Slim Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Wow! you really search my head...... seeing as you have no proof to the contrary of professional work I have been involved in..... in the past or now I guess makes me a total liar then..... who am I except another poster who has asked you to produce some credible evidence that can put my words to shame...... explain the difference between fusion and fission to me then and how molecules react to each other under both conditions? Once we have a common understanding over this can we move on..... you are telling me you are the expert by the way..... I will take my guide from you and tell you how wrong you are.... you must have at least a degree in this to know what you are talking about. Jake, I'm assuming you're either smoking crack or a troll now. I don't need a degree in anything to explain the difference between fusion and fission, that's a GCSE physics level question at best. Fusion is joining, fission is splitting. All applications of power generation in use today are using fission. There is research into fusion reactors as you linked, but that's all it is, research. There has never been more power generated from fusion than has been put in to create that fusion. It's pie in the sky stuff. Now, tell me how I'm wrong, with examples please. Real world ones, not imaginary examples. I really don't care if you believe me about China and India or not...... they will become apparent soon but neither will be responsible for a change in the global climate like the Americans aren't either..... the Americans seem to be responsible for all the earthly wrongs lately but the only ones prepared to lose their own in the face of keeping a world police force..... crap on America all you want..... I would pull my Country out of the EU and ally myself 100% to America any day..... Simply because I trust the Americans more than I trust Europe.Some people in the world realize that global warming cannot be avoided. If anyone wants to look me up then feel free to do so.... I can send a business link via PM..... I am so looking forward to seeing yours Slim. . You're just talking meaningless bollocks opinion. I've been quite careful to cite my sources, you're just posting off the top of your head, and it all appears to be a bunch of arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Wow! you really search my head...... seeing as you have no proof to the contrary of professional work I have been involved in..... in the past or now I guess makes me a total liar then..... who am I except another poster who has asked you to produce some credible evidence that can put my words to shame...... explain the difference between fusion and fission to me then and how molecules react to each other under both conditions? Well, if you're claiming that you have been involved in constructing a working fusion reactor capable of generating power in a useful (rather than experimental) sense then yes, you are a massive liar. You can attempt to bully those who question you with links to your business all you want, but the very fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between fusion and fission, or the stage technology in the former case has reached suggests that even if you have been involved in the construction of an experimental reactor it has not been in the capacity of a nuclear engineer or physicist (i.e. those most qualified to speak on the matter). By the way, fusion does not operate on the molecular level, and how those molecules react to one another is a chemical reaction, quite different from and less powerful than what happens in fusion when the nuclei of atoms are joined together, releasing a considerable amount of energy in the process (due to the disparity of the sum mass of two individual nuclei and the resulting fused nuclei manifesting as energy, as detailed in Einstein's famous equation). Fission is easier than fusion because it requires only to stimulate spontaneous fission via a bombardment of neutrons, whilst the latter involves overcoming the large repelling forces involved in fusing nuclei together. I just thought you should know that for the next fusion reactor you decide to build - stirring two substances together in a bin with a really big stick is not fusion. you must have at least a degree in this to know what you are talking about. Which you clearly don't, that much is obvious from what you've said so far. You can challenge as many people as you like to a duel of business cards or credentials, but it wont change the very simple and very obvious fact that on this matter you are wrong. Off topic: I tend to share an element of Albert's hopeful skepticism regarding fusion. The 40-50 years prediction sounds a bit shonky and I overheard a few theoretical physicists a few years back grumbling that fusion is another bandwagon, like nanotechnology, that is a little out of hand (in so much as it diverts funds away from research that could have demonstrably more immediate, if less glamorous beneficial applications). I doubt, however, that global warming plays that great a part in the attraction of policy makers. The real attraction of fusion to Governments is that it's very labour intensive, is guarranteed to attract major international investment, and has potentially lucrative spin off technologies even if the main aims fail in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 If any of you think I will sit here and add comment after comment to every post you fill then you are more silly than you accuse me of. Slim..... you need educating as your grasp of physics comes straight off the internet...... Vinnie, I get the impression you have a bit more about you. You know slim..... calling people names is very childish indeed. It gets you no where and makes you look very silly..... ask a reasonable question and I may be able to give you a reasonable answer, as long as I lay off the crack that is, I am assuming you are talking from experience here. Let me make it plain that I am not involved in nuclear physics..... I have a great interest in it.... I am mechanical based by all accounts.... I do however play a hand in construction of events. http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/393 tell me this organization do not exist along with fusion..... this is exactly what I want to see happen..... and by the way, I am far from thick and the bits I add to the equation..... a nuclear physicist would never be able to wrap his head around..... that is a specific profession whereas mine is more diverse.... and I am in greater demand. Look..... structure this debate now it has changed..... ask a question and direct it specifically..... all this quoting every word of each other is something I won't put up with so I have to spend all my time making an individual feel special. Say..... Jake, tell me this specific thing? If I can't answer then I will say so..... it has never been a problem for me before but unless you release your credentials and quote a source you are affiliated to then you have no credibility in my eyes.... why should I waste my energy with you..... by all means lets battle it out as they say but do it with a modicum of decorum. I know I am right..... it is up to others to prove me wrong here..... a bit like the climate change "experts" in my book..... I can buy one of them off the shelf in Tesco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Slim..... you need educating as your grasp of physics comes straight off the internet...... Educate me then Jake, show me an active working Nuclear Fusion plant. Anywhere in the world, just link it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoracle Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 If any of you think I will sit here and add comment after comment to every post you fill then you are more silly than you accuse me of. read: oh shit, ive been found out and i am barely treading water now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 From what I know the longest sustainable fusion reaction lasted 5 seconds. ITER in 10 years time will be able to sustain it for about 5 to 10 mins. This is impressive when you think that what they are doing is putting the sun inside a box - but when compared to generating usable power its not exactly inspiring. Jake, if you are working on this stuff I'd have thought you'd find better links! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dear Jake, If you could harness some of the egos on here, such as Mr Slim and Mr VinnieK, then the world energy problems just wouldn't exist. Unfortunately you can't so you'll just have to massage them as expected. No charge (sorry!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 What's wrong, PK - feeling neglected underneath your rock? Jake's statement is wrong, plain and simple. That you are happy to ignore this fact just to have a cheap shot, without making any contribution whatsoever to the discussion, at Slim and I shows just how pathetic you are, although it wasn't really that well hidden to begin with. Off you go now, back into the barely coherent drooling stupor you call a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 What's wrong, PK - feeling neglected underneath your rock? Jake's statement is wrong, plain and simple. That you are happy to ignore this fact just to have a cheap shot, without making any contribution whatsoever to the discussion, at Slim and I shows just how pathetic you are, although it wasn't really that well hidden to begin with. Off you go now, back into the barely coherent drooling stupor you call a life. Looks like a direct hit...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Looks like a direct hit...... Ah, so you are a pointless troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia P Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Calm down everyone - no need to debate with Jake, because it has become pretty obvious that he is an AMERICAN. (And someone explain to him the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide) And yes, the Americans are dumb. I'm not asking them to eat less, make smaller cars, switch off some lights (though that would be nice) - just to, as Vinnie points out - use their power, money, and technological expertise to LEAD the world into new ways of providing energy and combatting climate change. They could do it almost overnight. We need their lead. They need a leader. China? Yes, still building coal fired power stations, they need to, to keep up with hugely expanding economy. But they are not stupid. They know they will be the WORLD POWER of the next few hundred years and need a sustainable world to live in. They are already building carbon neutral towns, their emission standards for vehicles are higher than USA, they are much more on the ball than most countries, and once they get over the urgent short termism of their current boom they will lead. The world will be theirs, very soon, and the "Western Empire" of the last few hundred years is doomed, because the USA has not shown the leadership it was capable of. Tumbleweed, dust bowls and the Grapes of Wrath are all they will inherit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Calm down everyone - no need to debate with Jake, because it has become pretty obvious that he is an AMERICAN I think I saw somewhere that Jake was Welsh. Never mind, they are similar i.e. insular, insulated, non-English speaking etc. And yes, the Americans are dumb. I'm not asking them to eat less, make smaller cars, switch off some lights (though that would be nice) - just to, as Vinnie points out - use their power, money, and technological expertise to LEAD the world into new ways of providing energy and combatting climate change. I thought the US emissions policy was to "anticipate the technology" and basically change nothing until it arrives? By the way, for "anticipate the technology" read "it has to be cheap" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Calm down everyone - no need to debate with Jake, because it has become pretty obvious that he is an AMERICAN. (And someone explain to him the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide) And yes, the Americans are dumb. I'm not asking them to eat less, make smaller cars, switch off some lights (though that would be nice) - just to, as Vinnie points out - use their power, money, and technological expertise to LEAD the world into new ways of providing energy and combatting climate change. They could do it almost overnight. We need their lead. They need a leader. China? Yes, still building coal fired power stations, they need to, to keep up with hugely expanding economy. But they are not stupid. They know they will be the WORLD POWER of the next few hundred years and need a sustainable world to live in. They are already building carbon neutral towns, their emission standards for vehicles are higher than USA, they are much more on the ball than most countries, and once they get over the urgent short termism of their current boom they will lead. The world will be theirs, very soon, and the "Western Empire" of the last few hundred years is doomed, because the USA has not shown the leadership it was capable of. Tumbleweed, dust bowls and the Grapes of Wrath are all they will inherit. haha! you actually show yourself up for being dumb here Virginia (sounds quite American to me) I am not American honey, I am a Welshman, born and bred.... I attended Birkenhead High public school, spent six years in the Royal Marines and achieved two Bsc (hons) degrees in mechanical and mechatronic engineering.... I can't bring myself to answer some of the questions on here. You say that America are the worst polluters yet you defend Chinas right to overtake them.... you do realize that China borders on the third world in technology.... I should know, I sell them technology from the 60/70's era and they cannot get enough of it. This Govt. has a strict policy on shipping modern technology abroad as it can be reconstructed into weapons manufacture. You need to look up Chinas race to become part of the modern world and how their smog filled Cities are killing their people..... well, the ones who cannot afford breathing aids to go outside. You have proved you are an idiot to me. The idiot that should be made to pay for the kind of policies you wish to see introduced and leave the rest of us out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I can't answer the questions on here. Fixed your post, there's no charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 What a weird thread this is turning out to be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.