Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Fusion Energy will provide limitless power.

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Michael Davis wrote:
[quote]
Last time he was here, he was denying Newton>s
first law was observable.

Perhaps you>d care to cite something in Google to that effect. liar?
[/quote]
Don>t need to. Do you still insist that the gyros in the Gravity B Probe
and Pegasus have nothing to do with each other?

[quote]Seems that if he doesn>t like how nature
works, he>ll blame it on science.

Are you still harping on that Mach nonsense?
[/quote]
Never have. Mach and causal explanations are your bag.

[quote]
Said stuff like, 'science needs
crutches'.

Your precious fixed frame of reference *is* an imaginary crutch. It does
not exist, period.
[/quote]
Ok, if you insist there is no inertial frame, why has science accepted
Newton>s first law for so long?

[quote]But that>s how a pseudo-skeptic operates.

You do know that "pseudo-skeptic" is just a kook buzzword, right?
[/quote]
Creating 'truth' to suit yourself?

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Michael Davis · Guest

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
[quote]

Michael Davis wrote:

Last time he was here, he was denying Newton>s
first law was observable.

Perhaps you>d care to cite something in Google to that effect. liar?

Don>t need to.
[/quote]
Translation: You can>t.

[quote]Do you still insist that the gyros in the Gravity B Probe
and Pegasus have nothing to do with each other?
[/quote]
Absolutely nothing.

[quote]
Seems that if he doesn>t like how nature
works, he>ll blame it on science.

Are you still harping on that Mach nonsense?

Never have.
[/quote]
Translation: You have no idea what you have been talking about.

[quote]Mach and causal explanations are your bag.
[/quote]
No, they are yours, you are just to ignorant to realize it.

[quote]

Said stuff like, 'science needs
crutches'.

Your precious fixed frame of reference *is* an imaginary crutch. It
does not exist, period.

Ok, if you insist there is no inertial frame, why has science accepted
Newton>s first law for so long?
[/quote]
Please show where in Newton>s First Law there is a fixed frame of
reference. While you are at it, point out something you think is
fixed. TIA.

[quote]
But that>s how a pseudo-skeptic operates.

You do know that "pseudo-skeptic" is just a kook buzzword, right?

Creating 'truth' to suit yourself?
[/quote]
Snipping my post to suit yourself, kook? Try finding
"pseudo-skeptic" in the dictionary. The only people on the planet
you>ll find using that phrase are kooks who are miffed at having
their BS debunked. From a kook>s point of view, skepticism is all
well and good as long as it is being applied to *other people>s*
beliefs. When the septics question a kook>s own cherished beliefs
though, suddenly they aren>t real skeptics anymore, but only
"pseudo-skeptics," according to the kook in question (that would
be you).

Every kook eventually starts spouting the phrase. You are
following the script to perfection on your way to full-blown
kookdom, Bloomers.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There>s a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)

Dan Bloomquist · Guest

Michael Davis wrote:
[quote]Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Last time he was here, he was denying Newton>s
first law was observable.

Perhaps you>d care to cite something in Google to that effect. liar?

Don>t need to.

Translation: You can>t.
[/quote]
No, don>t need to, the following is more of the same.

[quote]Do you still insist that the gyros in the Gravity B Probe and Pegasus
have nothing to do with each other?

Absolutely nothing.
[/quote]
Then the guy>s at Stanford are bonkers?!? Why make the measurement?

[quote]Seems that if he doesn>t like how nature
works, he>ll blame it on science.

Are you still harping on that Mach nonsense?

Never have.

Translation: You have no idea what you have been talking about.
[/quote]
A Davis Truth!?

[quote]Mach and causal explanations are your bag.

No, they are yours, you are just to ignorant to realize it.
[/quote]
Another Davis Truth?!
I never brought mach up, you did.

[quote]Said stuff like, 'science needs
crutches'.

Your precious fixed frame of reference *is* an imaginary crutch. It
does not exist, period.

Ok, if you insist there is no inertial frame, why has science accepted
Newton>s first law for so long?

Please show where in Newton>s First Law there is a fixed frame of
reference. While you are at it, point out something you think is fixed.
TIA.
[/quote]
I had presented countless examples in the past. Remember this one?
http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/Pendulum/pendulum.html

[quote]But that>s how a pseudo-skeptic operates.

You do know that "pseudo-skeptic" is just a kook buzzword, right?

