Why BP is readying a 'super weapon' to avert escalating Gulf nightmare

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by snowspirit
Meanwhile the preparations for the test continue in Canada. "

Test

There's nowhere with the same conditions as the Gulf to test it on. Or would the test itself be the Gulf. They wouldn't be allowed to do that, way too risky. Right?

Some information has been given to me about the possible test areas. I have a friend in the area and in the industry, and they think the testing would take place in Suffield.

The OP's document references Suffield, which is both a very large Canadian Forces Base and an area with plenty of petroleum. And lots of wells. Some of those wells belong to the Canadian Forces.

Out of all the places I could think to test the weapon this article suggests, Suffield is an EXCELLENT place to test it.

Far enough away from civilians, the area is huge, controlled by the military, and surrounded by a nature preserve. The entire area is covered in gas wells, and some oil wells. The field is called the Suffield Gas Field

Although I do agree that Suffield is an excellent place for testing, I must admit that I was unaware that any of the gas/oil wells there belonged to Canadian Forces.

Originally posted by SiztaRezizta
I live in Alberta and never heard about the CFB Suffield base...did a search and found this...www.satellite-sightseer.com... - looks interesting! I'm thinking about heading down that way this weekend with some friends to snoop around...check around the nearby towns etc see if anyone has seen/heard of any BP reps in the area. Will take as many pictures/videos as possible. Does anybody know of anything I should pay particular attention to? What kinds of affects an alleged weapon like this would have on the immediate surroundings? If this kind of weapon exists, with the claimed potential it has, I can only see bad things happening

Although I must admit that I haven't seen any BP reps in the area, I strongly caution you on trying to "snoop around", as you will most definitely be escorted from the premises if you mistakenly happen to go somewhere you shouldn't. Without actually going out onto the "area" (which you can't do without prior permission and usually an escort) you won't really be able to see much of anything from the road.

Originally posted by dainoyfb
I live in Alberta. CFB Suffield like all of Canada’s military "infrastructure" is a small potatoes base compared to typical bases around the world. It is slightly renowned for its use as an international tank training facility (for no other reason than it is surrounded by nothing). It’s not a high tech research centre. Certainly nothing on par with what would be needed for this.

Why would they get a country involved that has no experience in nuclear technologies (let alone nuclear weapons) and no advanced weapons development expertise? Did the USA just say “Hey Canada, we think you would be better at attaching this nuclear warhead to this highly secret electromagnetic weapon we've been working on so here is the parts and the blueprints. We really like this shack you got up in Alberta which is halfway around the world from the leak too. Hey would you mind testing it on Canadian soil for us? We know you have all kinds of laws against that and there has never been a nuke detonated on Canadian soil but we think it’s a better idea then doing it at one of our many well equipped testing areas”.

I think this article needs a better source than another article with no source.

Although perhaps CFB Suffield is "small potatoes" as far as the Canadian Military (for training purposes, etc) is concerned, overall it most definitely is not.

I'm unsure whether your statements are made either to purposely mislead or are made out of ignorance (as in lack of knowledge). It may not be well known, but it is used excessively both for military training and for defense research purposes. The things I'm aware of that they were doing are not even recent (10 years ago) were only spoken about by people who worked there (to each other) and nowadays we aren't even told. I can only imagine how many more things go on there now than did when we were still aware of what they were up to. Also, they most definitely have both the facilities and capabilities to test various types of bombs, explosives, etc. (underwater tanks, vast expanses of land for just that purpose, etc).

Originally posted by dainoyfb
I live in Alberta. CFB Suffield like all of Canada’s military "infrastructure" is a small potatoes base compared to typical bases around the world. It is slightly renowned for its use as an international tank training facility (for no other reason than it is surrounded by nothing). It’s not a high tech research centre. Certainly nothing on par with what would be needed for this.

Why would they get a country involved that has no experience in nuclear technologies (let alone nuclear weapons) and no advanced weapons development expertise? Did the USA just say “Hey Canada, we think you would be better at attaching this nuclear warhead to this highly secret electromagnetic weapon we've been working on so here is the parts and the blueprints. We really like this shack you got up in Alberta which is halfway around the world from the leak too. Hey would you mind testing it on Canadian soil for us? We know you have all kinds of laws against that and there has never been a nuke detonated on Canadian soil but we think it’s a better idea then doing it at one of our many well equipped testing areas”.

I think this article needs a better source than another article with no source.

How can you live in Canada and not know that we have brilliant scientists, and even though we don't dabble in nuclear weapons, we do have nuclear research labs, as well as the Chalk River lab which supplies medical isotopes all around the world.

Don't underestimate our knowledge and our scientists. :shk:

www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca...



[edit on 14-7-2010 by snowspirit]

Originally posted by fixer1967
reply to post by Bedlam

 

If you go back to post one and go to the link you will see that the one that BP is thinking on using is in fact nuclear.

