[William McCormick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

This kind of states that infrared is light. But I am not someone to argue about the poor definitions we use in real life. I know I could die from the poor definitions, any day on the job.

Often people in an attempt to make something clear, use the two terms interchangeably and not on a scientific level that is probably ok. It leads to mislabelling though.

I was really just trying to hone in on the actual workings of the universe. We would need to be on the same page of the exacting differences of the two rays, to from an agreement.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[damocles]

Out of interest I tried to look up some thermal conductivities in my reference books. For different types of material they are expressed in all kinds of different weird and inconvenient units. However, with a bit of application of conversion factors, here is what I have come up with. It may be of interest.

The units of these numbers are W/cm/K, and the temperatures are close to ambient. The materials are single crystal, glassy, or hard rolled.

Silver         4.29
Copper       4.01
Gold           3.19
Aluminium   2.37
Silicon       1.5
Iron           0.80
Platinum    0.72
------
Sapphire (corundum, aluminium oxide)      0.354
Topaz       0.18
Quartz      0.08
Marble      0.05
------
Diamond   22
BeO          2.1
MgO         0.35

That might help put a perspective on some of the discussion.

[Bored chemist]

I believe what I said is highly accurate, for the purpose I said it. Light is necessary to create the infrared emission from the element. You just cannot do it without the light. Meaning as you increase the power to the element, it naturally starts emitting rays designed to carry away more energy. And they do.

When I create a very powerful ARC through pure argon, using a couple thousand watts, of power, there is a pinpoint heat generated, in very close proximity to the ARC,  however most of the rays, leave the area, as light and UV.  There is almost no infrared. So I have to contest that heat is reliving the area of energy.

Regular heat does not pass through silicon without heating it, infrared rays do. Now I was taught that infrared is a form of light. It certainly is not regular heat.

On the other side of the coin infrared is ineffective at moving the veins of a radiometer, if no white light is present. If there is the slightest white light present, then the infrared will move the veins of the radiometer and at amazing speeds.

Certainly the terminology leaves something to be desired of no matter which way you look at it. I don't think that infrared is neither light or heat myself. But I do not see why we cannot make communication about it better.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

I'm starting to think you are trolling.
Nobody else is going to believe that you are accurate. That nonsense about the Sun being a laser or surrounded by CO2 will make sure of that.
Light is not needed to generate IR.
IR LEDs and an ordinary light bulb run at low voltage prove this.
So this "Light is necessary to create the infrared emission from the element. You just cannot do it without the light." is plainly wrong.



 "Meaning as you increase the power to the element, it naturally starts emitting rays designed to carry away more energy. And they do."
Doesn't make sense because the radiation (IR or visible) wasn't designed at all.


If you look here, you can see the emission spectrum from an argon arc lamp. (btw, It's not an abbreviation so it isn't written in capitals)
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/facilities/vortec/
As you can see, much, if not most of the radiation emitted is IR


"Regular heat does not pass through silicon without heating it, infrared rays do."
Will you please learn the difference between silica and silicon.

This
"On the other side of the coin infrared is ineffective at moving the veins of a radiometer, if no white light is present. If there is the slightest white light present, then the infrared will move the veins of the radiometer and at amazing speeds. "
Is just not true.

[William McCormick]

I believe what I said is highly accurate, for the purpose I said it. Light is necessary to create the infrared emission from the element. You just cannot do it without the light. Meaning as you increase the power to the element, it naturally starts emitting rays designed to carry away more energy. And they do.

When I create a very powerful ARC through pure argon, using a couple thousand watts, of power, there is a pinpoint heat generated, in very close proximity to the ARC,  however most of the rays, leave the area, as light and UV.  There is almost no infrared. So I have to contest that heat is reliving the area of energy.

Regular heat does not pass through silicon without heating it, infrared rays do. Now I was taught that infrared is a form of light. It certainly is not regular heat.

On the other side of the coin infrared is ineffective at moving the veins of a radiometer, if no white light is present. If there is the slightest white light present, then the infrared will move the veins of the radiometer and at amazing speeds.

