Discussion:
A question ancillary to "The Lucky Strike" (Robinson)
(too old to reply)
Don Kuenz
2017-02-25 22:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Lucky Strike" (Robinson) is an alternative history story that uses
a B-29 named "Lucky Strike" in place of the "Enola Gay" to drop the
"Little Boy" weapon on Hiroshima. Presumably the "Lucky Strike" is also
a "Silverplate" B-29 modified for atomic bombing.

"Silverplate" gets bandied about mostly as a code word. The details of
the modification seem scarce as hen's teeth.

A "limited hangout" is intelligence jargon. It means that a little truth
is publicized for the sake of propaganda.

"Half a truth is often a great lie." - Ben Franklin

How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?

We know that Secretary of War Stimson borrowed 14,000 tons of silver
from Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau explicitly for use in the
Manhattan Project. [1] Is it possible that a "Silverplate" B-29 means
exactly what it says?

Note.

1. https://www.google.com/search?q=Morgenthau+stimson+silver+manhattan

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
J. Clarke
2017-02-25 22:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@crcomp.net>, ***@crcomp.net
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
"The Lucky Strike" (Robinson) is an alternative history story that uses
a B-29 named "Lucky Strike" in place of the "Enola Gay" to drop the
"Little Boy" weapon on Hiroshima. Presumably the "Lucky Strike" is also
a "Silverplate" B-29 modified for atomic bombing.
"Silverplate" gets bandied about mostly as a code word. The details of
the modification seem scarce as hen's teeth.
A "limited hangout" is intelligence jargon. It means that a little truth
is publicized for the sake of propaganda.
"Half a truth is often a great lie." - Ben Franklin
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
We know that Secretary of War Stimson borrowed 14,000 tons of silver
from Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau explicitly for use in the
Manhattan Project. [1] Is it possible that a "Silverplate" B-29 means
exactly what it says?
Note.
1. https://www.google.com/search?q=Morgenthau+stimson+silver+manhattan
Thank you,
The bombers weren't "hardened", they were
lightened and the bomb bay was modified to
provide clearance for the bomb.

The silver was used as wiring in the isotope
separation facility--copper could also have been
used but it was needed elsewhere.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-26 02:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
"The Lucky Strike" (Robinson) is an alternative history story that
uses a B-29 named "Lucky Strike" in place of the "Enola Gay" to drop
the "Little Boy" weapon on Hiroshima. Presumably the "Lucky Strike"
is also a "Silverplate" B-29 modified for atomic bombing.
"Silverplate" gets bandied about mostly as a code word. The details
of the modification seem scarce as hen's teeth.
A "limited hangout" is intelligence jargon. It means that a little
truth is publicized for the sake of propaganda.
"Half a truth is often a great lie." - Ben Franklin
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
We know that Secretary of War Stimson borrowed 14,000 tons of silver
from Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau explicitly for use in the
Manhattan Project. [1] Is it possible that a "Silverplate" B-29 means
exactly what it says?
Note.
1.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Morgenthau+stimson+silver+manhattan
Thank you,
The bombers weren't "hardened", they were
lightened and the bomb bay was modified to
provide clearance for the bomb.
The silver was used as wiring in the isotope
separation facility--copper could also have been
used but it was needed elsewhere.
From Wikipedia:

"On 3 August 1942, Nichols met with Under Secretary of the Treasury
Daniel W. Bell and asked for the transfer of 6,000 tons of silver
bullion from the West Point Bullion Depository. "Young man," Bell told
him, "you may think of silver in tons but the Treasury will always think
of silver in troy ounces!" Eventually, 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes;
430,000,000 troy ounces) were used."

pt
Mike Dworetsky
2017-02-26 09:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
"The Lucky Strike" (Robinson) is an alternative history story that
uses a B-29 named "Lucky Strike" in place of the "Enola Gay" to drop
the "Little Boy" weapon on Hiroshima. Presumably the "Lucky Strike"
is also a "Silverplate" B-29 modified for atomic bombing.
"Silverplate" gets bandied about mostly as a code word. The details
of the modification seem scarce as hen's teeth.
A "limited hangout" is intelligence jargon. It means that a little
truth is publicized for the sake of propaganda.
"Half a truth is often a great lie." - Ben Franklin
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
We know that Secretary of War Stimson borrowed 14,000 tons of silver
from Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau explicitly for use in the
Manhattan Project. [1] Is it possible that a "Silverplate" B-29 means
exactly what it says?
Note.
1.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Morgenthau+stimson+silver+manhattan
Thank you,
The bombers weren't "hardened", they were
lightened and the bomb bay was modified to
provide clearance for the bomb.
The silver was used as wiring in the isotope
separation facility--copper could also have been
used but it was needed elsewhere.
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.