Creating 'truth' to suit yourself?

Snipping my post to suit yourself.
[/quote]
You were ranting and still are, IMHO.

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom

Menwith · Guest

Gore wanted ITER delayed, put out of sight, and he wanted some actions
from ITER that could be used as excuse for anyone in the US
who opposed (for which their reasons varied) ITER to have something to complain
about.
The management ot ITER accomodated Gore>s wishes.

Menwith

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

[quote]"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FE81FC2.A6E8B8A7@hill.com...
ClintonGore won>t be happy until all 'non Hollywoodmillionares' are forced
to live in a bird>s nest. ITER was mismanaged,

That>s funny because ITER wasn>t managed by either Clinton or Gore.

ITER is a callaborative effort by several countries to produce a
demonstration fusion reactor.

Through what flight of fantasy and stupidity do you conclude that Europe,
Japan, Russia and Canada asked either Clinton or Gore to manage the program?

When did either of these men have the time by the way?

You Stupid. Stupid, NeoCon/Conservative.

"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FE81FC2.A6E8B8A7@hill.com...
with the intention of having its budget later zeroed by Congress, because
Gore
percieved it as a threat to his legacy.

So in your view then, Gore>s strong support of fusion generation and science
in general was somehow a plot to get Science Hating Republicans to vote
against the program.

This makes a bit of sense as we all know that Republicans would denounce
Christ Himself should Gore ever publicize being a christian.

But such is the nature of the NeoConservative Hate that rapidly destroying
the American state.

Stupid. Stupid, Republicans.

Snicker.[/quote]

Amos Keppler · Guest

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
[quote]"Amos Keppler" <fake@email.net> wrote in message
news:3FE64499.4050301@email.net...

The risk that a fusion reactor spins out of control.
It>s one more step up, on the ladder of dangerous technology. The more
advanced technology, the more dangerous it is.

A runaway fission chain reaction can be made by simply pushing various bits
of suitably fissile material near each other. In some cases simple dust
coating a floor can pose a lethal timebomb. A few extra radioactive skin
flakes, and off goes the reaction.

Fusion on the other hand is inherently unstable outside of Solar type
confignment. It>s so difficult to achieve, that one error and the reaction
simply stops.

[/quote]

Yes, I know that, but what happens when it doesn>t.
Technology is lethal, both to life and the general environemnt, the
more advanced it becomes the worse is the potential harm.
Experience tells us that.

Amos

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
true CURRENT EVENTS
http://www.midnight-fire.net/truecurrentevents
awareness of a species' tailspin suicide run
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Amos Keppler · Guest

saict wrote:
[quote]Amos Keppler <fake@email.net> wrote in message news:<3FE7418E.3070101@email.net>...

saict wrote:

Amos Keppler <fake@email.net> wrote in message

snip

The risk that a fusion reactor spins out of control.
It>s one more step up, on the ladder of dangerous technology. The more
advanced technology, the more dangerous it is.

I can>t agree with that. As our technology improves, our world
becomes safer. Our lifespan increases. Our air gets cleaner. Our
forests get greener. There>s room for more of us as we use our
heritage more efficiently. Advanced technology? Bring it on.

snip

You will have to explain that one to me. Please avoid the
technological myths we>re all forcefed.

I will, and you do the same. Agreed?

Why then, don>t our air get cleaner, our world safer and so on?

If you think your car is dirty, try to imagine a world where everyone
rode a horse. Even in small communities, there are historical records
of manure up to 11 inches deep, covering every road. A death of a
child due to pneumonia or whooping cough was so common it didn>t
horrify anybody except the poor mother.

If you think your gas furnace is dirty, try to imagine a world where
everyone still uses a fireplace. kryten_droid made a reference to old
London, but you don>t have to go back in history. Go to China, where
they still use coal instead of gas. Even though they use a lot less
of it, there is a far greater pollution problem. The problem would be
greater still if they used wood instead of coal.

You say that primitive people didn>t deal with cancer. That>s an
example of a technological myth that you>re admonishing me to avoid,
but it is true that we live long enough nowadays to develop it. You
don>t even have to go back a hundred years to find a life expectancy
of 40. How old are you?

