5). But the cooling effect is usually caused by expansion of the coolant in such a tube, which Einstein's fridge didn't have. I also see no means, that would keep the butane liquid. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 11:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t8a80l$l1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586924 |
On 6/14/2022 2:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: >> On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Volney wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>> Most people are not aware... >>>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>>>> that all those Science guys >>>>>> who worked on >>>>>> The Manhattan Project >>>>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>> >>>>>> They had better things >>>>>> to do than work for >>>>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those science guys were >>>>>> *forced* to work on >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>> >>>>>> Against their will. >>>>>> >>>>>> They were ...drafted. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan >>>>> Project >>>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >>>>> >>>>> The reason: >>>>> >>>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have >>>>> patented >>>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. >>>> >>>> Totally absurd! >>>> >>>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until >>>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. >>>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at >>>> the time of patenting? >>>> >>>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep >>>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no >>>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in >>>> RVs >>>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. >>>> >>>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, >>>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high >>>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. >>>> >>>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, >>>> and >>>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many >>>> other >>>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from >>>> Starfarter. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in >>>>> Germany. >>>> >>>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much >>>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any >>>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. >>>>> >>>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce >>>>> Plutonium. >>>> >>>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW >>>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear >>>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding >>>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the >>>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the >>>> dangerous components of spent fuel). >>>>> >>>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known >>>>> reason: >>>>> atomic bombs. >>>> >>>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn >>>> it. In >>>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so >>>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used >>>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) >>>>> >>>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >>>>> Manhattan project, too. >>>> >>>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a >>>> fancy RV refrigerator? >>>>> >>>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all >>>>> participants >>>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public >>>>> narrative. >>>> >>>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme >>>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky >>>> Promise!!!" >>> >>> You're not even wrong! >>> >>> Your first mistake when you said: >>> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>> reactors wasn't even known then." >> >> Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. >>> >>> >>> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 >>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind >>> breeder >>> reactors wasn't even known then." >>> >>> >>> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder >>> reactors! >> >> Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, >> neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be >> needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". >> >> The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper >> story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked >> from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator >> without a seal which could leak. > > > Einstein's fridge could not work. The fact that it *did* work obviously shows that this is wrong. If reality conflicts with a claim, it's not reality which is wrong. It failed commercially because Freon was invented so standard refrigerators could be used without poisonous refrigerants, it wasn't efficient, and rise of Nazism/WW2. > > It uses three different substances, and the actual refridgerant is > liquid butane. Both ammonia and butane are refrigerants. It provides cooling by converting ammonia and butane to gas, in the evaporator to the right. > > But there is no ventury tube or similar in the path of the butane vapor, > just a tube with a heat exchanger (No 5). > > But the cooling effect is usually caused by expansion of the coolant in > such a tube, which Einstein's fridge didn't have. > > I also see no means, that would keep the butane liquid. The whole system is under a certain pressure. It works by producing different partial pressures of ammonia and butane in different portions of the device, plus absorption/release of gas in liquid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62A8C549.64B2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586938 |
