Adam Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 So how do Plutonium and Uranium compare to Illudium Q-36? Is it a viable energy source or only good for Explosive Space Modulators? It also works well with a flux capacitor
Celtic_soulja Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 You got almost nothing right. You are right, though, about one thing: Wall Street hires a surprising number of physicists. I was recruited myself, when I finished my graduate work. Yes, it is. Biofuels in general - ethanol or biodiesel - carry with them a land use cost that makes them prohibitively expensive on large scales. Unless you're assuming we'll also invent some new sort of food source for people to eat. Now tell me what that means. I need a good laugh. 1.21 gigawatts GREAT SCOTT. Dude, if you say I got it all wrong. Then its YOUR responsibility to explain it mr. Wall Street physicist. So you are also a rocket scientist, real estate mogul, goldman sachs liason, your brother in law is a bilderberg right? Have you travelled to the moon as well? Let me guess, you're sitting on a perpetual motion cold fussion time machine that will be able to clean up oil spills, stop hurricanes, and destroy immigrants and the working class that cause the blight in inner cities? I never claimed to be a physicist, so I don't mind if I got some of my post wrong. The ONLY point I was trying to prove is that there IS room to improve on current science. Since you are such a friggen scientist, you would have already known that and oh, yeah, would have been much less ignorant in saying that you cannot make Nuclear reactor engineering more efficient. As if we have not done so over the years ALREADY. You Are A Douche
Celtic_soulja Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Seriously DB Tom, if you have all this immense knowledge of everything as you continously state you do. Then it is you we should be blaming for all this. Right? Damn you DB Tom, where were you on this oil spill man? WTH? And since you've got ALL the answers, what will happen if a hurricane shoots through the gulf over the next month. That's something I've been thinking about the past few days. Does ANYONE know what would happen if a hurricane hit the oil spill in the gulf? I’ve been poking around to see what I can come up with. Some people are saying it could cause crude oil/seawater emulsion. Could catch fire with lightening and cause a flaming hurricane leaving an oily emulsion coating over everything in its path. Which is complete bs. This is water and crude oil emulsion. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/6084611-5...tent=a714012024 if the conditions are not controlled, emulsion becomes unstable. Emulsion would be impossible because the oil seawater mix would be 98% to 2%, well above below the amount of oil concentration you would need. You would also need propellers to agitate the mix, when you are using just movement and force like a hurricane you can get reverse emulsion that is quite disgusting. You would have a better chance of emulsion with a tropical storm because it agitates much more shallow and therefore that would increase the oil concentration in the mixture. Again without agitators it would be reverse emulsion if anything and this forms like an oily sticky rubbery booger crap at the top, it is still lighter than water and would be easily blown in the wind all over God’s creation during a tropical storm. Again I think this is highly unlikely because of the amount of water to oil. So I couldn’t really see this happening thank God. They are saying it is dumping at a rate of 200,000 gallons per day. It could take as long as 3 months before they intercept the leaking well with their release well. That’s ridiculous and if they crimp it, they risk worse per day numbers than 200,000 gallons. Either way if you leak at the current rate for three months you’re talking 20 million gallons until the leak is taken care of. 20 million gallons spreading over the Gulf of Mexico, adding a hurricane that displaces 100m deep of surface water. Bigger hurricanes can spread sea spray miles inland. How far it spreads the sea spray, or in our case oil and seawater, depends on the size, speed, and strength of the hurricane. Considering the time frame that they are giving to stop the leak (3-4 months), and the time of year. Hurricane season in the Gulf starts in June. It is not all that far fetched. Over water spills are bad enough, but if they get a storm that carries the oil from the surface of the Gulf and splays it all across miles of land they are in real trouble. Not to mention the ground water table in Florida is as shallow as four feet in some areas. This oil could be tracked all over the place in a relatively short amount of time. Containment, if it is even possible, would be the worst nightmare in oil spill history. Not because of the amount but because the area. Also, oil is lighter than sea water and therefore if the average hurricane can spray seawater several miles inland, how much further could is spray oil? It would be a real disaster if the oil is still highly flammable, as the west coast of Florida records the most lightening strikes in the entire world annually. Again I don’t believe the concentration is strong enough and most of the gasses that make crude volatile evaporate after 48 hours. However, I do believe there is a very outside chance at something like this happening. This is not only a catastrophe, but also could not have happened in a worse area at a worse time of year. This could be a lot worse and I am praying that they get it plugged up correctly and quickly. I hope they can contain it and clean it up before something dreadful happens. If a good amount of this oil makes it inland via storms, the impact could be truly devastating. Those are the things I could see happening if they don’t fix things in a hurry.
