Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu ; caver1 wrote: > Bill Baka wrote: >> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying wing >> stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many computers. >> The space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'. >> Bill ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 258

Thread: Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash.

  1. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying wing
    >> stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many computers.
    >> The space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    >
    > So then the space shuttle is a good case in point as to trusting computers.
    > caver1


    Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    Bill Baka

  2. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying wing
    >>> stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many computers.
    >>> The space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >>
    >> So then the space shuttle is a good case in point as to trusting computers.
    >> caver1

    >
    > Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    > unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    > before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    > Bill Baka


    That wasn't the point. The point was that man can trust computers as
    much as he can trust himself.
    And as far as being a joke they have performed reasonably well.
    And yes it is time to move on.
    The problem With NASA is they had something that work so they stopped.
    caver1

  3. Re: Hydrogen

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:22:08 -0400, caver1 wrote:

    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes it is true. Yes the Earth at this time is warming up again.

    >>
    >> Yes. However, *not* for the "reasons" advertised by the politicians.
    >>
    >>> Do politicians use that to keep themselves in power? Most definitely!

    >>
    >> Of course!
    >>
    >> C.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yes man pollutes and destroys his environment. But that has gone on ever
    > since man has been on the Earth for various reasons. It is hopeful that
    > we are finally intelligent enough to reverse that process. But that is
    > also doubtful.


    Even if the observed warming is all anthropogenic (and there isn't enough
    data to be sure), it might not be as bad as the Gore gang's propaganda
    makes it. The paleoclimatologists say that the average length of an
    interglacial period is 10K years. The current one is 11K years old. We
    could adapt to rising sea levels and shifting patterns of wildlife, but I
    can't see the United States surviving with the wheat fields of Kansas
    under 1500 meters of ice. Humanity would probably survive; We did it
    once with no more than fire and flint tools. It would, however be a
    disaster on the scale of a no-limits nuclear war. Note that the last
    time the Sun was as quiet as it is right now, (the "Maunder Minimum")
    coincided with the Little Ice Age. Maybe all that carbon dioxide we've
    been dumping into the atmosphere is what's keeping most of us alive.

    We need a lot more data, but the politicians aren't going to spend what
    it would take to collect it. We also need better modeling software, but
    it may not be possible to model such a huge, chaotic system well enough
    to forecast more than a few years ahead.

  4. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    >> Solar cells can therefore never be described as "green".

    >
    > At this time but if you do some research th e efficiency has been proven
    > to be able to be tripled at this time.


    Don't hold your breath! Photovoltaic cells are /very/ inefficient, and remain
    so even if their efficiency is "tripled".

    >> Don't get me wrong - solar cells have their place. I did a project many
    >> years ago for an African government, which used solar cells to charge
    >> lead-acid
    >> cells to power phone booths. They were a good, viable solution /in/ /that/
    >> environment, and continue to work well almost 20 years later.
    >>
    >> However, if you analyse the energy required to build the power systems of
    >> these phone booths, you'll quickly realise that they required /much/ more
    >> energy expended than they would ever consume - they show a net energy loss.


    > No different than existing power sources.


    It's /entirely/ different. The power produced by a litre of oil far outweighs
    the energy needed to get it out of the ground, refine it and so on. In the
    case of "alternative" power sources, *none* of them is economically viable by
    this simple criterion.

    That's the unpalatable truth about "alternative" energy for the "hard of
    thinking".

    >> Another case in point - I recently designed some power systems for
    >> illuminated
    >> road signs. The displays use LEDs and the units are (again) powered by
    >> lead-acid batteries charged by a combination of wind turbine and solar cell.
    >> The power systems for these things were more expensive than the signs
    >> themselves, but led to a significant cost saving in that it wasn't necessary
    >> to provide mains supply to the signs, which would be particularly expensive
    >> in rural areas.


    > You have to take all parameters in.


    I did.

    >> The local authorities loved these signs, because the little wind turbine and
    >> the solar cells were easily visible from the road, and lent the suggestion
    >> to the uneducated populace (completely erroneously) that the councils were
    >> using "green" equipment.


    > As I stated earlier politicians will use anything to keep themselves in
    > power.


    That's /not/ the point.

    > Also my Dad worked with ODOT, and not as a snowplow driver, and their
    > are many solar powered signs and water level stations among other things
    > that are solar powered that it was much cheaper than the attaching to
    > the grid.


    In only about 10% of the cases was it actually cheaper to use the wind / solar
    system to power there signs - in most cases it would be cheaper to dig a long
    trench and bury a mains supply cable.

    >> In some instances, the cost of providing a mains supply (often from a nearby
    >> street light) would have been an order of magnitude cheaper than the solar /
    >> wind system, but the local authorities wanted these for /political/ reasons.
    >>
    >> There are ways of generating power with minimal environmental impact -
    >> hydro-electric is a particularly good option (I commissioned a number of
    >> small hydro plants in Guatemala), though the capital cost is high. Wave
    >> power is another under-utilised option, and can have a massive power output.
    >> In some places, geothermal power is a possibility, but it isn't a realistic
    >> option for almost 90% of the planet.


    > That is why a combination of all is needed.


    Granted, yes. But that /has/ to include nuclear power as a substantial part of
    the whole. The "greens" will hate /that/ truth!

    >> Wind turbines are an expensive joke. They cost /much/ more to build and
    >> install than they will /ever/ earn over their lifespan, and suffer from
    >> sporadic output. Solar cells are a non-starter for a whole host of reasons.
    >> Coal, oil and gas are getting scarce and therefore expensive. Besides,
    >> they're /really/ dirty.


    > This depends on where. The North sea is one place where they are close
    > to breaking even.


    Nope - been there, priced that. They show a /massive/ loss!

    > Texas is another big place at this point.


    Perhaps, but it's /very/ unlikely.

    > And how about Bahrain(?) where on one building 3 wind turbines are
    > suppling more power than is needed by that building. And it is not a one
    > story house.


    The capital cost of the equipment will *never* be paid off by the power
    generated. Also, the building will require supplementary power for a
    significant proportion of the year when the wind is too low for any
    generation.

    >> The last remaining option that /works/ is nuclear. That's why the first
    >> world is rapidly building nuclear plants!


    > No. not all systems work everywhere. They all have their place.


    Perhaps, but "green" propaganda needs to be recognised for what it is - just so
    much nonsense. Strangely, the /efficiency/ of the "alternative" power sources
    is of little consequence. It's the *energy* *cost* of the manufacture and
    installation, and the *capital* *cost* of the equipment that makes all of
    them "unsustainable" and *not* "green". Again, the hard of thinking can't
    understand that.

    C.

  5. Re: Hydrogen

    Stephen J. Rush wrote:

    > Even if the observed warming is all anthropogenic (and there isn't enough
    > data to be sure), it might not be as bad as the Gore gang's propaganda
    > makes it.


    It /certainly/ isn't.

    > The paleoclimatologists say that the average length of an
    > interglacial period is 10K years. The current one is 11K years old.


    There are also some smaller, shorter cycles, which are amply demonstrated by
    tree ring data. The "warming" we're seeing at the moment is simply *not*
    *significant* and will revert to a "cooling" in the next few years.
    The "green" idiots will then blame mankind for using /insufficient/ energy to
    keep the planet warm enough!

    > We could adapt to rising sea levels and shifting patterns of wildlife, but I
    > can't see the United States surviving with the wheat fields of Kansas
    > under 1500 meters of ice.


    They have a much more pressing problem - no more cheap fuel!

    > Humanity would probably survive; We did it once with no more than fire
    > and flint tools. It would, however be a disaster on the scale of a
    > no-limits nuclear war. Note that the last time the Sun was as quiet as
    > it is right now, (the "Maunder Minimum") coincided with the Little Ice Age.
    > Maybe all that carbon dioxide we've been dumping into the atmosphere is
    > what's keeping most of us alive.


    ;-)

    > We need a lot more data, but the politicians aren't going to spend what
    > it would take to collect it. We also need better modelling software, but
    > it may not be possible to model such a huge, chaotic system well enough
    > to forecast more than a few years ahead.


    There is no political will to do /anything/ much that would be useful. The UK
    (for example) could provide over 50% of their electricity needs with just one
    river barrage project across the River Severn. It was priced and rejected in
    the 1970s (when it would have been cheap) and has been consistently overlooked
    by subsequent administrations.

    The current "Labour" government we've suffered in the UK since 1997 have not
    ever had any coherent energy policy (apart from wanting to appear "green").
    The British populace is now beginning to /really/ hurt from increased fuel and
    power prices, and it's just going to get worse. Spurious "green" nonsense is
    going to do *nothing* to help the situation!

    C.


  6. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka kirjoitti:

    > caver1 wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>> Some jets would be impossible due to the complexity. The flying wing
    >>> stealth bomber absolutely can't be flown without many computers. The
    >>> space shuttle is more 'ridden' than 'flown'. Bill Baka

    >>
    >>
    >> So then the space shuttle is a good case in point as to trusting
    >> computers. caver1

    >
    > Not hardly. The shuttle computers and language are almost 30 years old
    > unless they did a major (expensive) refit and that isn't going to happen
    > before the 'Space Joke' is retired.
    > Bill Baka


    Actually it did happen. The computers were replaced in the
    beginning of 1990's.


    Cheers,

    Esa(R)


    --
    If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and
    your friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag
    would be to pretend you were swimming.
    -- Deep Thoughts (#30) by Jack Handey

  7. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd5pk7$e5b$2@registered.motzarella.org...


    >
    > To use your term. Do you have a love affair with the word stupid?


    Do you not think Fred is being stupid?
    I think he's Frank really.
    > caver1



  8. Re: Hydrogen



    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:gd5qmv$kom$1@registered.motzarella.org...

    > As more are put in place then the old system is used less and once the
    > panel is put in place then IT produces no carbon. Net less carbon
    > produced. Eventually no old system.
    > what is so difficult about that?


    What is so difficult to understand that if they take 20 years to produce
    more energy than it takes to make and maintain them then they have to be
    around for at least 20 years to save any carbon emissions.
    There is no evidence that they will be around for 20+ years to make that
    saving.

    Its really simple.. solar PV des not save carbon emissions at this time.
    It gives people a nice smug feeling about being green and that's about it.


    Micro generation using wind power will *never* generate more energy than
    used to produce the units using any known way of making stuff.

    Large scale generation using wind power is unlikely to ever generate enough
    energy to reduce the net carbon emissions.

    Well proven, old fashioned stuff like sterling engines may provide a way to
    generate using solar heat.


    >>>>> then you have to look at the carbon pollution given off by each side
    >>>>> after they are built and are now being used. Solar, wind, etc or most
    >>>>> renewable sources now win in that they don't give off more carbon
    >>>>> pollution through their use. Coal, etc, continue to give off mass
    >>>>> amounts of pollution through their use. Including the production of
    >>>>> their fuel sources. And that's only the carbon pollution. how about
    >>>>> all the other pollutants given off by them?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> because they will never be able to replace in energy the carbon
    >>>>>>> used in producing them. The same fact holds true of all energy
    >>>>>>> sources that are being used in the mainstream today except
    >>>>>>> Hydopower.

    >
    >
    >
    > There is no power source in the Universe that produces more power than it
    > uses. ie the Sun. If it produced more power than it uses then we would
    > have more time on the Earth than we do- or we would burn up. It also
    > pollutes. Why do you think we need the ozone layer and the Earth's
    > magnetic field?


    What are you on about?
    If you want to get into a technical discussion about solar wind and magnetic
    fields and stuff like that I do know about them but it is irrelevant to a
    discussion about CO2 emissions.

    >>>>>> And nuclear and geothermal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> nuclear has yet to be seen as carbon pollution is not its main problem
    >>>>> but the waste is. And that has not been solved yet.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> That doesn't stop us from using them and when they were first
    >>>>>>> developed they were even more inefficient than today. But they were
    >>>>>>> continued to be used and improved.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes well if you took them away and replaced them with solar panels
    >>>>>> you would release 20 years worth of carbon at a stroke and then you
    >>>>>> would have to do the same again in 20 years if the panels don't last,
    >>>>>> which they may not

    >
    >
    >
    > But at the same time you have to minus the pollution the that the old
    > power plants produce. Leaving the solar panels which produce non after
    > they are produced. Outcome- less pollution. Check mate.


    You still fail to grasp the facts.
    Solar PV doesn't save CO2 emissions.
    It doesn't matter how much they save after they are installed if you used
    more to make them.
    You can't make them using solar PV if they produce less energy than needed
    to make and maintain them over their life so you can forget that argument.

    >>>>> But the old power system continue to produce large amounts of
    >>>>> pollution regardless of how long they last.
    >>>>
    >>>> However that is probably less than the solar panels produce in the same
    >>>> time period.

    >
    >
    >
    > You really deceive yourself.


    You really deceive yourself.



    >>> No, no probables just facts. so if solar cells continue to produce as
    >>> much pollution after their manufacture prove it. How long will the waste
    >>> from a nuclear power plant be dangerous?

    >>
    >> You are confused, take a week off to think about it.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm confused?
    > Have you answered any of my questions?
    > No typical Dennis.


    I have answered all you question many times in this thread, you just don't
    understand the answers.
    I have answered them all again in this post but I don't think it will make
    any difference.
    Typical caver1.
    > caver1



  9. Re: Hydrogen



    "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...


    > Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    > Bill Baka


    Why do they do better education than imperial college London?


  10. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    > news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >
    >
    >> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    > Why do they do better education than imperial college London?


    Any institution will do a better job than the one you flunked
    --
    Warning: You have moved the mouse.
    Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent


  11. Re: Hydrogen

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:05:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > "Lionel B" wrote in message
    > news:gd2bq3$3dl$5@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:36:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd25o9$3dl$4@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:22:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:gd20al$3dl$2@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:07:18 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:gd1mav$3dl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As is the filth generated by nuclear fission. And burning fossil
    >>>>>>>> fuels doesn't have the capacity to render instant mayhem and
    >>>>>>>> destruction a la Chernobyl.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hopefully, nuclear *fusion*, whenever it arrives, will be both
    >>>>>>>> clean and safe.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Fusion generates high energy radiation that will irradiate the
    >>>>>>> containment vessel and will result in highly radioactive isotopes
    >>>>>>> just as fission does.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Well, not "just as fission does"; at least according to this
    >>>>>> Wikipedia article:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    >>>> Fusion_reactor#Effluents_during_normal_operation
    >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_...ste_management
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Quote: "In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less
    >>>>>> radioactive material than a fission reactor,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes people have being saying that for a while even though they have
    >>>>> no idea how to build a fusion reactor.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course we have some idea how to build a fusion reactor. Haven't
    >>>> cracked it, but we certainly have a good idea what it's going to
    >>>> involve. On which basis we can do the maths and get a fair idea of
    >>>> the type and quantity of radioactive by-products likely to be
    >>>> produced.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity When you know what
    >>> the reactor is made of then some idea of what radioactive "waste" will
    >>> be made can be decided.
    >>> Until they know how to make a reactor they don't know.

    >>
    >> That's a pretty lame argument. Of course you can do your rough
    >> calculation for individual materials. And when you decide which
    >> material to use you will obviously take into account your calculations
    >> of their capacity to become radioactive.

    >
    > Lame?


    The argument that "until we make it we don't know anything about it" is
    lame. Do you imagine that we had absolutely no idea of the waste that
    would be generated by *fission* reactors until after we'd built some? That
    would've been dumb beyond belief.

