How Astronomers Missed the Massive Asteroid That Just Whizze

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

Now you're beginning to understand.

FOAD, you little retarded fuck.

Better yet, HOAD.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

> And for a bomb, you can't provide containment.

No one is trying to, IDIOT!

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

BTW, you are 100% wrong, none of the subsequent power produced
has been used to contain anything.

Bullshit. The entire efficiency statement on the device is about how
much POWER it makes over how much of the power it makes is needed to
contain the reaction and sustain it.

You are a goddamned idiot, motherfucker.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

Fool, you have to contain it to create the conditions for the fusion
reaction!

You are an idiot.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 11:32:03 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5c637c61-1d07-415b-
b32d-d76570db3ac7@googlegroups.com:

No, you accepted the problem and proposed using a
fusion bomb, thinking it's clean. IT's not. Wrong again.

You are an idiot. Read the thread, jackass.

It was not you, but I responded to another poster claiming that it
would rain radioactive debris down on us. I should have known it was
not you, since terms like 'debris' are outside of your grasp.

Oh no, you mean you were wrong?

And no, dipshit... there was no "thinking it's clean". That is
just you again, being stupid. Since a fusion device was suggested,
it follows that reason for the suggestion was to eliminate
radioactivity from affecting the exploded segments.

And fusion bombs are not clean. And with current understanding of physics,
there is no way to make such a device. You're buddy Bill lied and claimed
I said there was no way to create fusion without fission. That isn't what
I said. I said there is no way to create a fusion BOMB without fission.
And I'm well aware that we have created tiny, controlled fusion in a very
tiny pellet using massive amounts of eqpt. That's what it takes to
do it in a tiny pellet. It won't work in a BOMB. In fact, one of the best
things in favor of using fusion for energy, IF we can ever get to that
point, is that it can't explode, that if the plasma touches anything,
the fusion stops. Capiche? A fusion bomb works by using the radiation
from a fission reaction that occurs so quickly, that it can irradiate the
fusion material before the fusion material gets blown away. Completely
different to any of the contained fusion for power experiments.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 10:45:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 2:43:38 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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. "

Also from my source

"HB11 Energy, an Australian spin-off company created in September 2017, holds the patents of UNSW's theoretical physicist Heinrich Hora and develops a two-laser driven fusion energy technique with an avalanche reaction offering a billion time increased fusion yield improvement compared to other previous inertial confinement fusion systems."

They may be extreme, but they also appear to be accessible.

To theoretically create fusion in a tiny pellet of material, not the
un-contained explosion of a bomb, stupid.

I've heard Heinrich Hora talk about the scheme, and it does seem to be practicable. Getting the money together to buy the bits is what spin-offs are all about.

Yes, I can see how that could be a problem, given that after having spent
trillions of dollars over half a century on the far simpler version of
fusion, we still have nothing remotely approaching anything viable for
power production. And this novel method, per your own genius source,
requires conditions far more extreme.

So, there is nothing at this point to even talk about scaling up.

Not that trader4 noticed. Venture capitalists do seem to have more sense than trader4 - who doesn't - and might beg to differ, if they didn't have better things to do with their time.
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.

The Joint European Torus has been working for a decade now, and ITER should be working in 2025 and get serious - if brief - power generation by 2035.. It's still a proof of principle machine, but big enough to make the next step an actual power generator.

We're talking about a bomb, not electric power generation, stupid.

So how viable is
something that requires much more extreme conditions?

Rather more viable, if Heinrich Hora is right.

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.

I can grasp the difference without any difficulty. You clearly can't. Anybody who claim that physics makes fusion impossible without fusion, when we've been doing it for years (albeit on a small scale) really doesn't know what he's talking about.

That's another lie. I didn't say physics makes fusion impossible without
fusion. I didn't say physics makes fusion impossible without fission.
What I said was that with our current level of understanding of physics
a FUSION BOMB is impossible without fission, stupid.

A massive energy yield wouldn't be any less controlled than the tiny experiments that are going on at the moment.

That's obvious stupid and wrong.



You've got to scale up the process massively, but the fact that the equipment doesn't have to survive the energy release makes it a very different design problem, with different opportunities.