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Seriously DB Tom, if you have all this immense knowledge of everything as you continously state you do. Then it is you we should be blaming for all this. Right? Damn you DB Tom, where were you on this oil spill man? WTH? And since you've got ALL the answers, what will happen if a hurricane shoots through the gulf over the next month. That's something I've been thinking about the past few days. Does ANYONE know what would happen if a hurricane hit the oil spill in the gulf? I’ve been poking around to see what I can come up with. Some people are saying it could cause crude oil/seawater emulsion. Could catch fire with lightening and cause a flaming hurricane leaving an oily emulsion coating over everything in its path. Which is complete bs. This is water and crude oil emulsion. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/6084611-5...tent=a714012024 if the conditions are not controlled, emulsion becomes unstable. Emulsion would be impossible because the oil seawater mix would be 98% to 2%, well above below the amount of oil concentration you would need. You would also need propellers to agitate the mix, when you are using just movement and force like a hurricane you can get reverse emulsion that is quite disgusting. You would have a better chance of emulsion with a tropical storm because it agitates much more shallow and therefore that would increase the oil concentration in the mixture. Again without agitators it would be reverse emulsion if anything and this forms like an oily sticky rubbery booger crap at the top, it is still lighter than water and would be easily blown in the wind all over God’s creation during a tropical storm. Again I think this is highly unlikely because of the amount of water to oil. So I couldn’t really see this happening thank God. They are saying it is dumping at a rate of 200,000 gallons per day. It could take as long as 3 months before they intercept the leaking well with their release well. That’s ridiculous and if they crimp it, they risk worse per day numbers than 200,000 gallons. Either way if you leak at the current rate for three months you’re talking 20 million gallons until the leak is taken care of. 20 million gallons spreading over the Gulf of Mexico, adding a hurricane that displaces 100m deep of surface water. Bigger hurricanes can spread sea spray miles inland. How far it spreads the sea spray, or in our case oil and seawater, depends on the size, speed, and strength of the hurricane. Considering the time frame that they are giving to stop the leak (3-4 months), and the time of year. Hurricane season in the Gulf starts in June. It is not all that far fetched. Over water spills are bad enough, but if they get a storm that carries the oil from the surface of the Gulf and splays it all across miles of land they are in real trouble. Not to mention the ground water table in Florida is as shallow as four feet in some areas. This oil could be tracked all over the place in a relatively short amount of time. Containment, if it is even possible, would be the worst nightmare in oil spill history. Not because of the amount but because the area. Also, oil is lighter than sea water and therefore if the average hurricane can spray seawater several miles inland, how much further could is spray oil? It would be a real disaster if the oil is still highly flammable, as the west coast of Florida records the most lightening strikes in the entire world annually. Again I don’t believe the concentration is strong enough and most of the gasses that make crude volatile evaporate after 48 hours. However, I do believe there is a very outside chance at something like this happening. This is not only a catastrophe, but also could not have happened in a worse area at a worse time of year. This could be a lot worse and I am praying that they get it plugged up correctly and quickly. I hope they can contain it and clean it up before something dreadful happens. If a good amount of this oil makes it inland via storms, the impact could be truly devastating. Those are the things I could see happening if they don’t fix things in a hurry. Oh, it could have happened at a worse time of year. For example: hurricane season.
