XPost: comp.lang.misc, sci.physics.relativity
From: ttt_heg@web.de
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.12.2025 um 19:01 schrieb The Starmaker:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:19:04 +0100, Thomas Heger
> wrote:
>
>> Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
>>>>
>>>> Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
>>>> otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
>>>>
>>>>> At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
>>>>> Germany.
>>>>
>>>> In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
>>>> inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
>>>> could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
>>>> relevance and usefulness.
>>>
>>>
>>> Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
>>> the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
>>> who bribed him.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHa
3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
>>> (at least they got a patent on something)
>>>
>>> https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
>>> (he approves it himself)
>>>
>>
>> Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called
>> 'Einstein's fridge'.
>>
>> But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor.
>>
>> And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
>> that it didn't cool.
>>
>> So, a plausible guess would be:
>>
>> the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
>> reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
>>
>>
>> But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
>>
>> to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
>> of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
>>
>> And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
>> which thoese reactors 'breed'.
>>
>> And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it
>> requires good reason to want Plutonium.
>>
>> That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late
>> 1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories
>> related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
>>
>> That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
>> the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
>> upon theoretical physics).
>>
>> Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in
>> possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
>>
>> TH
>>
>
> I lost count how many times I posted here...
>
> that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
>
> is what you see in the diagram here..
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast
breeding+reactor
>
This is a good paper about the subject:
https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf
Quote:
"
Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors
Frank von Hippel
1
The possibility of a plutonium‑fueled nuclear reactor that could produce
more fuel than it consumed (a “breeder reactor”) was first raised during
World War II in the United States by scientists in the atomic bomb program."
But this was seemingly a lie, because if the first fast breeding
reactors were invented and built in Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how
could Einstein invent and patent a part of that reactor already in 1930
in Berlin?
...
TH
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