Certainly the terminology leaves something to be desired of no matter which way you look at it. I don't think that infrared is neither light or heat myself. But I do not see why we cannot make communication about it better.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

I'm starting to think you are trolling.
Nobody else is going to believe that you are accurate. That nonsense about the Sun being a laser or surrounded by CO2 will make sure of that.
Light is not needed to generate IR.
IR LEDs and an ordinary light bulb run at low voltage prove this.
So this "Light is necessary to create the infrared emission from the element. You just cannot do it without the light." is plainly wrong.



 "Meaning as you increase the power to the element, it naturally starts emitting rays designed to carry away more energy. And they do."
Doesn't make sense because the radiation (IR or visible) wasn't designed at all.


If you look here, you can see the emission spectrum from an argon arc lamp. (btw, It's not an abbreviation so it isn't written in capitals)
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/facilities/vortec/
As you can see, much, if not most of the radiation emitted is IR


"Regular heat does not pass through silicon without heating it, infrared rays do."
Will you please learn the difference between silica and silicon.

This
"On the other side of the coin infrared is ineffective at moving the veins of a radiometer, if no white light is present. If there is the slightest white light present, then the infrared will move the veins of the radiometer and at amazing speeds. "
Is just not true.

Here is a proof that at one time many did learn that CO2 surrounds the sun, and that its incandescence is what creates the very bright light. The yellow color of the sun through our atmosphere, might be explained by carbon as the source. Helium is of a red band, and so is hydrogen if I am not mistaken. Carbon and Co2 have that yellow spectrum.

This is pre-world war two stuff, before the government openly announced that they would hide the secret of the atom from earth. Maybe Russia was fearful of how the Americans and English, were going to get the secret of the atom, out of their heads, so they started the cold war. Ha-ha.

I wasted about an hour looking for another source I have somewhere. I just could not find it, I will keep looking. This publication below is from General Motors Corporation. It was a very fascinating booklet given to the public to learn about automobiles and the substances that make them work. You can see they talk about explosives in a booklet made for the whole family. Things were very different before the war. Ha-ha Explosives were an American thing, at this time.

Your link to the argon arc lamp is broken.

Not all infrared is heat, and certainly an argon arc emission has heat, up close to it, however most of its energy except for up close, is turned into light and UV.

When they say that 9 percent of the energy that hits earth from the sun is UV. That does not mean that the energy needed to create that UV is not 80 percent of the energy created by the sun and the effects on the sun. You have to have an open mind about this, because it is never, or rarely discussed.

As far as needing light to create Infrared, at any distance from the bulb, from an incandescent light bulb filament, you will need some light to do it. That is the point, when you up the wattage to the bulb, it gives off light to remove the energy. Just the infrared emission is no longer enough.





                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[damocles]

Will, I am sorry but your posts really are cloud cuckoo land nonsense and non-science

Here is a proof that at one time many did learn that CO2 surrounds the sun, and that its incandescence is what creates the very bright light. The yellow color of the sun through our atmosphere, might be explained by carbon as the source. Helium is of a red band, and so is hydrogen if I am not mistaken. Carbon and Co2 have that yellow spectrum.

• CO2 decomposes into CO and O around 3000°C, and CO to C and O around 4000-5000°C. The temperature in the neighbourhood of the sun's "surface" (photosphere) is around 10000°C. All materials are atomic or single atom cations at that temperature; no molecules can exist.
• In my local, relatively unpolluted atmosphere, the sun's colour is white. "yellow" is a technical term used by astronomers to categorize a star's surface temperature, and to express subtle variations in perceived star colour in observations. It is also the actual colour of the observed sun in conditions where there is a lot of atmospheric scattering by particles.
• The visible line emission spectra of hydrogen and helium are totally irrelevant to any of the considerations here -- visible light emitted by the sun is an incandescence spectrum associated with a "blackbody" radiation around 10,000 °C, not an atomic emission spectrum.
• The visible band emission spectrum attributed to carbon dioxide (1) is not yellow, and (2) could not be present in sunlight anyway because carbon dioxide simply cannot exist anywhere near the sun.

