Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations

  • 852 Replies
  • 35037 Views
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #300 on: April 23, 2014, 05:37:23 AM »
Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.
Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.
Where do they dump it? This is not true, unless you have a link.
Have you ever heard of the mountain in wales with power plant below. The mountain is a dump load as well as a storage holder.

When demand is low, the power station pumps water up the mountain. It takes a lot of energy to do this but it's effective for load dumping when demand is low.
When demand is high, the water is allowed to fall and operate turbines that provide peak time power. It's perfect harmony.
All power plants would do this if they were all situated near mountains. Unfortunately, theyre not.

What those power stations would need, is a huge kettle with huge heating elements inside that could boil water and in doing so, dump excess electricity, whilst making other stuff...like hydrogen, etc, extracted from the sea.
It's hard to store, so has to be dumped. If you're going to dump it, you might as well find a use for it and get some gain.
One way is what I said and another it to offer economy 7 cheap electric to families that allow them to store hot water over night at a small percentage of real cost.
The power companies gain something back.

These power stations produce way more power than is needed for their areas covered. It's why in the big cities you see buildings lit up like beacons. It's an effective way to dump power, so companies would get cheap electricity.
I mean, take a look at some buildings. Can you imagine the bills they would get if they were to be charged full price?

It all works in harmony.
You don't have to believe it. I mean, you people can't seem to think like this. If there's no stupid formula to it, you lot of tefal heads don't want to know.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #301 on: April 23, 2014, 05:39:07 AM »
Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.
Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.
How does a 9v battery dump power?
It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.
Link please.
What would a link do? You only go into immediate stupid denial anyway. Go and find one yourself. That's what you people always say.
I'm not doing this for your benefit. I couldn't give a toss what you think.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #302 on: April 23, 2014, 05:41:20 AM »
Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite!  ::)
I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

No, you're not "questioning" anything, you're just DENYING physics and science, starting with gravity and ending with atomic theory, all of it just so you can support your flat earth delusions.

Don't you see that you're denying stuff and claiming stuff with absolutely no evidence? I mean, are you mentally damaged or something?

I even sent you a few videos from somebody that explains nuclear decay and radiation PERFECTLY and you just ignored it. I guess ignorance really is bliss, eh? Well, I'll continue to live in a world where physics keep giving us RESULTS, and you keep living in a world where you senselessly deny everything that goes against your dogma for no real reason, and keep claiming bullshit without even the slightest bit of evidence.
Oh and at the end of the day don't forget to tell everybody how they're all wrong, but you, who has never seen an advanced science book or the inside of a lab in his life, is somehow right...

Pathetic.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 05:45:26 AM by Donk3y »

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #303 on: April 23, 2014, 05:43:47 AM »
Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.
Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.
How does a 9v battery dump power?
It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.
You are half way there. The generator is not generation power unless there is a load on it. Look at the generator as a voltage generator not power generator. There is no such thing as a power generator as such. Electrical power is in terms of watt, kilowatt or megawatt. The watt is defined a "voltage (volts)" times "current(amperes)". For example you can have a 500 volts on a load drawing 1 amp will give 500 watts. Or you can have 50 volt drawing 10 amp still having 500 watts. I know you don't understand this part but if the voltage is 500 Volt and the load draws a small amount of current (.001 amperes) the power is 500X.001 = .5 watt. The message here is change the load you change the power used.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #304 on: April 23, 2014, 05:50:37 AM »
Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite!  ::)
I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

No, you're not "questioning" anything, you're just DENYING physics and science, starting with gravity and ending with atomic theory, all of it just so you can support your flat earth delusions.

Don't you see that you're denying stuff and claiming stuff with absolutely no evidence? I mean, are you mentally damaged or something?
Ok then Mr clever. So I'm denying stuff with no evidence. Fair enough.
Here's what we will do.
You physically show me proof that all of the stuff I'm denying, is legitimate. I don;t mean by showing me a diagram of how a nuclear bomb or plant works. I don't mean showing me a video of fuel rods being changed. I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water.
Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?

Any of those.
Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good.
Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage.
Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra.

