HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: enw2049@rigel.tamu.edu (WALKE, ERIK N)
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Atmospheric ignition possible??
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:09:00 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Aug23125937@lenny.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu
(Brian Yamauchi) writes...

>I remember hearing that before the initial a-bomb tests, some people
>were worried that the heat of the explosion would ignite the
>atmosphere.  This leads to a couple of interesting questions:
> 
>1) Is this just an urban legend that scared the ignorant, or were real
>scientists concerned about this?
> 
>2) If scientists were concerned:
> 
>	a) What chemical reaction did they expect to see?
>	b) Why was their theory wrong?  Were the temperatures
>	insufficiently high, or is the concept of igniting the
>	atmosphere unworkable at any temperature?
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
>_______________________________________________________________________________

       This is an intruiging little tale, one that I had never heard.
       Nor had I thought about a nuclear explosion igniting  the air.
       Good thing it doesn't happen; from what little I know about the
       Trinity Site tests, many scientists on the M. Project under-
       estimated the power of their first bomb.

       I'm no expert, but I seem to remember from fire drills as a        
       small kid that "a fire needs three things to live. . .a spark, 
       some fuel, and some air [or oxygen]."  I know from personal 
       experience that a spark very adequate to ignite methane (ie, 
       natural gas) can be introduced in a vessel of pure oxygen
       without any explosion or flame. 

       My guess is that the atmosphere fails to burn becasue there is
       no source of fuel with which to burn the oxygen.  Anyone 
       really know? 

***************************************************************************
  All opinions expressed by this user are well-reasoned and insightful. 
  Needless to say, they are not those of his advisor or university.
***************************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Reply-To: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:50:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.070230.12742@unlv.edu> jay@unlv.edu (Jay Nietling)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.152818.15129@husc3.harvard.edu>  
rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.221338.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>  
dayrton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> >>
> >>The UL version that I recall hearing (or read in a book review?!?) was that
> >>during the countdown for the first test, Oppenhiemer and Fermi (?) were  
making
> >>bets on weither or not this would occur.  Dunno who bet which way....
> >
I seem to remember one of the Soviet H-bomb tests from the late 50's or early  
60's that produced an unexpectedly high yield.  The speculation at the time was  
that it has begun to fuse part of the Earth (surrounding water and air) I  
recall that it frightened enough people so that the race to build larger fusion  
weapons was halted. I remember a yield of 300 to 500 megatons ? (Long tine ago  
- can't find my notes) Fission reaction probably can't do it, but a big enough  
fusion bomb might be able to ignite the oceans? (Maybe not an entire ocean, but  
enough to make things interesting... for a few milliseconds at least.... how do  
you calculate the burn time for the Pacific Ocean?)

 Anyone else out there recall  the incident?
Xref: sparky alt.destroy.the.earth:553 alt.folklore.science:3156
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
From: rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:28:18 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug25.221338.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> dayrton@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>The UL version that I recall hearing (or read in a book review?!?) was that
>during the countdown for the first test, Oppenhiemer and Fermi (?) were making
>bets on weither or not this would occur.  Dunno who bet which way....

	Some other UL's I've heard concerning Trinity: The scientists were
betting on whether the explosion would destroy the world, or just New
Mexico. During the blast, Oppenheimer dropped a handful of shredded paper
and, by observing how the shock wave blew them as they fell, accurately
calculated the energy released by the explosion.

					...Jean-Marc Rocher

"Now I am become death, shatterer of worlds" Oppie, quoting the
	Bhagavad Gita 
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu ()
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:44:03 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <gunnarh.60@dhhalden.no> gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.210145.29590@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>
>>In article <gunnarh.53@dhhalden.no> gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep1.215007.3739@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow) writes:
>>>
>>>      [stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>>how do you calculate the burn time for the Pacific Ocean?
>>>
>>>So now water is a flammable liquid? Please post all fact's behind this teori 
>>>as I find it very hard to believe.
>>>
>>>----Gunnarh
>
>>We're talking about thermonuclear Fusion you bozo!  :)   :)
>
>No, you're talking about burning. Thats *not* the same as thermonuclear 
>fusion, bozo!

Look pal; the stuff you deleted was about thermonuclear fusion. I know, it was
mostly my thread. Try reading what you delete before you act like an ass.
(note the lack of smileys on this post)

-Scott



Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:33:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.210145.29590@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:

>In article <gunnarh.53@dhhalden.no> gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.215007.3739@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow) writes:
>>
>>      [stuff deleted]
>>
>>>how do you calculate the burn time for the Pacific Ocean?
>>
>>So now water is a flammable liquid? Please post all fact's behind this teori 
>>as I find it very hard to believe.
>>
>>----Gunnarh

>We're talking about thermonuclear Fusion you bozo!  :)   :)

No, you're talking about burning. Thats *not* the same as thermonuclear 
fusion, bozo!

----Gunnarh
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:07:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Aug26.152818.15129@husc3.harvard.edu>, rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher) writes...
>	Some other UL's I've heard concerning Trinity: The scientists were
>betting on whether the explosion would destroy the world, or just New
>Mexico. During the blast, Oppenheimer dropped a handful of shredded paper
>and, by observing how the shock wave blew them as they fell, accurately
>calculated the energy released by the explosion.

Another one is Trinity was delayed several hours because a telephone
operator fell asleep, and one of the scientists present had to follow
the telephone lines to find where the telephone switchboard was (it was
operated from out of someone's house) and go in and wake the operator up.

Normally the little town had almost no telephone activity in the wee hours
of that morning, not that morning...

-Mike
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:45:25 GMT

In article <gunnarh.60@dhhalden.no> gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.210145.29590@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>>>So now water is a flammable liquid? Please post all fact's behind this theor
>>>as I find it very hard to believe.
>>>----Gunnarh
>>We're talking about thermonuclear Fusion you bozo!  :)   :)
>No, you're talking about burning. Thats *not* the same as thermonuclear 
>fusion, bozo!
>----Gunnarh

Oh, cool!  The first a.d.t.e. flamewar!

Actually, (the question of fusion-vs.-burning aside), most seawater isn't
suitable for fusion.  There's too much junk in it, and the hydrogen itself
isn't all that great.  For good fusion, use deuterium or, if you can keep it
around long enough, tritium.  (That's scientific-ese for hydrogen with
extra neutrons.)

It is possible to fuse small amounts of seawater with extreme heat, but the
reaction certainly won't sustain itself.

Anyway, how *can* we ignite the oceans/atmosphere/bedrock?  Is there any
chemical reaction that could catalyze a nickel-iron core into marshmallow?
What about starting a massive project to restore the ozone layer by converting
*all* free O2 into O3?  Come on, people, let's get creative!  While the solar-
sealing Hefty bag had a certain appeal, I'd rather go out with a bang!

It's been suggested in countless science fiction stories that humanity could
terraform planets by dropping bacteria in their atmosphere to reduce CO2 into
oxygen and carbon.  Is there a suitable chemical/baterial reaction that could 
convert our oxygen/nitrogen mix into, say, nitrous oxide?  What about the
bacteria that eats oil spills?  Could we inject a few healthy colonies of 
that into the world's oil reserves?  If we can replace the world's oil
supply with bacteria and bacterial waste, civilization should come down in
no time at all!  (I'm openminded on the type of destruction
I want for the world, but we might as well start small.  If we blow up
the planet, we can't go back and wreck the ecosystem.  If we trash the
ecosystem first, we can go on and blow up the planet as well.  We might as
well get as many licks in as we can!)

Michael Lucas

PS:  I always thought that it should be "Society of Humans for an Intolerable
Terra," which summs up that group's ideals nicely (for me, at least).

-- 
Michael Lucas				mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu
I keep hearing that Jesus Christ is coming, but nobody knows his tour dates.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: The end of the world is near!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:52:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.212801.15103@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>You have to be kidding?!
>Some idiots in '86 or so had the same theory (this was when 8 of the 9 planets
>actually WERE in alignment). If there is indeed another such alignment (which
>I doubt) on 5 May 2000,it has already been experimentally shown that this sort
> of thing does not happen (that is,if you don't believe in newtonian mechanics
>which quite easily shows that nothing of this sort would occur)

Ah, but what happens if in addition to all 9 planets, the asteroid Ceres,
the Moon, _both_ satellites of Neptune, 2 as-yet-undiscovered planets,
Alpha Centauri, Betelguese, the Andromeda Galaxy, the Horsehead Nebula,
and three major quasars are _also_ in line behind the Sun? Unmitigated
catastrophe! Take no chances!

The following symbol gives important clues to the true meaning of this post:
:)
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: Skyhook falls
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:31:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.181307.27782@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.160336.24616@news.iastate.edu> pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander) writes:
>>I've seen a few science fiction stories with a skyhook in them.  This thing
>>is basically a tower from the earth's surface into space with its center 
>>of mass in geosynchronous orbit.  If the (your favorite terrorist 
>>organization) bombed the thing and broke off the far end, would the rest
>>fall to earth or be thrown out into space?
>
>Although I hate to encumber this discussion with facts :)
>
>Skyhooks have to hook up to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, which has
>no tendency to move from the point directly over to skyhook. Otherwise the
>hook would snap under the strain. If you broke the skyhook, since the
>satellite is in geosynch orbit anyway it wouldn't go anywhere, it would
>just stay in orbit where it was.
>
>Good idea though.

I'm not particularly concerned with the far end of the skyhook.  But if 
10,000 miles or so of the near end, which isn't in orbit, came crashing to 
earth, it might make the evening news.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:40:10 GMT

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
}I remember hearing that before the initial a-bomb tests, some people
}were worried that the heat of the explosion would ignite the
}atmosphere.  This leads to a couple of interesting questions:

}1) Is this just an urban legend that scared the ignorant, or were real
}scientists concerned about this?

This question was raised by Edward Teller (who apparently had a load
of wild ideas along with his few brilliant ones) and was quickly
shown impossible by Hans Bethe (who apparently did this to Teller a lot).

}2) If scientists were concerned:

}	a) What chemical reaction did they expect to see?
}	b) Why was their theory wrong?  Were the temperatures
}	insufficiently high, or is the concept of igniting the
}	atmosphere unworkable at any temperature?

Quoting from _The Los Alamos Primer_:

     ... This was the so-called ball of fire.  The energy released by
     the bomb heats a sphere of air around the point of explosion to
     incandescence.  For a 20,000-ton explosion, the radius of this
     ball of fire after 3/10ths of a second would be 425 feet.  Its
     temperature would be 7,000 degrees Celsius.

[This is a really interesting book about the history and physics of the work
done at Los Alamos -- you will need some college Physics & Calculus to
understand everything, but it would still be enjoyable skipping over those
parts I expect.]

John
-- 
John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Xref: sparky alt.destroy.the.earth:547 alt.folklore.science:3142
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
From: dayrton@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:13:38 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Aug24.004814.1799@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com 
(Carl Fink) writes:

>>I remember hearing that before the initial a-bomb tests, some people
>>were worried that the heat of the explosion would ignite the
>>atmosphere.  This leads to a couple of interesting questions:
> 
>>1) Is this just an urban legend that scared the ignorant, or were real
>>scientists concerned about this?
> 
> They were worried.

The UL version that I recall hearing (or read in a book review?!?) was that
during the countdown for the first test, Oppenhiemer and Fermi (?) were making
bets on weither or not this would occur.  Dunno who bet which way....
From: Jsr@Xyzzy.equinox.gen.nz (J S Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: kill
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:04:31 PST
Organization: AMS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander) writes:

: This group has been pretty dead the last month or so.  Here's hoping for
: some reinvigoration.  Besides, if I'm to go away, I'd like to take a few
: billion with me, and I'm always interested in new ways to do so.

Perhaps someone out there has some interesting ideas for making CFC's
"trendy" things to have and use.

Y'know - 

"CFC's! You can't beat the feeling!"

or

"CFC's! The choice of a new generation!"

--

          +--------------------------+--------------------------+
          | jsr@xyzzy.equinox.gen.nz |     Have a nice TMA.     |
          +--------------------------+--------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Igniting the Atmosphere
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Date: 23 Aug 92 12:59:37

I remember hearing that before the initial a-bomb tests, some people
were worried that the heat of the explosion would ignite the
atmosphere.  This leads to a couple of interesting questions:

1) Is this just an urban legend that scared the ignorant, or were real
scientists concerned about this?

2) If scientists were concerned:

	a) What chemical reaction did they expect to see?
	b) Why was their theory wrong?  Were the temperatures
	insufficiently high, or is the concept of igniting the
	atmosphere unworkable at any temperature?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth,alt.folklore.science
From: enw2049@zeus.tamu.edu (WALKE, ERIK N)
Subject: Re: Igniting the Atmosphere
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:52:00 GMT

In article <xeno.714693699@pv34ad.vincent.iastate.edu>, xeno@iastate.edu (Gary
L Snethen) writes...

>>The reaction the bomb designers were worried about was a thermonuclear
>>explosion, such as what powers the hydrogen bomb, except fusing the nitrogen
>>and oxygen nuclei in the atmosphere.  This reaction does power some giant
>>stars after they used up all their hydrogen and helium.
> 
>If this is true, then there does seem to be a very real danger of setting off
>the Earth's atmosphere, or at least some of it in an extremely powerful
>hydrogen bomb explosion...  Why isn't this an active concern anymore?
> 
>---Xeno

       Just jumping into the middle of this thread. . . I _vaguely_ 
remember reading that some NO2 is detected in nuclear clouds, and that a 
whole lot of other nasty chemistry goes on as well.  The radioactive 
fallout is not the only pollution from a nuke.  Most of the chemicals 
produced are diluted and scattered by the explosion, so aren't so haz-
ardous.  

Fusion of "heavier" elements does occur in the cores of old and dying 
stars, but it is only feasible and temperatures and pressures almost 
beyond terrestrial comprehension.  The epicenter of an H-bomb blast 
might achieve these conditions, I just don't know-but I suspect that 
even the biggest Bomb ever made would only create such temps and 
pressures for a tiny fraction of a second.  Anyone there at the Ames lab
know about nukes?

***************************************************************************
  All opinions expressed by this user are well-reasoned and insightful. 
  Needless to say, they are not those of his advisor or university.
**************************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Skyhook falls
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:47:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.213141.14163@news.iastate.edu> pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander) writes:
>
>I'm not particularly concerned with the far end of the skyhook.  But if 
>10,000 miles or so of the near end, which isn't in orbit, came crashing to 
>earth, it might make the evening news.
>
Good point...!  Most of the stories I've read (Friday, R.A. Heinlein) put
the lower end of the hook on top of a big mountain, to get it above the
atmosphere. Some put it in the Sahara Desert.
In either case, there's not a whole lot at the bottom to get hit. I bet
it would make the news though :) Depend how it came down, if it tended to
pile at the bottom, or if it strung out. Obviously, no one's done any
experiments.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: black hole story?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:14:59 GMT

In article <BtFBv0.DF0@well.sf.ca.us> dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood) writes:
>
>Seems to me I recently read a novel involving a black hole that was created
>and accidentally dropped into Earth (it's estimated that Earth will collapse
>within a few years).  Anybody know what it was?
>-- 
It's called The Hole Man, it was written by Larry Niven, and the black
hole falls into Mars, not Earth :( It won a Hugo or a Nebula or one of
those. It's easy to find in anthologies.
There may be one where a black hole falls into Earth too, but I don't know
of any.

-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu ( )
Subject: Re: The end of the world is near!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:25:32 GMT

In article <BtrI7y.E2u@andy.bgsu.edu> rlee@bgsu.edu (Bob Lee) writes:
>About 4 weeks ago there was a subject that I think would interest all of
>you! Some scientists believe that the world will be destroyed on May 5, 2000!
>On that date the nine planets will line up. The planets will all pull on
>one another and this gravitational upheaval will cause the earth to be
>pulled on its side. 

	[various pleasant speculations deleted]

Nope, sorry, this happens every few decades.  Hasn't killed us yet.
Insert another quarter and try again.

>-BOB


-- 
Michael Lucas				mwlucas@vela.acs.oakland.edu
I keep hearing that Jesus Christ is coming, but nobody knows his tour dates.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Sunday, 30 Aug 1992 16:03:09 EDT
From: that angry guy <IO20557@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: The end of the world is near!

I sure hope so...but it sounds too good to be true.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth