RE: So.. what moron said... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/20/2016 12:12:32 PM)

Why is this shit still being debated?



Tkman117 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/20/2016 12:24:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Why is this shit still being debated?


It's not, the idiot just can't accept the fact that there are people smarter than him that found mountains of evidence that go against his fantasy idea of the way the world works.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/20/2016 1:01:16 PM)

And once again junior birdman resorts to personal attacks rather than suffer the mental anguish of science that challenges his preferred fantasy.



tj444 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/20/2016 2:05:06 PM)

~~ FR ~~

So.. let's say climate change doesnt exist.. what exactly would be so wrong with becoming as sustainable as possible? what would be so wrong with using less energy? what would be so wrong with eating less meat? what would be so wrong with using less chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, etc? (the FDA is finally gonna test for round-up in food you eat).. what exactly would be so wrong with not being so friggin' greedy and selfish and leave more of the worlds resources, clean water, clean air, etc to future generations??? what exactly would be so wrong with that?



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/20/2016 2:13:37 PM)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly climate changes.

If you want to debate other topics - such as pesticides, herbicides, I am happy to do so. If you wish to make the argument that we should do a better job of sheparding the planet - I agree with you. [Surprise!]
I don't see the point of doing it in this thread, which is specifically to debate the the IPCC AGW global warming.



tj444 -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/22/2016 10:56:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly climate changes.

If you want to debate other topics - such as pesticides, herbicides, I am happy to do so. If you wish to make the argument that we should do a better job of sheparding the planet - I agree with you. [Surprise!]
I don't see the point of doing it in this thread, which is specifically to debate the the IPCC AGW global warming.



Its something people & companies should be doing anyway, but it seems with capitalism here it takes govt intervention to force that on us.. (& usually with govt intervention, it never goes far enough soon enough).. and your first post in this thread was about Kerry (the moron), not specifically about the IPCC until you changed the subject to that (from Kerry).. so I changed the subject to what we should be doing to not squander the worlds health and resources.. threads can and do change, ya know.. they dont just always go in the direction you want.. just sayin'...



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/23/2016 5:33:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly climate changes.

If you want to debate other topics - such as pesticides, herbicides, I am happy to do so. If you wish to make the argument that we should do a better job of sheparding the planet - I agree with you. [Surprise!]
I don't see the point of doing it in this thread, which is specifically to debate the the IPCC AGW global warming.



Its something people & companies should be doing anyway, but it seems with capitalism here it takes govt intervention to force that on us.. (& usually with govt intervention, it never goes far enough soon enough).. and your first post in this thread was about Kerry (the moron), not specifically about the IPCC until you changed the subject to that (from Kerry).. so I changed the subject to what we should be doing to not squander the worlds health and resources.. threads can and do change, ya know.. they dont just always go in the direction you want.. just sayin'...


Fair enough.

Although I wonder what you think "it" is that companies and people "should" be researching. The implication is "clean energy". But thats an implication I don't think is actually extant.

Generally speaking, according to the yale and other reports, if you just spend money into the economy for 50 years, remediating as necessary, the results are better than if you spend it on clean energy.

I have a hard time with "should". Companies and people "should" do what make them money and or happy.

What if you think we will have fusion energy within 10 years. "Should" we invest in solar energy? The answer is pretty clearly "no"...



mnottertail -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 7:01:51 AM)

The answer is clearly yes, not no.

Right now, I think that any nuke stuff, let alone coal, as well as the whole infrastructure is not even a glimmer in the eye of our defense really, it should be, because if I was going to terrorize America in a big way, I would blow a few nuke reactors that are right in our big cities.

That would be catastrophic.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 8:36:03 AM)

Fusion has no radioactive issues as fission does. It shouldn't fall into your category of "nuke stuff'.



mnottertail -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 8:43:40 AM)

Uh, yeah, ok, but fuck no. First, fusion gives off hella buncha neutrons............not good for the old flesh and blood, knocking our atoms around like that. All you have to do is let them out of containment..............