You know, stuff like that. Just give me physical proof and then I'll stop denying stuff. Failure to do so, renders you no better than me.
I'll await your evidence.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #305 on: April 23, 2014, 05:54:47 AM »
Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.
Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.
How does a 9v battery dump power?
It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.
You are half way there. The generator is not generation power unless there is a load on it. Look at the generator as a voltage generator not power generator. There is no such thing as a power generator as such. Electrical power is in terms of watt, kilowatt or megawatt. The watt is defined a "voltage (volts)" times "current(amperes)". For example you can have a 500 volts on a load drawing 1 amp will give 500 watts. Or you can have 50 volt drawing 10 amp still having 500 watts. I know you don't understand this part but if the voltage is 500 Volt and the load draws a small amount of current (.001 amperes) the power is 500X.001 = .5 watt. The message here is change the load you change the power used.
You're expending energy telling me stuff like this. Why?
Don't be so smug that you think you know it all and others don't.

We are talking about dump loads. No matter what load you put onto something, it has to be used or dumped, no matter what.
You dimwits go straight into calculation mode because your high foreheads can't process simple info.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 3673
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #306 on: April 23, 2014, 06:16:08 AM »
NUCLEAR ENERGY FILE

From one of the most prestigious physicists of the second half of the 20th century, Harold Puthoff:

Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.

Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm

W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.



Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.



Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.

If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.

Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.



http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON...there are some threads which attempt to prove the fake nuclear weapons scenario (see the material I have posted here already)...the physics behind the nuclear atom is completely false...



No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.



Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns.



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg919169#msg919169 (the tremendous mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)

The Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen is an effect of the aether vortex theory of atoms, and cannot be linked with an impossible hypothesis created by N. Bohr, who NEVER demonstrated the energy source for the orbiting electrons.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.


HIROSHIMA: BEFORE AND AFTER

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1303231#msg1303231

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1303232#msg1303232 (PART 2)


NUCLEAR POWER STATION SOURCE OF ENERGY: DEXTROROTATORY ETHER

The Oranur experiment of W. Reich showed what the source of the radiation is: the ether.

Reich moved from New York to an area just outside the town of Rangeley in rural southern Maine in the early nineteen fifties. Here he built a new home and laboratory personally designed to integrate home and laboratory into a single, brilliantly practical building, now the home of the Wilhelm Reich Museum. Another laboratory was added soon after for students. This structure was the setting for the so-called Oranur Experiment, a chilling example of the accumulator’s undeniable ability to concentrate energy. The experiment called for the placing of a very small amount of radium in an accumulator, the unexpected result of which was to toxify a surprisingly large area of southern Maine surrounding his home and laboratory, one that took several months to dissipate.

A nuclear reactor is nothing more than a gigantic Reich/Tesla ether box; see the message posted here about telluric currents: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899 (the actual cause of "global warming"; the intensity of the dextrorotatory currents has increased greatly, the ice sheets are NOT melting faster, they are disintegrating more swiftly).



?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #307 on: April 23, 2014, 06:27:16 AM »
Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite!  ::)
I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

No, you're not "questioning" anything, you're just DENYING physics and science, starting with gravity and ending with atomic theory, all of it just so you can support your flat earth delusions.

Don't you see that you're denying stuff and claiming stuff with absolutely no evidence? I mean, are you mentally damaged or something?
Ok then Mr clever. So I'm denying stuff with no evidence. Fair enough.
Here's what we will do.
You physically show me proof that all of the stuff I'm denying, is legitimate. I don;t mean by showing me a diagram of how a nuclear bomb or plant works. I don't mean showing me a video of fuel rods being changed. I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water.
Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?

Any of those.
Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good.
Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage.
Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra.

You know, stuff like that. Just give me physical proof and then I'll stop denying stuff. Failure to do so, renders you no better than me.
I'll await your evidence.
Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #308 on: April 23, 2014, 06:29:25 AM »
Scepti... here is your statement:  "It's maybe a perfect way to harness the energy and then to dump excess in the one operation, which would make sense. Years ago you had economy 7 storage heaters where you got cheap electricity to heat up your water during off peak hours which was a perfect way for them to dump excess energy, as it was hard to store, not to mention that power plants can't simply turn up and down the energy like you can with an electric cooker, all they can do, is siphon it off and dump it.