    > The claim was fusion is less dangerous and less radio active.. it isn't.


    The Wikipedia article claims otherwise; you have offered no evidence to
    the contrary.

    --
    Lionel B

  12. Re: Hydrogen



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48f6fce9$0$16790$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    >> news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >>
    >> Why do they do better education than imperial college London?

    >
    > Any institution will do a better job than the one you flunked


    Why are you still here trying to look more stupid every time you post?
    One day you might actually have something useful to contribute but nobody
    will believe you.


  13. Re: Hydrogen



    "Lionel B" wrote in message
    news:gd713f$jcl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    > On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:05:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >> news:gd2bq3$3dl$5@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:36:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gd25o9$3dl$4@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:22:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:gd20al$3dl$2@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:07:18 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:gd1mav$3dl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As is the filth generated by nuclear fission. And burning fossil
    >>>>>>>>> fuels doesn't have the capacity to render instant mayhem and
    >>>>>>>>> destruction a la Chernobyl.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hopefully, nuclear *fusion*, whenever it arrives, will be both
    >>>>>>>>> clean and safe.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Fusion generates high energy radiation that will irradiate the
    >>>>>>>> containment vessel and will result in highly radioactive isotopes
    >>>>>>>> just as fission does.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Well, not "just as fission does"; at least according to this
    >>>>>>> Wikipedia article:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    >>>>> Fusion_reactor#Effluents_during_normal_operation
    >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_...ste_management
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Quote: "In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less
    >>>>>>> radioactive material than a fission reactor,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes people have being saying that for a while even though they have
    >>>>>> no idea how to build a fusion reactor.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course we have some idea how to build a fusion reactor. Haven't
    >>>>> cracked it, but we certainly have a good idea what it's going to
    >>>>> involve. On which basis we can do the maths and get a fair idea of
    >>>>> the type and quantity of radioactive by-products likely to be
    >>>>> produced.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity When you know what
    >>>> the reactor is made of then some idea of what radioactive "waste" will
    >>>> be made can be decided.
    >>>> Until they know how to make a reactor they don't know.
    >>>
    >>> That's a pretty lame argument. Of course you can do your rough
    >>> calculation for individual materials. And when you decide which
    >>> material to use you will obviously take into account your calculations
    >>> of their capacity to become radioactive.

    >>
    >> Lame?

    >
    > The argument that "until we make it we don't know anything about it" is
    > lame. Do you imagine that we had absolutely no idea of the waste that
    > would be generated by *fission* reactors until after we'd built some? That
    > would've been dumb beyond belief.


    Fission reactors are easy, you make them with steel, concrete, a few other
    metals to make alloys.
    You know what the induced radiation is going to produce (well mostly).

    As they haven't yet built a working fusion reactor they don't know what they
    are going to build it from.
    If its the same as a fission reactor induced radiation will have a similar
    effect.

    As for the fuel.. look at how many new elements were discovered from reactor
    waste.. no they didn't know what was going to be produced.

    >
    >> The claim was fusion is less dangerous and less radio active.. it isn't.

    >
    > The Wikipedia article claims otherwise; you have offered no evidence to
    > the contrary.


    OK if I go and edit the Wiki article to say its safe, will you believe it
    then?
    Hint: Wiki is not an authorative source for anything.
    >
    > --
    > Lionel B



  14. Re: Hydrogen

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:47:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > "Lionel B" wrote in message
    > news:gd713f$jcl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:05:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>> news:gd2bq3$3dl$5@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:36:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:gd25o9$3dl$4@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:22:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:gd20al$3dl$2@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:07:18 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:gd1mav$3dl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> As is the filth generated by nuclear fission. And burning
    >>>>>>>>>> fossil fuels doesn't have the capacity to render instant mayhem
    >>>>>>>>>> and destruction a la Chernobyl.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hopefully, nuclear *fusion*, whenever it arrives, will be both
    >>>>>>>>>> clean and safe.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Fusion generates high energy radiation that will irradiate the
    >>>>>>>>> containment vessel and will result in highly radioactive
    >>>>>>>>> isotopes just as fission does.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Well, not "just as fission does"; at least according to this
    >>>>>>>> Wikipedia article:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    >>>>>> Fusion_reactor#Effluents_during_normal_operation
    >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_...ste_management
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Quote: "In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less
    >>>>>>>> radioactive material than a fission reactor,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes people have being saying that for a while even though they
    >>>>>>> have no idea how to build a fusion reactor.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course we have some idea how to build a fusion reactor. Haven't
    >>>>>> cracked it, but we certainly have a good idea what it's going to
    >>>>>> involve. On which basis we can do the maths and get a fair idea of
    >>>>>> the type and quantity of radioactive by-products likely to be
    >>>>>> produced.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity When you know
    >>>>> what the reactor is made of then some idea of what radioactive
    >>>>> "waste" will be made can be decided.
    >>>>> Until they know how to make a reactor they don't know.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a pretty lame argument. Of course you can do your rough
    >>>> calculation for individual materials. And when you decide which
    >>>> material to use you will obviously take into account your
    >>>> calculations of their capacity to become radioactive.
    >>>
    >>> Lame?

    >>
    >> The argument that "until we make it we don't know anything about it" is
    >> lame. Do you imagine that we had absolutely no idea of the waste that
    >> would be generated by *fission* reactors until after we'd built some?
    >> That would've been dumb beyond belief.

