Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Even Manhatten Project Wasn>t "On the Fly" R&D

Guest

A good idea. What it really needs is the right PR, not Martha Stewart
but someone just as socially correct / influential.

I do not deny I>m somewhat weak in that dept.

Anyway back to the issue. Motorists see me cycling in the 115 degree
heat out in the desert and pull over to offer me rides.

But once I>ve made up my mind to heat cycle, then I>m only being
polite when I accept.

Bret Cahill

V for Vendicar · Guest

"Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote
[quote]The problem isn>t technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
[/quote]
Yup, there is lots of coal. Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.

Do you think you have a point?

Spaceman · Guest

Tom Potter wrote:
[quote]"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:486E9772.C90AE619@hate.spam.net...
"zzbunker@netscape.net" wrote:

On Jul 4, 2:07 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Not to diminish the bomb effort but at least they knew E=mc^2 three
decades before they started.

But, even better, they knew there were neutrons three decades
before they started.
Since E=MC^2 also supposedly applies to supercomputers, if the
idiot relativers
could ever bring themselves to think about history rather simply
babbling about it.
[snip crap]

Hey bozo - the Manhattan Project had more Jews/m^2 than a Nazi
concentration camp. The National Energy Crisis! has

Uncle Al makes a good point when he points out
that as Jews had massacred the Russian Royal Family
and co-opted the Russian government,
and were using Russia as a base
from where to instigate the Class Wars of the 1900>s
Jews were not trusted by America>s leadership,

so many Jewish scientists who were not trusted
were shipped to a remote, isolated New Mexico location
and assigned the simplest part of the Atomic Bomb program,

while the heavy work was done by people like
Fermi and Lawrence in places like New York, Chicago,
Hanford and Oak Ridge.

Some Jewish scientists who were not trusted, like Einstein,
were not given Secret Clearances and assigned to military projects,
perhaps because the FBI needed a few prominent Jews
who appeared to have access to military secrets
to roam with apparent freedom
so the FBI could spot potential spy networks.
[/quote]
It was not the fact he was untrusted.
It was his sillyness about simultaneity.
His relativity of simultaneity was totally ignored
of course.. because.. it would not haved worked
if they did not ignore such bullshit about simulteniety not
being the same for everyone.
:)

[quote]Even then, as it turns out,
the best design for the trigger was put forward by
a non-Jewish explosive technician.
[/quote]
Yup
a simultaneous trigger.
Go figure..
a thing relativity thinks can>t occur at all because of
two different observers will not see the simultaneous
flashes at the same times.
anyone thinking about what was seen instead of what actually
occurs.. were pushed to the lower levels.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Benj · Guest

On Jul 9, 3:37 am, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote] Yup, there is lots of coal. Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.
[/quote]
We won>t even have to wait for the coal so long as we keep letting the
Banksters burn the rain forests. Apparently they seem to think that
they are not oxygen breathing animals. Yeah, that>s it. lets burn the
rain forests so we can grow corn for ethanol. (for a few years) That>s
be "green" for sure.

Benj · Guest

On Jul 12, 11:38 pm, Angelo Campanella <a.campane...@att.net> wrote:

[quote] That goal (alternative sources of hydrocarbon fuel) I accept as true
real and feasible. Let>s all get to that task, sans politics.
[/quote]
Sans politics? Oh sure, THAT will be the day! Look! The very PROBLEM
is politics. Vested interests. People hoping to make big money with
scams (CO2), media fawning over really moronic "green people". and a
total ignoring of viable solutions.

There is a huge amount of coal. Liquification processes have been
around since the last century and worked well enough for Hitler to
keep WWII going much longer than anyone wanted. Electric cars run
essentially on coal. How much fuel is used by people going to work
each day? So why ignore electric cars just because they aren>t full
replacements for gas cars yet? For work/shopping trips you>ve saved
that much oil!

There is less natural gas but still enough to give some breathing room
as coal problems are ironed out. My local gas company has run their
ENTIRE fleet of cars and trucks on natural gas for years. Works just
fine. No city blocks taken out by explosions. So what>s the problem?
Even lower pollution than gasoline.

And for that matter my Geo metro gets 55 mpg on the highway and 45 in
the city. What in hell happened to that "Technology"? My guess is that
it>s sort of like nobody knows how to make a decent mummy anymore
either.