You don't know how electricity works. I do because it is my field. There is no such thing as dumping power from a power plant. I have a 3k watt gas generator for emergency and i can run it with out any load with no problem. The generator supplies a voltage potential not current (amperes). It is like a 9 volts battery. It can have it there without a load. If you put a voltmeter you will measure 9 volts. If you put a 9 volt lamp across it and have a current meter you will measure the current(amperes) flowing through the lamp. If you put a second lamp you will measure twice the current as when you only had one. The power generator is the same. No load just means the generator will spin giving voltage potential.
Here we go with the dick measuring again. "I am an expert in this"..."I am an expert in that."

Power plants dump electricity. Don't just say they don't. They do if demand is low, like during the night when people are ready for bed.
How does a 9v battery dump power?
It doesn't have to. It's not generating anything to dump. It's storing the power it has. A working power plant is generating a lot of power to the grid. It has to be used or excess heat will build up and start destroying things.
Too much excess has to be dumped, which is usually done by heating water up, using elements, which is the fastest way to dissipate the excess energy.
You are half way there. The generator is not generation power unless there is a load on it. Look at the generator as a voltage generator not power generator. There is no such thing as a power generator as such. Electrical power is in terms of watt, kilowatt or megawatt. The watt is defined a "voltage (volts)" times "current(amperes)". For example you can have a 500 volts on a load drawing 1 amp will give 500 watts. Or you can have 50 volt drawing 10 amp still having 500 watts. I know you don't understand this part but if the voltage is 500 Volt and the load draws a small amount of current (.001 amperes) the power is 500X.001 = .5 watt. The message here is change the load you change the power used.
You're expending energy telling me stuff like this. Why?
Don't be so smug that you think you know it all and others don't.

We are talking about dump loads. No matter what load you put onto something, it has to be used or dumped, no matter what.
You dimwits go straight into calculation mode because your high foreheads can't process simple info.
Dump load are not used in power stations. Here is what you can do. Call the nuclear station and ask to talk to and engineer and ask him. I am sure with all your money you can afford a phone call.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #309 on: April 23, 2014, 06:30:20 AM »


Okay, hang on, how does fission break this rule? Given how fission works, I don't see how it would.
It depends on how you want to view it. Basically we are told that fissioning does not require oxygen to operate. I know you'll say, "well it doesn't"..the fact is...if people can't see that atmosphere is required for any energy to work then this will go nowhere in discussion, because people are so brainwashed into believing in magic. That's not to say they are stupid, it just means we all have been battered into thinking of these fissioning miracles.

The reason why it breaks the law is because it does not change its form, even after 6/8/10 years of supposed decay.
A crude analogy would be dropping a dissolvable tablet into a glass of water. You get a reaction, yet you know that the reaction will decay the tablet to nothing.

If you were to put something more dense into water or whatever and you gain a reaction, especially a reaction that produces huge energy, then you are going to see decay over time...and I mean a short time. This is where is goes against the law.


Again, given how fission works, why would you expect any difference?
As above. The whole point is, I do not believe fissioning works like we are told. I know reactions happen but this atom splitting and creating of neutrons, splitting more atoms, etc...is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay.

Okay, so you don't believe in fission, I'll try to remember not to bother you with it again.

Quote
Okay, this is a misconception. A generator, such as used at a power plant, or a portable unit, or even the alternator in your car (the only real difference being size and maximum output capability), can safely run with no power being used. In fact, it can safely run anywhere from zero load to maximum rated load. There is never any need to "dump excess power", since any generator only ever produces as much power as is being used at the time. The hydraulic equivalent would be a variable displacement pump, which only moves as much fluid as is required at any given time.
They disperse the power by heat transfer when not in use but running. Power stations have to do the same thing, so they have to use choices and work out what power will be used and when it will be in full demand, partial or low.

When in full demand, there's not much problem. When demand is low, it still has to dump the load otherwise serious burnout problems would occur.

The way they gauge this stuff, believe it or not, is by your tv viewing and TV intervals. For instance: they know that at certain times there will be a mass rush to put the kettle on, etc...so they are ready for the demand.
When demand is low, they need to dump or have help in dumping, which is where the storage heaters came in. People were basically doing the job for them, plus street lights are also resistor dump loads...not just see in the dark, aids.

