The Moment in Time: The Manhattan Project


SUBSCRIBE 434K
The Moment in Time documents the uncertain days of the beginning of World War II when it was feared the Nazis were developing the atomic bomb. The history of the bomb’s development is traced through recollections of those who worked on what was known as “the gadget”. [6/2000] [Science] [Show ID: 5090]

4th Generation Nuclear Weapons


Published on Dec 16, 2013

SUBSCRIBE 10K
This is an overview of the 4th generation of nuclear weapons outlined in the report, Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects, condensed into an easy to digest video. Full report click here, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071v5 FAQ:
Q: In a nutshell what is a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW)? A: It is a nuclear fusion weapon that doesn’t use a fission trigger. The most feasible method to trigger fusion in a FGNW is to use microscopic amounts of anti-matter.
Q: What advantages do FGNWs have over conventional nukes? A: They are “clean” (radioactive fallout negligible, about on par with conventional depleted uranium weapons that are already in use), they are very small (potentially can fit in your pocket), and fill in the “yield gap” between the most powerful conventional weapons and the lowest yield conventional nukes.
Q: Will FGNWs really be more politically acceptable to use in actual combat? A: Who knows? Only time can tell for certain, but their “radioactive cleanness” is a compelling argument in favor for it.
Q: What would be the TNT equivalent of a FGNW be? A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would release around 302 gigajoules of energy (about 72 tons of TNT), so around that.
Q: How much antimatter is needed to catalyze a single FGNW? A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would need 1×10^11 antiprotons to catalyze nuclear fusion
Q: Isn’t carrying antimatter dangerous? What would happen if containment failed? A: The quantity of antimatter is extremely small. 1×10^11 antiprotons would release the equivalent of about 6 milligrams of TNT, that’s less than a firecracker. However the energy would be released in the form of ionizing radiation so it would be a radiological hazard if containment failed.
Q: Wouldn’t failure of antimatter containment result in the FGNW detonating? A: No, nuclear fusion requires very precise injection of antimatter to catalyze fusion. Failure of containment would not result in the precise injection of antimatter to the fusion fuel. Added safety measures can be taken by separating the fusion fuel from the antimatter containment until the weapon is ready to be armed.
Q: If you accidentally drop it, wouldn’t containment fail? A: These weapons are intended to be incredibly rugged with one of their applications being bunker busters. They contain little to no moving parts and are “full like eggs”. The FGNW report indicates that the overall ruggedness would be far superior over conventional nuclear bunker busters so no, simply dropping it wouldn’t cause containment to fail.
Q: Wouldn’t FGNWs be attractive for nuclear terrorism? A: No, it’s easier to build conventional nuclear weapons. FGNWs require extremely large particle accelerators to manufacture the antimatter necessary for the FGNW. A terrorist who wants a suitcase nuke is better off with something like the M-388 Davy Crockett.
Q: Are FGNW a proliferation concern? A: No, see above.
Q: Why not make pure anti-matter weapons instead? A: A couple of reasons. It’s prohibitively expensive. It’s single handedly the most expensive substance in the world and incredibly difficult to make. Right now, if we took all the antimatter we produced and annihilate it, it would only be enough to power a lightbulb for a few hours. On the other hand, fusion fuel is incredibly cheap and abundant, you can literally make it from sea water as all it is are isotopes of hydrogen. But even if we had large quantities of antimatter, it’s questionable how useful it would be as a weapon on its own. It’s incredibly difficult to contain as if it touches any normal matter, it will annihilate. Containing microscopic quantities is not a problem, but macroscopic quantities are. Even if you could contain it, it would be incredibly unstable. Fusion and fission weapons fail safely, if you damage a nuclear weapon the nuclear weapon doesn’t detonate. An antimatter weapon would detonate as soon as containment fails. From a cost-benefit point of view, pure antimatter weapons do not make sense.
Q: Can you use conventional explosives to catalyze nuclear fusion? A: No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_…

 

ETF v Mutual Fund


QUESTION: Are ETFs really better than a mutual fund for tax purposes?