The fool posts that fusion bombs don't emit radiation
or fallout.

He didn't.

Yes he did. It's just that now you and your butt buddy want to lie and
try to spin it into something else.



You chose to understand that his fusion device was a conventional fission-fusion-fission hydrogen bomb, which was and is entirely idiotic, and you still haven't realised that you'd set up a straw man.

If you weren't too dumb to realise that you'd misunderstood what was posted in the first place, this would be dishonest, but it's just idiotic.

And here you are, piling on, desperately trying to
bailout your butt buddy. Maybe you two should get together
and get your story straight.

Why bother? You are much happier with the story that you extracted by misunderstanding what has been posted and you are much too dumb to ever realise that it's you've got thewrong end of the stick.

His new line is that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter and he's now accusing me of claiming it did!

It's perfectly obvious that radiation from a bomb in space doesn't matter..

Then why did your butt buddy propose using a fusion bomb, because he claimed
fusion bombs didn't emit radiation or contamination? And why didn't you
point that out to him? No, instead you joined him in his hole of ignorance..




There are risks involved in getting a dirty bomb into space, so a clean bomb would be more attractive.

Your take on the issue is one that looks good to you, and you are too stupid to realise that you have - as usual - misunderstood what was said.

ROFL

You two deserve each other.

Neither of us deserve you. But the genetic lottery does mean that there are some very stupid people around, a few with a totally unrealistic idea of their own competence. Public-spirited citizens have an obligation to identify these dangerous lunatics, and we've been doing our duty.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yes, I'm sure the world feels much safer knowing that a stupid kangaroo
humping lib is online to save them.


ROFL

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 11:23:41 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:19d645b7-7b52-4694-86bb-d59c44189495@googlegroups.com:

It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of
equipment and the instantaneous power of the whole country, all we
can do is create fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as
much energy as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up
into a bomb, fool.


You are an idiot. For CONTROLLED use here, we use a pellet.

And it does put out quite a lot of heat. So much that much of the
heat and subsequent power it produces is required to contain it.

Now you're beginning to understand. That's right, to start that fusion
and keep it going, the containment necessary to create a tiny hot plasma
is extreme. And for a bomb, you can't provide containment. Therefore
all the whining about controlled fusion by you and Bill is meaningless.
Capiche? BTW, you are 100% wrong, none of the subsequent power produced
has been used to contain anything. We've never produced any actual usable
power period. The power for containment has come from the grid.

So of course it is a small mass. It puts out far more than the
laser impingement required to bring it critical. The containment of
the reaction is what costs.

Duh! Which is what makes it irrelevant for a bomb.

And as far as "scaling that up", we most certainly could, because
we are NOT spending ANY energy on containment for an explosive yield
device.

Fool, you have to contain it to create the conditions for the fusion
reaction! If you start a small reaction, lose containment, it stops.
Hell, that's one of the things that proponents of fussion reactors
point out. That they CAN'T EXPLODE! Which is why for a BOMB, they use
a fission reaction to provide the radiation that creates the conditions
for fusion, so quickly that the rest of the bomb, the fusion material
gets irradiated, but has not gotten blown away yet. Capiche?

No, you never will.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:f59e6596-f2ec-4670-
a234-e317a98f7662@googlegroups.com:

> And fusion bombs are not clean.

I never suggested that we use any current device.

You dig, you retarded fuck?

HOAD, boy!

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:dce07555-f083-46c4-
b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

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



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that would
rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our current
"crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not explosive
destructive power. And then just like above you lied, turned it upside
down and claimed that I said that our current weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

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



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed, low aptitude, former laborer who did
some stock trading who thinks he knows all about the world, but could
not perform skilled or manual labor if his life depended on it. He
very likely sucks on a gubmint nipple as a disabled punk. The
pussified fuck wouldn't know what real work was if it bit him in the
ass.

Not a lot different than you with your NASA sentiments. Odd too
though... as they DO perform real work.

And yes, and I did, but you ignored them.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 12:27:02 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

BTW, you are 100% wrong, none of the subsequent power produced
has been used to contain anything.

Bullshit. The entire efficiency statement on the device is about how
much POWER it makes over how much of the power it makes is needed to
contain the reaction and sustain it.