Failing that, they would need back up dump loads which can be something like...large elements in huge pools that can serve two purposes.
One is to heat the water to dump excess electricity and the other is to make hydrogen by using the dump load method...this would be the most dagerous time I would imagine for power stations.

A generator running with no load on it does not get hot. A generator running under maximum load gets very hot. A generator running under excess load will burn out and fail. But a generator running with no load on it does not get hot. This is so easy to verify, it's almost as bad as the garden hose example from the other thread.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #310 on: April 23, 2014, 06:41:05 AM »

Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.
You think they don't dump electricity? You ned to open your mind as well as looking up the ways that they actually do this.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #311 on: April 23, 2014, 06:46:57 AM »


Okay, hang on, how does fission break this rule? Given how fission works, I don't see how it would.
It depends on how you want to view it. Basically we are told that fissioning does not require oxygen to operate. I know you'll say, "well it doesn't"..the fact is...if people can't see that atmosphere is required for any energy to work then this will go nowhere in discussion, because people are so brainwashed into believing in magic. That's not to say they are stupid, it just means we all have been battered into thinking of these fissioning miracles.

The reason why it breaks the law is because it does not change its form, even after 6/8/10 years of supposed decay.
A crude analogy would be dropping a dissolvable tablet into a glass of water. You get a reaction, yet you know that the reaction will decay the tablet to nothing.

If you were to put something more dense into water or whatever and you gain a reaction, especially a reaction that produces huge energy, then you are going to see decay over time...and I mean a short time. This is where is goes against the law.


Again, given how fission works, why would you expect any difference?
As above. The whole point is, I do not believe fissioning works like we are told. I know reactions happen but this atom splitting and creating of neutrons, splitting more atoms, etc...is a load of nonsense in terms of energy with no decay...no visible decay.

Okay, so you don't believe in fission, I'll try to remember not to bother you with it again.

Quote
Okay, this is a misconception. A generator, such as used at a power plant, or a portable unit, or even the alternator in your car (the only real difference being size and maximum output capability), can safely run with no power being used. In fact, it can safely run anywhere from zero load to maximum rated load. There is never any need to "dump excess power", since any generator only ever produces as much power as is being used at the time. The hydraulic equivalent would be a variable displacement pump, which only moves as much fluid as is required at any given time.
They disperse the power by heat transfer when not in use but running. Power stations have to do the same thing, so they have to use choices and work out what power will be used and when it will be in full demand, partial or low.

When in full demand, there's not much problem. When demand is low, it still has to dump the load otherwise serious burnout problems would occur.

The way they gauge this stuff, believe it or not, is by your tv viewing and TV intervals. For instance: they know that at certain times there will be a mass rush to put the kettle on, etc...so they are ready for the demand.
When demand is low, they need to dump or have help in dumping, which is where the storage heaters came in. People were basically doing the job for them, plus street lights are also resistor dump loads...not just see in the dark, aids.

Failing that, they would need back up dump loads which can be something like...large elements in huge pools that can serve two purposes.
One is to heat the water to dump excess electricity and the other is to make hydrogen by using the dump load method...this would be the most dagerous time I would imagine for power stations.

A generator running with no load on it does not get hot. A generator running under maximum load gets very hot. A generator running under excess load will burn out and fail. But a generator running with no load on it does not get hot. This is so easy to verify, it's almost as bad as the garden hose example from the other thread.
Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly.
Yeah, I do admit your garden hose experiment was laughable.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #312 on: April 23, 2014, 06:48:19 AM »
Very interesting, Sandokhan. I think I'll read into some of the stuff you're posting.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #313 on: April 23, 2014, 06:49:17 AM »
Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly.
Yeah, I do admit your garden hose experiment was laughable.
Generators run at a constant speed to produce the 50Hz frequency.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #314 on: April 23, 2014, 06:50:59 AM »

Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.
You think they don't dump electricity? You ned to open your mind as well as looking up the ways that they actually do this.
Please provide a link that they 'dump' electricity when their full capacity is not being taken by a load.