HS

ANSWER: The primary difference between mutual funds and ETFs (exchange-traded funds) is that while an open-end mutual fund is priced once based upon the market closing, ETFs as well as a closed-end mutual funds trade all day. This actually goes back to the Panic of 1966 when mutual funds were open-ended but traded on the exchange and were bid up and down based on emotion rather than net asset value. The crash took place because mutual funds were at times selling well above net asset value.

If we look at the reforms post-1966, investors in mutual funds buy or sell them directly from the mutual-fund companies themselves. That creates a different tax structure than an ETF in which purchases go to the market and the ETF is simply created by purchasing the underlying basket.

Mutual funds and most ETFs are governed by the Investment Company Act of 1940. Therefore, this legislation treats them like a pass-through company. When a mutual-fund investor wants to sell, the fund sells shares of appreciated stock to generate cash which creates a taxable capital gain. Since most funds operate as simple pass-through vehicles, those tax liabilities from the gains accrue to all investors in the fund including those who have not sold any holding.

ETFs actually do avoid that type of tax issue. ETFs are not direct buyers or sellers of shares as a mutual fund. The ETF is created by a market maker with a special contract with the ETF provider. The investor has the newly created ETF share which is created by purchasing all of the holdings in the underlying ETF. This basket of shares is given to the ETF issuer thereby creating the ETF shares.

Because an ETF is not a direct buyer of the underlying shares as in a mutual fund, the ETF itself is not a buyer or seller. The basket of shares are swapped and are therefore in-kind transactions, thus there is no pass-through capital-gains tax bill. This is the tax advantage of an ETF over a mutual fund.

Creating the Euro & Germany Was Denied the Right to Ever Vote to join the Euro


COMMENT: Marty; I just wanted to say that this WEC in Rome was one of your best, NOt that Nigel Farage was there calling you the alternative to Davos, but you really do your research and your contacts behind the curtain become self-evident. Nobody in the audience every knew that the German people were denied the right to vote on joining the euro. The most important economy was denied any democratic process.

See you in Orlando

PG

ANSWER: Yes, I was amazed at how even the central bankers who attended were unaware of that fact. This is part of the reason for the rise in the AfD in Germany. From the outset, the theory has been to federalize Europe to prevent a world war. They assumed the people would never vote for it so they hide the real agenda. The people are not those who create wars – it is always those in power.

What they have done is to fuel the flames of history that remind people of the differences that are culturally embodied within the languages.

How Did Rome Put Money into Circulation with no Central Bank?


 

QUESTION: How were ancient coins placed into circulation?

DR JB

ANSWER: That is actually a very interesting question. As the legend goes, the Gauls (French) attempted to invade the city of Rome quietly, but had frightened the sacred flock of geese that made a lot of noise. This alerted the Romans to the surprise attack giving us the word “monere” meaning in Latin to warn. The Temple of Juno then became popularly known as the Temple of Juno Moneta. Since this is where the coins were minted, we now arrive at the word “money” that springs from the origin of this legend and place that was an ancient mint.

Our term such as capital flow is also derived from the Latin word “currere” meaning “to run” or “to flow” and this is where the money flowed from giving us the word “currency” meaning the flow of money. This is why Juno Moneta is pictured on Roman coins as holding the balance scales in one hand and a cornucopia in the other symbolizing endless bounty or wealth. This is the birth of the term money and currency.

Now, since Rome had no national debt and no central bank, we immediately wonder how on earth did this function? The government-owned the mines and thus they coined money to meet their expenses.  Unlike our modern governments, they did not have a huge welfare state. They did subsidize food. But the coinage was used to pay the troops and government expenses and thus this is how the money was put into circulation. They would increase the output in times of war and decreased it in times of peace for the most part.

