How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:018d1c22-f46e-457a-
8b2b-7e7f6e220d19@googlegroups.com:

You're so wrong that you just claimed the US doesn't have land based
and sub based nuclear ICBMs anymore.

No. YOU claimed that they were populated with neutron bombs.
THAT is what *I* refuted.

You are an idiot. HOAD, fucktard.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5cc9cf2-e023-4e04-b9f1-6914b1392a3d@googlegroups.com:

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear
weapons that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we gave
them up decades ago.

No. That is not what I said. You conveniently snipped what you said
which I responded to. YOU said they were all populated with neutron
warheads. THAT is what I refuted.

Get over your stupid self, child. Better yet, HOAD.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:18:45 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5cc9cf2-e023-4e04-b9f1-6914b1392a3d@googlegroups.com:

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear
weapons that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we gave
them up decades ago.

No. That is not what I said. You conveniently snipped what you said
which I responded to. YOU said they were all populated with neutron
warheads. THAT is what I refuted.

Get over your stupid self, child. Better yet, HOAD.

Wrong and lying, again. Here is the exchange:

You posted:

"A design for this application (asteroid destruction) would be a huge
device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which our
crop currently relies on. "

That of course is wrong, so I posted:


" The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting
in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction,
not to create radiation."


To which, you replied:

"You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!"


So, you claimed that our current nuclear weapons are targeted to create
radiation, not explosive blast destruction. Wrong.

Then you claimed that we don't have land and sub based ICBMs.

Now you just claimed that we banned neutron bombs, which is misleading,
AFAIK, there is no actual ban, there is no law, no agreement, no treaty
banning them, the US simply phased the small amount we had out.
But all that is irrelevant. The core nonsense here, that you put forth,
was that our current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation,
not blast power. That is wrong, very, very wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5cc9cf2-e023-4e04-b9f1-6914b1392a3d@googlegroups.com:

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear
weapons that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we gave
them up decades ago.

No. That is not what I said. You conveniently snipped what you said
which I responded to. YOU said they were all populated with neutron
warheads. THAT is what I refuted.

Get over your stupid self, child. Better yet, HOAD.

Wrong and lying, again. Here is the exchange:

You posted:

"A design for this application (asteroid destruction) would be a huge
device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which our
crop currently relies on. "

That of course is wrong, so I posted:


" The exception would be

whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is sitting
in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive destruction,
not to create radiation."

To which, you replied:

"You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!"


So, you claimed that our current nuclear weapons are targeted to create
radiation, not explosive blast destruction. Wrong.

Then you claimed that we don't have land and sub based ICBMs.

Now you just claimed that we banned neutron bombs, which is misleading,
AFAIK, there is no actual ban, there is no law, no agreement, no treaty
banning them, the US simply phased the small amount we had out.
But all that is irrelevant. The core nonsense here, that you put forth,
was that our current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation,
not blast power. That is wrong, very, very wrong.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.


That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

And any fusion bomb that we know how to make today
both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being they require a
fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and fusion itself releases
neutron radiation.

DLUNU didn't specify an existing fusion device. You've decided that he meant a fusion device which exists now and is known to people as stupid as trader4.

> So, even your mythical pure fusion bomb would radiate.

Not necessarily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Trader4 doesn't seem to know about these reactions.

In other words, you were wrong again. Now you want to try to move
the goal posts.

Trader4 has this persistent delusion that he knows what he is talking about, and can declare other peoples opinions wrong.

Krw has the same kind of problem. They both seem to lack any mechanism that allows them to reality check their opinions, and correct them when they've got them wrong, which happens rather frequently.

You just cannot get over the fact that you were wrong to attack me
or the statement.

You just can't get over the fact that what you posted was wrong.

Trader4 has said that it's wrong, and he's infallible on matters of faith in his own opinion (which is absolute).

And then you do the usual, expand on the ignorance, like claiming that our
current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation, not explosive
blast.

That's not what he was saying. He did mention that neutron bombs would have relied on pure radiation damage, and that they've been banned.

You seem to have misunderstood this - as often happens. You aren't very bight.

> Wrong, always wrong.

Actually not - except in the krw sense of not agreeing with trader4 opinion.

