Mercury CraterChains - Alien or Natural?

Kewl Blackhole, thanks for the link, this image of Iceland illustrates how pits chains along an earthquake fault does not compare to shoulder to shoulder CS crater chains.
:D

041011_marsquake_iceland_02.jpg

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...stics+as+those+on+Mars.+Credit+and+%A9%3A+GSA

02281997_full.jpg

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/callisto/022897.html
 
Sedan3.jpg

Here is a nice picture.. A crater created by a nuke.. 104kt baby nuke. The crater,1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep, looks nothing like your crater chains. Note the even slope and lack of a central peek
Below.. how it looks today.
Sedancrater2.jpg


Imagine the size of the crater if we used one of the big ones, 100mt. Thats close to 1000 times more energy then that of the one that created the above crater. With some simple math humans could have created a crater 31times as big. Thats 39,000f (12km) wide by about 9,920f (3km) deep using tech thats 40years old. Eat your shorts aliens crater chain freaks.
 
Isn't Sedan crater kewl, but why didn't you pick the image that shows what the center looks like? The center does have a center impression but not a nipple.

Sedancrater1.jpg

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Storax.html

You forgot to mention this test was subsurface 635 feet and:
17:00 6 July 1962 (GMT)
Up to a point, the more deeply buried an explosive charge is, the larger the crater it will make. Beyond this point much of the material is thrown with insufficient force to clear the crater and falls back in, reducing the final size. At the optimal crater depth though quite a lot of material actually ends up back in the crater bottom...Sedan was detonated at what was estimated to be the optimal crater depth in alluvial soil. 12 million tons of soil and rock were lifted into the air, 8 million tons of it falling outside the crater. The final crater was 1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep. The force of the detonation released seismic energy equivalent to an earthquake magnitude of 4.75 on the Richter Scale. The device used was similar to that used in Dominic Bluestone and Swanee and was thus a variant of the W-56 high yield missile warhead. The device had a fusion yield of 70%. The Sedan device had a diameter of 17.1 inches, a length of 38 inches, and a weight of 467.9 lb.
Click to expand...

Incrementally increasing the yeild size does not necessarily create incrementally larger craters.
 
Yes that is correct, the rule is generally you need 4time as much power to create a crater twice the size, 9times more power for a hole 3times as big and so on. So for a bomb that is 1000times as big the crater will be about 31 times as big. So with the biggest nuke ever made you will be able to create a hole 12km across.

This big bomb was created in 1961 by the Russians, from concept to detonation in 14weeks. Big bombs don't have much of a tactical application as a few smaller bombs could do the same damage as the big one. This is why it was the biggest bomb ever made. This is not to say it is not the biggest bomb designed, yields of 1000mt to 10000mt could have been created with the same technology and with 40years of experience, yields of 100000mt are well within human capabilities. Not that anyone would want to make such an evil device.

To say humans don't have the techno skills to produce big holes in the ground is wrong.

Nukes can produce a wide variety of craters for the same yield. A bomb above the surface ,100m or more for a 10kt nuke, produce no craters, on or near the surface they produce shallow concave craters, deeper and you get the deep conical craters, even deeper still and you get subsidence craters, which are shallow concave craters characterized by concentric circles and absence of ejecta. It is clear that energy weapon like A-bombs and H-bombs do not produce craters that look anything like the craters in the crater chain images. The only way to produce craters like this is via kinetic impact. Alien could not have produce these craters unless they threw very large rocks at each other at great speeds. :bugeye:

Keep the faith because Im sure you will be able in invent something that will over come all of these problems. For most of us the simple process of tidally disrupted objects creating crater chains is very sound. :cool:
 
craterchains...................... //disgust
they see aliens everywhere

p.s. mod is free to delete this post, but my stance is that we have already enough (rightfully locked) threads discussing craterchains
 
Tactical application for large nukes is purely to generate more nuclear material.
I suggested this some time back during French Nuclear tests near Moruroa and Fangataufa.

Basically the detonation of a nuke in a particular mineral deposit could generate alot of material that can be used to fuel power stations or potentially build weapons.
 
I think that the process of controlled reaction is the best way to produce nuclear material. The Russian big bomb was the cleanest nuke ever. They sacrificed 50% yield for a clean burn. 96% of the power came from fusion. They did this by replacing the 3rd stage burn (compression stage to ignite fusion materials) with lead instead of uranium.. The 100mt Russian bomb, down sized to 50mt, would not have produce much fission material.

