Jump to content

A 10 year old girl discovered a supernova


Beerball

Recommended Posts

 

 

Consider nuclear weapons explode reliably, I'd consider nuclear fusion "solved".

 

So the bigger question is: what do YOU mean by "solved"? <_<

 

 

What may be at issue here is that using nuclear fusion as an controlled energy source, say as a replacement for fossil fuel, is not "solved." Arguably, a hydrogen bomb explosion, which is an outcome of nuclear fusion, releases enough energy to solve "power needs" for a long period of time. The issue is that the process is not controlled precisely enough to allow for this. Additionally, the economics of the situation currently do not lend themselves to being a practical energy source even if the control issue is set aside or "solved."

 

Maybe the thread should be subtitled: "how a flip comment can snowball."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the bigger question is: what do YOU mean by "solved"? <_<

 

...it still wasn't a reasonable form of energy due to the energy needed to accomplish it. If so, that's still a problem that needs to be solved.

I already said that.

 

Apparently your simply saying that fusion is possible. When I hear "solve the nuclear fusion problem" I automatically think of using fusion to supply energy needs. Not that large of a jump, I don't think.

Edited by Faustus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What may be at issue here is that using nuclear fusion as an controlled energy source, say as a replacement for fossil fuel, is not "solved." Arguably, a hydrogen bomb explosion, which is an outcome of nuclear fusion, releases enough energy to solve "power needs" for a long period of time. The issue is that the process is not controlled precisely enough to allow for this. Additionally, the economics of the situation currently do not lend themselves to being a practical energy source even if the control issue is set aside or "solved."

 

Maybe the thread should be subtitled: "how a flip comment can snowball."

 

Well, maybe you should have been more accurate and said "fusion power reactors" or similar, instead of "nuclear fusion".

 

But go ahead, blame your stupidity and inaccuracy on me. It's my fault I was unable to psychically discern that you weren't writing what you meant. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe you should have been more accurate and said "fusion power reactors" or similar, instead of "nuclear fusion".

 

But go ahead, blame your stupidity and inaccuracy on me. It's my fault I was unable to psychically discern that you weren't writing what you meant. :rolleyes:

 

 

When did I blame you? I acknowledged my error very plainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, he is actually correct ... stupid mistake on my part. If my skin is not thick enough to withstand the comment then I shouldn't be on the board.

 

 

BTW "he" refers to DC Tom (you)

 

Now you're denying blaming me for your mistake?

 

 

So how did I blame you in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...