Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,188 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,114,625
Pageviews Today: 1,861,225Threads Today: 766Posts Today: 13,384
06:10 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb

 
Tainted Meat
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 77079210
Finland
04/25/2019 03:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
A popular CT says that Russia has built nuclear torpedos for devastating coastal areas by generating a man-made tsunami with an underwater fusion device.

Is it possible? Let's compare the energies.

[link to www.scrivial.com (secure)]

"...huge tsunamis like the Sumatra tsunami,2004 has energy of order 10^17 Joules. Several including National Geographic [Link] and USGS websites states that it is about 20x10^17 Joules, an equivalent of 23,000 bombs, the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. That’s huge! To verify ourselves, we contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and asked them. B.Kelly, from USGS said that there is a slight mistake - it is equivalent to 23,000 bombs that was dropped on Nagasaki (20KiloTNT) not Hiroshima (15kiloTNT)."

So, in order to generate a tsunami the size of 2007 Sumatra tsunami, the nuclear device would have to have a yield of 23,000 * 20 kT = 460 MT.

The largest fusion device ever detonated was the Tsar bomba with a yield of 50 MT, and a designed maximum yield of 100 MT, and it was bulky as hell. Fusion devices can be scaled up indefinitely by adding more fuel (=hydrogen or its isotopes), but it will increase the size of the device. The yield does not increase in a linear proportion to the amount of fuel, but if we assume that it did, the size of a tsunami generating torpedo would be about ten times the size of the Tsar bomba. That would make it about the size of a modern boomer.

Ok, so the size becomes impractical, but of course the "crazy Russians" could have converted their old boomers into remotely controlled tsunami bombs. However, it is not obvious that a nuclear detonation would actually generate a tsunami. Tsunami waveform is special, because it is created by the sea floor lifting up and pushing water up in a linear fashion. Tsunami is not just a surface wave, but it extends from the bottom of the sea to the surface.

An underwater nuclear detonation, on the other hand, will create a superhot bubble of vaporized water (the vaporization will actually eat up a lot of bomb's energy, but let's ignore it), which will then burst to the surface while the bubble will collapse on itself. Yes, it will generate a wave, but since the initial pressure wave will be radial instead of a linear, followed by a rush of water filling the bubble, the waveform will certainly be different.
The falt earth is here and the buttering of human beans has begined!
Right or wrong, it makes me LOL!
The end is nigh when the gaysir holes start erupting!
AWESOME
User ID: 77589697
Estonia
04/25/2019 03:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
A popular CT says that Russia has built nuclear torpedos for devastating coastal areas by generating a man-made tsunami with an underwater fusion device.

Is it possible? Let's compare the energies.

[link to www.scrivial.com (secure)]

"...huge tsunamis like the Sumatra tsunami,2004 has energy of order 10^17 Joules. Several including National Geographic [Link] and USGS websites states that it is about 20x10^17 Joules, an equivalent of 23,000 bombs, the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. That’s huge! To verify ourselves, we contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and asked them. B.Kelly, from USGS said that there is a slight mistake - it is equivalent to 23,000 bombs that was dropped on Nagasaki (20KiloTNT) not Hiroshima (15kiloTNT)."

So, in order to generate a tsunami the size of 2007 Sumatra tsunami, the nuclear device would have to have a yield of 23,000 * 20 kT = 460 MT.

The largest fusion device ever detonated was the Tsar bomba with a yield of 50 MT, and a designed maximum yield of 100 MT, and it was bulky as hell. Fusion devices can be scaled up indefinitely by adding more fuel (=hydrogen or its isotopes), but it will increase the size of the device. The yield does not increase in a linear proportion to the amount of fuel, but if we assume that it did, the size of a tsunami generating torpedo would be about ten times the size of the Tsar bomba. That would make it about the size of a modern boomer.

Ok, so the size becomes impractical, but of course the "crazy Russians" could have converted their old boomers into remotely controlled tsunami bombs. However, it is not obvious that a nuclear detonation would actually generate a tsunami. Tsunami waveform is special, because it is created by the sea floor lifting up and pushing water up in a linear fashion. Tsunami is not just a surface wave, but it extends from the bottom of the sea to the surface.