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 1.21 gigawatts GREAT SCOTT. Dude, if you say I got it all wrong. Then its YOUR responsibility to explain it mr. Wall Street physicist. So you are also a rocket scientist, real estate mogul, goldman sachs liason, your brother in law is a bilderberg right? Have you travelled to the moon as well? Let me guess, you're sitting on a perpetual motion cold fussion time machine that will be able to clean up oil spills, stop hurricanes, and destroy immigrants and the working class that cause the blight in inner cities? I never claimed to be a physicist, so I don't mind if I got some of my post wrong. The ONLY point I was trying to prove is that there IS room to improve on current science. Since you are such a friggen scientist, you would have already known that and oh, yeah, would have been much less ignorant in saying that you cannot make Nuclear reactor engineering more efficient. As if we have not done so over the years ALREADY. You Are A Douche You'd need a basic eductation before I could even begin to correct you. Graphite collects the energy? Heavy water moderates the neutrons? Plutonium's inefficient because of U-234 reaction cross sections that you don't even understand? Do you even know what an electron volt is? You're too ignorant to even discuss it.
drnykterstein Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 Seriously DB Tom, if you have all this immense knowledge of everything as you continously state you do. Then it is you we should be blaming for all this. Right? Damn you DB Tom, where were you on this oil spill man? WTH? I think DC Tom doesn't believe much of what he says on here. He just likes to fight and rile people up on here. He'll play the devils advocate and take any side whether or not he believes it. And if he really does believe some of the stuff he says... the guy has the worst case of cognitive dissonance known to man.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 You'd need a basic eductation before I could even begin to correct you. Graphite collects the energy? Heavy water moderates the neutrons? Plutonium's inefficient because of U-234 reaction cross sections that you don't even understand? Do you even know what an electron volt is? You're too ignorant to even discuss it. heheheheeheeheehehhe yeah graphite doesn't absorb nuetrons buddy http://reade.com/eastern-region-(usa)/10040 Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Just a quote I didn't want you to miss. Link = http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/gl...ed-reactor.html The mass separation method relies on ejecting a stream of Uranium atoms through a very strong magnetic field. The mass differences causes the U-235, the lighter atoms to deflect into a collecting tray. Though slow and also more energy intensive than gas diffusion, this process produces the least nuclear waste. Just pointing out enriched Uranium is lighter and creates less waste than the Plutonium counterpart U 234 you mentioned. http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/STS/STS.069/f02...g/plutonium.pdf quote comes from this essay written by some shmoe from MIT. Don't worry DB Tom, you're way more credible. When did you stop studying Nuclear Physics? 1950? I TOLD you things change over time bud. Get a clue. And again, I will let you know when you start using your brain
Celtic_soulja Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 I think DC Tom doesn't believe much of what he says on here. He just likes to fight and rile people up on here. He'll play the devils advocate and take any side whether or not he believes it. And if he really does believe some of the stuff he says... the guy has the worst case of cognitive dissonance known to man. Yeah I am kind of new here. I am learning how full of it DB Tom can be when he wants to be.
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 heheheheeheeheehehhe yeah graphite doesn't absorb nuetrons buddy http://reade.com/eastern-region-(usa)/10040 Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the use of unenriched uranium as a fuel. Just a quote I didn't want you to miss. Link = http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/gl...ed-reactor.html The mass separation method relies on ejecting a stream of Uranium atoms through a very strong magnetic field. The mass differences causes the U-235, the lighter atoms to deflect into a collecting tray. Though slow and also more energy intensive than gas diffusion, this process produces the least nuclear waste. Just pointing out enriched Uranium is lighter and creates less waste than the Plutonium counterpart U 234 you mentioned. http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/STS/STS.069/f02...g/plutonium.pdf quote comes from this essay written by some shmoe from MIT. Don't worry DB Tom, you're way more credible. When did you stop studying Nuclear Physics? 1950? I TOLD you things change over time bud. Get a clue. And again, I will let you know when you start using your brain And you didn't understand any of that. Graphite still doesn't absorb energy. Heavy water still doesn't moderate nuclear reactions. "Uranium is lighter and creates less waste" is complete bull ****. YOU mentioned U234, not me (I wouldn't mention it, since it's not even a fissile isotope - YOU don't even know what isotopes are used in a fission reaction. ) And you can't even explain know how gas diffusion or magnetic mass separation is used in a nuclear reaction, I'll bet. But keep trying. You're amusing the hell out of me...I've forgotten more about this than you can even google. Why did you link to the reaction cross-sections of U234, anyway? They're completely irrelevent to...whatever point you're failing to make.
