Volumme of a sphere of "heavy" metals 5Km O.D. The smallest size postulated
that I could find. The size varries between 5 and 80Km. in the search that I
made. 2500M^3 x Pie x 4/3 = 6.5^10 M^3

Density? Since the pressure at the center of the Earth's core should be many
times the pressure of a nuclear bomb's implosion and that routeenly results
in compression factors of more than 40. I have used 20 as a density
multiplier.
Explosive pressure.= <31,000Kg./Cm^2! After inertial multiplier
3^8Kg./Cm^2. (IIRC)
Mass of Earth above every square centimeter of the "heavy" core =
R.=250,000Cm.^2 x 3.14159 = 1.963Cm.^2 = surface aria of 5Km sphere.
Mass of planet. = 5.974^24Kg. / 1.963^11 Cm^2 = >3.0^13Kg./Cm^2
The above makes a compression factor of 20 seem reasonable to me. That makes
every cubic meter of core mass 379 metric tons.

Volume of 5Km. sphere. = 2,500M.^3 x 3.14159 x 4 / 3 = 6.5^10M.^3 x 18.95 x
20 = 2.464^13 metric tons, or 2.464^16 Kg.

At 50% efficiancy, a number easily acheaved by modern weapons that are not
tamped by the inertia of 6^24 tones of planet and a many kilometer thick
secondary fisile shell for a increased yeald, both things that increase
yealds dramaticaly. That makes 1.09^30 Joules, more than enough to acount
for the effects as seen on film.
(2.464^16 x 8.9^13 J/Kg.)/2 = 1.09^30

If any of these very conservitave assumptions are too low, then the number
gets very much bigger very quickly. if the fissile core is ~8Km. instead of
five, or the efficiancy goes up because of the tamping, or because of the
high nutron flux to start, for instance. The first nuclear explosion was
started by only 3-8 nutrons, average guess <5, according to some sources.
The U-238 decay series is U-238, 4,500,000,000 YEARS, TO, Th-234, 24 days
toPa-234,2.1 min, to u-234, 250,000 years, to Th-230,80,000 years, toRa-226,
1,600 years to, Rn-222, 3.82 days, to Po-218, 3.05 min, to Pb-214, 26.8 min,
to Bi-214, 19.7 min, to Po-214, 16 mS, toPb-210 22 years, toBi-210, 5 days,
toPo-210, 138 days to Lead, Pb-206 all of which are less dense than U-238
and Pu-239 and would surround the pit as it decays. Every single element on
that list will fission when struck by a fast nutron and act to boost the
yeald when struck by that ever elusive "fast" nutron that is a minor, 17%,
byproduct of the fission reaction. If any of those elements were more
effective that the initial statements above, the total yeald could easily go
to 1^31J to 2^32J.

The energy required to supply the origional nutron flux, sufficiant to
fission the entire core, could be miniscuel in compairison, say 2^18J to
4.5^19J. ( A 20-1 ratio of nutron energy depending on whos book you read.One
metric ton of nutrons accellerated to fast nutron energies instead of the
socalled slow "thermal" nutrons used for conventional nuclear explosives.
Remember that almost anything will fission when struck by fast nutrons.
Given that the chain reactions will not be self sustaining, a very large
imput will be required to ensure that enough of the pile is fissioned so
that the 17% of fast nutrons liberated will eventialy fission the entire pit
as the reaction dies down. About three generations to fission an additional
21% beyond the origionaly targeted core.

That's hilarious. Especially the part where he says that 1E30 J is "more than enough to account for the effects seen on film", and says that the energy necessary to create the neutron flux found inside a thermonuclear weapon throughout the entire volume of a multi-kilometre wide sphere buried under 6000km of rock could very well be "miniscule"

So, now that he sent his calcs are you going to let him back in?

Granted, his calculations are LAUGHABLY horrible, and I LOVED the part when he claims that 1.09^30 Joules is more than enough to acount
for the effects as seen on film, but he DID send in his "calcs." So, is he coming back?

That makes 1.09^30 Joules, more than enough to acount
for the effects as seen on film.

I thought that in his previous calculations he conceded (though of course not putting it that way) that the 1E38 figure was correct.

Translation: My name is Stewie, I pulled some numbers out of my butt and punched them into a calculator, therefore I am right!

I swear to god this guy needs to be carted off to the nearest mental institution and heavily medicated.

What calculations? To what question?

I have asked this before and can not remember getting an answer then either.

No answer to my last message, I've met your demands, posted the formulas and sent the photos, why are you afaid of me? Reenstate my access to post to defend my possition and continue the debate, or admit your own intelectual cowardice.

You're full of shit, Stewart. You did NOT meet my demands, moron. Let me quote the demand I made on March 23:

"YOU HAVE CLAIMED THAT YOUR ALTERNATE THEORY IS FEASIBLE. THIS MEANS YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE CALCULATIONS SHOWING THIS TO BE THE CASE, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE BEEN LYING THE WHOLE TIME AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT IS FEASIBLE OR EVEN SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE."

And what did you do? You sent calculations which ASSUMED that the reaction was feasible, made no effort whatsoever to show that it could be made to occur, and calculated (very sloppily) what would happen once we grant your assumption that the reaction will occur. Where is your calculation for neutron beam velocity and density, Stewart? Where is your calculation for mean free path through solid matter, Stewart? Where is your calculation for the total energy of a beam which will punch through 6000 km of rock and mantle and iron without appreciable neutron scattering, Stewart? Where is your calculation for the energy of a beam which can saturate an entire 80km wide sphere of uranium (or for that matter, a 1km wide sphere of uranium) with neutrons at such density that you will achieve 100% neutron capture, Stewart? Where is your calculation for the maximum delta-t over which this process can occur so that heat expansion from neutron scattering will not blow up the planet first, Stewart? Where is your calculation showing that you can make a planet expand at more than ten thousand km/s with less than 1% of the energy required to overcome gravitational binding energy, Stewart?

You have produced NONE of it, you overblown windbag, and you never will, because none of it works. The fact that you can't even TRY merely proves how utterly incompetent you are, and how vastly overblown your claims of technical expertise are. And your picture is a joke. It only shows that a white ball can be a little brighter when illuminated at close range by a flash, and falls so far, far short of your claims that most of the people on the board didn't even realize what the picture was for. I fully intend to show it on my website as an example of what an imbecile you are.

So you think I'm a "coward" for not taking your worthless incompetent irrelevant calculations seriously or accepting them in lieu of the FEASIBILITY calculations which I demanded, eh? You seem to think that this empty posturing of yours will change my mind; let me assure you that it will only earn you a more prominent spot on my Hate Mail page in my next update.

I think I know what photo-light principle he's trying to apply. Unfortunately for him, he's not applying it correctly, and still has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Moved to publicly visible forum so Stewart can see how little we think of his so-called "calculations".

PS. I like the way he thinks that Pi is actually "pie", like the stuff you eat.

Please tell me you're joking....

Please tell me he wasn't being serious....

stewie actually says pie. found it incredibly amusing myself. fuck, any half competent high school student would know what the proper label for Pi is when used mathematically.