Nice try though, PUNK. You really need a HOAD moment in your life.

Would you volunteer to
stand exposed to the neutrons from a fusion reactor or bomb?

You are an idiot.

It was a serious question. You claim that a "pure fusion bomb" is
possible. I just want to know if you'd stand around and watch one
go off at a distance far enough to avoid any blast danger? Would
you stand in a lab next to an unshielded fusion reactor? You said
a pure fusion reaction doesn't radiate, so it would be safe, right?

They radiate a whole lot less than fission reactors, and an aneutronic fusion reaction would emit only charged particles, which are absorbed a lot more rapidly than neutrons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 9:58:05 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:4b94b1e5-737f-4523-9203-3383a641ccc7@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is
sitting in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive
destruction, not to create radiation.


You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid
fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!

Wrong again, always wrong.

Of course the US still has land based ICBMs as well as ICBMs on
nuclear subs under the world's oceans right now and weapons
capable of being delivered by aircraft. It's called the nuclear
triad, stupid. Trump didn't know what that was either, so you
have some good company there.


You are an idiot. You said they were all neutron bombs.

That's a lie, I said no such thing. In fact, it's YOU who claimed
that our current "crop" of nuclear weapons are based on using the
effects of radiation, not blast. That sounds like neutron bombs.
So, YOU brought up that BS, not me. And of course it's wrong.




They were

banned decades ago and were never on top of our ICBMs. That is what
I said.

No, in fact you said our current "crop" of nuclear weapons relies on
radiation, not explosive blast power. That's wrong and it implies
that what's on our ICBMs would be neutron bombs. So, make up your mind,
which is it? Our current weapons rely on radiation, not explosive blast
power or we don't have them, they were banned? The banned part is misleading
too. AFAIK, the US doesn't have any neutron bombs anymore, but it's not
because they were banned. There is no law, treaty, etc, which just phased
them out.

You are the dopey dumbfuck whom is always getting it wrong. Your
zeal to attack me only menas that you need a HOAD moment.

HOAD, twerp. That's all you deserve.

I suggest some anger management help.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.


That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to make today
both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being they require a
fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and fusion itself releases
neutron radiation. So, even your mythical pure fusion bomb would radiate.
In other words, you were wrong again. Now you want to try to move
the goal posts.

You just cannot get over the fact that you were wrong to attack me
or the statement.

You just can't get over the fact that what you posted was wrong. And
then you do the usual, expand on the ignorance, like claiming that our
current nuclear weapons rely on the effects of radiation, not explosive
blast. Wrong, always wrong.

Nice try though, PUNK. You really need a HOAD moment in your life.

Would you volunteer to
stand exposed to the neutrons from a fusion reactor or bomb?

You are an idiot.

It was a serious question. You claim that a "pure fusion bomb" is
possible. I just want to know if you'd stand around and watch one
go off at a distance far enough to avoid any blast danger? Would
you stand in a lab next to an unshielded fusion reactor? You said
a pure fusion reaction doesn't radiate, so it would be safe, right?

Ever
hear of a neutron bomb? Neutrons kill people stupid.

No... neutrons kill stupid people. The shame is that you have not
been exposed.

Would you volunteer for a HOAD event? It's free for folks like
you. I guarantee that it would be efficacious. HOAD, twerp.


And here again is what you posted:

You have a sad habit of this stupid shit. This is Usenet, idiot.
You do not need to requote previously posted material, putz.

Oh, but I do need to quote. Because you keep lying and denying what
you posted. You twist in the wind, spin and try to obfuscate.
But it just digs your ignorance hole ever deeper. And feel free to
quote whatever I post. When you're right and have the facts, you
welcome it.

"A design for this application would be a huge device meant for
explosive force, not radiation effect, which our crop currently
relies on. "


Which of course is wrong. The vast majority of our current
nuclear weapons are in fact meant for explosive force, not
radiation effect.

They are dual purpose and are designed to be that way.

Wrong on that too. Wrong, always wrong.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:4333f45e-33b9-4535-
addc-96988e3bbfd0@googlegroups.com:

> That's a lie, I said no such thing.

Yes you did. In fact you said that they are all that without
exception.