?

Starman

  • 3860
  • Never miss a day to learn something
Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #315 on: April 23, 2014, 06:58:01 AM »
scepti you said ...: "Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly."
The power station has to supply with only two things. Voltage and frequency. In you country it is about 230 volts and the frequency of 50 cycle per second. That is it. You can measure both. The generator's speed determines the frequency just like my emergency generator I have. If there is not load the rotor inside just rotates and will not get hot.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #316 on: April 23, 2014, 06:59:35 AM »
Hydrogen explosions don't irradiate... Try again.
Everything irradiates. All energy whether it's a dog turd or perfume, down to chemicals. They all irradiate.
When radiation is mentioned, people go into spasms thinking of death or poisoning, then think nuclear. It's ingrained into our pysche.
Try again!
Exactly!  Radiation is an everyday thing.  The sun is full of it.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #317 on: April 23, 2014, 07:02:13 AM »
Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly.
Yeah, I do admit your garden hose experiment was laughable.
Generators run at a constant speed to produce the 50Hz frequency.
When I say a slow speed, I don't frigging mean one turn every few seconds for crying out loud. I'm saying they run at a slow speed until load is applied. I'm talking about petrol generators here.

Start reading between the lines and it'll save you putting crap up like this.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #318 on: April 23, 2014, 07:03:32 AM »

Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.
You think they don't dump electricity? You ned to open your mind as well as looking up the ways that they actually do this.
Please provide a link that they 'dump' electricity when their full capacity is not being taken by a load.
To give you an insight, look up electric mountain in Wales and you might, I say might get an idea of the methods. This being one.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #319 on: April 23, 2014, 07:05:09 AM »
scepti you said ...: "Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly."
The power station has to supply with only two things. Voltage and frequency. In you country it is about 230 volts and the frequency of 50 cycle per second. That is it. You can measure both. The generator's speed determines the frequency just like my emergency generator I have. If there is not load the rotor inside just rotates and will not get hot.
Ok have it your way. I'm not going to argue this, it's not worth it.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #320 on: April 23, 2014, 07:05:24 AM »
Of course it gets hot. It just doesn't get super hot because it's not under any load and is running very slowly.
Yeah, I do admit your garden hose experiment was laughable.
Generators run at a constant speed to produce the 50Hz frequency.
When I say a slow speed, I don't frigging mean one turn every few seconds for crying out loud. I'm saying they run at a slow speed until load is applied. I'm talking about petrol generators here.

Start reading between the lines and it'll save you putting crap up like this.
So the power frequency changes depending on the load?  They will be designed to produce 50Hz at all times.  Particularly those in power stations.  It's a complex activity controlling load and frequency.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #321 on: April 23, 2014, 07:07:28 AM »
Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite!  ::)
I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

No, you're not "questioning" anything, you're just DENYING physics and science, starting with gravity and ending with atomic theory, all of it just so you can support your flat earth delusions.

Don't you see that you're denying stuff and claiming stuff with absolutely no evidence? I mean, are you mentally damaged or something?
Ok then Mr clever. So I'm denying stuff with no evidence. Fair enough.
Here's what we will do.
You physically show me proof that all of the stuff I'm denying, is legitimate. I don;t mean by showing me a diagram of how a nuclear bomb or plant works. I don't mean showing me a video of fuel rods being changed. I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water.
Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?

Any of those.
Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good.
Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage.
Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra.

You know, stuff like that. Just give me physical proof and then I'll stop denying stuff. Failure to do so, renders you no better than me.
I'll await your evidence.

