Yet another new battery breakthrough

This is a non-sequitur. I was only saying that it wasn't "the big agri-industry" who "pushed MTBE on us", it was the anti-lead greenies.

But, it is true, I do believe there's way too much hysteria around lead.

Cheers! Rich

MTBE had nothing to do with lead.

MTBE was for oxygenating gasoline, or as I see it diluting it with what I would call "partially oxidized fuel". This was to make cars burn leaner to reduce carbon monoxide output.

MTBE was not the only candidate. It was chosen by the EPA over ethanol then, and many said that was due to influence by the oil lobby since MTBE can be made from some petroleum fraction.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

On tv last night I saw a researcher tie removal of lead from gasoline with a a reduction in violent crime (twenty years later). I just looked up an article:

I skimmed it, I don't see anything about the economy or unemployment rate. Rich, why the small font lately, did you get new glasses? :-) Mike

You want details? (Henry emailed Mike,) "Here is an 870 page Jan. 2007 IAEA document with lots of good info on the current status of small nuclear power stations intended for wide distribution all over the Earth. The Toshiba 4S is well covered."

Mike

Gee guys, There's risk in most things we do. 40,000 people die every year in driving accidents, should we ban cars? (Question void in California) We burn millions of tons of coal in power plants. Is the polution caused by burning coal safe for humans to breath? We pay billions of dollars for oil to people who vow to kill us. Is that a good plan to protect our health? How many people have died in nuclear power plant accidents? How many in car accidents? How many from coal polution? How many people have died at the hand of people from from oil rich countries? There are trade offs, I'll take nuclear power and good battery technology for my car. Now get on it. Mike

The Canadians vow to kill us? Even if they do, I don't think that's much of a problem! :^)

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

As far as I know, all I'm sending is plain ascii text, which has no font of its own - that's determined by your computer. (or should be).

I even just went and looked at my preferences, and there isn't even a control for that.

I did just install Slack 12.0, with a new version of pan (0.131); but that shouldn't have any effect on the ascii itself.

Does somebody want to check and see if I'm sending some kind of weird invisible HTML or something?

Thanks, Rich

Looks like plain text from here.

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Your font size on my computer #10 everyone elses is #14. I don't know why. Mike

Me either - not only do I not have any kind of setting to send anything but plain vanilla ASCII, but my own display is set to #12.

Thanks, Rich

Your headers say: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I suspect either of two things: The receiver doesn't have a 14 point font for that charset so his system substitutes a 10 point font that it does have.

The receiver's UI has options to display different type fonts in different sizes and he has UTF-8 set for 10 point.

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer\'s.  I hate spam.

I have three computers that I use regularly, I'm sure two of them ( and I think all three ) print Rich's posts in the small font, and only Rich's posts. Everyone else's posts are larger. Twenty years this wouldn't make any difference, hmm, two reasons, my eyes were better and I wasn't on the internet twenty years ago. :-) Mike

Thanks - this pretty much settles it.

I just noticed, I've been getting empty posts from Richard Henry - what do his headers say? (others seem to be seeing them; Richard's original post shows up in the followups).

This could be an artifact of my latest greatest upgrade - I'm seriously tempted to go back to last version of Pan.

Thanks! Rich

The design I heard about a few years back was a telephone pole sized core to be dropped, encapsulated, in a hole in the ground. The composition and fuel density of the core was such that a reaction was not possible. To make a reaction go, a sliding reflector had to be in place around the outside of the core. With the reflector in place, the core would run, but not so fast that the containment would fail even if coolant were to be lost (it may be that coolant was also needed as a moderator, don't remember). Eventually, the fuel in the region covered by the reflector would be spent, and the reaction would stop. To keep it going, the reflector was designed to very slows slide down the core over the life of the unit. If it stopped sliding, the reaction stops. If it slides to fast, it simply gets to the bottom too soon and the life is shortened.

The idea is that they designed out any risks they could think of.

The question is what risks they didn't think of.

Theft and use in a dirty bomb.

Stealing a telephone pole sized solid object buried in the ground is not trivial. And once you've stolen it, you probably need to figure out how to break it up into manageable chunks, then clean up that mess and package the results.

But yes, this design predated the current prominence of that concern.