Actually, you always have choices. Your leaders tell you to go to war, get new leaders. Or leave the country. No small number of people did that during the Vietnam war.
Bottom line is people do what they want. Mostly people want to go to war while no one chooses to be struck by an asteroid. Wouldn't matter if you did. I guess that's one case where you don't have a choice. lol
-- Rick C. --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
nd
The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature o f the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of mat ter is not at all the same thing.
The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the m atter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the en ergy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.
-- Rick C. --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
nd
The temperature of the cosmic background radiation is not the temperature o f the hydrogen. To argue that this temperature can only be measured of mat ter is not at all the same thing.
The energy has a temperature. It can be measured. No need to invoke the m atter that created it. If you do, then go another step and consider the en ergy that gave rise to the matter. No, don't. It's a silly argument even used once. No need to apply reductio ad absurdum.
-- Rick C. --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Trader4 is rather better entitled to the title than DLUNU.
The first fusion weapon was very dirty indeed, because the uranium bomb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, which was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.
The neutrons released by deuterium fusion caused fission in the natural uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.
A hydrogen bomb designed for civil engineering work could be a lot less dirty.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
t you are talking about. In this case I can point to the cosmic background
way involve matter.
It consists of microwave photons, and the only way that you can observe the ir temperature is to expose matter to them. Each photon does have a specifi c wavelength and energy content, and if you sample a lot of them you can wo rk out the apparent temperature of the mass that emitted them, but no singl e photon in the cosmic microwave background radiation has an individual "te mperature".
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
idea, you double down.
In the same way that you are doing here.
et it has a temperature.
It's photons, which do have mass (if not a lot) and none of the individual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an ener gy content, but that's not a "temperature".
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
But deliver a lot of energy per unit mass.
Not in the same way that we have nuclear launch systems capable of delivering nuclear warheads to paces on earth.
Asteroids don't have defensive systems, and we do have hardware capable of delivering instrument packages to passing comets. Putting together one big enough to deliver a hydrogen bomb wouldn't require much in the way of development.
This might be true of explosions within the atmosphere.
If you wanted to maximise the energy transfer into the asteroid, you'd deliver a drilling rig with the bomb, and bury it inside the asteroid before you set it off.
In the ideal case, you'd blow it in half, dividing the energy content of the bomb into two equal halves manifested as the kinetic energy of each half of the asteroid, which does generate the maximum momentum difference for give amount of energy.
E= m.V^2/2 and momentum = m.V
radiated energy isn't going to change the orbital path of the asteroid, and a blast wave consisting of small mass of particles moving very fast isn't all that much more effective.
Who cares? If it doesn't hit the earth you don't have to worry about it, and if it did, radioactive contamination wouldn't be the major problem.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Fields - as such - don't have energy. Particles travelling through fields can gain or lose energy, but claiming that a field has a "temperature" strikes me as odd.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
and
of the hydrogen.
In fact is the temperature of that hydrogen, redshifted down by quite a lot .
ll the same thing.
Temperature is all about the distribution of energy in a population of part icles. It doesn't exist in any other context.
How? Spell out the steps involved.
Only if you can't understand the concepts invovled
the matter.
How would that help? E=m.c^2 does show up in a lot in misunderstood physi cs, but it does tend to be unhelpful.
tio ad absurdum.
Rick C produces his own silly argument. Temperature is about energy distrib ution and implies the existence of a lot of particles whose energy has been measured.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
How do we know the surface temperature of the sun ? Did someone put a thermometer in it ?
If we look at the solar spectrum of sunlight it has a spectral peak in yellow near 0.5 um and some radiation at slightly shorter wavelengths and a long tail towards longer wavelengths. This looks like the typical black body radiation of an object at 6000 K so we conclude that the solar surface temperature is 6000 K.
We have now detected some microwave radiation at about 2000 times longer wavelengths i.e. 1000 um or 1 mm (300 GHz) with something on the shorter wavelengths and a long tail on longer wavelengths. An object at about 3 K has the same black body spectrum, so we say that the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature is 3 K (actually
2.7K). If we accept the theory about the expansion of the universe, this could be explained with doppler red shifting of some higher temperature black body in the past.The temperature of an object in an airless environment e.g.a satellite is determined solely by the radiation balance with the environment. It receives radiated energy from all objects (including the sun) and radiates energy into all directions, (including toward the much higher temperature sun). The object finally reaches an equilibrium temperature at which the out radiated energy is the same as the incoming radiation from all sources. The outgoing spectrum corresponds to the black body temperature of the object.
In 2014 according to a press release associated with the North Korea press agency claimed that their astronaut had landed on the dark side of the sun.
Hopefully their astronaut also made some direct.temperature measurement at the landing site.
