lol Just as long as you don't get to censor everyone's else's responses to your musings.
Fission, indeed... the whole POINT of cold fusion is to NOT 'do fission'. Pfft. On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: > I use outlook for e-mails.How do you block certain senders? > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:40 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Nuclear fission has a lot of critics, and rightly so ... but all of the >> problems of fission derive from trying to control a multi-ton critical mass >> of explosively enriched U in a steam pressurized reactor. Even with that >> major design problem, the French have demonstrated to the rest of the World >> that fission can make economic sense. >> >> Even with Fukushima still smoldering, we must consider that an improved >> version of nuclear fission can make great economic sense. This is >> especially true for countries without much oil. When the electric car goes >> into mass production at lower cost (soon) off-peak recharging is a feature >> which makes fission more economically viable in the 'big picture'. >> >> A "new and improved" version of fission means ditching enrichment, going >> subcritical, going small and modular and with direct conversion of heat to >> electricity. It is easily possible that fission can be made preferable to >> hot fusion in every way, and less costly than any other option including >> coal and cold fusion, if Pd is required. > > > I hear they're getting energy out of windmills and solar panels too, these > days. > > > > > >