The Treasury insisted on very strict accounting for the silver used in the
wiring at Oak Ridge, mainly.
--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Greg Goss
2017-02-26 11:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Dworetsky
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.
In Canada, the nickel was replaced with a brass alloy containing
copper. So how come we had spare copper while you guys were short?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 13:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Dworetsky
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.
In Canada, the nickel was replaced with a brass alloy containing
copper. So how come we had spare copper while you guys were short?
Cartridge cases, for one thing.
Greg Goss
2017-02-26 16:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Dworetsky
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.
In Canada, the nickel was replaced with a brass alloy containing
copper. So how come we had spare copper while you guys were short?
Cartridge cases, for one thing.
The question was how come we swapped a nickel coin for one using
copper while the US swapped a copper coin for one made of zinc. If
the copper was in demand, why didn't we end up with a zinc "nickel"?
We were both in the same war, using the same kind of gun cartridges.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-02-26 18:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Dworetsky
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.
In Canada, the nickel was replaced with a brass alloy containing
copper. So how come we had spare copper while you guys were short?
Cartridge cases, for one thing.
The question was how come we swapped a nickel coin for one using
copper while the US swapped a copper coin for one made of zinc. If
the copper was in demand, why didn't we end up with a zinc "nickel"?
We were both in the same war, using the same kind of gun cartridges.
So how many cartridge casings did Canada
produce? How many did the US produce?
David Johnston
2017-02-26 20:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Dworetsky
True, from what I have read, and the need for copper (mainly for brass
bullet and shell casings, and electrical wiring in ships and tanks) made it
a critical war material. Those old enough will also remember that the 1943
one cent coin was made from steel coated in zinc, in order to conserve
copper for the war effort.
In Canada, the nickel was replaced with a brass alloy containing
copper. So how come we had spare copper while you guys were short?
Cartridge cases, for one thing.
The question was how come we swapped a nickel coin for one using
copper while the US swapped a copper coin for one made of zinc. If
the copper was in demand, why didn't we end up with a zinc "nickel"?
We were both in the same war, using the same kind of gun cartridges.
So how many cartridge casings did Canada
produce? How many did the US produce?
Canada produced a lot considering they were in the war longer and 75% of
their production was for other people's militaries. I doubt the
Americans really ran short of copper. The United States did some
unnecessary things "for the war effort". Not that they were alone in
that.
Dan Tilque
2017-02-27 10:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
The question was how come we swapped a nickel coin for one using
copper while the US swapped a copper coin for one made of zinc. If
the copper was in demand, why didn't we end up with a zinc "nickel"?
We were both in the same war, using the same kind of gun cartridges.
The US also swapped a copper-nickel coin for one made of
copper-silver-manganese during the war. This reduced the amount of
copper somewhat (from 75% to 56%), but nickel was obviously the more
important war material.

I'm not completely sure why nickel was in such demand. The best answer I
can find on the Inforbahn is that it was used in armor plating.

As for copper, it was in high demand for war use. Not just ammo, but
also wiring in airplanes, ships, radios, etc. plus a variety of other
uses. Obviously it wasn't that scarce or Canada would have made steel
pennies too. My guess for why they replaced it in the US penny was to
keep the price of copper down.
--
Dan Tilque
Scott Lurndal
2017-02-27 14:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.

It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
Don Kuenz
2017-02-27 15:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.
It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
You also need to shield the people in the plane. A dental assistant puts
a lead apron on patients to shield their lower body from the minuscule
amount of radiation present during dental imaging.

There's nothing minuscule about the "Little Boy" weapon. And there's
absolutely nothing but empty atmosphere between it and and the "Enola
Gay" at the point of detonation.

The blast made the plane shudder. Imagine the hard radiation that
proceeded the shock wave.

Today the "Enola Gay" looks as shiny as a mirror. The "Enola Gay" seems
to reflect more detail than the bare fighter beneath its wings. Look at
the yellow scaffolding detail present in the lower nose of the plane.

Loading Image...

Here's a closer look at the lower nose reflection. If you look close
enough you see the photographer in a black shirt leaning against a
black pillar to the upper right of the 82 on the nose.

Loading Image...

The top of the plane, which faced away from the "Little Boy" blast,
isn't as shiny as the other areas of the plane. It looks rather drab,
relative to the underside of the plane.

Loading Image...

Here's some pictures of a "silverplate"'s weathered tail. It's blacker
than an old silver coin.

http://www.questmasters.us/B-29_SUPERFORTRESS_1.html

The inside's not black. It wasn't painted black because if you look
close enough you can see yellow decals on both silver and black metal.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Peter Trei
2017-02-27 16:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.
It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
You also need to shield the people in the plane. A dental assistant puts
a lead apron on patients to shield their lower body from the minuscule
amount of radiation present during dental imaging.
There's nothing minuscule about the "Little Boy" weapon. And there's
absolutely nothing but empty atmosphere between it and and the "Enola
Gay" at the point of detonation.
The blast made the plane shudder. Imagine the hard radiation that
proceeded the shock wave.
Today the "Enola Gay" looks as shiny as a mirror. The "Enola Gay" seems
to reflect more detail than the bare fighter beneath its wings. Look at
the yellow scaffolding detail present in the lower nose of the plane.
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_profil_gauche.jpg
Here's a closer look at the lower nose reflection. If you look close
enough you see the photographer in a black shirt leaning against a
black pillar to the upper right of the 82 on the nose.
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_avant_gauche2.jpg
The top of the plane, which faced away from the "Little Boy" blast,
isn't as shiny as the other areas of the plane. It looks rather drab,
relative to the underside of the plane.
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_arriere_droit2.jpg
Here's some pictures of a "silverplate"'s weathered tail. It's blacker
than an old silver coin.
http://www.questmasters.us/B-29_SUPERFORTRESS_1.html
The inside's not black. It wasn't painted black because if you look
close enough you can see yellow decals on both silver and black metal.
Thank you,
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the bombing run.
The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43 seconds before it
detonated, and the plane flew several miles horizontally in that time. It
was buffeted, but had no damage. It was simply too far away for the radiation
to have done much of anything.

There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no shielding
was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the crew.

pt

plane was flying away for
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-27 16:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:28:10 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the bombing run.
The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43 seconds before it
detonated, and the plane flew several miles horizontally in that time. It
was buffeted, but had no damage. It was simply too far away for the radiation
to have done much of anything.
There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no shielding
was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the crew.
At the time nobody knew very much about the effects of radiation, and
they were pretty cavalier about exposing people to it. My parents
worked on the Manhattan Project, and Dad had some horrible stories
about how careless they were. It seems very unlikely to me that they
would have bothered with the sort of shielding discussed.

Dad died of cancer in 1980, and thought that the cancer was his own
delayed little gift from his work on the Project. (Given, though,
that his doctoral thesis was on heterocyclic carbon ring compounds
that have long since been banned as carcinogens, I'm not convinced it
was radiation exposure that killed him.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Don Kuenz
2017-02-27 19:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:28:10 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the bombing run.
The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43 seconds before it
detonated, and the plane flew several miles horizontally in that time. It
was buffeted, but had no damage. It was simply too far away for the radiation
to have done much of anything.
There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no shielding
was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the crew.
At the time nobody knew very much about the effects of radiation, and
they were pretty cavalier about exposing people to it. My parents
worked on the Manhattan Project, and Dad had some horrible stories
about how careless they were. It seems very unlikely to me that they
would have bothered with the sort of shielding discussed.
Dad died of cancer in 1980, and thought that the cancer was his own
delayed little gift from his work on the Project. (Given, though,
that his doctoral thesis was on heterocyclic carbon ring compounds
that have long since been banned as carcinogens, I'm not convinced it
was radiation exposure that killed him.)
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.

Perhaps some establishment leaders were cavalier about human life. But
maybe not so cavalier about losing precious "silverplates" to a crash if
a crew becomes incapacitated mid-flight.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Carl Fink
2017-02-27 19:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?

Visible light doesn't work that way.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-27 19:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?
Nope, sorry. I think I may have seen that in a couple of different
bad 1950s films, but no specifics are surfacing from my swamp of
memory.
Post by Carl Fink
Visible light doesn't work that way.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Don Kuenz
2017-02-27 20:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?
Visible light doesn't work that way.
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22see+your+bones%22+atomic+blast

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Carl Fink
2017-02-27 21:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.
Visible light doesn't work that way.

To be slightly more specific: enough light to shine right through the flesh
of your hands would also burn the skin and flesh right *off* the bones.
Flesh is not transparent to visible light.

You've seen pictures from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I assume. Notice that the
flesh was destroyed.

You've seen (I would bet) pictures of people burned by lasers. Note that
they were burned, but not transparent.

Note also that a light that was as bright as described would *blind* the
viewer, not give them Superman's x-ray vision. Even if a hand was held in
front of (but not covering) the eyes, scattered light would be blinding.

Therefore, your acquaintance and the others you mentioned (who I will assume
were not just telling a tall tale) were experiencing the well-known
phenomenon of false memory.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Scott Lurndal
2017-02-27 21:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.
Visible light doesn't work that way.
Hmm. There is no doubt that were I to hold a very bright flashlight
on the ball of my thumb, the flesh between it and the nail exhibit
a change in internal lumination. It's not quite enough to see the
bones of the thumb as anything other than a vague shadow, but it does
show that visible light can pass through flesh in some fashion
(internal scattering may be why the bones are indistinct).

The flash from an airburst may be bright enough for such a shadow
to even occur at a safe (relatively speaking) distance from ground
zero.
Don Kuenz
2017-02-28 01:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.
Visible light doesn't work that way.
To be slightly more specific: enough light to shine right through the flesh
of your hands would also burn the skin and flesh right *off* the bones.
Flesh is not transparent to visible light.
You've seen pictures from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I assume. Notice that the
flesh was destroyed.
You've seen (I would bet) pictures of people burned by lasers. Note that
they were burned, but not transparent.
Note also that a light that was as bright as described would *blind* the
viewer, not give them Superman's x-ray vision. Even if a hand was held in
front of (but not covering) the eyes, scattered light would be blinding.
Therefore, your acquaintance and the others you mentioned (who I will assume
were not just telling a tall tale) were experiencing the well-known
phenomenon of false memory.
You just left me a sense of deja-vu. As though we've been through all of
this before. Only my search on "bone," "hand," "atomic" returns one
unrelated hit.

OK, so my acquaintance has a false memory. Or maybe he just repeats what
one of his army buddies told him.

There's more bad news that nukes my silverplate conspiracy theory. The
question "Is it possible to just reflect high energy electromagnetic
radiation?" was asked in my original post. The answer is, "Only under
special circumstances."

X-rays do not reflect off mirrors the same way that visible
light does. Because of their high-energy, X-ray photons that
strike a mirror directly will penetrate into the mirror in
much the same way that bullets aimed directly at a surface
will bury themselves in it. Likewise, just as a bullets can
ricochet off a surface when they hit it at a grazing angle,
so too will X-rays ricochet off mirrors if they hit at very
shallow angles, like a stone skipping across the surface of
a pond.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/reflect/graze.html

At least this thread makes me curious enough to pull out my copy of
_DA PAM 39-3 - The Effects of Nuclear Weapons - 1962_. :)

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
David Johnston
2017-02-27 21:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?
Visible light doesn't work that way.
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22see+your+bones%22+atomic+blast
Thank you,
All of those seem to be referring to one guy, Frank Farmer.
Don Kuenz
2017-02-27 21:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?
Visible light doesn't work that way.
The existence of a movie's inconsequential. Can you do a didactic walk-
through of your diagnosis of a false memory? Lots of people tell the
same story that the old man told me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22see+your+bones%22+atomic+blast
Thank you,
All of those seem to be referring to one guy, Frank Farmer.
You can use -farmer to remove all of the farmers from the search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22see+your+bones%22+atomic+blast+-farmer

If you see too many Langes you can remove him too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22see+your+bones%22+atomic+blast+-farmer+-lange

And so on and so forth.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Greg Goss
2017-03-01 03:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I wonder if anyone (LWE?) can identify what movie he was getting that false
memory from?
Visible light doesn't work that way.
I can hold my hand up to a 300 watt halogen bulb and see my bones
outlined in the light. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with his
point.