keepthefaith Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Would you look for ways to use less gas if it were more expensive? I can hardly think of a more economic stifling move that one could make ($2 tax per gallon of gas). Would you also tax diesel fuel, which would raise the price of nearly every product that we buy or consume? Are you looking to light the torch of inflation and fan the flames? If no tax on diesel, do you think auto makers and consumers would make a shift to diesel powered cars to reduce their fuel costs? What's accomplished then? Are taxing and spending the only tools in your bag?
Celtic_soulja Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 And you didn't understand any of that. Graphite still doesn't absorb energy. Heavy water still doesn't moderate nuclear reactions. "Uranium is lighter and creates less waste" is complete bull ****. YOU mentioned U234, not me (I wouldn't mention it, since it's not even a fissile isotope - YOU don't even know what isotopes are used in a fission reaction. ) And you can't even explain know how gas diffusion or magnetic mass separation is used in a nuclear reaction, I'll bet. But keep trying. You're amusing the hell out of me...I've forgotten more about this than you can even google. Why did you link to the reaction cross-sections of U234, anyway? They're completely irrelevent to...whatever point you're failing to make. I know I am amusing. I will just continue to "ignorantly" believe the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and MIT. I know you know more than they do DB Tom. I am sorry for questioning your all knowing BS heheheh. Will Windes says that as the grade of graphite increases with technology the nuclear power industry will be both safer and more efficient. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't know DB Tom, world famous Wall Street Physicist who maintains that graphite will not/cannot absorb anything because he has done the graphite 9 iron in bathtub test. Tom, you have to call INL and talk with them about the AGC project they are wasting money on dude. They really believe the graphite capsules can absorb the radiation. I don't know if everyone there believes that horse hockey but if you can you need to talk to Mike Wall the one reporting it. I think you could turn the Nuclear Power Industry on its ear if you break the news that thier use of graphite fuel rods to absorb the energy is not going to work (thought it had been done like this for years now) hehehe Just like heavy water is not a moderator, contrary to what the USNRC says. I know I should have studied physics in my academic career because I want to be involved in local government. And I believe you forgot plenty DB, what is sad is thinking you remember anything hehehe Bottom line, whether I am explaining it all sullied up or not. You say you cannot advance the Nuclear Reactor technology anymore than it already is. That statement alone gives me a pass completely because you are claiming to be an all knowing physicist that HAPPENS to work on Wall Street, because Nuclear Reactor Physics JUST DOESN'T PAY ENOUGH heheheheeheheheheh Every major scientist ACTUALLY IN THE FIELD is talking about advances being made. You're a moron to even TRY to say there can't be. There are TONS of advances to be made. We don't even have to CHANGE the laws of physics like you say we do. MORON.