You say that the primitive people were more fit as a rule, and I
agree. Still, our best athletes run faster, lift more, jump higher
and aim more accurately than anybody in all of history. Our
technology certainly allows one to be lazy. I say a man>s laziness is
his own responsibility, and that technology has no legitimate
culpability. If I made a habit of helping a frail old lady so she
didn>t have to jump up and get every little thing, she might die for
lack of exercise. But I wouldn>t feel responsible, because she knows
how much exercise she needs and still has the choice to exercise of
her own free will.

Today>s world are created by technology. In other words technology is
teh problem. And you want to pout it on? Use the problem to fix the
problem, so to speak.

I don>t exactly buy the premise that today>s world has been created by
technology. Technology has had some adverse effects which are
undeniable, but in the overall balance, the miracles of modern
medicine, the boon of the industrial age, the electronic super
highway, and the wonders of the space age have done immeasureably more
good than harm. To say otherwise is ungrateful.

Technology is not the problem. It>s a tool that can be used for good
or evil. The world has some evil within it, but there is also an
astonishing amount of good. I trust mankind in general to be more
charitable than vicious, more kind than hateful, and more helpful than
selfish. History is on my side.

Strange, but quite consistent with the insane society we>re existing in.

With all due respect, I consider your views more a product of the
insanity in our society than mine.
[/quote]

Nope, you>re basically defending an insane society. So that one is clear.

I think you are also defending the technological myths.

My reply is really the five posts:

The roots of modern terror
The three caves of doom
Earth rivers are running dry
Chemical warfare
and
Tumor

There I cover/post a few of many areas where the world has gone
horribly wrong.

Please reply to them.
If you can>t find them or don>t have them for some reason, I>ll repost
them.

Amos

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
true CURRENT EVENTS
http://www.midnight-fire.net/truecurrentevents
awareness of a species' tailspin suicide run
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

[quote]A runaway fission chain reaction can be made by simply pushing various
bits
of suitably fissile material near each other. In some cases simple dust
coating a floor can pose a lethal timebomb. A few extra radioactive
skin
flakes, and off goes the reaction.
[/quote]

"No One" <toomuch@spam.com> wrote in message
news:MAZFb.7$a92.84194@news.abs.net...
[quote]Really? Hum. . .I guess all that stuff they taught me about critial mass
and critial geometry was wrong. Could you contact the nuke sci
departments
across the country and inform them of the error?
[/quote]
That you consider it an error is just another failure on your part. You
might do some research on the reasonably recent radiation incident that
killed 1 or 2, I forget Japanese nuclear plant workers, and what caused it.

Perhaps you aren>t bright enough.

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

"Amos Keppler" <fake@email.net> wrote in message
news:3FE8F190.7020601@email.net...
[quote]Yes, I know that, but what happens when it doesn>t.
[/quote]
Not stopping would be a violation of the fundamental laws of nature.

Which do you expect will be violated?

Vendicar Decarian · Guest

Vendicar wrote:
[quote]So in your view then, Gore>s strong support of fusion generation and
science
in general was somehow a plot to get Science Hating Republicans to vote
against the program.

This makes a bit of sense as we all know that Republicans would denounce
Christ Himself should Gore ever publicize being a christian.

But such is the nature of the NeoConservative Hate that rapidly
destroying
the American state.
[/quote]
"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FE8EF5A.AD7162CC@hill.com...
[quote]Gore wanted ITER delayed, put out of sight, and he wanted some actions
from ITER that could be used as excuse for anyone in the US
who opposed (for which their reasons varied) ITER to have something to
complain
about. The management ot ITER accomodated Gore>s wishes.
[/quote]
Wow, another Clinton/Gore conspiracy. You Conservatives are full of em
aren>t you?

By the way, who taught you how to read minds?

Menwith · Guest

I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.

Menwith

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

[quote]Vendicar wrote:
So in your view then, Gore>s strong support of fusion generation and
science
in general was somehow a plot to get Science Hating Republicans to vote
against the program.

This makes a bit of sense as we all know that Republicans would denounce
Christ Himself should Gore ever publicize being a christian.

But such is the nature of the NeoConservative Hate that rapidly
destroying
the American state.

"Menwith" <Menwith@hill.com> wrote in message
news:3FE8EF5A.AD7162CC@hill.com...
Gore wanted ITER delayed, put out of sight, and he wanted some actions
from ITER that could be used as excuse for anyone in the US
who opposed (for which their reasons varied) ITER to have something to
complain
about. The management ot ITER accomodated Gore>s wishes.

Wow, another Clinton/Gore conspiracy. You Conservatives are full of em
aren>t you?

By the way, who taught you how to read minds?[/quote]

Paul M. Koloc · Guest

pochas wrote:

[quote]In article <3FE5E936.6040804@citlink.net>, Dan Bloomquist
lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote:

If this is what he means, I don>t see it. Any civilization capable of
needing, much less producing, that kind of energy, would be civilized
enough not to need or do it.

.. . Assembling
large vessels in a low gravity environment will require compact sources
of large amounts of energy. The volunteers for these missions will not
be fearful types.
[/quote]
With a proper compact fusion technology orbital assembling will not be
necessary. If PLASMAK(tm) technology is successful, Boost Phase power
lift coupled with a huge reduction of pollutants will obviate this step.
Further it should have all of the power generation capacity and
thrust efficiency needed for extensive colonization missions. See web
sites in sig.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ <http://www.neoteric-research.org/>
| http://www.prometheus2.net/ mailto:pmk@plasmak.com
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Hays · Guest

Menwith wrote:

[quote]I don>t think anyone knows the whole story of why
ITER was budget-zeroed in 1998. No one knows
what someone-elses motives are. I certainly do not
automaticaly believe what anybody says when they
say 'why' they did something. That said,
(the US leaving ITER) it sure looks very
convienent for Gore and the KP.
[/quote]
It>s pretty clear who zero budgeted ITER in 1998, on the other hand.

The Republican-controlled Congress.

After the climate change, I wonder if "Republican" will be under Godwin>s Law?

--
Phil Hays

pochas · Guest

In article <3FE9BFF3.8080905@plasmak.com>, pmk@plasmak.com wrote:

[quote]pochas wrote:

In article <3FE5E936.6040804@citlink.net>, Dan Bloomquist
lakeweb@citlink.net> wrote:

If this is what he means, I don>t see it. Any civilization capable of
needing, much less producing, that kind of energy, would be civilized
enough not to need or do it.

.. . Assembling
large vessels in a low gravity environment will require compact sources
of large amounts of energy. The volunteers for these missions will not
be fearful types.

With a proper compact fusion technology orbital assembling will not be
necessary. If PLASMAK(tm) technology is successful, Boost Phase power
lift coupled with a huge reduction of pollutants will obviate this step.
Further it should have all of the power generation capacity and
thrust efficiency needed for extensive colonization missions. See web
sites in sig.
--
[/quote]
I hope your concepts work out. I don>t know enough about plasmas to
judge for myself. My thinking is conventional, I guess. Chemical
rockets for the big lifts and plasma for the high specific impulse
long haul.

I really don>t understand why hydrogen as a fuel is considered esoteric.
Most spacecraft use it routinely and it doesn>t pollute. Cryogenic storage
is doable and the 30% penalty on HHV seems acceptable, especially since
fuel cell/electric motor (superconducting?) efficiencies are high enough
to offset this. Vehicle weight savings are more gravy. A workable fusion
generator would make it all happen overnight.

Regards

Don Lancaster · Guest

pochas wrote:
[quote]

I really don>t understand why hydrogen as a fuel is considered esoteric.
Most spacecraft use it routinely and it doesn>t pollute.
Regards
[/quote]
Not even wrong.
Very few spacecraft use hydrogen and hydrogen is HIGHLY polluting.

Hydrogen is wildly inappropriate for suborbital or deep space uses.

Terrestral hydrogen is a POLLUTION AMPLIFIER that, through its gross
inefficiency, amplifies the pollution of the underlying energy sources.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

pochas · Guest

In article <3FE9E3D7.41D17C9B@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote:

[quote]pochas wrote:

I really don>t understand why hydrogen as a fuel is considered esoteric.
Most spacecraft use it routinely and it doesn>t pollute.
Regards

Not even wrong.
Very few spacecraft use hydrogen and hydrogen is HIGHLY polluting.

Hydrogen is wildly inappropriate for suborbital or deep space uses.

Terrestral hydrogen is a POLLUTION AMPLIFIER that, through its gross
inefficiency, amplifies the pollution of the underlying energy sources.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

[/quote]
What do you call that big tank the Space Shuttle rides on?
You obviously have zip knowledge of rocketry.

<plonk>


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 - Hydrogen Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9