An underwater nuclear detonation, on the other hand, will create a superhot bubble of vaporized water (the vaporization will actually eat up a lot of bomb's energy, but let's ignore it), which will then burst to the surface while the bubble will collapse on itself. Yes, it will generate a wave, but since the initial pressure wave will be radial instead of a linear, followed by a rush of water filling the bubble, the waveform will certainly be different.
 Quoting: Tainted Meat


as a nerd who used to calculate Tjoules for things like asteroid impacts (when I believed in outer space) or crust displacement (the Great Aus Bight displacement would be like a 11.0 mag EQ) this is a great read

thank you and 5 stars
TheOracle'sCookie

User ID: 76948143
United States
04/25/2019 06:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
A popular CT says that Russia has built nuclear torpedos for devastating coastal areas by generating a man-made tsunami with an underwater fusion device.

Is it possible? Let's compare the energies.

[link to www.scrivial.com (secure)]

"...huge tsunamis like the Sumatra tsunami,2004 has energy of order 10^17 Joules. Several including National Geographic [Link] and USGS websites states that it is about 20x10^17 Joules, an equivalent of 23,000 bombs, the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. That’s huge! To verify ourselves, we contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and asked them. B.Kelly, from USGS said that there is a slight mistake - it is equivalent to 23,000 bombs that was dropped on Nagasaki (20KiloTNT) not Hiroshima (15kiloTNT)."

So, in order to generate a tsunami the size of 2007 Sumatra tsunami, the nuclear device would have to have a yield of 23,000 * 20 kT = 460 MT.

The largest fusion device ever detonated was the Tsar bomba with a yield of 50 MT, and a designed maximum yield of 100 MT, and it was bulky as hell. Fusion devices can be scaled up indefinitely by adding more fuel (=hydrogen or its isotopes), but it will increase the size of the device. The yield does not increase in a linear proportion to the amount of fuel, but if we assume that it did, the size of a tsunami generating torpedo would be about ten times the size of the Tsar bomba. That would make it about the size of a modern boomer.

Ok, so the size becomes impractical, but of course the "crazy Russians" could have converted their old boomers into remotely controlled tsunami bombs. However, it is not obvious that a nuclear detonation would actually generate a tsunami. Tsunami waveform is special, because it is created by the sea floor lifting up and pushing water up in a linear fashion. Tsunami is not just a surface wave, but it extends from the bottom of the sea to the surface.

An underwater nuclear detonation, on the other hand, will create a superhot bubble of vaporized water (the vaporization will actually eat up a lot of bomb's energy, but let's ignore it), which will then burst to the surface while the bubble will collapse on itself. Yes, it will generate a wave, but since the initial pressure wave will be radial instead of a linear, followed by a rush of water filling the bubble, the waveform will certainly be different.
 Quoting: Tainted Meat


Easy way to fix the size problem is to NUKE a target
that can CAUSE an undersea landslide...the Gulf of
Mexico has several huge cliff faces that could be hit
to create a sizeable wave. It would take out the Gulf
coasts as well as create a huge pollution problem due
to the number of oil rigs there. I'm sure they have
thought of the volcano in the Canary Islands that people
worry will slide from just natural causes.

Let's hope they don't get that wreckless.

cheers
O'sCookie
TheOracle'sCookie

User ID: 76948143
United States
05/27/2019 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
A popular CT says that Russia has built nuclear torpedos for devastating coastal areas by generating a man-made tsunami with an underwater fusion device.

Is it possible? Let's compare the energies.

[link to www.scrivial.com (secure)]

"...huge tsunamis like the Sumatra tsunami,2004 has energy of order 10^17 Joules. Several including National Geographic [Link] and USGS websites states that it is about 20x10^17 Joules, an equivalent of 23,000 bombs, the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. That’s huge! To verify ourselves, we contacted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and asked them. B.Kelly, from USGS said that there is a slight mistake - it is equivalent to 23,000 bombs that was dropped on Nagasaki (20KiloTNT) not Hiroshima (15kiloTNT)."

So, in order to generate a tsunami the size of 2007 Sumatra tsunami, the nuclear device would have to have a yield of 23,000 * 20 kT = 460 MT.

The largest fusion device ever detonated was the Tsar bomba with a yield of 50 MT, and a designed maximum yield of 100 MT, and it was bulky as hell. Fusion devices can be scaled up indefinitely by adding more fuel (=hydrogen or its isotopes), but it will increase the size of the device. The yield does not increase in a linear proportion to the amount of fuel, but if we assume that it did, the size of a tsunami generating torpedo would be about ten times the size of the Tsar bomba. That would make it about the size of a modern boomer.