You may have heard the term 'neutron bomb', or more likely 'Jimmy Neutron', well, in the real world a neutron bomb leaves buildings standing, water uncontaminated, good air to breathe, and kills every living thing. You sort of just tip over.


You got all that chem right? you can count it. Never mind the physics, its still chem there.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 1:21:26 PM)

1. Not necessarily 2 (2D) fused to He produces no neutrons, nor protons.
What gets produced depends on the nature of the rx.

2. Unlike fission, where radioactive by products are created until the material decays to a stable product (usually thousands of years), fusion stops producing neutrons at the moment the reaction is interrupted. Regardless, huge power generated, the extreme temperatures, only tiny amounts of fusion occurs. There are no neutron storms where you have a chain accelerating rx. Ie., fusion reactions (in a reactor) produce 1 neutron. In summary, contrary to your comic book opinion, the number of neutron in a reactor is vanishingly small - as opposed to neutron bombs - which are clad in materials designed to increase the neutron shedding.

a 1500 GW reactor would consume on the order of 1 kg of fusion material per day, whereas a single bomb may be between 5 and 50 kg fired at once. Your idea that neutron bombs were designed to kill people and leave buildings etc intack is wrong.
Originally, neutron bombs were intended as counters to either other war heads, or as counters to soviet tank crews. Humans survive neutron blasts up to 5 times stronger than those that will destroy buildings. But tanks, while giving good resistance to blast, radioactive fallout, and heat - have little resistance to neutrons. Plus neutron bombs made the tanks radioactive



MrRodgers -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 7:13:07 PM)

BTW there at at last count, about 6 viable cold fusion reactors being dev. ask we write, all financed by venture capital for displacement of current fission nuke plants. These are quite purposefully going beyond just research but to practical applications.

Also, there is currently a cold fusion D-D (deuterium-deuterium) desk top reactor being dev. as we write that in 5 years could be viable energy source for the home. The fuel source is hydrogen and the by-product is hydrogen.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/24/2016 9:54:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

BTW there at at last count, about 6 viable cold fusion reactors being dev. ask we write, all financed by venture capital for displacement of current fission nuke plants. These are quite purposefully going beyond just research but to practical applications.

Also, there is currently a cold fusion D-D (deuterium-deuterium) desk top reactor being dev. as we write that in 5 years could be viable energy source for the home. The fuel source is hydrogen and the by-product is hydrogen.


Yeah, I'm actually think the private, small fusion reactors will have more efficiency that they huge government grants/ programs.
Several of these designs have made really innovative progress.



MrRodgers -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 5:26:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

BTW there at at last count, about 6 viable cold fusion reactors being dev. ask we write, all financed by venture capital for displacement of current fission nuke plants. These are quite purposefully going beyond just research but to practical applications.

Also, there is currently a cold fusion D-D (deuterium-deuterium) desk top reactor being dev. as we write that in 5 years could be viable energy source for the home. The fuel source is hydrogen and the by-product is hydrogen.


Yeah, I'm actually think the private, small fusion reactors will have more efficiency that they huge government grants/ programs.
Several of these designs have made really innovative progress.

I am not a subscriber, (TIME) got the issue from a friend but here's a short synopsis if anyone cares.

HERE

Furthermore just to clarify if I understand the process correctly. A so-called neutron bomb is a relatively massive triggered discharge of neutrons at a target. Whereas neutrons from a cold fusion reactor are slight, accumulate over time, collected in tritium and are only a slight un-concentrated danger should the reactor develop a fairly sizable leak, the chances of which are slight and less then the risks associated with current uranium fission reactors any accident leaking from which, would be exponentially more dangerous.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 8:49:37 AM)

By the way - for a fascinating review of "cold fusion" try : http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr151/34.pdf



mnottertail -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 9:07:18 AM)

duplicated by editing, post follows.



mnottertail -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 9:20:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, which make me off by an order of 10% and you by an order of 250%. and no, it is 997.903 grams. Numbers are important.

Thanks, for pointing out your innumeracy.

I have pointed out the risk in blowing a fusion plant. You have given us foolish hallucinations, said they were not nuke, and hand us some asswipe about 2.2 pounds of material a day from some unreliable source that it is not in our purview to know, and I see no numbers like that in the commercial materials use. (which are not included, since we still await your unlearned citations) Dont dig your hole any deeper my untutored friend.

http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/fusion_power.aspx
https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/new-how-much-power-is-needed-to-start-the-reactor-and-to-keep-it-working/

Now, again, there are doubts that such a reactor is in the near offing, and while the neutrons would be less than the first generation reactors (not commercially viable) they still would be great. tell you what, you carry around a seconds worth of that reaction in your pocket. You will die quicker than Mme. Curie did carrying around radium.

But who gives a fuck, we have the risk today, a big one, we fiddle while Rome burns, its the nutsuckers. And while not nearly as dangerous as fission reactors, they are fucking dangerous. Bomb it and break it, and it will kill thousands.


You say only a few seconds of halocaust is of no concern.

I have never said that I was comparing the two, that is your pure strawman nutsuckerism. I never said you said a fucking thing about coal plants, and there can be no disagreement that a fission plant would be more devastating than a fusion plant, but then a million ton atomic bomb is always more devastating than a 1 ton atomic bomb. You are jacking off with words you are poorly constructing to save yourself from saying moronic shit.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
here you go, though, build one, this is just fuck around, you will notice that they have more than drywall and paper stopping the excited neutrons from getting out, gee, I wonder why? I was told by an untutored innumerate that it was not dangerous, not a nuke and all sorts of other ignorant shit.

Here is a definition that meets the necessary and sufficient conditions of a neutron bomb.

A neutron bomb, officially termed one type of Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), is a low yield thermonuclear weapon in which a burst of neutrons generated by a nuclear fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components.
Thats all.






PeonForHer -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 9:24:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Why is this shit still being debated?


It's a USA-dominated forum.



Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 11:12:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, which make me off by an order of 10% and you by an order of 250%. and no, it is 997.903 grams. Numbers are important.


Thereby revealing your lack of math skills. the difference between 1 hundredth of a gram per second and a tenth of a gram a second is a 900% increase - not 10%.

The larger point - which you are obfuscating - is that your claim of huge numbers of neutrons, especially your representation that it is anywhere comparable to fission - is not even in the same ball park.

Numerical precision, in the absence of ridiculous imponderables (size of reactor, reactor mechanism, reactor efficiency) is ridiculous. This is the difference between accuracy and precision. One cannot layout what the consumption per second will be except as an engieering guess.

But one can say, with complete accuracy, is that there is no comparison between the risks fissile and fusion neutron production.
quote:



And while not nearly as dangerous as fission reactors,


By which you are acknowledging you were wrong

quote:

they are fucking dangerous. Bomb it and break it, and it will kill thousands.


And still are. A couple of hundred is a possibility, if cited appropriately. Thousands is ridiculous conjecture. What the hell do you think is going to kill people? A one time explosion might kill plant workers but Tritium escapes to the atmosphere and is lighter than air - and rapidly decays.
quote:



here you go, though, build one, this is just fuck around, you will notice that they have more than drywall and paper stopping the excited neutrons from getting out,


And? The question of drywall/ mm of aluminum was to address your representation that tritium was a dangerous radioactive material. When in fact, it is not. It is commonly used and well understood.

quote:


Here is a definition that meets the necessary and sufficient conditions of a neutron bomb.

A neutron bomb, officially termed one type of Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), is a low yield thermonuclear weapon in which a burst of neutrons generated by a nuclear fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components.
Thats all.


Which is exactly what I said it was - the neutrons are not used with a yield enhancing 2nd or 3rd stage. As such, neutron bombs are *less* effective at killing people than regular warheads, since the blast radius is significantly less. And the radius of killing people is much smaller than the radius of destroying buildings. Some people survive 20-25 kPa blasts - buildings are often destroyed at 5kPa.






mnottertail -> RE: So.. what moron said... (2/25/2016 11:34:27 AM)

So, what post did you finally admit that everything in the prior posts you said was incorrect when you supposedly made the *less* post? give me that number.

I accept your apology, at least you are consistent being factless and incorrect simultaneously in nearly every post.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875