If 300 watts can show the bones through a half inch of flesh, then how
much light do you need to show through two inches of flesh? I find
the story plausible.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-02-28 01:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@crcomp.net>, ***@crcomp.net
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:28:10 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the bombing run.
The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43 seconds before it
detonated, and the plane flew several miles horizontally in that time. It
was buffeted, but had no damage. It was simply too far away for the radiation
to have done much of anything.
There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no shielding
was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the crew.
At the time nobody knew very much about the effects of radiation, and
they were pretty cavalier about exposing people to it. My parents
worked on the Manhattan Project, and Dad had some horrible stories
about how careless they were. It seems very unlikely to me that they
would have bothered with the sort of shielding discussed.
Dad died of cancer in 1980, and thought that the cancer was his own
delayed little gift from his work on the Project. (Given, though,
that his doctoral thesis was on heterocyclic carbon ring compounds
that have long since been banned as carcinogens, I'm not convinced it
was radiation exposure that killed him.)
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
Perhaps some establishment leaders were cavalier about human life. But
maybe not so cavalier about losing precious "silverplates" to a crash if
a crew becomes incapacitated mid-flight.
What do you believe was "precious" about
"silverplates"? There were more than 20 of them
available with orders for many more, only two
were used, and the bomb they dropped cost vastly
more than the aircraft.

You're putting too much into a name. If a
military program is called "silverplate" you can
be sure of only one thing--it has nothing to do
with plating with silver.
Cryptoengineer
2017-02-28 05:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:28:10 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the
bombing run. The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43
seconds before it detonated, and the plane flew several miles
horizontally in that time. It was buffeted, but had no damage. It
was simply too far away for the radiation to have done much of
anything.
There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no
shielding was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the
crew.
At the time nobody knew very much about the effects of radiation,
and they were pretty cavalier about exposing people to it. My
parents worked on the Manhattan Project, and Dad had some horrible
stories about how careless they were. It seems very unlikely to me
that they would have bothered with the sort of shielding discussed.
Dad died of cancer in 1980, and thought that the cancer was his own
delayed little gift from his work on the Project. (Given, though,
that his doctoral thesis was on heterocyclic carbon ring compounds
that have long since been banned as carcinogens, I'm not convinced
it was radiation exposure that killed him.)
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb
blasts while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the
time, used as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see
your own bones if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself
from the blast.
Perhaps some establishment leaders were cavalier about human life.
But maybe not so cavalier about losing precious "silverplates" to a
crash if a crew becomes incapacitated mid-flight.
What do you believe was "precious" about
"silverplates"? There were more than 20 of them
available with orders for many more, only two
were used, and the bomb they dropped cost vastly
more than the aircraft.
You're putting too much into a name. If a
military program is called "silverplate" you can
be sure of only one thing--it has nothing to do
with plating with silver.
We know so much about the bombing, the bomb, the plane,
and the pilot that its not credible that we wouldn't also
know as inconsquential but interesting a thing as the plane
being silverplated.

pt
J. Clarke
2017-02-28 06:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:28:10 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
I don't think the Enola Gay was affected in any real way by the
bombing run. The bomb fell over 29,000 feet (~5 miles) in the 43
seconds before it detonated, and the plane flew several miles
horizontally in that time. It was buffeted, but had no damage. It
was simply too far away for the radiation to have done much of
anything.
There were bomb bay modifications to hold Fat Man, but afaik, no
shielding was added to either the plane or the gear worn by the
crew.
At the time nobody knew very much about the effects of radiation,
and they were pretty cavalier about exposing people to it. My
parents worked on the Manhattan Project, and Dad had some horrible
stories about how careless they were. It seems very unlikely to me
that they would have bothered with the sort of shielding discussed.
Dad died of cancer in 1980, and thought that the cancer was his own
delayed little gift from his work on the Project. (Given, though,
that his doctoral thesis was on heterocyclic carbon ring compounds
that have long since been banned as carcinogens, I'm not convinced
it was radiation exposure that killed him.)
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb
blasts while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the
time, used as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see
your own bones if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself
from the blast.
Perhaps some establishment leaders were cavalier about human life.
But maybe not so cavalier about losing precious "silverplates" to a
crash if a crew becomes incapacitated mid-flight.
What do you believe was "precious" about
"silverplates"? There were more than 20 of them
available with orders for many more, only two
were used, and the bomb they dropped cost vastly
more than the aircraft.
You're putting too much into a name. If a
military program is called "silverplate" you can
be sure of only one thing--it has nothing to do
with plating with silver.
We know so much about the bombing, the bomb, the plane,
and the pilot that its not credible that we wouldn't also
know as inconsquential but interesting a thing as the plane
being silverplated.
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
Carl Fink
2017-02-28 15:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a warplane.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
J. Clarke
2017-03-01 01:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a warplane.
I can't see where it would make it more visible
than the aluminum on which the silver would be
plated.

And being visible on radar was not really an
issue for B-29s over Japan.
Greg Goss
2017-03-01 03:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a warplane.
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Dimensional Traveler
2017-03-01 04:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a warplane.
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
Both.
--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Winter 2016 survey began Dec 01 and will end Feb 28
Cryptoengineer
2017-03-01 05:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a
warplane.
Post by Greg Goss
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
Both.
Imagine the entire plane (or other object) is given a mirror finish,
then placed in a pitch dark hanger, and you walk in and shine a
flashlight at it.

You'll only see reflections where there's a portion which is
perpendicular to you, or where 90 degree angles reflect the
light right back at you. So, you'll see highlights here and
there.

Now take an F117, and consider how it would look in the same
conditions. There are no curved surfaces (which will always
have a highlight where it reflects back at you), and no
right angles to bounce it back. At most, you'll get momentary
flashes as it turns and some facet of the surface faces you
and the light.

Materials also count. The outer surface of the F117 is
covered in radar absorbing paint and other materials. The
Enola Gay was not.

pt
Anthony Nance
2017-03-01 14:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a
warplane.
Post by Greg Goss
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
Both.
Imagine the entire plane (or other object) is given a mirror finish,
then placed in a pitch dark hanger, and you walk in and shine a
flashlight at it.
You'll only see reflections where there's a portion which is
perpendicular to you, or where 90 degree angles reflect the
light right back at you. So, you'll see highlights here and
there.
Well, there and on the walls/roof of the hangar where some of
the light is scattered - or am I missing something?

Tony, now thinking of stealth disco balls for some reason
Peter Trei
2017-03-01 15:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Nance
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a
warplane.
Post by Greg Goss
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
Both.
Imagine the entire plane (or other object) is given a mirror finish,
then placed in a pitch dark hanger, and you walk in and shine a
flashlight at it.
You'll only see reflections where there's a portion which is
perpendicular to you, or where 90 degree angles reflect the
light right back at you. So, you'll see highlights here and
there.
Well, there and on the walls/roof of the hangar where some of
the light is scattered - or am I missing something?
That's light being reflected away from you. It's only visible because its
striking something else close that you can see - the hanger walls.

In flight, the distances are far greater, and there are no nearby non
stealthy objects to be indirectly illuminated; only reflections from the
plane itself can get back to you. Using flat surfaces, and no right
angles means that virtually all the light (radar) is reflected away from
you.

...and then you coat/paint those surfaces to attenuate the reflection as
much as possible.

pt
Anthony Nance
2017-03-01 15:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Anthony Nance
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Not to mention there is no discernible benefit
to silver plating an aluminum airplane unless
maybe it's going to be used in a suicide attack
on a kaiju werewolf.
It would make the plane *incredibly* visible on radar, a sort of
super-anti-stealth that seems pretty counterproductive for a
warplane.
Post by Greg Goss
Does the material matter? Or do you get a better return by more right
angles - eg twin tail designs etc.
Both.
Imagine the entire plane (or other object) is given a mirror finish,
then placed in a pitch dark hanger, and you walk in and shine a
flashlight at it.
You'll only see reflections where there's a portion which is
perpendicular to you, or where 90 degree angles reflect the
light right back at you. So, you'll see highlights here and
there.
Well, there and on the walls/roof of the hangar where some of
the light is scattered - or am I missing something?
That's light being reflected away from you. It's only visible because its
striking something else close that you can see - the hanger walls.
In flight, the distances are far greater, and there are no nearby non
stealthy objects to be indirectly illuminated; only reflections from the
plane itself can get back to you. Using flat surfaces, and no right
angles means that virtually all the light (radar) is reflected away from
you.
...and then you coat/paint those surfaces to attenuate the reflection as
much as possible.
Yes, I understand all that, thanks. I forgot your larger context
when addressing your dark hangar example. Usenet in action.

Tony

Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-02-28 07:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:07:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
Post by J. Clarke
You're putting too much into a name. If a
military program is called "silverplate" you can
be sure of only one thing--it has nothing to do
with plating with silver.
Especially where nuclear weapons are concerned. My parents worked in
the Metals Division of the Manhattan Project. It was called that
because they worked with plastics.

