FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
New Solenoid Experiment
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 32 [466 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 30, 31, 32 Next
Author Message
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:24 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <1tfrziumomalh.17em118zgwqhg$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 06 09:46:45 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

In article <6qgzl041mrrt.17ipig70yv5ge$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Math Freak <MathFreak@FakeAddress.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 06 12:13:28 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:


Iranians doing "viscious acts" against other humans?

Yes. The intention has been announced.



Giving a rapist a good lesson is hardly viscious.

You are still following your usual posting pattern. By the
third post, you start to try to intimidate me with sexual
abuse. You still have not learned that this doesn't work.

"Rapist" is a good analogy for an Israeli individual.
If you have problem with this, it's not my doing.

I have a problem whenever you lie.
Quote:




And look who's talking.

In addition, your assumptions are wrong. The religion I was
raised in did not exist 2500 years ago.

Oh yes it did, it was called tribalism. Plus, a rapist
may also have a religion but who cares. He's a rapist
first. You're a pro-Israeli first. I mentioned Purim to
show how backward, thugs at best, those people have
been and for how long at that.

Ah, you have to blame some random people who lived
thousands of years ago for your shortcoming. That
will not fix anything.

Your pro-Israeliness is not fixable honey, and your
pro-Israeliness was the subject,

No, it wasn't. It is you who keeps bringing this one
up.


It's because that's what has always been in your way to
get to become a better person. Really! Nobody is joking
here.

I know nobody is joking and I am taking your attitude very
seriously.
Quote:


not my "shortcomings".
Life offered thousands of ways to a specimen like you
to prevent yourself from becoming one and ... . Grow
up.

I am grown up. You and your ilk keep telling me
that you intend to murder me and mine and destroy our
way of living. Any talk or action to defend myself is
belitteled as being immature and, for some bizarre reason,
pro-Israeli. Your thinking is illogical and has absolutely
no basis in reality.


That's because you don't trust me. I am not telling you
lies. You're a pro-Israeli, and thus conducting a foul
irresponsible sinful life in the eyes of every decent
person in the world. Your problems are your own
creations! Go Islam.

You classify every person, who is not going to voluntarily be
your slave, as pro-Israeli. This includes Jews, Christians,
other Muslims, Hindu, Chinese to identify a few groups.

/BAH
Back to top
Math Freak
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Thu, 13 Jul 06 09:26:18 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com
wrote:

Quote:
In article <1152707906.403031.253940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"bill" <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:

The koran is as murderous and psychotic as a hitler speech. It
says quite clearly that a good muslim must kill anyone who does not
accept mohammed.

I have not read the book but I have read books about the history.
My understanding is that Muslims who reject Islam are to all be
killed. People of another religion pay more taxes with the
Shariah laws taking precedence over their religious law if
it comes into conflict.


Pretending to be ignorant is an old scheme.

A practicing Moslem looks down on you very naturally,
hence all your confusion Smile

--

"khodAyA:
kAfar kist? mosalmAn kist? shi'eh kist? sonni
kist? marz-hAye doroste harkodAm kodAm ast?"

- Ali Shari'ati
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:57 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

[spit]

In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0607030608180.1316@serene.st>,
"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Bill Snyder wrote:

(although I feel an unworthy urge to
quibble out that _most_ species_ don't even have sexes in the first
place)

When I was a young lad, the rule-of-thumb was that 50% of animal species
were beetles, which by and large have gender and sex as we know it. At
first glance, the only kingdoms which contribute in a big way to species
count are animals and fungi, with animals, courtesy of insects and other
arthropods, making the biggest contribution. Perhaps most species
are still sexy? Most phyla, or most individual organisms, OTOH ...

But this is in the absence of a species count for bacteria that looks
reliable, but the estimates I've seen, while approaching fungi, are tiny
compared to insect species numbers.

And diatoms and amoebas, etc. The only ones I know that don't
exchange vital bodily fluids are single-celled critters. There's
a niggle in my head that says even these exchange protoplasm
but I have no idea where I got that--it could have been a dream.

Oh, I know where I got it. Superbugs. They combine genes with
other bugs' genes and you get a new disease.