Volney wrote: > > On 6/14/2022 2:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: > >> On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Volney wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: > >>>>>> Most people are not aware... > >>>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) > >>>>>> that all those Science guys > >>>>>> who worked on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project > >>>>>> *didn't* want to work on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They had better things > >>>>>> to do than work for > >>>>>> Albert Einstein's project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Those science guys were > >>>>>> *forced* to work on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Against their will. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They were ...drafted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan > >>>>> Project > >>>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). > >>>>> > >>>>> The reason: > >>>>> > >>>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have > >>>>> patented > >>>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. > >>>> > >>>> Totally absurd! > >>>> > >>>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > >>>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until > >>>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. > >>>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at > >>>> the time of patenting? > >>>> > >>>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep > >>>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no > >>>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in > >>>> RVs > >>>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. > >>>> > >>>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, > >>>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high > >>>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. > >>>> > >>>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, > >>>> and > >>>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many > >>>> other > >>>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from > >>>> Starfarter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in > >>>>> Germany. > >>>> > >>>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much > >>>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any > >>>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. > >>>>> > >>>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce > >>>>> Plutonium. > >>>> > >>>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW > >>>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear > >>>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding > >>>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the > >>>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the > >>>> dangerous components of spent fuel). > >>>>> > >>>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known > >>>>> reason: > >>>>> atomic bombs. > >>>> > >>>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn > >>>> it. In > >>>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so > >>>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used > >>>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) > >>>>> > >>>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the > >>>>> Manhattan project, too. > >>>> > >>>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a > >>>> fancy RV refrigerator? > >>>>> > >>>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all > >>>>> participants > >>>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public > >>>>> narrative. > >>>> > >>>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme > >>>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky > >>>> Promise!!!" > >>> > >>> You're not even wrong! > >>> > >>> Your first mistake when you said: > >>> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > >>> reactors wasn't even known then." > >> > >> Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. > >>> > >>> > >>> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 > >>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind > >>> breeder > >>> reactors wasn't even known then." > >>> > >>> > >>> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder > >>> reactors! > >> > >> Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, > >> neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be > >> needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". > >> > >> The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper > >> story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked > >> from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator > >> without a seal which could leak. > > > > > > Einstein's fridge could not work. > > The fact that it *did* work obviously shows that this is wrong. If > reality conflicts with a claim, it's not reality which is wrong. > > It failed commercially because Freon was invented so standard > refrigerators could be used without poisonous refrigerants, it wasn't > efficient, and rise of Nazism/WW2. > > > > It uses three different substances, and the actual refridgerant is > > liquid butane. > > Both ammonia and butane are refrigerants. It provides cooling by > converting ammonia and butane to gas, in the evaporator to the right. "refrigerants"? Finally you're getting close to what Albert Einstein had in mind..'a substance used for refrigeration'. a process, not a machine. He needs to cool his nucler reactor so he won't have a 3 mile island china syndrome. You're not full of VOLONEY like I thought you were.. you just....confused. > > > > But there is no ventury tube or similar in the path of the butane vapor, > > just a tube with a heat exchanger (No 5). > > > > But the cooling effect is usually caused by expansion of the coolant in > > such a tube, which Einstein's fridge didn't have. > > > > I also see no means, that would keep the butane liquid. > > The whole system is under a certain pressure. It works by producing > different partial pressures of ammonia and butane in different portions > of the device, plus absorption/release of gas in liquid. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-14 20:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ptjxii.15psy791t0w0gN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #586938 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 6/14/2022 2:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: > >> On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Volney wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: > >>>>>> Most people are not aware... > >>>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) > >>>>>> that all those Science guys > >>>>>> who worked on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project > >>>>>> *didn't* want to work on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They had better things > >>>>>> to do than work for > >>>>>> Albert Einstein's project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Those science guys were > >>>>>> *forced* to work on > >>>>>> The Manhattan Project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Against their will. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They were ...drafted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan > >>>>> Project > >>>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). > >>>>> > >>>>> The reason: > >>>>> > >>>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have > >>>>> patented > >>>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. > >>>> > >>>> Totally absurd! > >>>> > >>>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > >>>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until > >>>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. > >>>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at > >>>> the time of patenting? > >>>> > >>>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep > >>>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no > >>>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in > >>>> RVs > >>>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. > >>>> > >>>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, > >>>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high > >>>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. > >>>> > >>>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, > >>>> and > >>>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many > >>>> other > >>>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from > >>>> Starfarter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in > >>>>> Germany. > >>>> > >>>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much > >>>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any > >>>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. > >>>>> > >>>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce > >>>>> Plutonium. > >>>> > >>>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW > >>>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear > >>>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding > >>>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the > >>>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the > >>>> dangerous components of spent fuel). > >>>>> > >>>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known > >>>>> reason: > >>>>> atomic bombs. > >>>> > >>>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn > >>>> it. In > >>>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so > >>>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used > >>>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) > >>>>> > >>>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the > >>>>> Manhattan project, too. > >>>> > >>>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a > >>>> fancy RV refrigerator? > >>>>> > >>>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all > >>>>> participants > >>>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public > >>>>> narrative. > >>>> > >>>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme > >>>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky > >>>> Promise!!!" > >>> > >>> You're not even wrong! > >>> > >>> Your first mistake when you said: > >>> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder > >>> reactors wasn't even known then." > >> > >> Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. > >>> > >>> > >>> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 > >>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781 541.pdf > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind > >>> breeder > >>> reactors wasn't even known then." > >>> > >>> > >>> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder > >>> reactors! > >> > >> Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, > >> neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be > >> needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". > >> > >> The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper > >> story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked > >> from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator > >> without a seal which could leak. > > > > > > Einstein's fridge could not work. > > The fact that it *did* work obviously shows that this is wrong. If > reality conflicts with a claim, it's not reality which is wrong. > > It failed commercially because Freon was invented so standard > refrigerators could be used without poisonous refrigerants, it wasn't > efficient, and rise of Nazism/WW2. It didn't fail at all. 'Absorbtion' refrigerators were marketed until the sixties. What killed them was thermal inefficiency. And not even that, they are still marketed for mobile applications, like camping cars, and other nice applications, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-15 12:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jgtqjbF6ol9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #586950 |
Am 14.06.2022 um 20:27 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 6/14/2022 2:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: >>>> On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Volney wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>> Most people are not aware... >>>>>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>>>>>> that all those Science guys >>>>>>>> who worked on >>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project >>>>>>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They had better things >>>>>>>> to do than work for >>>>>>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those science guys were >>>>>>>> *forced* to work on >>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Against their will. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They were ...drafted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan >>>>>>> Project >>>>>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have >>>>>>> patented >>>>>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding reactor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Totally absurd! >>>>>> >>>>>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>>>>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until >>>>>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. >>>>>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely unknown at >>>>>> the time of patenting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep >>>>>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no >>>>>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in >>>>>> RVs >>>>>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, >>>>>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high >>>>>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. >>>>>> >>>>>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, >>>>>> and >>>>>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many >>>>>> other >>>>>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything from >>>>>> Starfarter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in >>>>>>> Germany. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or plutonium, much >>>>>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or any >>>>>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce >>>>>>> Plutonium. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW >>>>>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce electricity/nuclear >>>>>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding >>>>>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the >>>>>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the >>>>>> dangerous components of spent fuel). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known >>>>>>> reason: >>>>>>> atomic bombs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn >>>>>> it. In >>>>>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR plutonium so >>>>>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't be used >>>>>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >>>>>>> Manhattan project, too. >>>>>> >>>>>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do with a >>>>>> fancy RV refrigerator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all >>>>>>> participants >>>>>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public >>>>>>> narrative. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme >>>>>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky >>>>>> Promise!!!" >>>>> >>>>> You're not even wrong! >>>>> >>>>> Your first mistake when you said: >>>>> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>>>> reactors wasn't even known then." >>>> >>>> Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 >>>>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781 > 541.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind >>>>> breeder >>>>> reactors wasn't even known then." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder >>>>> reactors! >>>> >>>> Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, >>>> neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be >>>> needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". >>>> >>>> The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a newspaper >>>> story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant leaked >>>> from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a refrigerator >>>> without a seal which could leak. >>> >>> >>> Einstein's fridge could not work. >> >> The fact that it *did* work obviously shows that this is wrong. If >> reality conflicts with a claim, it's not reality which is wrong. >> >> It failed commercially because Freon was invented so standard >> refrigerators could be used without poisonous refrigerants, it wasn't >> efficient, and rise of Nazism/WW2. > > It didn't fail at all. > 'Absorbtion' refrigerators were marketed until the sixties. > What killed them was thermal inefficiency. > And not even that, they are still marketed for mobile applications, > like camping cars, and other nice applications, > There has been a group of student, who tried to replicate Einstein's fridge, but clomplained, it would not work. I tried to find out, why it wouldn't work and found, it contains no ventury tube and the third component butane cannot be kept liquid. So, it was imho not an absorption fridge. Such fridges were and are in common use, of course, but none used the principles of Einstein's fridge. But someone paid for this patent. For such a payment we need a justification. But that is not necessarily the value of the invention. Most likely something was produced, which this patent could eventually hinder. But also other reasons for payments are thinkable, which only use the pretext of the value of a patent, which could actually be worthless. Actually this is not known, but worth to explore. I would say, as a guess, that the patent had a value, but was not about a household fridge, but about a part of a reactor. This 'fridge' used molten metalls and very high temperatures and operated on other principles than household absorption fridges. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-15 12:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t8cvun$k9q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #586986 |
On 6/15/2022 6:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.06.2022 um 20:27 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 6/14/2022 2:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 13.06.2022 um 19:04 schrieb Volney: >>>>> On 6/11/2022 6:48 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Volney wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/11/2022 12:37 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 10.06.2022 um 07:37 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>>>>> Most people are not aware... >>>>>>>>> (even among this very newsgroup) >>>>>>>>> that all those Science guys >>>>>>>>> who worked on >>>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project >>>>>>>>> *didn't* want to work on >>>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They had better things >>>>>>>>> to do than work for >>>>>>>>> Albert Einstein's project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those science guys were >>>>>>>>> *forced* to work on >>>>>>>>> The Manhattan Project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Against their will. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They were ...drafted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The atomic bomb was most likely well known, before the Manhattan >>>>>>>> Project >>>>>>>> even started (most likely known by Einstein himself). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the inventor of the atomic bomb Leo Szillard and Einstein have >>>>>>>> patented >>>>>>>> a 'fridge', which has only one known use in a fast breeding >>>>>>>> reactor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Totally absurd! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>>>>>> reactors wasn't even known then. The neutron wasn't discovered until >>>>>>> 1932, atomic fission wasn't known until 1938, and plutonium in 1940. >>>>>>> How could something be created for a use which was entirely >>>>>>> unknown at >>>>>>> the time of patenting? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Secondly, it does have non-nuclear uses. It has been used to keep >>>>>>> vaccines cold in third world countries, as it only needs heat, no >>>>>>> electricity. It's also very much like propane refrigerators used in >>>>>>> RVs >>>>>>> and "off the grid" people everywhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Third, it uses liquid butane and dissolved ammonia in its operation, >>>>>>> which tells me that there is no way it could work at the high >>>>>>> temperatures of a nuclear reactor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You apparently got that crap from Starfarter, who also claimed that, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> also claims many incorrect bizarre claims about Einstein, and many >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> things as well. You should be embarrassed for believing anything >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> Starfarter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore there was a need for such a device already in 1930 in >>>>>>>> Germany. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like what? Nobody knew of nuclear fission, neutrons or >>>>>>> plutonium, much >>>>>>> less the combination of them known as a fast breeding reactor. Or >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> nuclear reactor, for that matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the only known use of a fast breeding reactor is to produce >>>>>>>> Plutonium. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which was unknown in 1926, and unknown for the next 14 years. BTW >>>>>>> another use of fast breeders is to simply produce >>>>>>> electricity/nuclear >>>>>>> power. In fact, ALL nuclear reactors do a little bit of breeding >>>>>>> (making U-238 in their fuel into plutonium, some of which powers the >>>>>>> reactor during the time before it needs refueling, and is one of the >>>>>>> dangerous components of spent fuel). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And for this dangerous element we also have only a single known >>>>>>>> reason: >>>>>>>> atomic bombs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It can be used for power in nuclear power plants designed to burn >>>>>>> it. In >>>>>>> fact, around 1992, Russia gave the US much of its ex-USSR >>>>>>> plutonium so >>>>>>> that it could be used/destroyed in nuclear reactors so couldn't >>>>>>> be used >>>>>>> in bombs. (now Putin wants it back :-) ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's why we have to think about Mega-fraud in connection to the >>>>>>>> Manhattan project, too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What mega-fraud, and what does the Manhattan project have to do >>>>>>> with a >>>>>>> fancy RV refrigerator? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A 'good' reason for this project could have been, that all >>>>>>>> participants >>>>>>>> were sworn into secrecy, hence could not question the public >>>>>>>> narrative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mean: "If any of us discovers or learns something of extreme >>>>>>> military significance 12 years from now, don't tell ANYONE! Pinky >>>>>>> Promise!!!" >>>>>> >>>>>> You're not even wrong! >>>>>> >>>>>> Your first mistake when you said: >>>>>> "First, this was patented in 1926, but the science behind breeder >>>>>> reactors wasn't even known then." >>>>> >>>>> Invented in 1926, patented Nov 11, 1930. This doesn't affect my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The patent was filed by Einstein in Dec 16, 1927 >>>>>> https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781 >>>>>> >> 541.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your second mistake was...when you said.."...but the science behind >>>>>> breeder >>>>>> reactors wasn't even known then." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was Albert Einstein who INVENTED the science behind breeder >>>>>> reactors! >>>>> >>>>> Absurd. Neither Einstein, nor anyone else, knew of nuclear fission, >>>>> neutrons nor plutonium in 1926, knowledge of all of which would be >>>>> needed to even come up with the concept of a "breeder reactor". >>>>> >>>>> The motivation behind his refrigerator invention was reading a >>>>> newspaper >>>>> story how an entire family was killed when poisonous refrigerant >>>>> leaked >>>>> from a conventional refrigerator and he wanted to create a >>>>> refrigerator >>>>> without a seal which could leak. >>>> >>>> >>>> Einstein's fridge could not work. >>> >>> The fact that it *did* work obviously shows that this is wrong. If >>> reality conflicts with a claim, it's not reality which is wrong. >>> >>> It failed commercially because Freon was invented so standard >>> refrigerators could be used without poisonous refrigerants, it wasn't >>> efficient, and rise of Nazism/WW2. >> >> It didn't fail at all. >> 'Absorbtion' refrigerators were marketed until the sixties. >> What killed them was thermal inefficiency. >> And not even that, they are still marketed for mobile applications, >> like camping cars, and other nice applications, >> > > > There has been a group of student, who tried to replicate Einstein's > fridge, but clomplained, it would not work. So they weren't very good at building things. As I already said, another group used the design as a vaccine cooler for third world countries with limited electricity access did succeed around 2005. > > I tried to find out, why it wouldn't work and found, it contains no > ventury tube and the third component butane cannot be kept liquid. Venturi tube? They are used to measure flow rates of a gas. Did you mean expansion valve? It's an absorption refrigerator! They don't have expansion valves or compressors! As to liquid butane, I have a canister of it right here. Seems to be liquid just fine. > So, it was imho not an absorption fridge. You are very, very confused. Your OCD hatred for Einstein has blinded you. You are spewing nonsense in response. > > Such fridges were and are in common use, of course, but none used the > principles of Einstein's fridge. > > But someone paid for this patent. Likely Szilard and Einstein. A company bought rights to the patent but AFAIK didn't make a product from it. > For such a payment we need a > justification. Einstein and Szilard wanted to protect their intellectual property! That is what patents are for. No further justification needed. > I would say, as a guess, that the patent had a value, but was not about > a household fridge, but about a part of a reactor. This 'fridge' used > molten metalls and very high temperatures and operated on other > principles than household absorption fridges. And, in 1926-1930, what use could there be for such a thing? The entire concept of breeder reactors, nuclear reactors or even fission was completely unknown at the time. Quit believing Starfarter posts. You're better off to believe the exact opposite of what he posts. Also a refrigerator running off ammonia, water and butane as working fluids isn't going to work at temperatures of molten metals!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web