This is pre-world war two stuff, before the government openly announced that they would hide the secret of the atom from earth. Maybe Russia was fearful of how the Americans and English, were going to get the secret of the atom, out of their heads, so they started the cold war. Ha-ha.

Hmm ... I am now coming around to thinking that you are trolling as BC suggests above. Linking wacky non-science with a government conspiracy is par for the course. The 'Ha-ha' at the end is not!

[William McCormick]

The carbon arc lamp, is capable of temperatures up to 10,000 degrees. Carbon boils at around 6,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Boiling Carbon in a vacuum, with no oxygen may be what we are seeing.

Consider water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, yet 800 degree Fahrenheit steam, is nothing to get excited about.

There is material still around about the temperature in an ARC, Union Carbide put the temperature of a Tungsten ARC in Argon at 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The use of Carbon ARC cutting and welding was much more popular before, tungsten TIG welding was introduced. There are some wild temperatures obtained using carbon ARC.




                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick 

[William McCormick]

It is kind of funny, I go through a lot of trouble to bring people information that they at least should have, if not know. And I often do get accused of wanting to get people angry. It is just ridiculous. As scientists, or individuals who are striving to becoming scientists, there should only be interest in finding truth.

That document I presented is just an interesting document that is part of American history. Is it so agitating to you that you have to accuse me of some sort of game or charade to get attention? That is an attack on my character, and there is no sound reason for it.

If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

http://www.rockwelder.com/explosives/Hiroshimahalfton.PDF


Here is a short movie, it shows TIG welding. In the finale part of the film, the third demonstration, you are watching a tungsten electrode melt and boil. Using less then 100 amps of power. That is the power of an ARC.

In that third demonstration the particles of electricity are leaving the stainless steel work piece and hitting the electrode. That polarity is the same polarity that is used in ARC welding.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick 

[Bored chemist]

Damocles,
did you have any trouble with the link I posted to the arc spectrum?

[CZARCAR]

Kirchoff's law?

[Bored chemist]

Kirchoff's law?

What about it?
It's certainly no going to support William's assertion that the moon is made of green cheese or whatever it was that he said.

[William McCormick]

Kirchoff's law?

What about it?
It's certainly no going to support William's assertion that the moon is made of green cheese or whatever it was that he said.

You and I might just have a communication problem. I do not believe you would hate the things I know, and do everyday. I think coming at you with a different language may be causing a problem.

Today I checked out that link and it worked well. Last night I got a link broken on it.

I am not sure what point you are making though. Again most of that 100 KW of that lasers input, is going away as light not heat. With 100 kw of heat I can melt a hundred pound block of aluminum in seconds.

The infrared heaters are actually surrounded by quartz, or silicon dioxide, it is silicon.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

Is there any way of getting you to read what you type and see if it makes sense?
For example, the page I cited
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/facilities/vortec/
is about an arc lamp and not a laser (and "arc" still doesn't need capital letters).

If you look at the diagram you will see that there is a lot of effort dedicated to cooling it- because it really does generate more heat than light.

As for "The infrared heaters are actually surrounded by quartz, or silicon dioxide, it is silicon. "
You plainly have no idea what you are talking about. Since it is silicon dioxide it isn't silicon.
It's like saying the Hindenburg flew because it was full of water.

[William McCormick]

ARC in America used to stand for (Anode, Rectified, Cathode). The people that went to the moon, used these terms to describe the usually white, blue or purple, excited self inducting gas cloud created by electricity, that gives off light. 

It turns out that Benjamin Franklin was totally correct on his views of electricity. Modern science labels batteries and cathode ray tubes backwards. Benjamin Franklin replaced Du Fays theory, of two types of electricity, and rightly so. Since that time colleges have flip flopped on the subject, incorporating a little of everyone's wrong theories into the finale catastrophe.

Benjamin Franklin did create the first transistor and he turned lightning on and off with it. Benjamin Franklin did fly a kite in a lightning storm. Using a piece of silk to isolate himself from the kite string. All the myths about that being impossible are coming from people that should know better.

A carbon laser is created with an ARC. An argon laser is created with an ARC. That is just how it is.

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[Bored chemist]

Nope it didn't.
Since, in the history of the world only a couple of dozen people have been to the moon their point of view wouldn't really count for much.
Also the word was in wide use before then
This patent from 1898 (rather a long time before NASA)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=gjVMAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
 is for an alternating current arc lamp so there's plainly no rectification involved. The invention of the word is credited to Sir Humphrey Davy. He didn't know anything about rectification.
A quick look on Google suggests that only welders use that construct.

"It turns out that Benjamin Franklin was totally correct on his views of electricity"
Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_theory_of_electricity

"Benjamin Franklin did create the first transistor and he turned lightning on and off with it. "
Nope (and just plain silly no such transistor exits, even today.).

"A carbon laser is created with an ARC."
as far as I know the only carbon lasers are xray lasers and are created with a small atom bomb. Details are sketchy.

"An argon laser is created with an ARC."
Nope,
"The typical noble gas ion laser plasma consists of a high-current-density glow discharge in a noble gas, "
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon_laser#Argon_laser

(and as far as I can tell, CO2 lasers do the same.)

[William McCormick]

My father worked at Grumman Aero Space. The people that built the Lunar module, the only vessel that performed flawlessly each time in actual space, not just high orbit.

It did so because they understood the ARC, friction, vacuum, compression, magnetism, ambient radiation, electricity, induction, you name they had it.

Have you ever looked at AC current, it is just DC current, changing direction, a set number of times a second. Nothing more to it, nothing fancy about it. Each half cycle of the AC current, creates an ARC when you create a short through air. Each cycle creates two ARC's, first on one electrode then the other. That is the only difference between pure DC and AC. Alternating current just means alternating DC current.

There is one more thing I have to throw at you, this is Benjamin Franklin's claim to fame. He found that by using points and flats, that he could easily dissect electricity, and decipher which way it was going. And how and why ARC's are formed. I am talking about the physical shape of the electrodes. One is pointed one is flat.

Did you see that movie I posted earlier. I made that to show people how electricity works. In the first part of that movie, the torch is charged (-) like on a modern American car battery. Pure DC current. You might note that except to initiate the ARC with a high frequency system that cuts out after an ARC is formed, the beam is totally silent. There is no ARC, or arc sound, that is a silent Anode beam. Because the flat work piece does not boil off and create an ARC. 

In the second part of the movie I feed the torch with AC current. You can hear the 120 cycles created from the 60 hertz power, messing with the audio.

As I explained there is an ARC formed, and you can see that the tip of the torch starts to melt, or balls up because it is being hit with electricity from the work piece or flat shaped electrode. AC creates very high surface heat, and does boil the surface of the flat metal work piece. Giving you 120 hertz.

In the last part of the movie the torch is charged (+) as marked on a modern American car battery. Pure DC current. You can see that there is also an ARC noise. You can see that the tungsten melts and even starts to boil, it recedes into the torch. Because the tungsten does not boil as much as a steel consumable electrode, the tungsten actually melts faster then a consumable steel electrode. Because the Tungsten is hardly boiling, it is not self cooling. The consumable steel ARC rod, boils and cools the rod. So you get a super hot ARC ray created at the tip of the consumable rod.

If you watch that a few times you will see that I am telling the truth.

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I was welding up a set of railings for a friend. I made some shop drawings about three weeks ago, and bent it up two weekends ago, and yesterday and today between doing laundry, I welded them up. Now it is back to work tomorrow, Ahhhhhh. 





                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[damocles]

Damocles,
did you have any trouble with the link I posted to the arc spectrum?

No.

Why do you ask?