Yes, almost all eukaryotes have sex, and some prokaryotes. But that's
different from having gender. The question comes down to whether there are
more hermaphroditic species or species with separate genders.

So gender implies that each partner has an incomplete sex cell
which requires another indivual's contribution to reproduce.^W
I'm turning this into a question; I'm starting to examine my
assumptions.

/BAH
Back to top
jmfbahciv@aol.com
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:45 am    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

In article <mi0ga2dgdcn5qmepps8pe81udmf5c38efa@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 06 10:27:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

[I'm posting from sci.physics. I'd like to stop cross-posting to
all those other newsgroups. Where are you?]

I've trimmed to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion.

OK. Thanks.
Quote:


In article <t8fda2l34f503o9ecgmr69u31oc8jhd1is@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 06 10:43:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <g7nca218svmkoelq2mtoapu2h2ucr7jo4s@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 06 09:12:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <i4baa2d2d1gti5taj20468vlmacik4k2a1@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 06 12:23:00 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1151604101.203516.184830@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:


The way society associates sexuality with having a family is so, so
stupid. No offense but it really *is* idiotic.

Where did I say anything about family? Family is society's way
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to control rampant rape, ravishing and all males killing each other.

You seem to have misspelled "one of evolution's ways" here.

I don't think I misspelled the word. I can't think of any
other species that usurps mating choices by smell or other
biological means.

I almost said that society is contrary to evolution...but
I need to think more about this one.

Um, what do you mean by "usurps mating choices?"

The choice isn't made by the mates but by rules, laws, mores,
and peer pressure. However, this is a recent method. Parents
used to barter their kids' mates. This would also make
it not a biological (hence, evolutionary) act.

There are plenty of
species that employ mating displays, musks, or whatever. And are you
defining, e.g., species where both parent birds raise their young as
having families invented by society?

No. That isn't a family since the relationship is not life-long.

Some bird species, e.g., Canada geese, do mate for life, although
infidelity is far from unknown. Or did you mean the relationship with
the offspring?

All relations. And brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. I am not using the
word as the politicians have redefined it.

And now I'm thinking about elephants which is kind of a family
minus all males. No, I wouldn't term this as a family either.

What would you call whatever-it-is that meerkats have?

It's a society similar to bees. One alpha female and nobody
else breeds. Thus, isn't there some biological mechanism
that represses the chemicals that make a critter have to
have sex? Humans have rules that are contrary to biological
needs.

If so, I think you'll have a
difficult time supporting that. And if not, how do you account for
the conspicuous lack of "rape, ravishing, and all males killing each
other" in most other species?

Males do kill each other in other species. I have to think about
the word "most". I'd say they do in mammalia(sp?). Insects it
seems the female uses a male once and tosses it away. Spiders
do the same thing. Fish have a free-for-all. I don't think we
know about whales and their ilk.

[snips regarding unicellular life]

But if you know of a significant number of mammalian species
in which duels between males routinely go to the death,

The only reason all don't go to the death is because the
weaker quits. If he didn't, he would die. If blood is
drawn, death is likely from infections.

My understanding is that this "Nature red in tooth and claw"
description oversimplifies the evolutionary biology -- "fight to the
death" simply isn't a good strategy for most species, and accordingly
most of them have a surrender posture or ritual, with a semi-hardwired
response.

Yup. hmmm..I wonder if the side effect is gene diversity.

Quote:
I believe there's also data to show that fights over
territory tend to seesaw, with each participant becoming more
aggressive as he's pushed back, and less so as he advances, so that
the eventual boundary is a sort of compromise. The "death is likely"
part I think is overstated.

Yup.
Quote:


and/or in
which the female has no ability to accept or reject a suitor, then I'd
like to see a list.

At the moment, I'm having difficulty objectively defining
accept and reject. In herd animals, the female will wander
off if not corraled by the male. Is this a choice of the female?
Or is just what is? I'm not sure this can be categorized
by accept/reject. If choice existed, shouldn't there be
a large percentage of females who don't conceive? Doesn't choice
imply an action that counters instinct and/or others' instincts?