I'll do that, and as a bonus, I'll show you how uneducated your questions are:

"I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water" - It's not happening on it's own, and if anybody is stupid enough to open the core while it's running, apart from dying, you'll get a meltdown. Instead, watch these:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

"Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?" - Yet more stupid claims that, if you had the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't have asked for.
First one: A piece of what in a lab? A piece of uranium? Look up periodic videos on youtube.
Second one: You want video of the fission reaction inside a nuclear core? Are you stupid or just pretending?
Third one: You want a video of a fission reaction under a microscope? Apart from microscopes not even being able to zoom at atomic levels (the most recent breakthrough was mapping the wavefunction, that is the orbitals, of a hydrogen atom, which was really really hard for them to achieve), you wouldn't even detect one single atom splitting. I'll refer you to the same videos I've given you about 3 times now:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

"Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good." - Well, apart from the fact that if there were a "universal acceleration" force, there wouldn't be such a thing as terminal velocity, here is a video which shows a phenomena that can only happen if gravity exists (but hey, if you think it can happen without gravity too, please put up your calculations):
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Also, check out Cavendish's experiment.
Also study a thing called a gravimeter.
Also a bit of reading: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf

"Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage." - This is an easy one, lol:
-The Hafele–Keating experiment
-Gravitational lensing

"Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra." - For this you need to understand spectroscopy.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Also you could replicate Newton's experiments. It's explained in detail in one of the new Cosmos episodes, forgot which one.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #322 on: April 23, 2014, 07:08:12 AM »

Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.
You think they don't dump electricity? You ned to open your mind as well as looking up the ways that they actually do this.
Please provide a link that they 'dump' electricity when their full capacity is not being taken by a load.
To give you an insight, look up electric mountain in Wales and you might, I say might get an idea of the methods. This being one.
That is a specific system for storage.

You are saying a power station might have to dump 3000MW if the load is low.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #323 on: April 23, 2014, 07:10:47 AM »
Hydrogen explosions don't irradiate... Try again.
Everything irradiates. All energy whether it's a dog turd or perfume, down to chemicals. They all irradiate.
When radiation is mentioned, people go into spasms thinking of death or poisoning, then think nuclear. It's ingrained into our pysche.
Try again!
Exactly!  Radiation is an everyday thing.  The sun is full of it.
I'll tell you what the problem is with most of these people who come into topics like this. They immediately become super experts on nuclear power or whatever the topic is. These people should be earing million per year for what they have in their brains. Unfortunately, their uncle google keeps whispering stuff to them for them to parrot back to us.

They don't have the ability to question their controllers,because their minds are so saturated with nonsense and potential nonsense, that they like to debate by slipping into calculation mode and formula mode. The reason for this is because they can't rationally see any other way to look at the stuff they were fed in large bucket full portions.
 ;D

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #324 on: April 23, 2014, 07:15:15 AM »
Well maybe people would take you seriously if you wouldn't go full retard in every one of your posts lol
And what, me going into denial? Well I suppose there's no denial on your behalf, what with denying 90% of physics...

What a pathetic hypocrite!  ::)
I'm not denying 90% of physics. I'm seriously questioning SOME of what we are told to accept, even though nobody can actually physically test out.
You can live your life believing everything like a little kid. It's fine by me. Just hope you don't get to the latter stages of your life and find out that what you were taught was a complete fabrication with a lot of this stuff, because if that happens, you have spent your whole life reading into fairy stories.

No, you're not "questioning" anything, you're just DENYING physics and science, starting with gravity and ending with atomic theory, all of it just so you can support your flat earth delusions.

Don't you see that you're denying stuff and claiming stuff with absolutely no evidence? I mean, are you mentally damaged or something?
Ok then Mr clever. So I'm denying stuff with no evidence. Fair enough.
Here's what we will do.
You physically show me proof that all of the stuff I'm denying, is legitimate. I don;t mean by showing me a diagram of how a nuclear bomb or plant works. I don't mean showing me a video of fuel rods being changed. I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water.
Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?

Any of those.
Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good.
Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage.
Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra.

You know, stuff like that. Just give me physical proof and then I'll stop denying stuff. Failure to do so, renders you no better than me.
I'll await your evidence.