And that's the guy I'm calling a 'tard. There's one passing reference to using a nuclear-pumped compression device I've seen, and this guy has a copy. But it's one of those things you can do simply with Compton effect, or if you rig a superconducting magnet and some other stuff I won't go into details on, you can make a really dandy "Compton effect in a bottle" gadget. No one uses nuke pumped flux compressors - it's like having a big diesel engine turning a little friction wheel to light matches on.

I wonder if one of those devices has every been used out side of a lab and if so I bet it was not nuclear.

Oh, hells yeah. The Brits were the king of the vircator - Thorn used to be the biggies in design of flux compression weaponry before the breakup.

We've got 'em, alright, there's a RFQ that just went around for alternate bids for a 155mm howitzer shell flux compression weapon. Being curious, I'll probably look up who the primary bidder was in a couple of months when the bid concludes. Might be some second or third tier work there.

You seem to know a bit about these so you tell us just how much power could it put out if it did use a nuclear trigger. Could the EMP wave shut down Florida or anything else on shore.

The issue with cracking off an EMP weapon a mile down in salt water is that it won't do much in the way of EMP. It's sitting in a big short circuit. The pulse will be absorbed by the water, even if you drive it with a nuke. And if you're going to use a nuke, as I said you can sort of graft an EMP pulse-making attachment to it without the flux compression part - it's more efficient that way.

However, you've got a lot of issues -

1) the nuke still goes 'boom'. You're going to get a pressure wave from hell, and the seabed will be a big mess. If you're envisioning a little pop and it all ends up being EMP, you've got the wrong glasses on. On top of which, you're going to make some pretty bad waves, and you're going to spew activated strontium and iodine everywhere on shore. We used to train with the "drop the portable nuke in the harbor and ruin the port for years" scenario. Nothing like a green glowing tidal wave of radioactive death washing all over your port facilities, roads, shoreline, river mouth and truck terminals to ruin your decade. I'm not sure how much of this you'd get from a mile down and a ways out, but wherever you see that oil going? Yep, you're going to get radioactive crap in those same places.

2) the seabed is already screwed enough, nothing like a nuke to make it worse

3) an EMP isn't going to do much to the well. Whoever said it would melt rocks is wrong.

4) while we haven't ratified the CTBT, we have pretty much not fired a live nuke in any way since 1992. I'm pretty sure the diplomatic ramifications are not going to make the State Dept guys dance for joy

reply to post by Quikslvr


The Canadian military imports their weapons. They don't develop their own.

reply to post by snowspirit



I live in breathe in the scientific community. I don't deny that we have brilliant scientists. Most countries have at least a few and I'm sure we have our fair share. Its too bad we don't really employ them. I'm sure we could be on par with Silicon Valley and other high tech big rollers if we weren't so focused on that oil dollar. We used to have a company that built satellites in Calgary. It would be nice if that kind of company could sustain itself here.

I think we are arguing perspective here. You are comparing measuring out doses of medicine with making nuclear detonation pumped super weapons. I'm comparing Canada tech industry resources to that of major tech countries. Want a yardstick? Compare the US's Defense R&D Budget to Canada's.

I'm sure we have some R&D to be proud of so don't take my point of view as insulting Canada. I'm happy they don't spend most of our money on defense. I'm just saying we are not the place you are going to find the best toolbox for putting this device together when the US has had experience designing and building thousands of nukes and testing over 900 of them.

Edit to add: "shack" was a harsh description. I retract the statement.

Edit for typos

[edit on 14-7-2010 by dainoyfb]

reply to post by Bedlam


OK, you just comfirmed what I was thinking to stat with. An EMP blast , even a nuclear triggered one is pointless to use on the well even if you could get it to work a mile under water. This makes even less sense than using a regular nuke. So why even think about it in the first place. Talk about the wrong tool for the wrong job this is like using a screwdriver to put in nails with. So what is going on here. This is starting to get really odd. I am starting to think someone is up to something that has nothing at all to do with the well.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Not really arguing perspective. In your post you had stated "no experience in nuclear technologies (let alone nuclear weapons) ". It just sounded like we weren't as smart as we really are.

I love that Canada doesn't spend our tax dollars on weapons to destroy, we're basically a peaceful bunch. I was just saying we have nuclear experience. We don't make nuclear weapons, but I'm sure we have all the knowledge if we wanted to. Especially since we're such a huge producer of Uranium. One of the world's largest suppliers.

But you are right, they have no reason to involve Canada in any way. They have their own R&D, and testing sites. And there is nowhere to test anything like what BP is thinking about, nowhere like gulf conditions - deep under water methane and all.

Uh...CFB Suffield has an extensive weapons testing and weapons practice area.

Unless you WANT to accidentally go boom yourself, I wouldn't suggest "snooping" around the field.

Medicine Hat is the closest centre to it.

reply to post by snowspirit



That's a fair enough assessment. I agree we have the intellectual resources to accomplish as much as the next country. It unfortunate that we don't see the value and importance in pursuing the tech industry more in Canada especially with a shaky oil future.

Sorry OP, back on topic.

