Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And still making several separate replies to the same post.
Wrong, always wrong, even on that.
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:78406294-a394-46b4-8679-
bfa9686b7c2a@googlegroups.com:
You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.
That would be high dude, you fucked up again.
The BOTTOM of the stupidity totem pole is where you reside, child.
And I will BET you don't know shit about totem poles or positions
thereon either. So we'll see more of your utter stupidity soon on that
one too.
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:34:59 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:83eb7772-0502-425e-9c5a-3d9c6c18d5e1@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:07:58 AM UTC+2,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:edec368b-11ab-47d4-8d61-
8d7a78180d9c@googlegroups.com:
snip
No, it is not. It (the containment field) is to CONTAIN the
plasma, and PROTECT the containment vessel FROM the heat of the
plasma. There is no "protect the plasma", ya dope. The field is
about controlling the plasma.
And protecting the plasma by keeping it off the wall, because if it
hits the wall, there is no more plasma. It's all about very high
temperatures, but not a whole lot of heat.
The vessel is the superstructure onto
which the field coils are built, and the steam production heat
exchange superstructure elements.
What steam production? So far no one has even gotten any
fusion experiment to the point of producing any steam period.
Or even to the point of generating more energy than is put into
it! These are all at the experimental stage, where they have been
for sixty years.
Perhaps on the experimental version where containment refinement is
the job right now. In a real, producing reactor, I am sure the
plasma wad will be substantially larger as will the sphere.
Well duh? He was talking about now, not the future. We don't have
any idea what technology, if any, will finally make it to a fusion
reactor that actually can produce more energy than it consumes.
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:34:38 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:9d9dcd40-83b0-4c95-8d96-
c51eb02e4dba@googlegroups.com:
That went out the window with Chernobyl,
TraderTard4's logic is beyond retarded.
You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.
You sit right at the bottom of the total retard totem pole, child.
Nice editing job, totally deleting everything. Which of course is what
you have to do, because otherwise people would see that what I said was
true
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:02:09 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:78406294-a394-46b4-8679-
bfa9686b7c2a@googlegroups.com:
You take lack of intelligence to an all new low.
That would be high dude, you fucked up again.
The BOTTOM of the stupidity totem pole is where you reside, child.
Not only can't you write but can't read what you write either,
AlwaysWrong. The "totem pole" is the "lack of intelligence" totem
pole, stupid.
And I will BET you don't know shit about totem poles or positions
thereon either. So we'll see more of your utter stupidity soon on that
one too.
A lot more than someone who is always wrong evidently, AlwaysWrong.
That is; you're wrong again. No surprises here.
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:
crickets
Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.
Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:
crickets
Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.
Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.
You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong, so I'm alright.
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 3:33:53 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:
crickets
Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.
Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.
You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong, so I'm alright.
Since krw clearly is cognitively challenged, his own opinion of his mental soundness is worthless, like pretty much everything else he posts.
He might have been okay before he stopped being able to absorb new information, but that was quite a while ago.
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 3:33:53 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:
crickets
Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.
Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.
You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong, so I'm alright.
Since krw clearly is cognitively challenged, his own opinion of his mental soundness is worthless, like pretty much everything else he posts.
He might have been okay before he stopped being able to absorb new information, but that was quite a while ago.
I have to say, your posts about these guys are getting as lame as their posts insulting and swearing at each other.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:05:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 3:33:53 AM UTC+2, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 03:53:34 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:7keqiehu9rcoopp22a8fde2lggea12ogau@
4ax.com:
crickets
Yet Another Retarded Usenet post by KRW.
Whodathunk... Oh that's right... everyone thinks you are fucked in
the head. Because you are.
You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong, so I'm alright.
Since krw clearly is cognitively challenged, his own opinion of his mental soundness is worthless, like pretty much everything else he posts.
He might have been okay before he stopped being able to absorb new information, but that was quite a while ago.
I have to say, your posts about these guys are getting as lame as their posts insulting and swearing at each other.
Someone other than AlwaysWrong is reading whatever Slowman is writing?
WTF?
Indeed!
I have to say, your posts about these guys are getting as lame as
their posts insulting and swearing at each other.
WTF?
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:30:23 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reactors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Actually, old nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy production today. New technologies will just make them that much more safe.
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:06:44 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Actually, old nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy production today. New technologies will just make them that much more safe.
The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:06:44 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
Actually, old nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy production today. New technologies will just make them that much more safe.
The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.
Why so?
Arsenic is toxic/hazardous, and won't 'not be a threat' for LONGER than 10,000 years,
do we need to wait before saying how dangerous it is? You're expressing
attitude, but not reasoning.
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:31:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.
Why so?
Arsenic is toxic/hazardous, and won't 'not be a threat' for LONGER than 10,000 years,
do we need to wait before saying how dangerous it is? You're expressing
attitude, but not reasoning.
I actually presented a rational idea.
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 12:58:47 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:31:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 11:14:08 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
The jury is still out on that assessment. Wait for 10,000 years until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat. Until then, you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.
Why so?
Arsenic is toxic/hazardous, and won't 'not be a threat' for LONGER than 10,000 years,
do we need to wait before saying how dangerous it is? You're expressing
attitude, but not reasoning.
I actually presented a rational idea.
Untrue. We don't need experimental verification of the decay of isotopes; we've mapped the decay
processes, we KNOW the time sequence. Why the need to wait for milennia?
What do you expect: knowledge, or understanding, or satori?
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 1:06:44 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:30:23 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-react
ors-are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_
campaign=Feed%3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
Actually, old nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy
production today. New technologies will just make them that much
more safe.
The jury is still out on that assessment.
Wait for 10,000 years
until the waste has cooled enough to not be a threat.
We absolutely can say. We can say that 10,000 years of coal andUntil then,
you really can't say how dangerous or safe nuclear power may be.