You are a goddamned idiot, motherfucker.

None of the power has been captured, converted to electricity to power
the containment. We're not even close to that, despite half a century
of trying.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 12:17:47 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:965998fd-9c91-4777-
ab95-a0ee3e024a92@googlegroups.com:

We're talking about a bomb, not electric power generation, stupid.



Yet you are the one whom keeps rattling on about how we cannot make
power because we keep the reaction small.

I never said that. I said we can't make power because we can't even
sustain and control a small fusion reaction, can't get more power out
than we put in.

The point is, idiot... We DO know how to make the reaction, and we
DO know how to make it at any scale we wish.

That's a lie. If we knew how to make it and scale it, we'd be deploying
it. And any scaling is for a controlled fusion reaction, not a bomb.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 12:16:08 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:965998fd-9c91-4777-ab95-a0ee3e024a92@googlegroups.com:

Yes, I can see how that could be a problem, given that after
having spent trillions of dollars over half a century on the far
simpler version of fusion, we still have nothing remotely
approaching anything viable for power production. And this novel
method, per your own genius source, requires conditions far more
extreme.


You are an abject idiot. First, it was not "Trillions of dollars",
you retarded fuck.

Get back to us when you have an accounting. Whatever the total, it's
a huge amount of money.

Second, it has been longer than half a century, dipshit.

And it still doesn't work and about this, you're bragging?

Third, it is experimental, so that WE scientists (100% excludes
you) can characterize what elements will be required to move to power
production.

I guess you have no clue as to how educational institutions operate.

Much less research grants, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

You are clueless, etc.

If it was possible to "move to power production", that is what we'd
be doing stupid. We can't because it still doesn't work, isn't feasible,
etc. But you and Bill want to use a fusion process that even Bill's
source says requires far more extreme conditions than that which we
already can't do. And regardless, it
won't work because all of the above is for a contained fusion, not
a massive, uncontained explosion. And then in the next post you say
radiation and contamination would not matter, so why then did you bring
avoiding radiation and contamination?

Confused and wrong, always wrong.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 12:25:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ec1ef419-c19d-4f48-
bbd6-3f157285db12@googlegroups.com:

And for a bomb, you can't provide containment.

No one is trying to, IDIOT!

You have to provide containment with any of the experimental fusion
processes, which is why all your BS, all Bill's BS is wrong. You
don't provide containment for a fusion bomb, which is why they use
a fission reaction to create the instantaneous massive radiation to
set off the fusion.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

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



No, jackass... YOU were the one worried about it as I stated
we
could break it up and you came back bitching about how that
would rain radioactive pieces down on us.

That's yet another lie. I challenge you to give us the post where
I said that. Show it to us. You can't, because I never said it,
I never brought up the issue of radiation from a bomb way out in
space being a problem. YOU proposed using a fusion bomb, claiming
that would avoid radiation and contamination. Which of course
is wrong, always wrong. Then you went on to claim that our
current "crop" of nuclear weapons rely on radiation effects, not
explosive destructive power. And then just like above you lied,
turned it upside down and claimed that I said that our current
weapons are neutron bombs.

Wrong, always wrong.

Have you ever designed electronics? Show us.

He is an obese, lard assed,

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true. You've never met me,
have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh. That's the difference.
I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time. You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....
I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.

Try getting some help with anger management.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 1:00:34 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

It's not possible because with whole a whole building full of equipment and
the instantaneous power of the whole country, all we can do is create
fusion in a small pellet that doesn't generate as much energy
as is put into it. There is no way to scale that up into a bomb, fool.

If you wanted a bomb, you wouldn't start with system that is intended to keep on pumping out power for years.

That would be silly. Imagining that this is the only way of getting to a bomb is even sillier.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 2:05:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 11:32:03 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5c637c61-1d07-415b-
b32d-d76570db3ac7@googlegroups.com:

No, you accepted the problem and proposed using a
fusion bomb, thinking it's clean. IT's not. Wrong again.

You are an idiot. Read the thread, jackass.

It was not you, but I responded to another poster claiming that it
would rain radioactive debris down on us. I should have known it was
not you, since terms like 'debris' are outside of your grasp.