In fact, it's YOU who claimed
that our current "crop" of nuclear weapons are based on using the
effects of radiation, not blast. That sounds like neutron bombs.
So, YOU brought up that BS, not me. And of course it's wrong.

No. I said that radiation is part of what we currently use. Both
blast and radiated effects get imparted at the target.

I specifically said that we do not use neutron bombs anywhere, you
fucking idiot.

You said that all of our silos have neutron bombs in them. That is
what I refuted.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You
said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to
make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being
they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and
fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical
pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong
again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.

Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming
asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!

You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-
bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:

> You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device.

Physics is not myth, you stupid fucktard.

Pure fusion bomb. The term has been around for decades, child.

What is a myth is your claim to having more than two firing neurons
between your ears. I am skeptical that the number even reaches the
count of two.

HOAD, Louie.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:8680dbba-9351-492d-ab95-bc30a706da91@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e5cc9cf2-e023-4e04-b9f1-6914b1392a3d@googlegroups.com:

In another post you just said that the US no longer has nuclear
weapons that are on land based and sub based ICBMs, that we
gave them up decades ago.

No. That is not what I said. You conveniently snipped what
you said
which I responded to. YOU said they were all populated with
neutron warheads. THAT is what I refuted.

Get over your stupid self, child. Better yet, HOAD.

Wrong and lying, again. Here is the exchange:

You posted:

"A design for this application (asteroid destruction) would be a
huge device meant for explosive force, not radiation effect, which
our crop currently relies on. "

That of course is wrong, so I posted:

It is not wrong. If we ever even had such an application, it would
be a design meant for explosive force.

" The exception would be
whatever neutron bomb type devices we have, but all that is
sitting in silos and in boomer subs are targeted for explosive
destruction, not to create radiation."


To which, you replied:

"You are retarded. They are in no such locations you stupid
fuck. We
banned them DECADES ago!"

We did ban neutron bombs decades ago, idiot. So there are exactly
ZERO in any location.

So, you claimed that our current nuclear weapons are targeted to
create radiation, not explosive blast destruction. Wrong.

They are designed for both, idiot.

Then you claimed that we don't have land and sub based ICBMs.

No, I did not. You said they were all neutron bombs. THAT is what
I refuted, you fucking putz.

Now you just claimed that we banned neutron bombs, which is
misleading,

You are an idiot. They were absolutely banned worldwide.

> AFAIK,

Except, idiot... you do not know. In fact, you know nothing and
you prove it every time you spew forth.

there is no actual ban, there is no law, no
agreement, no treaty banning them, the US simply phased the small
amount we had out.

You really are stupid, child.

> But all that is irrelevant.

Yeah, because the shit you just spewed there is false. That pretty
much makes it totally irrelevant.

The core nonsense
here, that you put forth, was that our current nuclear weapons
rely on the effects of radiation, not blast power. That is wrong,
very, very wrong.

You are wrong. The sig you keep posting at the end of your inane
bullshit fits you perfectly though, as you are indeed always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.


That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

ROFL

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "


It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool. And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout. And further, DL
has demonstrated his total ignorance here. Besides this, the fool
said that our current nuclear arsenal is designed to use radiation
not explosive force destructive power. I suppose next you'll be
telling us your butt buddy is right on that too? Put that in your pipe
and smoke it, you silly kangaroo humping troll.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:10 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5dcacfe7-3c48-41e8-
8105-609ccac57015@googlegroups.com:

which
with current physics knowledge is impossible?

You are an idiot. They are quite possible.

The simple fact is that the CTBT keeps us from knowing anything
about it since we have not done any reearch or testing since the
'50s.

That;s obviously wrong, because the US as well as other countries have
done a whole lot of research and testing on nuclear bombs since the 50s.
Second, the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), isn't even a treaty,
it's not in effect and won't be until enough countries have ratified it.
The US and the existing nuclear club are not testing and OK with that
not really because of the CTBT proposed treaty, but because we don't
really need to test anymore. It's the "we've got ours, we're done,
we want to stop the rest of you", concept.


Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:


You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You
said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to
make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being
they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and
fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical
pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong
again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.


Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming
asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!

You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:


" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."