The Saturn V Story (Space Race Documentary) | Spark


Published on May 2, 2018

SUBSCRIBE 178K
In 1961 when President Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, no rocket existed with the power or capability to rise to the challenge. In order to win the race to space, the United States would need to establish a multi-billion dollar space program. One man, Werner Von Braun believed he had the knowledge and vision to make Kennedy’s dream a reality. With the American public galvanised and the expertise of over 200,000 scientists and engineers, Von Braun masterminded the development of the Saturn V; the rocket that flew 24 men to the moon and launched the greatest adventure in the history of exploration. Using visual effects, stunning NASA footage and expert interviews with Apollo Space Scientists, this inspirational film tells the story of the colossal challenges NASA faced to fulfill Kennedy’s pledge. With the accolade of flying 24 men safely to the moon, the mighty Saturn V will always be considered one of mankind’s greatest technological achievements. This is the story of the most powerful machine ever built, and the men and women who believed it could fly. Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech and engineering videos – https://goo.gl/LIrlur Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SparkDocs/ Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/spark_chann… Content licensed by Espresso Media to Little Dot Studios. #Space #saturn #apollo11 #NASA #science #rockets #spacetravel #manonthemoon #Engineering #technology #spacerace #SaturnV #Saturn5

“APOLLO 13: To The Edge And Back” – (1994 Documentary)


Published on Mar 3, 2018

SUBSCRIBE 767
CHECK OUT THESE OTHER CHANNELS: CLASSIC COMEDY CLIPS: http://www.dailymotion.com/ClassicCom… WSCVIDEOS: http://www.dailymotion.com/WSCvideos I SAW IT ON TV: http://www.dailymotion.com/SawItOnTV I SAW IT AT THE MOVIES: http://www.dailymotion.com/SawItAtThe… FUNNY FILM FEATURES: http://www.dailymotion.com/FunnyFilmF… PAST BLAST MUSIC (50s & 60s): http://www.dailymotion.com/PastBlastM… PAST BLAST MUSIC (70s & Beyond): http://www.dailymotion.com/PastBlastM… THE HISTORY OF ROCK: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQTc… FUNNYFILMFEATURES: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJS… Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 14:13 EST (19:13 UTC) from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, but the lunar landing was aborted after an oxygen tank exploded two days later, crippling the Service Module (SM) upon which the Command Module (CM) had depended. Despite great hardship caused by limited power, loss of cabin heat, shortage of potable water, and the critical need to make makeshift repairs to the carbon dioxide removal system, the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970, six days after launch. The flight passed the far side of the Moon at an altitude of 254 kilometers (137 nautical miles) above the lunar surface, and 400,171 km (248,655 mi) from Earth, a spaceflight record marking the farthest humans have ever traveled from Earth. The mission was commanded by James A. Lovell with John L. “Jack” Swigert as Command Module Pilot and Fred W. Haise as Lunar Module Pilot. Swigert was a late replacement for the original CM pilot Ken Mattingly, who was grounded by the flight surgeon after exposure to German measles. The story of the Apollo 13 mission has been dramatized multiple times, most notably in the 1995 film Apollo 13.

World War 2 Top 10 Tanks (Videos)


Published on May 11, 2016

SUBSCRIBE 19K
Tiger II is the common name of a German heavy tank of the Second World War. The final official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B, often shortened to Tiger B. The ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 182. It is also known under the informal name Königstiger[6] (the German name for the Bengal tiger), often translated literally as Royal Tiger, or somewhat incorrectly as King Tiger by Allied soldiers, especially by American forces. The Tiger II was the successor to the Tiger I, combining the latter’s thick armour with the armour sloping used on the Panther medium tank. The tank weighed almost 70 tonnes, and was protected by 100 to 185 mm (3.9 to 7.3 in) of armour to the front.[9] It was armed with the long barrelled 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 anti-tank cannon.The chassis was also the basis for the Jagdtiger turretless tank destroyer. The Tiger II was issued to heavy tank battalions of the Army (Schwere Heerespanzerabteilung – abbreviated s.H.Pz.Abt) and the Waffen-SS (s.SS.Pz.Abt). It was first used in combat with s.H.Pz.Abt. 503 during the Normandy campaign on 11 July 1944; on the Eastern Front, the first unit to be outfitted with Tiger IIs was the s.H.Pz.Abt. 501, which by 1 September 1944 listed 25 Tiger IIs operational.