However, how relevant are those measurements on the dark side of the sun is for the daytime sun temperatures :-) :-) :-)
Unfortunately the N. Korea story was a fake news made up by a satirical site, but would have been as believable as real press releases from North Korea press office at that time.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You are an idiot. They are quite possible.
The simple fact is that the CTBT keeps us from knowing anything about it since we have not done any reearch or testing since the '50s. Designs for battle theater use would be keyed toward that use.
A design for this application would be a huge device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently relies on.
And any new design would be keyed toward small theater irradiation, not explosive destruction. Tactical devices.
So, yeah, idiot... WE would have to design and use a custom device for the pupose, and note that you will go stick your head between your legs, except that you are too fat for that task, and kiss your ass goodbye because you are no part of "WE".
And then finally, it would NOT work as WE already know that simply breaking it up would only make things worse.
So all you have done is prove that you are too stupid to know anything about it.
ROFL. Yes, but you of course know about it.
That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect. The exception would be whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction, not to create radiation.
And second, any fool would know that a "huge device", would not be suited to the application of sending it into space to meet an asteroid on a course with earth.
Wrong, always wrong.
g idea, you double down.
yet it has a temperature.
l photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an en ergy content, but that's not a "temperature".
Photons don't have mass, stupid.
Figures that you'd chime in on the wrong side to try to help your butt buddy.
Less dirty is still dirty, stupid. This is what DL posted:
" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that radiates or contaminates."
There is no known way and probably isn't a way period, to create a nuclear fusion explosion without using a nuclear fission reaction to start it and it starts it with a huge release of radiation, which is what gets the fusion going. And you get plenty of fallout too. Funny how some nuclear plant somewhere has a fart and you libs run around with your hair on fire. But DL comes along and claims that a nuclear fusion bomb doesn't radiate or contaminate, and you just right on board the ignorance train. Keep making up crazy stuff with DL. Soon you'll be always wrong too.
a l
is
r
at
ong idea, you double down.
nd yet it has a temperature.
ual photons has a "temperature". Each of them has a wavelength and thus an energy content, but that's not a "temperature".
The stupidity is all yours. They have energy, and energy has mass.
E=m.v^2 works both ways. Photons don't have much mass, but they do have s ome.
How do you think a light sail works?
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
rote:
et
from
mit
ddy.
I'm not all that fond of DLUNU, but he does get stuff right from time to ti me, which trader4 doesn't.
used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, whi ch was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.
uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.
dirty.
The Joint European Torus creates nuclear fusion without a nuclear fission r eaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a proof
-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.
uses a lot of lasers to create a very small fusion explosion.
is about a scheme that uses two laser flashes in combination to fuse lithiu m and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem conf ident that it can be made to work.
tDLUNU was talking about a fusion bomb that would have been designed not gen erate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear explosi ves for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothing go t built or tested that I've heard about.
I'm afraid that you are the crazy here - you have this lunatic delusion tha t you know what you are talking about.
Cursitor Doom thinks that already, but he does specialise in delusions that make him feel good.
-- Bill Sloman. Sydney
rse
dhat
t from
elimit
rbuddy.
time, which trader4 doesn't.
mb used to initiate nuclear fusion was surrounded by liquified deuterium, w hich was itself enclosed in a five ton natural uranium tamper.
al uranium tamper, which was responsible for 77% of the final yield.
ss dirty.
ear
reaction to start the process. It doesn't create an explosion - it's a pro of-of -principle device designed to lead to sustained power generation.
ium and hydrogen. It's ingenious, and the people pushing the scheme seem co nfident that it can be made to work.
It's an experimental design to create what amounts to a very tiny fusion reaction, in the hopes of being able to create a viable fusion reactor someday, with controlled fusion. It had nothing to do with a large nuclear EXPLOSION, eg a fusion bomb that would be needed to destroy an asteroid, f****it. You're becoming just like DL, mixing together, confl ating a pile of BS piled on top of more BS.
ir
n't
.enerate a lot of radioactivity. The people who wanted to use nuclear explo sives for civil did some work on such devices a long time ago, but nothing got built or tested that I've heard about.
What your butt buddy actually posted was this:
" they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that radiates or contaminates. "
There is no such thing.
hat you know what you are talking about.
at make him feel good.
No one here is wrong as much as DL. He's always wrong. And sadly you're too stupid to realize it.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:aeb5bbdc-55c6-459f- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Bullshit. Critical mass temperatures can easily be reached now, compared to when your examples were made.
I am not the only one pointing this out to you either, chump.
Our understanding?
*You* really are an idiot. *We* understand just fine.Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
They do not.
You, you stupid f*ck... YOU have it wrong.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.