I'll do that, and as a bonus, I'll show you how uneducated your questions are:

"I want you to show me uranium undergoing fissioning on its own and boiling water" - It's not happening on it's own, and if anybody is stupid enough to open the core while it's running, apart from dying, you'll get a meltdown. Instead, watch these:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

"Just a small piece in a lab or something like that, or in a reactor boiling the water, or splitting a uranium atom under a microscope which surely they must have done to know how to split it, right?" - Yet more stupid claims that, if you had the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject, you wouldn't have asked for.
First one: A piece of what in a lab? A piece of uranium? Look up periodic videos on youtube.
Second one: You want video of the fission reaction inside a nuclear core? Are you stupid or just pretending?
Third one: You want a video of a fission reaction under a microscope? Apart from microscopes not even being able to zoom at atomic levels (the most recent breakthrough was mapping the wavefunction, that is the orbitals, of a hydrogen atom, which was really really hard for them to achieve), you wouldn't even detect one single atom splitting. I'll refer you to the same videos I've given you about 3 times now:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

"Also, physical proof of gravity and an explanation of what gravity is would be good." - Well, apart from the fact that if there were a "universal acceleration" force, there wouldn't be such a thing as terminal velocity, here is a video which shows a phenomena that can only happen if gravity exists (but hey, if you think it can happen without gravity too, please put up your calculations):
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Also, check out Cavendish's experiment.
Also study a thing called a gravimeter.
Also a bit of reading: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf

"Physical proof of warped space time would be an advantage." - This is an easy one, lol:
-The Hafele–Keating experiment
-Gravitational lensing

"Telescopic proof that stars are what we are told they are would be an added extra." - For this you need to understand spectroscopy.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Also you could replicate Newton's experiments. It's explained in detail in one of the new Cosmos episodes, forgot which one.
Start payng attention to what I asked. I want PHYSICAL proof. Try again. Come back to me when you have it.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #325 on: April 23, 2014, 07:16:56 AM »

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #326 on: April 23, 2014, 07:17:42 AM »
Start payng attention to what I asked. I want PHYSICAL proof. Try again. Come back to me when you have it.
Contact a local university.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #327 on: April 23, 2014, 07:18:06 AM »
Well if you're TOO STUPID to understand a VIDEO and to REPLICATE EXPERIMENTS, then I can't help you, nobody can. I don't think there's even a cure for such stupidity xD

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #328 on: April 23, 2014, 07:37:06 AM »

Why don't you just to the your local nuclear power station and they will show you. While you are there ask them where the extra electricity does during low periods. I am sure they will have a great chuckle out of that one.
You think they don't dump electricity? You ned to open your mind as well as looking up the ways that they actually do this.
Please provide a link that they 'dump' electricity when their full capacity is not being taken by a load.
To give you an insight, look up electric mountain in Wales and you might, I say might get an idea of the methods. This being one.
That is a specific system for storage.

You are saying a power station might have to dump 3000MW if the load is low.
Ermmm...no.
It's a dump load. It's constantly monitored.
Do you know why adverts are on at the same time? Have a think about that.
What they do is gauge when peak use will come in and be ready for it. This is where the mountain comes in handy for extra power to handle a major load.

When people have stopped using their kettles, etc, the load becomes less. Now because it's not simple to power down the turbines, they switch to pumps to send water from a lake, up the mountain to store water at various times. Times are dependent on loads or lack of. It's a perfect way to even out the excess power generated and keeps the power plant running at whatever efficiency it is designed to run at.
It's a balancing game by the minute.

They are run by the clock, by the adverts or big football games or whatever. They know when adverts come on that a large load will be drained, so they have a very good yardstick to work from. It's run like a Swiss watch.

A fly wheel is another concept. The only problem with a fly wheel is the storage. Most can only store electricity for about 15 minutes or so. Maybe they can better than now with better designs.

Nuclear power stations I believe are not what we are told but I think they do a double job of generating electricity and dumping it in the same plant.
Those spent fuel pools aren't cooling still decaying spent fuel rods, I don't believe. I think they are like car battery tanks, only I think they serve a purpose of extracting hydrogen, so in effect they serve a dual purpose. The bundles are cathodes and anodes using graphite and lead, etc for the purpose. There may be a lot more to it. I'm just giving the potential scenario.

Those kettles are heating the water under pressure like elements. The more steam needed, the more elements are lowered into the water. The less steam needed, they simply raise an element or two.
This is not set in stone but I think it's something on those lines and I have no evidence to back it up. It's a theory, before you start wetting your pants.

Re: Scepti - Nuclear Power Stations
« Reply #329 on: April 23, 2014, 07:38:22 AM »

You keep doing that, son. It's about all you've contributed since you joined up. ;D