 

 

World war 2 Top 10 Fighter Planes (Videos)


Published on Aug 14, 2016

SUBSCRIBE 19K
World War II featured fighter combat on a larger scale than any other conflict to date. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel noted the effect of airpower: “Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.” Throughout the war, fighters performed their conventional role in establishing air superiority through combat with other fighters and through bomber interception, and also often performed roles such as tactical air support and reconnaissance. Fighter design varied widely among combatants. The Japanese and Italians favored lightly armed and armored but highly maneuverable designs such as the Japanese Nakajima Ki-27, Nakajima Ki-43 and Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Italy’s Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC.200. In contrast, designers in Great Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, and the United States believed that the increased speed of fighter aircraft would create g-forces unbearable to pilots who attempted maneuvering dogfights typical of the First World War, and their fighters were instead optimized for speed and firepower. In practice, while light, highly maneuverable aircraft did possess some advantages in fighter-versus-fighter combat, those could usually be overcome by sound tactical doctrine, and the design approach of the Italians and Japanese made their fighters ill-suited as interceptors or attack aircraft.During the invasion of Poland and the Battle of France, Luftwaffe fighters—primarily the Messerschmitt Bf 109—held air superiority, and the Luftwaffe played a major role in German victories in these campaigns. During the Battle of Britain, however, British Hurricanes and Spitfires proved roughly equal to Luftwaffe fighters. Additionally Britain’s use of radar and the advantages of fighting above Britain’s home territory allowed the RAF to deny Germany air superiority, saving Britain from possible German invasion and dealing the Axis a major defeat early in the Second World War.On the Eastern Front, Soviet fighter forces were overwhelmed during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa. This was a result of the tactical surprise at the outset of the campaign, the leadership vacuum within the Soviet military left by the Great Purge, and the general inferiority of Soviet designs at the time, such as the obsolescent I-15 biplane and the I-16. More modern Soviet designs, including the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1, had not yet arrived in numbers and in any case were still inferior to the Messerschmitt Bf 109. As a result, during the early months of these campaigns, Axis air forces destroyed large numbers of Red Air Force aircraft on the ground and in one-sided dogfights. In the later stages on the Eastern Front, Soviet training and leadership improved, as did their equipment. Late-war Soviet designs such as the Yakovlev Yak-3 and Lavochkin La-7 had performance comparable to the German Bf-109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Also, significant numbers of British, and later U.S., fighter aircraft were supplied to aid the Soviet war effort as part of Lend-Lease, with the Bell P-39 Airacobra proving particularly effective in the lower-altitude combat typical of the Eastern Front. The Soviets were also helped indirectly by the American and British bombing campaigns, which forced the Luftwaffe to shift many of its fighters away from the Eastern Front in defense against these raids. The Soviets increasingly were able to challenge the Luftwaffe, and while the Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge over the Red Air Force for much of the war, the increasing numbers and efficacy of the Soviet Air Force were critical to the Red Army’s efforts at turning back and eventually annihilating the Wehrmacht. Meanwhile, air combat on the Western Front had a much different character. Much of this combat was centered around the strategic bombing campaigns of the RAF and the USAAF. Axis fighter aircraft focused on defending against Allied bombers while Allied fighters’ main role was as bomber escorts. The RAF raided German cities at night, and both sides developed radar-equipped night fighters for these battles. The Americans, in contrast, flew daylight bombing raids into Germany. Unescorted Consolidated B-24 Liberators and Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers, however, proved unable to fend off German interceptors (primarily Bf-109s and FW-190s). With the later arrival of long range fighters, particularly the North American P-51 Mustang, American fighters were able to escort daylight raids far into Germany and establish control of the skies over Western Europe.

Remanufacturing a Packard V12 engine


Published on Mar 31, 2017

SUBSCRIBE 10K
Restore Cars remanufactures all types of senior classic car engines of the 1930’s era. I have received many questions about the dyno numbers. Here are the numbers. The torque curve starts out at 436 and bottoms out at 320. HP starts out at 124 and steadily raises up to 197. All pulls were on a same line and very smooth throughout the RPM range. These are corrected numbers. Book value is stated at 175 HP peak. Sometime I will post all the runs on my website so you can see all the pulls. I’m not website say, so it may take a little while to get this done. Mark

SHOW MORE