Ok, so the size becomes impractical, but of course the "crazy Russians" could have converted their old boomers into remotely controlled tsunami bombs. However, it is not obvious that a nuclear detonation would actually generate a tsunami. Tsunami waveform is special, because it is created by the sea floor lifting up and pushing water up in a linear fashion. Tsunami is not just a surface wave, but it extends from the bottom of the sea to the surface.

An underwater nuclear detonation, on the other hand, will create a superhot bubble of vaporized water (the vaporization will actually eat up a lot of bomb's energy, but let's ignore it), which will then burst to the surface while the bubble will collapse on itself. Yes, it will generate a wave, but since the initial pressure wave will be radial instead of a linear, followed by a rush of water filling the bubble, the waveform will certainly be different.
 Quoting: Tainted Meat


Not to be a "buzz-kill" but the images below are from
sat photos "before" and "after" the 2004 Sumatra Quake/Tsunami.

BandaAche2004

You can check this out at the link below: The cause
of the 2004 was a "space-weather-related record-breaking
GAMMA RAY BURST."
[link to www.etheric.com]

This is one really good reason to stay abreast of
space weather and the newest info coming out about the
space-weather that can have cause-and-effect like the
picture from Banda Ache (Sumatra Quake/tsunami 2004.)

Just sayin...

cheers
O'sCookie
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77599717
Mexico
05/27/2019 10:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
OP, somehow, somewhere you are FULL OF IT. TOTALLY. BECAUSE:

Earthquakes are measured for their seismic yield, and nukes are also rated for their seismic yield. <b>Seismic yield is a perfect, immutable reference, that bypasses whatever crap math you did.</b></p><p>

Tsar Bomba, the reduced power version that was set off, at 45 megatons, was worth an 8.7 earthquake. <b>If an earthquake is what sets off a tsunami, the net energy in the tsunami cannot exceed that of the quake that caused it.</b></p><p>

Add losses such as ground shaking and harmonics, and no earthquake can trigger a tsunami that has more than a few percent of the total seismic yield in it's energy.

The ultimate for making tsunamis would be a nuke, which can drop ALL of it's energy directly into the water with few losses.

So why this backhanded effort to debunk nuclear tsunamis?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77599717
Mexico
05/27/2019 10:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
OP, somehow, somewhere you are FULL OF IT. TOTALLY. BECAUSE:

Earthquakes are measured for their seismic yield, and nukes are also rated for their seismic yield. <b>Seismic yield is a perfect, immutable reference, that bypasses whatever crap math you did.</b></p><p>

Tsar Bomba, the reduced power version that was set off, at 45 megatons, was worth an 8.7 earthquake. <b>If an earthquake is what sets off a tsunami, the net energy in the tsunami cannot exceed that of the quake that caused it.</b></p><p>

Add losses such as ground shaking and harmonics, and no earthquake can trigger a tsunami that has more than a few percent of the total seismic yield in it's energy.

The ultimate for making tsunamis would be a nuke, which can drop ALL of it's energy directly into the water with few losses.

So why this backhanded effort to debunk nuclear tsunamis?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77599717


THE ABOVE IS WHY "THEY" WANT COMMON CORE, WITH TRADITIONAL EDUCATION ERASED, BECAUSE ANYONE WITH A REAL EDUCATION CAN CUT RIGHT THROUGH THE CRAP.

hesright
Hermit 48

User ID: 38339478
Canada
05/27/2019 10:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
I believe it could trigger tsunami, the largest bomb ever tested was tsar, 50 Mt airburst , never been tested under ocean, poseidon torpedo carries 4 times more powerful warhead.
Operation Hartack Umbrela, 1958, test 150 ft underwater, 8 kT yield caused a small tsunami.
This test was performed with 8kt bomb, mosquito bite comparing with 200 megatons Russian Poseidon termonuclear cobalt enriched warhead/ 25,000 times more powerful.


1 megaton=1000 kt , 200,000KT divide by 8= 25,000




Last Edited by Hermit 48 on 05/27/2019 10:53 AM
Otter Woodman

User ID: 75550334
United States
05/27/2019 11:57 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Energy in a tsunami vs. energy in a hydrogen bomb
What if a high yield weapon is dropped in an active fault line, like a hot spot in the ring of fire. They could expect the blast to possibly excite the displacement energy of the fault an trigger an actual crust displacement.
Ive heard this was being worked from Direct Energy Weapons as well. With a DEW there is no finger print other than a bright Green, Purple, even Red beam of light from the sky. Like what was observed in the California "Wild" Fires
Otter Woodman





GLP