The problem is politics. Everybody wants to "look" "green" even though
all they do is look moronic. You have people "inventing" all manner of
crap that even at a cursory glance is clear can>t work. "Oh, once it
gets developed [means we spend,,,no WASTE a ton of tax money on it]
it>ll work just fine!" Feh. How about we do this. We block some major
streams and rivers and back up the water and then use it to power
generators? Why not? I think I>ve just solved all our problems....
NOT.

So long as those with an agenda are controlling the media spew, we are
all in danger of a huge crash. Apparently those with this agenda and
their minions seem to think they don>t live in the same country we
do.

Angelo Campanella · Guest

Bob Eld wrote:
[quote]After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and didn>t
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
[/quote]
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that drilling
out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again. But this time it
likelywill be only a qualified success. That fact alone is NO reason to
NOT do it. I don>t think that anyone believes that it will be the RIGHT
answer this time. But at least we will have some economic relief. Right
now, we are the laughing stock of the world, first by botching the Iraq
war and peace. Second by trying our best to buy our way out of (or into)
oil dependence. The best we can hope for is a rapidly evolved hybrid
manufavturing capabily and enouh oil discoveries to ge somewaht comfortable.

The days are GONE when we used everdody else>s oil at a discount. Now
the rest of the world>s producers want top price. SUV owners: retire
that vehicle to just your Sunday drive to church .

[quote]We started down that road
but set it aside as oil prices lowered and stabilized. The situation is
different now. We virtually can>t drill our way out this time. If we do
again what we did in the 70>s and put aside the necessary research and
development we will really be in trouble in a few years.
[/quote]
Get on your state and federal representative. Why those silly twits
(all 500-odd of them) continue to defy drilling rights is a Nero like
mystery (fiddling while the US economy tanks).

[quote]But, just because everyone wants instant mature "green industries," and that
they are far from developed yet does not mean we should put aside that
development. What we need is national leadership that understands this and
is more interested in funding and pushing the development of alternative
energy than waging war, for example.
[/quote]
Hey, while you>re at it, fund Rumplstilskin to restart his sinning flax
into gold project. What with all our new knowledge and lasers.... who
kknows???

[quote]It>s now a matter of national survival
much more important than any of the silly terrorism nonsense ever was.
[/quote]
The "alternative energy" term is incomplete and a misnomer. It is not a
different energy that we need, but rather an alternative SOURCE for the
same energy, namely hydorcarbon fuel stock.

[quote]It>s now a matter of national security and survival.
[/quote]
Agreed

[quote]Most people seem to
realize this to some degree, so I think we will begin down the right road.
[/quote]
Not if the Democrats get more power. They will TAX the existing fuels
and be done with it. Their entire platform is based on the fairy tales
of Global warming and the Green economy (never real, never achievable; a
permanent football as is Race, for insance).

"Alternative energy" will be no more successful than Johnson>s war on
povery (still in progress after 40 years and thhere remains just as much
poverty than ever. Iraq looks like a clear win in comparison. A Pope
once said "The poor will always be with us". Now more true than ever.
Note that the poor do not disappear or die early; certainly never in
this country. They always seem to survive til the next handout...)

[quote]We must, however, guard against the naysayers and doom sayers who throw up
countless obstacles and irrational objections for this or that self serving
reason. We must stay focused on our ultimate goal of energy self
sufficiency.
[/quote]
That goal (alternative sources of hydrocarbon fuel) I accept as true
real and feasible. Let>s all get to that task, sans politics.

Angelo Campanella

Angelo Campanella · Guest

V for Vendicar wrote:
[quote]"Mike Jr." <n00spam@comcast.net> wrote
The problem isn>t technology, it is the lack of investment in what we
already know how to do.
Yup, there is lots of coal. Eough to bring the Co2 level of the
atmosphere to levels that are lethal to most animal life.
[/quote]
Hey, have you heard that some scientists now believe that one of the
the causes of the slight temperature rise observed in recent years is
the REMOVAL of contaminatis and particulates (industrial smoke) from the
atmosphere via decades of EPA cleanups. The clear air is a better
insulator.

This agrees with the Krakatoa expplosion effect in the late 19th
century where so much dust and SO2 was ejected into the atmosphere that
observable cooling occurred for a year.

I also believe that the increasing carbon dioxide will act to some
extent like the smoke in that the CO2 (like SO2 may have done then)
will act to reduce the thermal insulation value of pure air. In
particular, in the upper atmosphere where CO2 is the only means to
radiate off heat at nght.

Whence colder winrers .

Angelo Campanella

DB · Guest

Angelo Campanella wrote:
[quote]
Bob Eld wrote:
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and
didn>t
complete the research necessary for alternatives.

Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
[/quote]
<snip the rest of the same>

Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....