They requisitioned U238 by ordering copper; if they actually wanted
copper they had to specify "HTG copper," where HTG = "Honest to God."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Greg Goss
2017-03-01 03:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
In the 1990s an old man told me the he personally witnessed bomb blasts
while he was at Las Vegas. He may have been a soldier at the time, used
as a human guinea pig. He said that you could clearly see your own bones
if you held your arms and hands up to shield yourself from the blast.
I've been told that you could see some of the tests FROM Las Vegas,
and that people would file out of the casinos to tourist at the sight.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Scott Lurndal
2017-02-27 17:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.
It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
You also need to shield the people in the plane. A dental assistant puts
a lead apron on patients to shield their lower body from the minuscule
amount of radiation present during dental imaging.
Apples aren't Oranges and the inverse square law applies.
Post by Don Kuenz
There's nothing minuscule about the "Little Boy" weapon. And there's
absolutely nothing but empty atmosphere between it and and the "Enola
Gay" at the point of detonation.
See Inverse Square Law.
Post by Don Kuenz
The blast made the plane shudder. Imagine the hard radiation that
proceeded the shock wave.
See above.
J. Clarke
2017-02-28 00:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@crcomp.net>, ***@crcomp.net
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.
It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
You also need to shield the people in the plane. A dental assistant puts
a lead apron on patients to shield their lower body from the minuscule
amount of radiation present during dental imaging.
What of it? The dental assistant takes many x-
rays every day, the dose accumulates. And we
live in much much more radiation-sensitive
times.
Post by Don Kuenz
There's nothing minuscule about the "Little Boy" weapon. And there's
absolutely nothing but empty atmosphere between it and and the "Enola
Gay" at the point of detonation.
What of it?
Post by Don Kuenz
The blast made the plane shudder. Imagine the hard radiation that
proceeded the shock wave.
Instead of imagining things, why not calculate
them? There are several nuclear weapon
calculators online. The 500 rem level is about
a mile from a bomb of that size, the plane was
about 11 miles away.
Post by Don Kuenz
Today the "Enola Gay" looks as shiny as a mirror. The "Enola Gay" seems
to reflect more detail than the bare fighter beneath its wings. Look at
the yellow scaffolding detail present in the lower nose of the plane.
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_profil_gauche.jpg
There is this substance known as "metal polish"
with which you might wish to familiarize
yourself.
Post by Don Kuenz
Here's a closer look at the lower nose reflection. If you look close
enough you see the photographer in a black shirt leaning against a
black pillar to the upper right of the 82 on
the nose.
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_avant_gauche2.jpg
What of it? Are you arguing that it must be
silver because it's shiny? If so you might want
to find out why silver had not been used in the
mirrors of astronomical telescopes for many
decades.
Post by Don Kuenz
The top of the plane, which faced away from the "Little Boy" blast,
isn't as shiny as the other areas of the plane. It looks rather drab,
relative to the underside of the plane.
Which is related to a substance known as
"paint".
Post by Don Kuenz
http://www.maquetland.com/upload/phototeque/images/3124/b29_silverplate_superfortress_enola_gay_steven_f_udvar_hazy_center_arriere_droit2.jpg
Here's some pictures of a "silverplate"'s weathered tail. It's blacker
than an old silver coin.
What leads you to believe that that is from a
"silverplate"?
Post by Don Kuenz
http://www.questmasters.us/B-29_SUPERFORTRESS_1.html
The inside's not black. It wasn't painted black because if you look
close enough you can see yellow decals on both silver and black metal.
From the page you link, "This tail section was
painted black".

You seem to be convinced against all evidence
that there was some kind of magic radiation
shielding on that airplane.
Scott Lurndal
2017-02-28 13:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
says...
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Don Kuenz
How does one "harden" a B-29 to modify it for atomic bombing? Lead
plating makes the plane too heavy to take off, no? Is it possible
to just reflect high energy electromagnetic radiation?
First, you find the components of the aircraft that will be
affected by blast effects. Then you shield them individually.
It's not necessary to shield the wheels or the fuselage e.g., as the
worst they'd experience is some potential neutron activation
along with the gamma radiation.
You also need to shield the people in the plane. A dental assistant puts
a lead apron on patients to shield their lower body from the minuscule
amount of radiation present during dental imaging.
What of it? The dental assistant takes many x-
rays every day, the dose accumulates.
In my experience, the dental assistant is no where
near the business end of the X-ray emitter when the
picture(s) are taken. In fact, usually in another
room.
Loading...