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 I know I am amusing. I will just continue to "ignorantly" believe the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and MIT. I know you know more than they do DB Tom. I am sorry for questioning your all knowing BS heheheh. Will Windes says that as the grade of graphite increases with technology the nuclear power industry will be both safer and more efficient. He OBVIOUSLY doesn't know DB Tom, world famous Wall Street Physicist who maintains that graphite will not/cannot absorb anything because he has done the graphite 9 iron in bathtub test. Tom, you have to call INL and talk with them about the AGC project they are wasting money on dude. They really believe the graphite capsules can absorb the radiation. I don't know if everyone there believes that horse hockey but if you can you need to talk to Mike Wall the one reporting it. I think you could turn the Nuclear Power Industry on its ear if you break the news that thier use of graphite fuel rods to absorb the energy is not going to work (thought it had been done like this for years now) hehehe Just like heavy water is not a moderator, contrary to what the USNRC says. I know I should have studied physics in my academic career because I want to be involved in local government. And I believe you forgot plenty DB, what is sad is thinking you remember anything hehehe Bottom line, whether I am explaining it all sullied up or not. You say you cannot advance the Nuclear Reactor technology anymore than it already is. That statement alone gives me a pass completely because you are claiming to be an all knowing physicist that HAPPENS to work on Wall Street, because Nuclear Reactor Physics JUST DOESN'T PAY ENOUGH heheheheeheheheheh Every major scientist ACTUALLY IN THE FIELD is talking about advances being made. You're a moron to even TRY to say there can't be. There are TONS of advances to be made. We don't even have to CHANGE the laws of physics like you say we do. MORON. I'm not arguing with MIT or the NRC. I'm telling you that YOU are ignorant. You don't even know what a "graphite capsule" is, much less what it does. You can't even distinguish between different kinds of nuclear waste. You still think heavy water moderates nuclear reactions and graphite absorbs nuclear energy, because you can't understand what you read. Of course, these are just those pesky "detail" things that you can't pay attention to. I'd explain it all to you...but dammit, kid, you're just too damned amusing.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 I'm not arguing with MIT or the NRC. I'm telling you that YOU are ignorant. You don't even know what a "graphite capsule" is, much less what it does. You can't even distinguish between different kinds of nuclear waste. You still think heavy water moderates nuclear reactions and graphite absorbs nuclear energy, because you can't understand what you read. Of course, these are just those pesky "detail" things that you can't pay attention to. I'd explain it all to you...but dammit, kid, you're just too damned amusing. Okay I never said heavy water moderates nuclear reactions, I said it is used as a moderator. You're right I missed the detail in reading YOUR posts. You snuck in nuclear reaction, but did so challenging its use as a moderator. It moderates the nuetrons not the actual reaction. Graphite is used to absorb the heat FROM the reaction oooooh, I guess I should have been more clear because you couldn't understand what I was saying in laymen terms. Because BS Tom is FAR from a laymen right? Gimme a break bro, I was never trying to pass myself off as a Nuclear Reaction Physicist. All the hell I was trying to do was challenge your IGNORANT remark about there being NO WAY to make Nuclear Power more efficient. You just seem to want to drag in your BOATLOAD of unfallible expertise to validate yourself for some reason. Overcompensating for something maybe. Again, I will try to make this as simple as possible so you can again over analyze the post and rip me because of my MISPELLING lol One, Magox asked what I would do as president to offer viable solutions for the energy crisis so that we wouldn't have to spill 20 million gallons of oil into the gulf coast again. Which couldn't have come at a worse time or place, JUNE 1ST ISSSSSSSS HURRICANE SEASON. Which is less than a month away correct? When they are saying it could take longer than three months just to STOP the leak itself makes it halfway THROUGH hurricane season before the leak is stopped. Not to mention they will probably see four or more hurricane seasons before the clean up is finished. So my solutions were tax credits and subsidies for companies that go with alternative green american technology for power. Construction companies and land developers would get these subsidies to build new structures with green technology and use biodiesel equipment for the work. Rejecting local power companies' contracts if they do not provide a plan to change over to a more efficient alternative energy production plan through state credits. This method has been applied to attaching highway money to states in exchange for states raising the legal drinking age to 21. Also I named Biodiesel as a much more viable long term solution THAN Ethanol. I only named Ethanol at all to name it as a solution that would take us off oil faster, but ALSO stated it is not a practical solution for a variety of reasons. Although your friends at Goldman Sachs think differently. I know your knowledge is even more great than Goldman Sachs as well though, so I give you a pass in bashing Ethanol so hard. Then I added that I would give more money to Nuclear Reactor Research to help with making Nuclear fuel more efficient. Just like in my broad statement of my CDC plans, you think that I must know everything about everything to do this. I do not need to know how to design a biodiesel engine to say I like biodiesel as an alternative. I don't need to know how to manufacture biodiesel to say that I think that should be the fuel of the future. I do not need to know how to estimate land to give subsidies to land developers. I do not need to know how to build a house to give tax credits to construction companies that build efficient homes. I do not need to be a Nuclear Reaction Physicist to push more money into the industry to make advances in society. And I sure don't need to know how to be a Wall St. Physicist to figure out you're an A hole for trying to make yourself out to be better than me by analyzing my posts like it was anything more than my ideas for solutions if I was placed in a job I would never want in the first place. If you have general knowledge of many things you can see the big picture without actually being an expert in every field. That is why you have people around you. Unless you are DB Tom you can't master everything. If you did you would spend all your time posting about your complete devine wisdom, researching, and eating donuts instead of actually doing something to solve actual problems.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 If you have general knowledge of many things you can see the big picture without actually being an expert in every field. That is why you have people around you. Unless you are DB Tom you can't master everything. If you did you would spend all your time posting about your complete devine wisdom, researching, and eating donuts instead of actually doing something to solve actual problems. You spelled divine wrong... here, have a donut.