[damocles]

If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

There was never a "secret of the atom". The discovery of nuclear fission was down to Hahn & Strassmann in Germany and Meitner and Frisch in Sweden in the year before the 2nd world war started. It was openly published in the science literature.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History

Any chemist or nuclear physicist could easily tell from the information on the public record that nuclear fission was a branched chain reaction, and therefore potentially explosive. The only secret that the US government wanted to or would have been able to keep was a series of secrets about how to go about engineering the basic science to produce a bomb. There are about 7 or 8 features of the nuclear fission reaction that make this engineering quite tricky and problematic.

So there was certainly a secret of the bomb, indeed several of them. But secret of the atom? Not at all clear what you are getting at here, nor what its relevance to this particular topic is. But the way it has been told certainly sounds conspiratorial -- especially the bit about the Russians going haha!

[Bored chemist]

My father worked at Grumman Aero Space. T

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner I was welding up a set of railings for a friend. I made some shop drawings about three weeks ago, and bent it up two weekends ago, and yesterday and today between doing laundry, I welded them up. Now it is back to work tomorrow, Ahhhhhh. 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

My mum taught on of the Spice girls and, like you dad's job, that also has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

Unless your dad was using the word arc before My Davy, he's misusing it.

Nice railing.
It must be a right pain in the neck doing all that cutting to 6 digit accuracy. Do you have your own interferometer to check the pieces?
Also, how good is your air conditioning?
I find that temperature changes of just 1 degree alter the lengths of bits of steel by 15 parts in a million or so and Aluminium is even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

Damocles, I just wondered, given that William had struggled with it. He seems not to have understood much of it.

[William McCormick]

If you check out this document, you will see during the war they decided that individuals on earth should not have the secret of the atom or the atom bomb. There was no conspiracy because they came out and said it. If you come out and tell people their government is going to make them as stupid as wood, there is no conspiracy. In the peoples defense they just thought the government was going to hide the bomb, not the atom. You know governments they are not always to smart, or truthful.

There was never a "secret of the atom". The discovery of nuclear fission was down to Hahn & Strassmann in Germany and Meitner and Frisch in Sweden in the year before the 2nd world war started. It was openly published in the science literature.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#History

Any chemist or nuclear physicist could easily tell from the information on the public record that nuclear fission was a branched chain reaction, and therefore potentially explosive. The only secret that the US government wanted to or would have been able to keep was a series of secrets about how to go about engineering the basic science to produce a bomb. There are about 7 or 8 features of the nuclear fission reaction that make this engineering quite tricky and problematic.

So there was certainly a secret of the bomb, indeed several of them. But secret of the atom? Not at all clear what you are getting at here, nor what its relevance to this particular topic is. But the way it has been told certainly sounds conspiratorial -- especially the bit about the Russians going haha!

That is what you read, and learned.

However if you look at what Benjamin Franklin had discovered about matter and the particle of electricity. And the advancements some, not all, Americans made in science. You would know that the actual Hiroshima bomb, did in fact weigh just under a half ton. The duplicate of the bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, sat on display at West Point for many years. I believe they removed the display, shortly after I visited West Point.

When the Freedom of information Act was introduced in the seventies. They released the video of the women actually making those bombs. Women in hair nets. Complete with the substances and weights needed to build one. On public funded television.

My facetious question might be, "Was that the cover up of the bomb, and the atom, or was that the bomb and atom released?"

I am not saying believe me or trust me. I am saying give a possible truth a chance. Ask yourself this, why did we need the freedom of information act, to uncover zero secrets? Why were most of the secrets about pre-world war two weapons. This bomb I am mentioning was around before World War Two.

The half ton Hiroshima bomb, was in fact not made with highly radio active material. Only slightly radio active fuel oils. That is why they did hide the bomb, and the atom. When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima.

The bomb casing was some type of metal that although faintly developed a brown or reddish tint, on the welds, it did not rust. That could mean chrome-molly, or manganese steel, or even titanium. I did not test it.

The core of the bomb was a metal sphere filled with 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate with many precision detonators all around the sphere, all aiming at the center of the core. Each detonator had an equal length wire to each one, so that they would all fire exactly at the same time. The core was suspended by chain in the center of the bomb. A lot of women with hair nets were making them.  The core was suspended so it would stay in the center of the bomb casing and the oil payload in the bomb casing.

The oil was a high BTU oil, again I do not have the exact specifics of the oil, something like a #6 fuel oil or rosin oil, perhaps even a creosote oil.

When you try to blow oil apart, from the inside, you increase the pressure upon the oil so suddenly that, it almost solidifies. Very similar to doing a belly flop into water. For a split second that waters surface is almost as hard as cement. The water cannot be displaced fast enough.

The oil, for a split second, becomes an unmovable ojbect. It has to do with the physics of start change and stop. During that time, the core and the oil reach temperatures of the sun. Leveling just about anything within a quarter mile radius. Of course horrid effects move out much further. But the actual total devastation area is about a quarter mile radius. Which is to this day a very, very powerful bomb.

If you have ever detonated asphalt you know the power of asphalt. You just have to electrically or chemically shock asphalt to detonate it. Asphalt has much less BTU's then #6 fuel oil. #6 fuel oil is over two hundred times more powerful then asphalt.

Years ago here on the Island high performance race shops had a couple of cars detonate rather violently. What took place was a race engine trying to move oil at a velocity, the viscosity of the oil would not allow. They eventually filmed a race motor, with a plexi glass oil pan, and found that oil would at very high RPM's get pressed to the spinning crank shaft. Instead of naturally being thrown off, by the centrifugal forces. These shops developed oil scrapers, that not only kept this from happening but also gave them more horse power.

Science has been dictated by government, through grant monies and tax breaks for many generations now here in America. This is not conspiracy, rather fact.

I have heard many times now, that science is above petty politics. Well if that is true, scientists would not be taking grant monies from such people. The truth is money comes from the printing press, so if you want money that is where it will come from. The banks currently control the press, government has always been in control of the banks, and also the money.

Poverty is a tool, not a scientific reality that just happens. The government uses it for many purposes. Government does not repair poverty, because it makes people easier to control.

The government just does things by the book using our ignorance to steer us wherever it is convenient. The government does not like to get caught in a conspiracy, unless the false conspiracy, is better then the real one.

 

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

[damocles]

...(SNIP)...
That is what you read, and learned.

However if you look at what Benjamin Franklin had discovered about matter and the particle of electricity. And the advancements some, not all, Americans made in science. ***(COMMENT 1)***
You would know that the actual Hiroshima bomb, did in fact weigh just under a half ton. The duplicate of the bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, sat on display at West Point for many years. I believe they removed the display, shortly after I visited West Point. ***(COMMENT 2)***

When the Freedom of information Act was introduced in the seventies. They released the video of the women actually making those bombs. Women in hair nets. Complete with the substances and weights needed to build one. On public funded television.

My facetious question might be, "Was that the cover up of the bomb, and the atom, or was that the bomb and atom released?"

I am not saying believe me or trust me. I am saying give a possible truth a chance. Ask yourself this, why did we need the freedom of information act, to uncover zero secrets? Why were most of the secrets about pre-world war two weapons. This bomb I am mentioning was around before World War Two.
***(Comment 3)***

The half ton Hiroshima bomb, was in fact not made with highly radio active material. Only slightly radio active fuel oils. That is why they did hide the bomb, and the atom. When you release 7,600,000 BTU's in a fraction of a second, you get a blast, like the one at Hiroshima. ***(COMMENT 4)***

The bomb casing was some type of metal that although faintly developed a brown or reddish tint, on the welds, it did not rust. That could mean chrome-molly, or manganese steel, or even titanium. I did not test it.
***(Comment 5)***

The core of the bomb was a metal sphere filled with 25 pounds of ammonium nitrate with many precision detonators all around the sphere, all aiming at the center of the core. Each detonator had an equal length wire to each one, so that they would all fire exactly at the same time. The core was suspended by chain in the center of the bomb. A lot of women with hair nets were making them.  The core was suspended so it would stay in the center of the bomb casing and the oil payload in the bomb casing.
***(COMMENT 6)***

The oil was a high BTU oil, again I do not have the exact specifics of the oil, something like a #6 fuel oil or rosin oil, perhaps even a creosote oil.

