Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!
You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!
Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.
ROFL
Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.
Here is what DL posted:
" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that radiates or contaminates. "
It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say so, fool. And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics, there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction first and without creating radiation and fallout. And further, DL has demonstrated his total ignorance here. Besides this, the fool said that our current nuclear arsenal is designed to use radiation not explosive force destructive power. I suppose next you'll be telling us your butt buddy is right on that too? Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly kangaroo humping troll.
That;s obviously wrong, because the US as well as other countries have done a whole lot of research and testing on nuclear bombs since the 50s. Second, the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), isn't even a treaty, it's not in effect and won't be until enough countries have ratified it. The US and the existing nuclear club are not testing and OK with that not really because of the CTBT proposed treaty, but because we don't really need to test anymore. It's the "we've got ours, we're done, we want to stop the rest of you", concept.
Wrong, always wrong.
You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb used way out in space. You posted this:
" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that radiates or contaminates."
You're so lost and trapped in BS that you can't even remember what you posted. And of course there is no such fusion device, nor is one possible with today's understanding of physics. For a bomb, a fission reaction is needed to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.
Wrong, always wrong.
Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.
Trader4 is also easily amused.
A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.
I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.
I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point
Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.
That does seem to reflect your defective understanding of what he said, rather than any error on his part.
Since you claim that he said something that he didn't, you are the foolish troll here, not that you have the wit to realise it.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
They would, if they had one. Why create a bigger mess than you have to?
And if you are sending stuff up to outer space, you do have to worry about what might happen if it didn't make it out of the atmosphere, which does happen from time to time.
Trader4 is hopelessly lost in his bizarre misunderstandings of the stuff that other people post, and thinks that when anybody points this out, they have failed to remember posting what he thought that they posted.
It's amusing, if tedious.
Trader4 thinks that he understands the physics involved.
Odd that the National Ignition Facility doesn't need a fission reaction reaction to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.
It only creates small nuclear reactions at the moment, but that's all they need to do their job. Coping with bigger explosions would complicate their work.
Trader4 comes remarkably close to living up to his signature line.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
eep
you
ure
tsaid
er4. So is a lump of rock.
fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looki ng argument, without having enough sense to do it right.
on
s on failing to get the point
erstanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.
Scaling what up, f****it? From your own source:
"However, the conditions required to harness aneutronic fusion are much mor e extreme than those required for the conventional deuterium?tritiu m (D-T) nuclear fuel cycle. "
So, there is nothing at this point to even talk about scaling up. And more importantly: A - the conditions required are "much more extreme than those required for conventional fusion". And we know how well the conventional fusion work has gone. After over half a century of trying, we still have nothing that works or is even close to working. So how viable is something that requires much more extreme conditions?
B - this talk about aneutronic is about a small, controlled enviornment similar to what is being worked on for conventional fusion, ie trying to setup a very tiny space for a small, CONTROLLED fusion reaction to take place. We haven't even done that, but even if we did, that you can't grasp how totally different that is from what is required for an uncontrolled, massive explosion, ie a bomb, puts you in the class of DL.
The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation or fallout. And here you are, piling on, desperately trying to bailout your butt buddy. Maybe you two should get together and get your story straight. His new line is that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter and he's now accusing me of claiming it did!
ROFL
You two deserve each other.
Why are people afraid to use their real names, and then make up dorky nyms?
And why don't people discuss their electronic designs in SED? I guess they don't have names or designs.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
If Uber cars went up into space, they could just send one of those and push the asteroid out of the way. See how easy it is when you make up silly things that don't exist?
Seems with the future of life on earth about to end from an asteroid that wouldn't be high on the priority list. But of course being a silly lib, that's exactly the kind of thing you'd focus on.
Not odd that Bill doesn't understand that a controlled fusion experiment where we put in a massive amount of power, more power than we get out, to try to generate a tiny amount of fusion energy, means nothing when what we're talking about is a fusion bomb and one that has to be compact and go into space.
It would never create an actual destructive explosion at all, fool. But keep trying to bailout your butt buddy. Meanwhile, he's shifted gears, he's now claiming that radiation way out in space doesn't matter and actually accusing me of being the one who said it did! Now, ain't that special? Why don't you two get your stories straight?
ROFL
YOU post all manner of off topic things, including anything that pops into your head. You even start entire threads.
What are you complaining about? You have exactly what you practice.
-- Rick C. -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Whoey Louie wrote in news:14f56cfc-bf5e-4fc7- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Why, yes... that is exactly what you are.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:14f56cfc-bf5e-4fc7- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Immature much, putz?
Whoey Louie wrote in news:c4259aee-e017-43cb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You are the fool.
I posted tha a PURE fusion device would be clean. YOU are the one mumbling retarded baby bullshit about a remark that was never made.
