BuffaloBill Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 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."
Acantha Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) 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 January 5, 2011 by Faustus
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 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.
BuffaloBill Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 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. When did I blame you? I acknowledged my error very plainly.
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 When did I blame you? I acknowledged my error very plainly. Now you're denying blaming me for your mistake?
BuffaloBill Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 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?
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 BTW "he" refers to DC Tom (you) So how did I blame you in this? I meant your OTHER mistake.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 That would work for me! Great pic, buts whats with the flames under the car? good old 12 bolt exploding? Or the rock crusher coming apart? Leave it to a Chevy to wet the track down
Kevin Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Is pointing to a picture of stars and saying "is that one?" really considered a discovery? If so then I discovered the G-spot...........once. Chef, can you help me locate it?
Recommended Posts