HBombs are the biggest and ironically the cleanest.

If you don't have the infrastructure to produce fission products a slow burn nuke would be the best. It would be a spit, bubble, and boil alchemy session.

Yet I'm of to look into nuke to produce nukes, maybe the high temps of Hbombs could produce materials that could then be mined.

As far as the motive to produce a 100mt bomb, political.

BTW the big one also killed 3 people when their house collapsed from the shock wave 100km (or was that 250km) away.
 
I must admit, Stryder your childishness is showing.
What? nothing more creative on the agenda that day?
STDD
 
Actually FieryIce, there was no Tactic... well other than pressing spacebar down to launch your rolly-polly into a higher orbit. So the STDD is being proven to just be the SSED.

It's not exactly about "childishness" either, I thought you would of liked it for people to see the computer simulation you guys used to come up with your theory.
 
Stryderunknown said:
Basically the detonation of a nuke in a particular mineral deposit could generate alot of material that can be used to fuel power stations or potentially build weapons.
Click to expand...

No it couldn't, you're making things up again Stryder.

Weapons grade material and nuclear fuels ARE NOT created in the manner you describe. But if you have a credible source that claims they are, feel free to link.
 
Not quite right.. An atomic bomb produces a host of radioactive isotopes. If a bomb where to be detonated in an uranium rich ore body a very small proportion of the uranium in the ore would be converted to plutonium , and apart from running a nuclear power plant its the only other way to create plutonium. The amount created is way to small to make it practical.
 
Blindman said:
Not quite right.. An atomic bomb produces a host of radioactive isotopes. If a bomb where to be detonated in an uranium rich ore body
Click to expand...


Tell me how you think it's done. Nuclear fuel is U235. Naturally ocurring Uranium in Uranium ore is just 0.2% of the mass of mined rock, and only 1% of that Uranium is U235, 99% of the Uranium metal is U238.

So , you nuke a mineshaft containing nuclear ore, ... and what happens? Useless, heavier U238 turns in to lighter U235 when you bombard it with neutrons does it?

Or, you turn your mine into a stinking pile of fission products.

A far more efficient way to produce nuclear fuel and weapons grade material, is to use Plutonium, and a fast breeder reactor.
 
So , you nuke a mineshaft containing nuclear ore, ... and what happens? Useless, heavier U238 turns in to lighter U235 when you bombard it with neutrons does it?
Click to expand...
Plutonium is created from uranium. When uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, it becomes uranium-239 which ultimately decays to plutonium-239. The amount produced in the ore would be very small, and not worth the effort.
 
Yeah, Plutonium is created from Uranium, but NOT by exposing uranium to thermonuclear detonation! There's no way in hell nuking uranium ore is going to yield anything worthwhile, end of story. Stryder makes shit up as he goes along, without a care for the technical, practical, or factual. He even twists the meanings of words, and won't admit defeat when presented with contradictoy evidence several times over, so don't leap to his defense so readily.
 
Ain’t it a bitch, Phloger, I have to agree with you about Stryder.

Talk about pure lineal thinking with absolutely no lateral capacity whatsoever.
 
Phlog, Go read a physics book about "Fission".

I'm not going to argue at what quantity that material could be generated, afterall any forms of electron shifts mean that one higher state is created at the expense of a lower state. Admittedly the state changes aren't in great quantities, but then you could question at what quantities the materials are found normally and potentially realise that "enrichment" is a possible way of increasing the amount.

It's not a made up process, in fact the entire process that admittedly I theorised was based on the historic creation of Einsteinium which isn't the greatest element, however it's as mentioned a historic element.

(Original texts explain how the generation of the element was from an electron shift from one element to another element, lessening one and increasing the other for a short duration of time, due to its unstable nature.)

So don't bother blowing your top about something so petty.
 
Last edited:
Electrons have nothing to do with the production of one element from the transmutation of anothing. At the nuclear level (not chemical level where the electron become important in chemical reactions). If you want to go from uranium to plutonium you need to facilitate a reaction that will lead to the capture of protons and neutrons in the material and up its status to a higher element in the table. Remember, an increase or decrease of neutrons in an element creates different isotopes and is much more common. An increase or decrease in protons (along with a subsequent increase or decrease in neutrons) will create different elements. Radioactive decay or visa versa forced nucleonic impacts will transmute elements into other elements. For example radioactive uranium decays into an isotope of lead given enough time.

To reiterate: the electron is not responsible for nuclear (and by nuclear I mean the nucleus) reactions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top