Oh no, you mean you were wrong?

Probably not, but trader4 has only one way of reeading other people's posts, and it always leads him to conclude that they were wrong and he was right..

And no, dipshit... there was no "thinking it's clean". That is
just you again, being stupid. Since a fusion device was suggested,
it follows that reason for the suggestion was to eliminate
radioactivity from affecting the exploded segments.

And fusion bombs are not clean.

trader4 has bothered to tell us which sort of fusion bombs aren't clean, probably because he doesn't know enough to realise that the is more than one way of making a fusion bomb (not that anybody has admitted having worked out any of the alternatives yet).

And with current understanding of physics,
there is no way to make such a device.

Trader4 does like advertising the fact that he knows very little about physics. He probably doesn't realise that he is advertising his ignorance - he doesn't know much.

You're buddy Bill lied and claimed
I said there was no way to create fusion without fission. That isn't what
I said. I said there is no way to create a fusion BOMB without fission.

A bomb is just a fusion on a larger scale. It is obviously possible, but nobody who might have bothered to work out has advertised the fact - it would get them a lot of attention, and not of the kind sane people might seek.

And I'm well aware that we have created tiny, controlled fusion in a very
tiny pellet using massive amounts of eqpt. That's what it takes to
do it in a tiny pellet. It won't work in a BOMB.

Obviously not. That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of initiiating fusion. Once you have decided that you want a bomb, controlling the process becomes less demanding.

In fact, one of the best
things in favor of using fusion for energy, IF we can ever get to that
point, is that it can't explode, that if the plasma touches anything,
the fusion stops. Capiche?

That's why these particular approaches are being used as an approach to power generation.

A fusion bomb works by using the radiation
from a fission reaction that occurs so quickly, that it can irradiate the
fusion material before the fusion material gets blown away. Completely
different to any of the contained fusion for power experiments.

Obviously. Using the irradiation from a relatively small fusion reation in the same way would also work, but that would blow away your power generating plant, so it isn't being looked into in the power generating world.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5fd5218f-cbdd-4d77-
9fdd-2cdeda03ae25@googlegroups.com:

I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time.

You have been calling Bill and I "butt buddies" and you call him a
fool pretty often too.

You. You're just a lame, fat assed, immature hypocrite.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5fd5218f-cbdd-4d77-
9fdd-2cdeda03ae25@googlegroups.com:

Try getting some help with anger management.

Capturing a video of you in a HOAD event would help greatly!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 9:38:27 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:3r3eketcmc7ig16c5on614q868sp39c5mu@4ax.com:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:03:49 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dce07555-f083-46c4- b44b-c032bbc677d5@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

See, this is how all the trouble starts. You just make up total BS,
pulled from nowhere and claim it to be true.

As if your mode of operation was any different. You think it is different because you have no idea how dumb you actually are, and don't realise that your failure to greasp what was actually said means that you post total BS.

> You've never met me, have no pictures of me, have no idea what I weigh.

We hope that this continues to be true.

> That's the difference.

You think you've met either of us?

I would never post things that I didn't know to be true and you do it
all the time.

Yoy may post things that you think are true, but your cognitive deficits means that what you think to be true often doesn't have any connection to reality.

The same deficit leads you to conclude that stuff that gets posted that doesn't agree with what you think to be true is actually wrong. This doesn't necessarily follow.

You make up things about me, you make up BS about fusion,
you make up BS about airplanes, you make up BS about the B1 bomber....

We post stuff that you choose not to believe. That doesn't make it any kind of invention or BS. You really don't know much, and a lot of what you believe doesn't haapen to be correct.

I wouldn't call you a lard ass or ugly because I don't know if you are
but I will call you stupid, because that you demonstrate here for all to see.

Bad logic. Disagreeing with trader4 is always the safer option - he really is stupid, to the extent that he can't realise how stupid he is.

> Try getting some help with anger management.

We aren't angry with you. Clearly we despise you, but all that takes is good judgement. DLUNU takes the attitude that the world would be a better place is you suffered from some fatal accident, which ignores the fact that you might have some redeeming social virtue that doesn't get exhibited here - it's improbable but he should admit that it is possible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney