MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: E.g., the statement that "how could you melt the ceramic with a much higher > melting point and not the steel cylinder", or that both the ceramic and the > steel melted... Both of these are wrong. That was NEVER stated in the > report.
Yes, it was. Figs. 1-2 caption: "The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers." > . . . they are almost a sure indication that the person has NOT read the > original report; they are just parroting what they've read elsewhere. > I said that first here, and I read the report carefully, several times. Also, it helps to do a Ctrl-s search for "ceramic" (which I just did, to find it again). I will grant, I often mis-remember things. That's why God gave up Google. - Jed