So now BP has nukes??!!

Forget Iran, BP has got the bomb. I'm almost laughing. But then not really. Is it all an elaborate plan by BP to acquire nuclear weapons? Unlikely, but it does make you think.

(forgive the slightly OT, but this thread is what birthed the idea)
This course of thought leads one logically to the conclusion that in the future, nations will be corporations. Geographical boundaries will disappear just as economic nations come to existence.

Originally posted by pirhanna
So now BP has nukes??!!

It would be a joint DoD operation like they've done in Russia's cases. BP is not a nuclear power.

I'm with Pirhanna ...

BP HAS NUKES?

So a sovereign democracy may not aquire anything related to nuclear technology, because they MIGHT use it somewhere someday.

But BP, who have lied all along about pretty much everything, can have not 1, but 2 to play with? On the borders of the US, with an almost certain result of massive death???

Have i got this right?

Flux Compression Generator Development at The Air Force research Laboratory

Cavazos, T.C.; Gale, D.G.; Roth, C.E.; Parker, J.V.; Sommars, W.E.; & Coffey, S.K.; Lehr, F.M.; Tucker, W.D.; Kiuttu, G.F.; Degnan, J.H.
(Science Applications International Corp,Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 USA)

Abstract:

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) maintains an extensive capability for the design, analysis, construction and testing of explosive pulsed power (EPP) components. Three flux compression generators (FCGs) were designed as part of an EPP technology development effort sponsored by AFRL and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). A secondary-stage, high-current FCG was designed to deliver 10 MA into a nominal load inductance of 80 nH from an initial generator inductance of 1.6 μH that is seeded with 1 MA. We have also developed a coaxial FCG to deliver more than 20 MA into a 2 nH load. The initial flux in the coaxial chamber (60 nH at 1.5 MA) is compressed uniformly using a copper armature, which is simultaneously initiated using a slapper detonator. Either of these two FCGs can be seeded with a third generator design: a high-gain, helical FCG. This model serves as our workhorse generator capable of delivering 2 MA into a 0.5 μH inductive load. It has also been operated into load inductances ranging from 0.1 to 2.0 μH with comparable flux delivery. All experiments are conducted on an explosive test range located on Kirtland Air Force Base. The design effort is supported by powerful computer modeling using CAGEN2, CALE and MACH2. Design features for all three FCGs are presented in this paper with results from recent explosive tests.


www.webstracts.com...

High Voltage Flux Compression Generators

Donna M. Chato
Jay B. Chase
Gerald F. Kiutu
(2008)

Helical magnetic flux compression generators (HFCGs) have been in use for about five decades. There remain limitations to their performance. Recently and for the first time, calculations of high accuracy of HFCG output have been made. The calculated results assume that there are no electrical breakdowns in the generator resulting in a decrease of flux delivered. It has been very difficult to build high performance generators within desired size constraints as a result. The goal of the Phase I effort is to be able to design and build HFCGs that can operate at higher voltages than are presently achieved. Reaching this goal has required the development of advanced computational tools that allow the calculation of all the vector components of both the electrostatic and inductive internal electric fields within the generators, and identification and understanding of the primary reason, or reasons, for field-induced breakdown.

Using the two existing 2D codes, FlexPDE and CALE, calculations were completed on the constant pitch region of a HFCG and the results incorporated into CAGEN. We have achieved our goals: the complete inclusion in the model code CAGEN for predicting the electric fields within an explosively powered helical flux compression generator. We accomplished this task by using purely two-dimensional physics equation solutions from the trademarked code FlexPDE.


www.dtic.mil... (.mil link)

Explosively Powered Helical Flux Compression Generator:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d2b9a171399.png[/atsimg]

YOU have the weapon. It is owned in an arm of the government.

The formation and resources also belong to you, in an arm of the government.

BP owns the well, and it has acquired rights to produce from YOUR resources.

BP does not have this weapon - if said weapon exists - YOU do.

You are the primary stakeholder of this disaster. As such, the government MUST be involved.

reply to post by Exuberant1


It seems a bit odd to highlight that you use a flux compression generator on an explosives range - that's how they work. You didn't think you'd blow a moderately large explosive charge in the back parking lot, did you?

OTOH, you don't use nukes, because it's more efficient to just use the nuke in other ways.

edit: I also notice that you highlight that we've had them for 50 years - we have - but just below that you will also notice that they are noted as being of somewhat limited utility. That's true too. If you look through my posts of the last few months, likely the last OMG EMP BOMZ! threads, you'll see I say that as well, just don't recall the thread.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Bedlam]

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

It seems a bit odd to highlight that you use a flux compression generator on an explosives range - that's how they work. You didn't think you'd blow a moderately large explosive charge in the back parking lot, did you?

Is that what you thought everyone else thought?

That these devices were tested in the back parking lot?

*Surely you must have thought this - your post is based around the very idea that someone other than you is thinking such thoughts. Alas, I can find no mention of a parking lot in this thread, so the source for this strange notion of yours must have been your own imagination.