And BTW, I know what we already have, and how it operates.
HOAD, f***ss.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:c4259aee-e017-43cb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
No... I said that neutron emission from a bomb in space doesn't matter. It was in response to your question about what I would do about the neutron emission. Get your story straight, punk.
Tell us, idiot... what is the half life of said neutron emission? Oh... that's right... it only lasts while it is being emitted. It is not a radioactive isotope... of anything.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:caed7da3-1c07-40eb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
More made up bullshit criteria.
It would NOT "have to be compact" you retarded f*ck. We send multi- ton payloads into orbit. Boosting a warhead toward an incoming object is a no brainer. Get a clue.
It could be a large as we want it to be. Hell, we could send multiple boosters and warheads.
:
keep
yypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you have b een going off about stupid shit for days now.
pure
hat
u said "fusion device".
d.
ader4. So is a lump of rock.
nt
at fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-loo king argument, without having enough sense to do it right.
tion
eps on failing to get the point
nderstanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.
ore extreme than those required for the conventional deuterium?trit ium (D-T) nuclear fuel cycle. "
Also from my source
"HB11 Energy, an Australian spin-off company created in September 2017, hol ds the patents of UNSW's theoretical physicist Heinrich Hora and develops a two-laser driven fusion energy technique with an avalanche reaction offeri ng a billion time increased fusion yield improvement compared to other prev ious inertial confinement fusion systems."
They may be extreme, but they also appear to be accessible. I've heard Hein rich Hora talk about the scheme, and it does seem to be practicable. Gettin g the money together to buy the bits is what spin-offs are all about.
Not that trader4 noticed. Venture capitalists do seem to have more sense th an trader4 - who doesn't - and might beg to differ, if they didn't have bet ter things to do with their time.
The Joint European Torus has been working for a decade now, and ITER should be working in 2025 and get serious - if brief - power generation by 2035. It's still a proof of principle machine, but big enough to make the next st ep an actual power generator.
Rather more viable, if Heinrich Hora is right.
I can grasp the difference without any difficulty. You clearly can't. Anybo dy who claim that physics makes fusion impossible without fusion, when we'v e been doing it for years (albeit on a small scale) really doesn't know wha t he's talking about.
A massive energy yield wouldn't be any less controlled than the tiny experi ments that are going on at the moment. You've got to scale up the process m assively, but the fact that the equipment doesn't have to survive the energ y release makes it a very different design problem, with different opportun ities.
He didn't. You chose to understand that his fusion device was a conventiona l fission-fusion-fission hydrogen bomb, which was and is entirely idiotic, and you still haven't realised that you'd set up a straw man.
If you weren't too dumb to realise that you'd misunderstood what was posted in the first place, this would be dishonest, but it's just idiotic.
Why bother? You are much happier with the story that you extracted by misun derstanding what has been posted and you are much too dumb to ever realise that it's you've got thewrong end of the stick.
's now accusing me of claiming it did!
It's perfectly obvious that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter. There are risks involved in getting a dirty bomb into space, so a clean bom b would be more attractive.
Your take on the issue is one that looks good to you, and you are too stupi d to realise that you have - as usual - misunderstood what was said.
Neither of us deserve you. But the genetic lottery does mean that there are some very stupid people around, a few with a totally unrealistic idea of t heir own competence. Public-spirited citizens have an obligation to identif y these dangerous lunatics, and we've been doing our duty.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Trader4 is the kind of idiot who would waste time doing that.
I doubt if anybody would focus on it, but people with more neurones than trader4 can keep several things in mind at once, and prioritise the risks involved.
The National Ignition Facility is required to survive each explosion intact. If you wanted a large explosion, you would have more options.
It's not designed to. Trader4 doesn't seem to understand that scaling up isn't just a process of writing larger dimension on the mechanical drawings.
You certainly invented that implication. Your capacity for convenient misunderstanding is remarkable, but it's best explained as you stumbling onto a point of view that you can run with, rather than any kind of deliberate choice.
Our stories are fine. It's sad that you can't follow them, but you were clearly born stupid, and there's nothing to be done about that.
It's easily amused.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman wrote in news:15d9cb1d-b737-480c- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Yes, and it apparently likes "rolling around" on surfaces made for our feet.
He probably kicks up dust and breathes that too. No wonder he sports issues, he has stupid putz disease.
It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of equipment and the instantaneous power of the whole country, all we can do is create fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as much energy as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up into a bomb, fool.
That's lie. You simply said that they should use a fusion bomb to avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course is wrong. Oh, and since you now claim that radiation and contamination from such a bomb out in space isn't an issue, then why didn't you say that to begin with? No, you accepted the problem and proposed using a fusion bomb, thinking it's clean. IT's not. Wrong again.
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.