    >
    > Fission reactors are easy, you make them with steel, concrete, a few
    > other metals to make alloys.
    > You know what the induced radiation is going to produce (well mostly).
    >
    > As they haven't yet built a working fusion reactor they don't know what
    > they are going to build it from.


    There are multi-billion pound international projects sweating away at the
    problem as we write. Do you imagine they are not bothering to consider
    which materials might or might not be feasible? And do you imagine that
    they are not bothering to estimate the likely induced radiation behaviour
    of prospective materials? Given that containment is one of the *major*
    issues of fusion power that is *highly* unlikely.

    > If its the same as a fission reactor induced radiation will have a
    > similar effect.


    If what's the same? A fusion reactor? I'm not sure what you're trying to
    say here.

    > As for the fuel.. look at how many new elements were discovered from
    > reactor waste.. no they didn't know what was going to be produced.


    I disagree - I believe they had a pretty good idea. The nuclear physics
    was pretty well worked out before fission reactors came on line.

    Oh, and "new elements" != "we didn't know they were going to be produced".

    >>> The claim was fusion is less dangerous and less radio active.. it
    >>> isn't.

    >>
    >> The Wikipedia article claims otherwise; you have offered no evidence to
    >> the contrary.

    >
    > OK if I go and edit the Wiki article to say its safe, will you believe
    > it then?


    No - if I knew you had made any contribution to any Wikipedia article
    whatsoever I would lose all faith in Wikipedia instantly ;-)

    > Hint: Wiki is not an authorative source for anything.


    You don't say... but frequently rather a good source for many things.

    Oh, and you still haven't offered any source disputing the claims of the
    Wikipedia article.

    --
    Lionel B

  15. Re: Hydrogen



    "Lionel B" wrote in message
    news:gd77sb$jcl$2@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:47:55 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >> news:gd713f$jcl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:05:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>> news:gd2bq3$3dl$5@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:36:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:gd25o9$3dl$4@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:22:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:gd20al$3dl$2@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:07:18 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "Lionel B" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:gd1mav$3dl$1@south.jnrs.ja.net...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> As is the filth generated by nuclear fission. And burning
    >>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuels doesn't have the capacity to render instant mayhem
    >>>>>>>>>>> and destruction a la Chernobyl.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully, nuclear *fusion*, whenever it arrives, will be both
    >>>>>>>>>>> clean and safe.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Fusion generates high energy radiation that will irradiate the
    >>>>>>>>>> containment vessel and will result in highly radioactive
    >>>>>>>>>> isotopes just as fission does.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Well, not "just as fission does"; at least according to this
    >>>>>>>>> Wikipedia article:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    >>>>>>> Fusion_reactor#Effluents_during_normal_operation
    >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_...ste_management
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Quote: "In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less
    >>>>>>>>> radioactive material than a fission reactor,
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes people have being saying that for a while even though they
    >>>>>>>> have no idea how to build a fusion reactor.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course we have some idea how to build a fusion reactor. Haven't
    >>>>>>> cracked it, but we certainly have a good idea what it's going to
    >>>>>>> involve. On which basis we can do the maths and get a fair idea of
    >>>>>>> the type and quantity of radioactive by-products likely to be
    >>>>>>> produced.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_radioactivity When you know
    >>>>>> what the reactor is made of then some idea of what radioactive
    >>>>>> "waste" will be made can be decided.
    >>>>>> Until they know how to make a reactor they don't know.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's a pretty lame argument. Of course you can do your rough
    >>>>> calculation for individual materials. And when you decide which
    >>>>> material to use you will obviously take into account your
    >>>>> calculations of their capacity to become radioactive.
    >>>>
    >>>> Lame?
    >>>
    >>> The argument that "until we make it we don't know anything about it" is
    >>> lame. Do you imagine that we had absolutely no idea of the waste that
    >>> would be generated by *fission* reactors until after we'd built some?
    >>> That would've been dumb beyond belief.

    >>
    >> Fission reactors are easy, you make them with steel, concrete, a few
    >> other metals to make alloys.
    >> You know what the induced radiation is going to produce (well mostly).
    >>
    >> As they haven't yet built a working fusion reactor they don't know what
    >> they are going to build it from.

    >
    > There are multi-billion pound international projects sweating away at the
    > problem as we write. Do you imagine they are not bothering to consider
    > which materials might or might not be feasible? And do you imagine that
    > they are not bothering to estimate the likely induced radiation behaviour
    > of prospective materials? Given that containment is one of the *major*
    > issues of fusion power that is *highly* unlikely.



    Do you imagine they wrote the Wikipedia article you are basing you argument
    on?

    >
    >> If its the same as a fission reactor induced radiation will have a
    >> similar effect.

    >
    > If what's the same? A fusion reactor? I'm not sure what you're trying to
    > say here.


    Lets try it again then

    "As they haven't yet built a working fusion reactor they don't know what
    they are going to build it from.

    If its the same as a fission reactor induced radiation will have a
    similar effect."

    Looks OK to me.

    "If they build a fusion reactor using the same materials as a fission
    reactor you are going to get the same waste from the induced radiation but
    they don't know how to build one" is another way to say it.

    >
    >> As for the fuel.. look at how many new elements were discovered from
    >> reactor waste.. no they didn't know what was going to be produced.

    >
    > I disagree - I believe they had a pretty good idea. The nuclear physics
    > was pretty well worked out before fission reactors came on line.
    >
    > Oh, and "new elements" != "we didn't know they were going to be produced".


    So why weren't they all predicted and named then?

    >>>> The claim was fusion is less dangerous and less radio active.. it
    >>>> isn't.
    >>>
    >>> The Wikipedia article claims otherwise; you have offered no evidence to
    >>> the contrary.

    >>
    >> OK if I go and edit the Wiki article to say its safe, will you believe
    >> it then?

    >
    > No - if I knew you had made any contribution to any Wikipedia article
    > whatsoever I would lose all faith in Wikipedia instantly ;-)


    Well maybe you should.
    There are plenty of errors and some lies in Wikipedia.

    >
    >> Hint: Wiki is not an authorative source for anything.

    >
    > You don't say... but frequently rather a good source for many things.
    >
    > Oh, and you still haven't offered any source disputing the claims of the
    > Wikipedia article.


    I don't need to.
    The radiation is the same, gamma, beta and alpha.
    The biological effects are the same whatever the source.
    Anyone that thinks its biologically less damaging because it comes from a
    fusion reactors waste doesn't understand what radiation is.

    You carry on believing Wikipedia.
    I don't.



  16. Re: Hydrogen

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:43:27 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > You carry on believing Wikipedia.
    > I don't.


    Cheers, I will carry on believing it more than I believe you.

    Byeeeeeeee.

    --
    Lionel B

  17. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    > news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >
    >
    >> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    >> Bill Baka

    >
    > Why do they do better education than imperial college London?


    Some of us from the UK went to /much/ better Universities (Cambridge, in my
    case). ;-)

    C.

  18. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >>> Solar cells can therefore never be described as "green".

    >> At this time but if you do some research th e efficiency has been proven
    >> to be able to be tripled at this time.

    >
    > Don't hold your breath! Photovoltaic cells are /very/ inefficient, and remain
    > so even if their efficiency is "tripled".




    Right that is why they are being used more and more.



    >
    >>> Don't get me wrong - solar cells have their place. I did a project many
    >>> years ago for an African government, which used solar cells to charge
    >>> lead-acid
    >>> cells to power phone booths. They were a good, viable solution /in/ /that/
    >>> environment, and continue to work well almost 20 years later.
    >>>
    >>> However, if you analyse the energy required to build the power systems of
    >>> these phone booths, you'll quickly realise that they required /much/ more
    >>> energy expended than they would ever consume - they show a net energy loss.

    >
    >> No different than existing power sources.

    >
    > It's /entirely/ different. The power produced by a litre of oil far outweighs
    > the energy needed to get it out of the ground, refine it and so on. In the
    > case of "alternative" power sources, *none* of them is economically viable by
    > this simple criterion.



    You also have to take into account all the other costs derived from oil
    usage. ie pollution, political strife, medical and the simple fact is
    that at the present consumption rate oil coal and all other non-reneable
    fuel sources will be deplete in the very near future. And the usage is
    growing by leaps and bounds every day. All of that has to be considered
    in the cost.


    > That's the unpalatable truth about "alternative" energy for the "hard of
    > thinking".



    That is the problem many who are totally against alternative power
    sources and make their arguments unreasonable.
    Just because they are not a total workable solution at this point in
    time doesn't mean that they never will be.
    Who many other technologies that are now being used had to be put on the
    back burner sometimes for decades until other technologies were
    developed to take advantage of them?
    As I stated earlier non-renewable fuel sources had their place in our
    development but that time is rapidly coming to an end. So the cost is
    too high not to develop alternative fuel sources.
    The convenient solution is not always the best.




    >>> Another case in point - I recently designed some power systems for
    >>> illuminated
    >>> road signs. The displays use LEDs and the units are (again) powered by
    >>> lead-acid batteries charged by a combination of wind turbine and solar cell.
    >>> The power systems for these things were more expensive than the signs
    >>> themselves, but led to a significant cost saving in that it wasn't necessary
    >>> to provide mains supply to the signs, which would be particularly expensive
    >>> in rural areas.



    Lead-acid batteries are a joke.


    >> You have to take all parameters in.

    >
    > I did.
    >
    >>> The local authorities loved these signs, because the little wind turbine and
    >>> the solar cells were easily visible from the road, and lent the suggestion
    >>> to the uneducated populace (completely erroneously) that the councils were
    >>> using "green" equipment.

    >
    >> As I stated earlier politicians will use anything to keep themselves in
    >> power.

    >
    > That's /not/ the point.
    >
    >> Also my Dad worked with ODOT, and not as a snowplow driver, and their
    >> are many solar powered signs and water level stations among other things
    >> that are solar powered that it was much cheaper than the attaching to
    >> the grid.


    > In only about 10% of the cases was it actually cheaper to use the wind / solar
    > system to power there signs - in most cases it would be cheaper to dig a long
    > trench and bury a mains supply cable.



    That is at this point. And 10% is to low even though at this time the
    gap is very wide.


    >>> In some instances, the cost of providing a mains supply (often from a nearby
    >>> street light) would have been an order of magnitude cheaper than the solar /
    >>> wind system, but the local authorities wanted these for /political/ reasons.
    >>>
    >>> There are ways of generating power with minimal environmental impact -
    >>> hydro-electric is a particularly good option (I commissioned a number of
    >>> small hydro plants in Guatemala), though the capital cost is high. Wave
    >>> power is another under-utilised option, and can have a massive power output.
    >>> In some places, geothermal power is a possibility, but it isn't a realistic
    >>> option for almost 90% of the planet.



    Geothermal can be used in 80-90% of the earth. The arctic and
    antarctic most likely cannot be used but i am not sure what percentage
    of the Earth they are. Granted some places would be way to costly and
    others their is just too much population in too small an area. But it is
    still there to be used.



    >> That is why a combination of all is needed.

    >
    > Granted, yes. But that /has/ to include nuclear power as a substantial part of
    > the whole. The "greens" will hate /that/ truth!



    I agree with nuclear. If you notice they only thing I said against it
    was to point out the waste problem which is real. But until that problem
    has been addressed then it is no better than if not worse than oil or coil.
    Not insurmountable but real.
    I don't like the greens either.
    This argument over renewable and non renewable sources has become as
    polarized ,if not more so, than US politics. The only thing that
    accomplishes is making both sides wrong. The answer is somewhere in the
    middle but both sides refuse to accept that.


    >>> Wind turbines are an expensive joke. They cost /much/ more to build and
    >>> install than they will /ever/ earn over their lifespan, and suffer from
    >>> sporadic output. Solar cells are a non-starter for a whole host of reasons.
    >>> Coal, oil and gas are getting scarce and therefore expensive. Besides,
    >>> they're /really/ dirty.




    wind turbines are noisy. The joke is at this time. At the same time they
    are being improved.
    Where you have expertise in one area develop that. Where another has it
    somewhere else let them develop that. Learn to cooperate. Both sides
    loose if they don't



    >> This depends on where. The North sea is one place where they are close
    >> to breaking even.

    >
    > Nope - been there, priced that. They show a /massive/ loss!
    >
    >> Texas is another big place at this point.

    >
    > Perhaps, but it's /very/ unlikely.



    See there is a perhaps. And at the current technology platform they are
    good enough to put in place so the next generation can be developed.
    Also as I have stated earlier just because something is more expensive
    doesn't mean it is worse. We are paying more for our power all the time,
    much of that because of greed, but if a source is better for your
    environment and gives you what you need so what?



    >> And how about Bahrain(?) where on one building 3 wind turbines are
    >> suppling more power than is needed by that building. And it is not a one
    >> story house.

    >
    > The capital cost of the equipment will *never* be paid off by the power
    > generated. Also, the building will require supplementary power for a
    > significant proportion of the year when the wind is too low for any
    > generation.



    That's exactly the opposite of what the builders/developers state. In
    fact they did state that once the get it up to full capacity it would
    generate an excess of what they needed. True I am taking what they say
    at face value but at the same time I can say the same for you. At the
    same time ways to improve what they are starting to use will happen.

    >
    >>> The last remaining option that /works/ is nuclear. That's why the first
    >>> world is rapidly building nuclear plants!


    >> No. not all systems work everywhere. They all have their place.

    >
    > Perhaps, but "green" propaganda needs to be recognised for what it is - just so
    > much nonsense. Strangely, the /efficiency/ of the "alternative" power sources
    > is of little consequence. It's the *energy* *cost* of the manufacture and
    > installation, and the *capital* *cost* of the equipment that makes all of
    > them "unsustainable" and *not* "green". Again, the hard of thinking can't
    > understand that.
    >
    > C.




    For that matter hydro is one of the best less polluting energy sources
    we have. But it also comes at a cost. Every developed country that has
    built damns has realized that the short term benefits to man are small
    compared to the long term damage done to his environment. Man cannot
    live without a good environment. Yes those damages have been scoffed at
    and blown way out of proportion but they are real.


    At this point in time. The efficiency growth over the last 20-30 years
    has grown by leaps and bounds. So that they are now starting to be
    usable. The main times they get their largest growth spurts is when the
    fear of oil shortages grows so interest once again comes to the forefront.
    Most of man for most of his history has been very short sighted. He
    won't look beyond his nose. what works today is good enough so looking
    into anything else is a waste of time.
    The hard of thinking on the opposite side cannot accept these facts.
    caver1

  19. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:gd5qmv$kom$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >> As more are put in place then the old system is used less and once the
    >> panel is put in place then IT produces no carbon. Net less carbon
    >> produced. Eventually no old system.
    >> what is so difficult about that?

    >
    > What is so difficult to understand that if they take 20 years to produce
    > more energy than it takes to make and maintain them then they have to be
    > around for at least 20 years to save any carbon emissions.
    > There is no evidence that they will be around for 20+ years to make that
    > saving.
    >
    > Its really simple.. solar PV des not save carbon emissions at this time.
    > It gives people a nice smug feeling about being green and that's about it.
    >
    >
    > Micro generation using wind power will *never* generate more energy than
    > used to produce the units using any known way of making stuff.
    >
    > Large scale generation using wind power is unlikely to ever generate
    > enough energy to reduce the net carbon emissions.
    >
    > Well proven, old fashioned stuff like sterling engines may provide a way
    > to generate using solar heat.




    I did read somewhere that NASA is going to start using Sterling engines.
    Haven't heard anything since. So hopefully it wasn't a bogus report.
    That is the problem with your arguments.
    When I say that a technology has promise your proof is probably not.
    Now that you "know" that your idea has promise your proof is - "may"
    At this point we don't know. They all hold out promise. They all have
    their short falls. They all must be developed. Non of them in themselves
    will completely replace oil/coal. The ease of producing and transporting
    is just too easy compared with the others. The problem is that Oil Coal
    are running out rapidly. No not in my or my kids lifetime (maybe) but
    that is not a very long time.
    Isn't it one of the gas companies that advertise- " don't worry we have
    60 years worth natural gas supplies" What then? do we start worrying in
    59 an 3/4 years?

    >>>>>> then you have to look at the carbon pollution given off by each
    >>>>>> side after they are built and are now being used. Solar, wind, etc
    >>>>>> or most renewable sources now win in that they don't give off more
    >>>>>> carbon pollution through their use. Coal, etc, continue to give
    >>>>>> off mass amounts of pollution through their use. Including the
    >>>>>> production of their fuel sources. And that's only the carbon
    >>>>>> pollution. how about all the other pollutants given off by them?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> because they will never be able to replace in energy the carbon
    >>>>>>>> used in producing them. The same fact holds true of all energy
    >>>>>>>> sources that are being used in the mainstream today except
    >>>>>>>> Hydopower.




    Current energy systems are worse carbon users/polluters and always will
    be. All energy sources operate at a net loss. Some worse than others. We
    cannot get away from that fact. Remember Law of Thermodynamics?





    >> There is no power source in the Universe that produces more power than
    >> it uses. ie the Sun. If it produced more power than it uses then we
    >> would have more time on the Earth than we do- or we would burn up. It
    >> also pollutes. Why do you think we need the ozone layer and the
    >> Earth's magnetic field?

    >
    > What are you on about?
    > If you want to get into a technical discussion about solar wind and
    > magnetic fields and stuff like that I do know about them but it is
    > irrelevant to a discussion about CO2 emissions.




    Why? This discussion is about new energy supplies. Your side states that
    the power sources you like are all good and the others are all net
    carbon polluters.
    The other side goes to the other extreme and believes that their energy
    supplies are the non carbon polluters.
    You are both wrong. There are some that are inherently worse than
    others. They all have their problems to overcome. They all hold future
    promise. Because Its no totally practical at this point in time that
    doesn't mean that with developments today and in the future they won't be.
    In fact developments today are showing the opposite for many of them.
    Sterling engines are a good choice but that is yet to be seen. Magnetics
    in theory are good, no carbon emissions once produced, but that has yet
    proven to be even workable.



    >>>>>>> And nuclear and geothermal.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> nuclear has yet to be seen as carbon pollution is not its main
    >>>>>> problem but the waste is. And that has not been solved yet.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> That doesn't stop us from using them and when they were first
    >>>>>>>> developed they were even more inefficient than today. But they
    >>>>>>>> were continued to be used and improved.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes well if you took them away and replaced them with solar
    >>>>>>> panels you would release 20 years worth of carbon at a stroke and
    >>>>>>> then you would have to do the same again in 20 years if the
    >>>>>>> panels don't last, which they may not

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> But at the same time you have to minus the pollution the that the old
    >> power plants produce. Leaving the solar panels which produce non after
    >> they are produced. Outcome- less pollution. Check mate.

    >
    > You still fail to grasp the facts.
    > Solar PV doesn't save CO2 emissions.
    > It doesn't matter how much they save after they are installed if you
    > used more to make them.
    > You can't make them using solar PV if they produce less energy than
    > needed to make and maintain them over their life so you can forget that
    > argument.
    >
    >>>>>> But the old power system continue to produce large amounts of
    >>>>>> pollution regardless of how long they last.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> However that is probably less than the solar panels produce in the
    >>>>> same time period.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> You really deceive yourself.

    >
    > You really deceive yourself.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> No, no probables just facts. so if solar cells continue to produce
    >>>> as much pollution after their manufacture prove it. How long will
    >>>> the waste from a nuclear power plant be dangerous?
    >>>
    >>> You are confused, take a week off to think about it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm confused?
    >> Have you answered any of my questions?
    >> No typical Dennis.

    >
    > I have answered all you question many times in this thread, you just
    > don't understand the answers.
    > I have answered them all again in this post but I don't think it will
    > make any difference.
    > Typical caver1.
    >> caver1

    >


  20. Re: Hydrogen



    "Christopher Hunter" wrote in message
    news:6lop1sFd6sbdU2@mid.individual.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> "Bill Baka" wrote in message
    >> news:eXvJk.3521$as4.503@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>> Go back to school and take physics 101-remedial.
    >>> Bill Baka

    >>
    >> Why do they do better education than imperial college London?

    >
    > Some of us from the UK went to /much/ better Universities (Cambridge, in
    > my
    > case). ;-)


    Cambridge wasn't or indeed isn't the best for science. ;-)
    They even kept losing to Imperial in the boat race series, but we did have
    the royal school of mines to chose the team from. 8-)

    Bill of course never was educated.
    >
    > C.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 LastLast