Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

DizzleJWizzle
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 232

28 Jun 2014, 5:35 pm

Tornado Walls

CLICK LINK TO LAUGH AT THE STUPIDITY!! !

Just WOW...
Start building that 1000 foot wall to stop these big bad tornados...
WTF. :twisted:



chris5000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,599
Location: united states

28 Jun 2014, 5:56 pm

theres already a thread on this
it would work but there would be drastic changes in weather in other areas because of the lost wind



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Jun 2014, 6:57 pm

how big of an explosion would it take to blow apart a tornado or cyclone? and would said explosion do as much damage as the tornado it displaced?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

28 Jun 2014, 9:29 pm

Probably small nuke level (low kilotons). Which wouldn't cause more damage than the tornado itself, but you have the fallout that'd irradiate the area for a couple of weeks.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Jun 2014, 9:44 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Probably small nuke level (low kilotons). Which wouldn't cause more damage than the tornado itself, but you have the fallout that'd irradiate the area for a couple of weeks.

if they can make a nuke that does relatively little damage but emits deadly radiation [neutron bomb], I wonder why they can't make a nuke that does tremendous damage but emits little radiation?



KB8CWB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 637
Location: West Salem, Ohio

28 Jun 2014, 10:08 pm

Actually neutron bombs are quite clean. IIRC basically no fallout and little to no damage to anything or minor at ground zero. Any living creature within the sphere of emissions would be dead or wishing they were. But withing a very short time, like hours it is safe for habitation. Too many threw a hissy fit over it so it was dropped (supposedly). I am quite sure a few do exist for certain strategic circumstances.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Jun 2014, 10:55 pm

are neutron nukes powerful enough to blow apart a tornado or cyclone?



KB8CWB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 637
Location: West Salem, Ohio

28 Jun 2014, 11:01 pm

Depends upon how much yield they are designed for. Their primary mode of killing is highly energetic neutrons. They are designed for maximum killing power and minimal physical damage while not poisoning the area for hundreds or thousands of years. Since no one knows if a focused explosion would even work on a tornado, hard to say. The attempt of dissipating all that energy may well cause more damage then the twister.

I read articles about the high walls too. Many experts said they'd be impossible and too costly to build and make them sturdy enough to withstand the forces of nature. Add to that the climatic changes in diverted precipitation and what effect that would have across the nation. Plus can you imagine living relatively close to one of these walls!? Makes me wonder how much sunlight (daytime) hours you would lose because of it.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

28 Jun 2014, 11:08 pm

I think antimatter and pure fusion bombs are "clean", and the latter has had a lot of work and money spent on it without any success (it's a popular concept for obvious reasons; big boom in a small package without much scary invisible stuff in the air); I think the former is impossible for the most part because it's too hard to accumulate it in large enough quantities to make a decent bomb.

I recall there's some theory on combining the above; small antimatter charge creating enough pressure to sustain the fusion reaction (currently, they use a smaller fission/atomic bomb to set it off, but with the usual side-effect of various types of fallout based on what they use in the fission bomb).



SoMissunderstood
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 481
Location: Sydney, Australia

28 Jun 2014, 11:09 pm

I have heard of these things....

Isn't it a Yugioh! card designed by Konami?

Image

*Goes and builds an 'A Legendary Ocean/Umi' deck, just for the shizz and giggles....also, combining Tornado Wall with Stygian Dirge or Mischief of the Yokai can lead to some interesting plays...



KB8CWB
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 637
Location: West Salem, Ohio

28 Jun 2014, 11:20 pm

Dillogic wrote:
I think antimatter and pure fusion bombs are "clean", and the latter has had a lot of work and money spent on it without any success (it's a popular concept for obvious reasons; big boom in a small package without much scary invisible stuff in the air); I think the former is impossible for the most part because it's too hard to accumulate it in large enough quantities to make a decent bomb.

I recall there's some theory on combining the above; small antimatter charge creating enough pressure to sustain the fusion reaction (currently, they use a smaller fission/atomic bomb to set it off, but with the usual side-effect of various types of fallout based on what they use in the fission bomb).


Neutron bombs are in all actuality the same as an A bomb or a H bomb. The difference is they eliminate the lead/steel/uranium shielding to allow the nasty neutrons to escape. This allows at least 10x the radiation of a standard cased nuclear weapon allowing it to be much smaller in yield and yet having the same kill effect. The consequent blast is smaller and if is detonated high enough then minimal nasty radiation will hit the target and minimal physical damage. Just mainly highly energetic neutrons. They are considered more of a tactical weapon and usage against enemy tanks was one attractive use for them.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

02 Jul 2014, 8:17 am

KB8CWB wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
I think antimatter and pure fusion bombs are "clean", and the latter has had a lot of work and money spent on it without any success (it's a popular concept for obvious reasons; big boom in a small package without much scary invisible stuff in the air); I think the former is impossible for the most part because it's too hard to accumulate it in large enough quantities to make a decent bomb.

I recall there's some theory on combining the above; small antimatter charge creating enough pressure to sustain the fusion reaction (currently, they use a smaller fission/atomic bomb to set it off, but with the usual side-effect of various types of fallout based on what they use in the fission bomb).


Neutron bombs are in all actuality the same as an A bomb or a H bomb. The difference is they eliminate the lead/steel/uranium shielding to allow the nasty neutrons to escape. This allows at least 10x the radiation of a standard cased nuclear weapon allowing it to be much smaller in yield and yet having the same kill effect. The consequent blast is smaller and if is detonated high enough then minimal nasty radiation will hit the target and minimal physical damage. Just mainly highly energetic neutrons. They are considered more of a tactical weapon and usage against enemy tanks was one attractive use for them.


It's been years since I was interested in this, but I can recall being somewhat amazed a the way the concepts of "tactical" vs."strategic" nuclear weapons was developed toward the end of the cold war. There were "tactical" artillery shells with almost four times the power of "Little Boy" and that device certainly had a "strategic" impact.

In any case, it's not conceivable that nukes could be used effectively to modify weather systems. Thunderstorms typically have much more energy than even very large strategic weapons and disrupting a mesocyclone in one place will not remove that energy. You are just going to move the effects around unpredictably.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

02 Jul 2014, 4:16 pm

Even an impossible to build theoretical 'clean' nuke would do more damage than it would prevent if you used it against a tornado.

The only weapon that would work would be some kind of giant air hose/gun hooked up to unlimited supply of high pressure air (piped in from the arctic maybe).

A tornado is a low pressure center. A piece of atmosphere with deficient air. Hense the need to suck air into itsself and form a vortex of high winds. Give the tornado what it "wants" - a sudden and unending huge stream of high pressure air fired at it - and it will happily gorge itsself on the stream of air - and the air pressure differential will vanish- and so will the tornado.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 03 Jul 2014, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

02 Jul 2014, 4:19 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Even a impossible to build theoretical 'clean' nuke would do more damage than it would prevent if you used it against a tornado.

The only weapon that would work would be some kind of giant air hose/gun hooked up to unlimited supply of high pressure air (piped in from the arctic maybe).

A tornado is a low pressure center. A piece of atmosphere with deficient air. Hense the need to suck air into itsself and form a vortex of high winds. Give the tornado what it "wants" - a sudden and unending huge stream of high pressure air fired at it - and it will happily gorge itsself on the stream of air - and the air pressure differential will vanish- and so will the tornado.

maybe god has such in his toolbox.