When you try to blow oil apart, from the inside, you increase the pressure upon the oil so suddenly that, it almost solidifies. Very similar to doing a belly flop into water. For a split second that waters surface is almost as hard as cement. The water cannot be displaced fast enough.

The oil, for a split second, becomes an unmovable ojbect. It has to do with the physics of start change and stop. During that time, the core and the oil reach temperatures of the sun. Leveling just about anything within a quarter mile radius. Of course horrid effects move out much further. But the actual total devastation area is about a quarter mile radius. Which is to this day a very, very powerful bomb.

If you have ever detonated asphalt you know the power of asphalt. You just have to electrically or chemically shock asphalt to detonate it. Asphalt has much less BTU's then #6 fuel oil. #6 fuel oil is over two hundred times more powerful then asphalt.
***(COMMENT 7)***

... (snip) ...

Science has been dictated by government, through grant monies and tax breaks for many generations now here in America. This is not conspiracy, rather fact.

I have heard many times now, that science is above petty politics. Well if that is true, scientists would not be taking grant monies from such people. The truth is ...(SNIP)...

***(Comment ***

(1) Ben Franklin was in many ways and in many areas a great man. His contribution to the science of electricity was important at the time it was made, but has since been shown to be flawed in many ways, and has been superseded by new experimental results and deeper insights. Ben Franklin's work on electricity has been relegated to the historical archive, where it rightly belongs.

(2) There was surely no "duplicate" of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima? A replica maybe? Is the fact that the display was removed shortly after your visit significant? Did you ask too many inconvenient questions?

(3) It is quite unclear at this point whether you are talking about the Hiroshima bomb, or a production line of pre world war 2 bombs, or whether you believe, incredibly, that both were the same.

(4) I know that the Hiroshima bomb did contain a payload of highly radioactive material -- specifically U-235 at a very high level of enrichment.
---(a) An ex-colleague and friend of mine was a leading British mass spectrometrist who was fairly directly involved with the calutrons that were used for isotope separation, and has talked about it on more than one occasion.
---(b) The United States Government has been in no position to manipulate the information about the radioactive heritage of the Hiroshima neighbourhood -- neither to exaggerate it nor to diminish it.
---(c) No conventional bomb of a half ton could match the yield (i.e. energy output) of the Hiroshima bomb. The blast (i.e. energy output per unit time = peak power) could possibly have been matched by a conventional bomb through the sorts of effects you describe, though even that is doubtful. Total damage is best represented by the yield rather than the blast.

(5) One of the real secrets of the bomb was the use of beryllium as a neutron reflector in the casing of the bomb and design considerations around that. What that has to do with reddish coloration around the welds I have no idea. Maybe there was some iron somewhere as well?

(6) Another of the real secrets of the bomb is the need for a design to get several smaller pieces of U-235 to come together with perfect timing to make a single piece of U-235 large enough to trigger the explosive branched-chain reaction. Even a few milliseconds out and the uranium mass will simply melt and evaporate and melt the casing, and make a huge and dangerous mess without exploding. The sort of arrangement described here may well be an accurate representation of the conventional explosion required to initiate the nuclear explosion in a uranium bomb. I do not know.

(7) Half a ton of fuel oil or asphalt has a maximum chemical energy release of about 21 GJ, or about 20 million Btu. The yield of the Hiroshima explosion has had several estimates ranging between about 65 and 210 TJ, meaning 60 to 200 billion Btu, or 3000-10000 times larger. Of course the fuel oil payload of the Hiroshima bomb would not have been close to half a ton if the whole bomb weighed only half a ton.
Fuel oil 200 times more powerful than asphalt? yes. 200 times more energetic? no -- about the same. Fuel oil can be reacted in a very short time with high peak power; asphalt can not.

( I tend to agree with the sentiment and fact expressed here, but have cut off discussion of the rest of your post because this is strictly a science discussion, and discussion of your politics, which I do not agree with, is not the business of this forum.