Celtic_soulja Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 You spelled divine wrong... here, have a donut. mmmmmm donut
RkFast Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 My bro-in law is a chemist for a Houston based petrochem company and when we last spoke about Ethanol he said his collegues and he across the Energy industry would love to see Ethanol become a [ahem] "viable alternative" to crude oil, but they all agree it just doesnt work as a 100% replacement. Thats because getting the same amount of energy out of a given amount of corn that you do out of a given amount of crude oil is bloody complex and expensive as all hell. He told me its damn near impossible to do. See...celtic...I know it may make for good coversation at the gym when youre between sets....but in the real world, when real people who know a little bit about this stuff have to deal with those pesky things like the "cost" and "complexity" of producing something, the game changes a little bit.
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 My bro-in law is a chemist for a Houston based petrochem company and when we last spoke about Ethanol he said his collegues and he across the Energy industry would love to see Ethanol become a [ahem] "viable alternative" to crude oil, but they all agree it just doesnt work as a 100% replacement. Thats because getting the same amount of energy out of a given amount of corn that you do out of a given amount of crude oil is bloody complex and expensive as all hell. He told me its damn near impossible to do. Only reason it works for Brazil is because they use sugar cane, which is something like seven times more efficient than corn for ethanol production. And even then...land use cost. Directly or indirectly, Brazilian ethanol production is a not insubstantial contributor to Amazon deforestation.
IDBillzFan Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Only reason it works for Brazil is because they use sugar cane, which is something like seven times more efficient than corn for ethanol production. And even then...land use cost. Directly or indirectly, Brazilian ethanol production is a not insubstantial contributor to Amazon deforestation. Cue the Bill Maher idiocy clip in 3...2...1...
Celtic_soulja Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 My bro-in law is a chemist for a Houston based petrochem company and when we last spoke about Ethanol he said his collegues and he across the Energy industry would love to see Ethanol become a [ahem] "viable alternative" to crude oil, but they all agree it just doesnt work as a 100% replacement. Thats because getting the same amount of energy out of a given amount of corn that you do out of a given amount of crude oil is bloody complex and expensive as all hell. He told me its damn near impossible to do. See...celtic...I know it may make for good coversation at the gym when youre between sets....but in the real world, when real people who know a little bit about this stuff have to deal with those pesky things like the "cost" and "complexity" of producing something, the game changes a little bit. Like I've said, it's NOT a viable solution. I'll repeat it, so dumb azzes like yourself can understand. It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution c'mon one more, you got it, push push push It's NOT a practical solution.
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 Like I've said, it's NOT a viable solution. I'll repeat it, so dumb azzes like yourself can understand. It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution It's NOT a practical solution c'mon one more, you got it, push push push It's NOT a practical solution. Well, not like making a breeder reactor out of pencil shavings is...
Recommended Posts