You're so lost and trapped in BS that you can't even remember what
you posted. And of course there is no such fusion device, nor is one
possible with today's understanding of physics. For a bomb, a
fission reaction is needed to create the extreme conditions required
for fusion.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up, dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days now.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.

ROFL

Trader4 is also easily amused.

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool.

I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.

And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout.

I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.

Scaling what up, fuckwit? From your own source:


"However, the conditions required to harness aneutronic fusion are much more extreme than those required for the conventional deuterium–tritium (D-T) nuclear fuel cycle. "

So, there is nothing at this point to even talk about scaling up.
And more importantly:

A - the conditions required are "much more extreme than those required
for conventional fusion". And we know how well the conventional fusion
work has gone. After over half a century of trying, we still have
nothing that works or is even close to working. So how viable is
something that requires much more extreme conditions?

B - this talk about aneutronic is about a small, controlled
enviornment similar to what is being worked on for
conventional fusion, ie trying to setup a very tiny space for a
small, CONTROLLED fusion reaction to take place. We haven't even
done that, but even if we did, that you can't
grasp how totally different that is from what is required for
an uncontrolled, massive explosion, ie a bomb, puts you in the
class of DL.

The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation
or fallout. And here you are, piling on, desperately trying to
bailout your butt buddy. Maybe you two should get together
and get your story straight. His new line is that radiation
from a bomb in space doesn't matter and he's now accusing me
of claiming it did!

ROFL

You two deserve each other.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:01:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up, dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.

That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days now.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

Trader4 doesn't get fine distinctions. I think DLUNU is smarter than Trader4. So is a lump of rock.

> ROFL

Trader4 is also easily amused.

> Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

A pity you couldn't make any sense it, which isn't exactly a surprise.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool.

I know why trader4 thinks that. It's the sort of idiot preconception that fools like trader4 invent when they are trying to concoct a rational-looking argument, without having enough sense to do it right.

And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout.

I do keep on pointing that aneutronic fusion is possible,and trader4 keeps on failing to get the point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Scaling it up to fusion bomb proportions would take work, but today's understanding of physics says that it is entirely possible.

And further, DL
has demonstrated his total ignorance here. Besides this, the fool
said that our current nuclear arsenal is designed to use radiation
not explosive force destructive power.

That does seem to reflect your defective understanding of what he said, rather than any error on his part.

> I suppose next you'll be telling us your butt buddy is right on that too? Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you silly kangaroo humping troll.

Since you claim that he said something that he didn't, you are the foolish troll here, not that you have the wit to realise it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:14:54 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:


You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You
said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to
make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being
they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and
fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical
pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong
again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.


Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming
asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!

You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."

They would, if they had one. Why create a bigger mess than you have to?

And if you are sending stuff up to outer space, you do have to worry about what might happen if it didn't make it out of the atmosphere, which does happen from time to time.

You're so lost and trapped in BS that you can't even remember what
you posted.

Trader4 is hopelessly lost in his bizarre misunderstandings of the stuff that other people post, and thinks that when anybody points this out, they have failed to remember posting what he thought that they posted.

It's amusing, if tedious.

And of course there is no such fusion device, nor is one
possible with today's understanding of physics.

Trader4 thinks that he understands the physics involved.

> For a bomb, a fission reaction is needed to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

Odd that the National Ignition Facility doesn't need a fission reaction reaction to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

It only creates small nuclear reactions at the moment, but that's all they need to do their job. Coping with bigger explosions would complicate their work.

> Wrong, always wrong.

Trader4 comes remarkably close to living up to his signature line.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.


That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

ROFL

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "


It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool. And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout. And further, DL
has demonstrated his total ignorance here. Besides this, the fool
said that our current nuclear arsenal is designed to use radiation
not explosive force destructive power. I suppose next you'll be
telling us your butt buddy is right on that too? Put that in your pipe
and smoke it, you silly kangaroo humping troll.


Why are people afraid to use their real names, and then make up dorky
nyms?

And why don't people discuss their electronic designs in SED? I guess
they don't have names or designs.

YOU post all manner of off topic things, including anything that pops into your head. You even start entire threads.

What are you complaining about? You have exactly what you practice.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:06:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:14:54 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:09:04 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:c8e4bf8f-f587-4464-bd3b-8859dec2c261@googlegroups.com:


You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You
said "fusion device". And any fusion bomb that we know how to
make today both radiates and contaminates, two good reasons being
they require a fission nuclear reaction to create fusion and
fusion itself releases neutron radiation. So, even your mythical
pure fusion bomb would radiate. In other words, you were wrong
again. Now you want to try to move the goal posts.


Oh boy.... Neutron emission way up in space where the incoming
asteroid is at. We should worry! NOT!

You are an idiot. DANCE, IDIOT!... DANCE!

You're the one that was worried about radiation from a bomb
used way out in space. You posted this:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates."

They would, if they had one. Why create a bigger mess than you have to?

If Uber cars went up into space, they could just send one of those
and push the asteroid out of the way. See how easy it is when you
make up silly things that don't exist?




> And if you are sending stuff up to outer space, you do have to worry about what might happen if it didn't make it out of the atmosphere, which does happen from time to time.

Seems with the future of life on earth about to end from an asteroid
that wouldn't be high on the priority list. But of course being a
silly lib, that's exactly the kind of thing you'd focus on.

You're so lost and trapped in BS that you can't even remember what
you posted.

Trader4 is hopelessly lost in his bizarre misunderstandings of the stuff that other people post, and thinks that when anybody points this out, they have failed to remember posting what he thought that they posted.

It's amusing, if tedious.

And of course there is no such fusion device, nor is one
possible with today's understanding of physics.

Trader4 thinks that he understands the physics involved.

For a bomb, a fission reaction is needed to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

Odd that the National Ignition Facility doesn't need a fission reaction reaction to create the extreme conditions required for fusion.

Not odd that Bill doesn't understand that a controlled fusion
experiment where we put in a massive amount of power, more power
than we get out, to try
to generate a tiny amount of fusion energy, means nothing when
what we're talking about is a fusion bomb and one that has to be
compact and go into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility

It only creates small nuclear reactions at the moment, but that's all they need to do their job. Coping with bigger explosions would complicate their work.

It would never create an actual destructive explosion at all, fool.
But keep trying to bailout your butt buddy. Meanwhile, he's shifted
gears, he's now claiming that radiation way out in space doesn't
matter and actually accusing me of being the one who said it did!
Now, ain't that special? Why don't you two get your stories straight?

ROFL

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:50:17 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:08:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:41573418-6c17-4f75-82a3-a588cf5594e2@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:3644f3f8-6bff-44b1- 971d-4038be8906d4@googlegroups.com:

That's all wrong too. Our current devices are aimed at
explosive destructive force, not for radiation effect.

Dumbfuck. A pure fusion device would be tactical. Try to keep
up,
dipshit.

A Buck Rogers time machine would be tactical too, if it really
existed...... It doesn't.


That is your argument? Note that the statement I made is a
hypothetical. I know that term is hard for you to grasp, because you
have been going off about stupid shit for days nows.

Neither does your pure fusion bomb that
creates no radiation or contamination.

Look at the remark, you stupid fuck. It is not incorrect. A pure
fusion device would be clean. Plain and simple and correct.

Again, here is what you posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "

You didn't say they would use a pure, mythical fusion device. You said
"fusion device".

Trader4 is stupid enough to think that this is an argument.

Unlike Bill, who's so stupid he thinks DL is smart. Two peas in a pod.

ROFL

Rest of your useless troll BS flushed.

Here is what DL posted:

" Here... they would use a FUSION type nuclear device, not one that
radiates or contaminates. "


It's clear what he meant. If one is proposing to use some non-existent
device, which would have to be developed, then it's up to them to say
so, fool. And further, and again, with today's understanding of physics,
there is no way to create a FUSION BOMB, without using a fission reaction
first and without creating radiation and fallout. And further, DL
has demonstrated his total ignorance here. Besides this, the fool
said that our current nuclear arsenal is designed to use radiation
not explosive force destructive power. I suppose next you'll be
telling us your butt buddy is right on that too? Put that in your pipe
and smoke it, you silly kangaroo humping troll.

Why are people afraid to use their real names, and then make up dorky
nyms?

And why don't people discuss their electronic designs in SED? I guess
they don't have names or designs.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics