In reply to Joseph S. Barrera III's message of Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:42:21 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On 4/29/2013 8:54 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
>
> > A bit of both. The headline seems to promise the reader a
>breakthrough that doesn't appear -
>
>I can agree with that.
>
> > and is this technological effort
On 4/29/2013 8:54 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
> A bit of both. The headline seems to promise the reader a
breakthrough that doesn't appear -
I can agree with that.
> and is this technological effort a bit redundant?
We don't know yet. As long as we don't, I think exploring multiple
options is pr
Article writers rarely write the headlines. It's a sad truth about journalism.
Do y'all find fault with the article, or just the headline?
A bit of both. The headline seems to promise the reader a breakthrough that
doesn't appear - and is this technological effort a bit redundant?
On 4/29/2013 6:31 AM, Chris Zell wrote:
> Thank you. When I read the article I wondered if I had missed the
"breakthrough" somehow.
It was a project planning milestone, not a scientific breakthough.
"This week the project gained final approval for the design of the most
technically challengi
Thank you. When I read the article I wondered if I had missed the
"breakthrough" somehow.
From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:25 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:13 GigaFLOPs
Don't you know? Science a
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Hot Fusion (if it is even possible in practice, it is very possibly just a
> pipe dream) is only cleaner than light water fission reactors.
Advanced light water reactors may be cleaner and safer. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf
- Jed
On Apr 28, 2013, at 5:55 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> Perhaps it is reasonable to call this kind of fusion clean in relation to
> fission, but the label makes it easy to lose sight of the fact that it is not
> all that clean.
>
Hot Fusion (if it is even possible in practice, it is very possibly j
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
Not to mention Hot Fusion's dirty little secret -- all those neutrons make
> the entire structure radioactive which the wiki article describes as a
> "very short halflife" of FIFTY YEARS !!!
>
I noticed that. The article ref
> From: "Terry Blanton"
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:16:24 PM
>
> Sometimes a flop is just a flop.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-ch
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>> What a joke this is.
>
> Propaganda?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> What a joke this is.
Propaganda?
What a joke this is. The "breakthrough" is simply a lie - or a novel way to
issue hyper-inflated PR in order to get more taxpayer funding for a loser
project.
Even OTEC is making more sense these days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lfrWE61EeQY
Wonder why the geniuses at L
Don't you know? Science and politics are identical!
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Sometimes a flop is just a flop.
>
> "One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in
> the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age
> of cl
Sometimes a flop is just a flop.
"One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in
the quest for nuclear fusion, a solution to climate change and an age
of clean, cheap energy
It may be the most ambitious scientific venture ever: a global
collaboration to create an unlimited s
14 matches
Mail list logo