While I'll cheerfully agree that it's difficult to categorize stuff in
this area, the original statement was that families were society's way
of preventing widespread rapes, murders, etc. What I've been asking
is whether you consider most mammals to have families invented by
society (to which the answer so far looks like a pretty definite "no"
to me),

Right.

Quote:
or whether you consider competition among males to amount,
basically, to murder, and mating behavior in general to constitute
rape, both of which I'd say require a lot of justification.

I'm said this about humans. Cultural rules are what keep human
males from this actiivity. Note that the rape and ravish part
implied f***'em, leave'em and go on to the next (think about war
when the usual rules don't apply). The artificial
rules of society keep this behaviour to a minimum and usually with
penalty. It is a substitute for what evolution put in the hardware
for other species.

So now I'm wondering what happened. I think the difference is
groups. Evolution is fine for individual-to-individual
territorial imperative. But how do groups change?

I think I'm trying to think of group psychology or dynamics...
I don't the noun to use.
Back to top
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Nanotechnology is the ultimate cure Reply with quote

On Sun, 02 Jul 06 10:27:31 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Quote:
[I'm posting from sci.physics. I'd like to stop cross-posting to
all those other newsgroups. Where are you?]

I've trimmed to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion.

Quote:

In article <t8fda2l34f503o9ecgmr69u31oc8jhd1is@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 06 10:43:51 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <g7nca218svmkoelq2mtoapu2h2ucr7jo4s@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 06 09:12:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <i4baa2d2d1gti5taj20468vlmacik4k2a1@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 06 12:23:00 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <1151604101.203516.184830@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:


The way society associates sexuality with having a family is so, so
stupid. No offense but it really *is* idiotic.

Where did I say anything about family? Family is society's way
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to control rampant rape, ravishing and all males killing each other.

You seem to have misspelled "one of evolution's ways" here.

I don't think I misspelled the word. I can't think of any
other species that usurps mating choices by smell or other
biological means.

I almost said that society is contrary to evolution...but
I need to think more about this one.

Um, what do you mean by "usurps mating choices?"

The choice isn't made by the mates but by rules, laws, mores,
and peer pressure. However, this is a recent method. Parents
used to barter their kids' mates. This would also make
it not a biological (hence, evolutionary) act.

There are plenty of
species that employ mating displays, musks, or whatever. And are you
defining, e.g., species where both parent birds raise their young as
having families invented by society?

No. That isn't a family since the relationship is not life-long.

Some bird species, e.g., Canada geese, do mate for life, although
infidelity is far from unknown. Or did you mean the relationship with
the offspring?

All relations. And brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. I am not using the
word as the politicians have redefined it.

And now I'm thinking about elephants which is kind of a family
minus all males. No, I wouldn't term this as a family either.

What would you call whatever-it-is that meerkats have?

It's a society similar to bees. One alpha female and nobody
else breeds. Thus, isn't there some biological mechanism
that represses the chemicals that make a critter have to
have sex? Humans have rules that are contrary to biological
needs.

If so, I think you'll have a
difficult time supporting that. And if not, how do you account for
the conspicuous lack of "rape, ravishing, and all males killing each
other" in most other species?

Males do kill each other in other species. I have to think about
the word "most". I'd say they do in mammalia(sp?). Insects it
seems the female uses a male once and tosses it away. Spiders
do the same thing. Fish have a free-for-all. I don't think we
know about whales and their ilk.

[snips regarding unicellular life]

Quote:
But if you know of a significant number of mammalian species
in which duels between males routinely go to the death,

The only reason all don't go to the death is because the
weaker quits. If he didn't, he would die. If blood is
drawn, death is likely from infections.

My understanding is that this "Nature red in tooth and claw"
description oversimplifies the evolutionary biology -- "fight to the
death" simply isn't a good strategy for most species, and accordingly
most of them have a surrender posture or ritual, with a semi-hardwired
response. I believe there's also data to show that fights over
territory tend to seesaw, with each participant becoming more
aggressive as he's pushed back, and less so as he advances, so that
the eventual boundary is a sort of compromise. The "death is likely"
part I think is overstated.

Quote:

and/or in
which the female has no ability to accept or reject a suitor, then I'd
like to see a list.

At the moment, I'm having difficulty objectively defining
accept and reject. In herd animals, the female will wander
off if not corraled by the male. Is this a choice of the female?
Or is just what is? I'm not sure this can be categorized
by accept/reject. If choice existed, shouldn't there be
a large percentage of females who don't conceive? Doesn't choice
imply an action that counters instinct and/or others' instincts?

While I'll cheerfully agree that it's difficult to categorize stuff in
this area, the original statement was that families were society's way
of preventing widespread rapes, murders, etc. What I've been asking
is whether you consider most mammals to have families invented by
society (to which the answer so far looks like a pretty definite "no"
to me), or whether you consider competition among males to amount,
basically, to murder, and mating behavior in general to constitute
rape, both of which I'd say require a lot of justification.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
Tom Ring
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: TRUE physical Reply with quote

brian a m stuckless wrote:

Quote:
$$ TRUE physical
$$
$$ GUESS iSS General UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM, enthalpy:
$$
$$ |(m1*v1)^2 G*M1*m1 m1*v1^2|
$$ Hamiltonian ENTHALPY E = |--------- + ---------- + -------|
$$ | 2*M1 (n - 1)*rA 2 |
$$
$$ " " " = | eK + eG - eV |
$$
$$ " " " (Einstein) = | eK + REST energy eM |
$$
$$ " " " (Einstein) = | eK + m*c^2 |
$$
$$ | a b |
$$ """ (Van der Waals) = |P*(Vol - b) + {(---)*(1 - ---)} |
$$ | Vol Vol |
$$
$$ | a b |
$$ """ (Dieterici) = |x*Pc*(z*Vc - b) + {(----)*(1 - ----)}|
$$ | y*Vc y*Vc |
$$
$$ | a a*b |
$$ " " " Dieterici's.. = |x*Pc*(z*Vc - b) + ---- - --------|
$$ | y*Vc (y*Vc)^2|
$$
$$ | m1*v1^2|
$$ " " " (Bernoulli) = |P*(Vol - b) + m1*g*rA + -------|
$$ | 2 |
$$
$$ | m1*v1^2|
$$ " " " (Bernoulli) = |P*(Vol - b) + m1*v1^2 + -------|
$$ | 2 |.
$$
$$ GUESS iSS Volt*Amp*sec energy eV is otherwise, - (m1*v1^2 / 2).
$$
Re: Dieterici's CRiTiCAL constants. >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> .
Re: Gibb's free energy eG.|| Pc*Vc | | Ra |
Re: ANY flux formula. ||----------| = |--------| = 0.30472135.
Re: Bernoulli's Law. ||("e")^2*Tc| |10*("e")|
Re: TRUE physical. |Note: MOLAR CONSTANT Ra=Na*k=no*vm*k.,.



BRIAN ALWAYS MORE s**t
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:33 pm    Post subject: Re: new On the Structure of Particles and the Nature of Nuclear Forces Reply with quote

This paper tells you how to do it by pressing the "make" button.

http://www.chrisspages.co.uk

Chris.

"yinbing-zhou" <zhouyb_8@163.com> wrote in message
news:1148341802.934214.18810@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
This paper has proposed a theoretical idea to construct particles by
using electron, positron, neutrino and anti-neutrino as well as the
weak force interaction among them; it has theoretically estimated the
radii of neutron and proton as well as the range and strength of
so-called nuclear force, also has explained the reason for the feature
of saturation and short-range of nuclear force and various nuclear
reactions
http://www.physicswd.com/eng/index_en.html
Back to top
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 5:26 pm    Post subject: Re: size of ITER vs. JET and Fusion Barrier Principle Re: electric versus petrol mowers Reply with quote

Now the tokamak was first invented in Russia. But most people in this
field of research know data from just 2 tokamaks-- TFTR and JET. And of
course many of the Russian tokamaks were smaller in size from TFTR and
JET. Perhaps their data was cloaked in secrecy because of the Cold War.

So before building ITER and spending all that time and money and hopes
and expectancy of success. It would be wise to thoroughly evaluate the
data that history has already provided starting with all the Russian
tokamaks and including every other tokamak such as TFTR and JET.

The DATUM I wish to inspect carefully and very closely is the data of
size compared to its percent breakeven. Because I suspect, don't know
for sure or any assurety, simply suspect that the optimal size of a
tokamak to have its greatest percent breakeven is not a large size but
something smaller than the size of JET.

In other words, ITER will be a failure and dud. I have this hunch
because of how efficiency goes for an electric lawnmower or chainsaw
compared to a petrol lawnmower or petrol chainsaw. Both machines are a
assemblage of Maxwell Equations, yet at a certain size the petrol
machine becomes more efficient than the electric machine. So there is a
connection between efficiency of machines and fusion. There is a
connection of efficiency and the Fusion Barrier Principle.

It is natural to think that because larger sized stars would have more
fusion activity because of the increased gravity force. But gravity is
not a assemblage of Maxwell Equations of what Tokamak machines are an
assemblage of Maxwell Equations. So it is a natural mistake and flaw of
reasoning to think that ITER will do better than JET because it is so
much bigger of a machine. When in fact, a smaller machine than JET is
the correct way to go. Keeping in mind that 2/3 breakeven is the
maximum allowed by the Fusion Barrier Principle.

So I wonder if there was a Russian tokamak of smaller size than JET
which reached say 65% or 66% breakeven. Only the Russians never
reported their results.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 5:49 am    Post subject: Re: size of ITER vs. JET and Fusion Barrier Principle Re: electric versus petrol mowers Reply with quote

Now as for stars as "machines", bigger size means better fusion. But
for "machines" here on Earth to harness fusion, apparently it is the
other direction for improving of fusion. The size of the Nagamine
fusion machine of test tube muon catalyzed fusion with its 66%
breakeven compared to the next best fusion machine of JET with its 64%
breakeven. Implies that a smaller sized tokamak scaled down from that
of JET would do 66% breakeven, and not scaling up to the size of ITER.
The wrong direction to improve tokamak fusion.

It is granted that all "machines" ( I have not defined machines) to
harness fusion on Earth, and which do not use gravity as the stars use
gravity, are fully explained by the Maxwell Equations. Maxwell
Equations explain in full both Nagamine muon fusion and JET tokamak
fusion. So if the Fusion Barrier Principle is true, then based on these
logics, ITER will perform worse than JET and come in with a result of
less than 64% breakeven.

Based on the idea that a electric lawnmower and a petrol lawnmower are
fully explained via the Maxwell equations. So if we think of a electric
lawnmower as muon fusion and a petrol lawnmower as JET, that a larger
petrol lawnmower will not be more efficient (greater breakeven) but
less efficient.

I do not recall offhand what TFTR performance was. The Princeton fusion
test reactor and I do not recall the difference in size between TFTR
and JET. But I do know that not enough good minds have fully deciphered
the data for the two and made some predictions about ITER. I am
guessing that TFTR came in the upper 50% range of breakeven.

You see, the idea of the petrol and electric lawnmowers is that both
are merely and purely the Maxwell Equations when all physics and
chemistry is reduced to lowest terms. And it is the Maxwell Equations
of electric lawnmowers that we find the most efficient lawnmower and of
a small size compared to the petrol lawnmowers. So it is this logic
that forces me to guessestimate that ITER will not improve upon JET
results but be less than JET results. And that somewhere of a smaller
size than JET can an improvement over the 64% breakeven be attained.

Now I heard that it will take 10 years to build ITER and another 10
before the "first runs". But how long would it take to build a machine
smaller than JET and have its first run?

If I am correct, then we would be better off in building both machines
as fast as possible and if the smaller JET does perform better than JET
of the1990s, then we can reevaluate the entire ITER program.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
a_plutonium
science forum addict


Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 3:26 pm    Post subject: size of ITER vs. JET and Fusion Barrier Principle Re: electric versus petrol mowers Reply with quote

someone wrote:
Quote:
On 5 May 2006 23:02:40 -0700, a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote:


That an electric lawnmower was always more
efficient and cost saving than a petrol lawnmower, but that electric
heating was never as efficient as petrol heating.


An electric motor is more efficient because it converts a greater
proportion of input energy into mechanical energy than a petrol motor.




Yes, somewhere around the size of a automobile, is the electric car not
as efficient in "power" and "work" than the petrol car. In the size of
heating a building then petrol is obviously much more efficient. But in
the size of say, lawnmower or chain saw, the electric is much more
extremely better and efficient then any petrol driven machine.

So somewhere between the size of a lawnmower to the size of a automobile
does the electric lose its power and efficiency to that of the petrol
driven machine.

I believe I have found another beautiful example of the Fusion Barrier
Principle and if so, would tell us whether ITER is going to be
increasing or decreasing from the 64% breakeven that JET reached.

Quote:
In contrast a petrol motor converts a large proportion of input energy
into waste heat.



Now the size of the machinery involved in Nagamine's muon catalyzed
fusion is the size of a testtube. And that Muon Catalyzed Fusion reached
66% breakeven. This is not good news for ITER, for it implies that the
machine size of Muon and JET favored them and that ITER will do worse
than 64% breakeven.

This may well be an example of the Fusion Barrier Principle as to
machine size, but I would have to prove that a lawnmower, chainsaws,
automobiles are all applications of Maxwell's Equations of spheres and
cylinders enclosing one another.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
hhc314@yahoo.com
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: the CIA trolls Reply with quote

Rick, take you meds, since you are obviously not playing with a full
deck of cards.

Harry C.
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:16 am    Post subject: Re: the CIA trolls Reply with quote

I usually find that only Hicks and Evangelists say stuff like: " 'nuff
said " ,

Is that you Enis? We used to make a lot of fun of your name - I'm sorry
about that.

I see you adopted a punny psuedonym for what we called you. I'm so
sorry, can I help pay for your therapy, Harold Ruister?



hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
This guy is a complete Idiot and likely psychotic.! 'Nuff said.

Harry C.
Back to top
hhc314@yahoo.com
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Refuck the CIA trolls Reply with quote

This guy is a complete Idiot and likely psychotic.! 'Nuff said.

Harry C.
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:39 pm    Post subject: Re: MKSA SI mass ..(CODATA NiST mass). Reply with quote

I always thought that momentum was a more elemental/primary/archetypal
unit than mass.

E=p*c=(m*c)*c

I kind of find it sad that this newsgroup has floundered so badly.

I blame the idiots who thought they were living in ivory towers.. and
the NAZI's in DC - and that FAT ONE ON AM - almost equally. KTFOOAM.
Kill the Fat Ugly Man with s**t spewing from his arrogant mind. RUSH?
TO WIT?

Thanks,

Rick
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Refuck the CIA trolls Reply with quote

OK - re re refuck tciat'x

How many CIA "ANAL"ists chain smoke and are alcoholic? 85-90%?

How much do you think they care about clean water and air?

How deeply are the CIA subtrefugististasisNAZI's involved in crapping
out Fusion technology and just grabbing more bucks for themselves in the
black books? Anyone seen Syriana and gots a clue?

They're so Poppy-ular in Afghanistan.

Go figure,

Hank M. Fump D. Lamma Postz

(I'm Irish/Argentinian/Italian/Polish)



so.. "GO f*** YOURSELF!" , *just quoting Cheney* (He's an
ASS/ASS/ASS/ASS from way back)
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 32 [466 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 30, 31, 32 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:34 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Prine Number thought experiment robert.w.adams@verizon.ne Math 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:31 am
No new posts A Tale of Two Clocks: A Thought Experiment Titus Piezas III Relativity 7 Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am
No new posts Help with atmospheric water vapor partial pressure experi... Dan Akers Chem 3 Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:40 pm
No new posts Two-slit experiment drspeg Research 37 Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:42 am
No new posts Liquid Nitrogen in a Swimming Pool - - - Experiment (2006) fufko@sbcglobal.net Chem 11 Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:37 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0973s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0630s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]