You two, of course, scare me.....

Angelo Campanella · Guest

DB wrote:
[quote]Angelo Campanella wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and
didn>t
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....
[/quote]
Please clarify.

Do you mean that:

1,000 barrels a second is a doomsday rate of fuel consumption (bad)? or
such consuption cannot be replaced just by alternative fuels?
or
insisting on extending our consumpion of fossil fuels at all is bad?
or
something else?

Angelo Campanella

DB · Guest

Angelo Campanella wrote:
[quote]

DB wrote:
Angelo Campanella wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:
After the first oil shock we basically drilled our way out of it and
didn>t
complete the research necessary for alternatives.
Though not ideal, this proves at least one point. Given that
drilling out can besuccessful, we ought to do it again.
Nether of you get it. A thousand barrels a second. There are no
alternatives. Like whistling through the graveyard.....

Please clarify.

Do you mean that:

1,000 barrels a second is a doomsday rate of fuel consumption (bad)? or
such consuption cannot be replaced just by alternative fuels?
[/quote]
It can>t be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.

You can>t drill for what isn>t there.

[quote]insisting on extending our consumpion of fossil fuels at all is bad?
[/quote]
We can>t extend what we don>t have. Oil is not a limitless resource.

[quote]something else?
[/quote]
The big one is that we are heading for declines in production of massive
proportion compared to the growth in demand required to keep economies
from caving.

DB · Guest

hanson wrote:
[quote]"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:WBsek.85713$xP2.76554@fe099.usenetserver.com...
hanson wrote:
"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:LRrek.118885$lb3.12092@fe097.usenetserver.com...
It can>t be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can>t drill for what isn>t there.

hanson wrote
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al>s sunshine?

hanson wrote
that>s exactly how you, "DB" do argue
[/quote]
Nope. Not if you show some numbers to back your rehtoric.

Here, try this for starters:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoildrum.com/

[quote]Now since you are very slow on the uptake read here where it
says in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
[/quote]
But there is no content in this link.

hanson · Guest

"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:WBsek.85713$xP2.76554@fe099.usenetserver.com...
[quote]hanson wrote:
"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:LRrek.118885$lb3.12092@fe097.usenetserver.com...
It can>t be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can>t drill for what isn>t there.

hanson wrote
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....

"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al>s sunshine?

hanson wrote[/quote]
that>s exactly how you, "DB" do argue, since you look up and
inside your own asshole... ahahahahahaha... wherein they,
the Green Turds and the Oil-boys, have painted their paradigm
for you to follow and parrot to make even more victims from the
machinations they perpetrated upon you and the peasantry.
Now since you are very slow on the uptake read here where it
says in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34?hl=en
------- The C&CH politics ------- ....ahahaha... ahahanson

DB · Guest

hanson wrote:
[quote]"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:LRrek.118885$lb3.12092@fe097.usenetserver.com...
It can>t be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can>t drill for what isn>t there.

"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
[/quote]
Christ hanson. Do you need a link to Uncle Al>s sunshine?

hanson · Guest

"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:LRrek.118885$lb3.12092@fe097.usenetserver.com...
[quote]It can>t be reasonably be replaced in the current paradym. There is
nothing to, as you put it, 'drill out'. Discoveries are running some 5
billion bl/year while consumption is currently 31 billion bl/year.
You can>t drill for what isn>t there.

[/quote]
"DB", the Dumb Bastard <abc@some.net>
is a class 3 enviro, a little green idiot ....
who parrots the green party line because he doesn>t have
sufficient education to think for himself, and that he has
no clue how badly the green shits are fucking him.
[quote]
Here read again and try to grasp why 150>000 years of[/quote]
buried carbon, in any desirable form, at the present
consumption rate, is *limitless* for normal people, who
are not damaged goods like you are...
Here it is again for your benefit and healing. Read the
Para that starts with: Initially, "they" say the earth had...:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/1f25c61fc45ad11b?hl=en
If you understand enough elementary chemistry, a light may
turn on in your head. If not then resign yourself to the fact
that you have fallen victim to the grand con that turned you
into damaged goods... ahahahaha... ahaha...ahahahanson

hanson · Guest

"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote in message
news:kxtek.72186$xd1.48758@fe087.usenetserver.com...
only arguments for argument>s sake... hahahaha...
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7dec22d709f02903?hl=en
wherein it says:
"....thanks for the laughs and the money... ahahaha.."
[quote]
and now again, Dan[/quote]
.... thanks for the MONEY... ahahahahanson


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5