Notices
Results 1 to 71 of 71

Thread: Nuclear fusion and fission power

  1. #1 Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I've heard the chief complaint against using Hydrogen + Hydrogen fusion is that it releases large amounts of high energy neutrons that destroy the reactor's walls.

    But, if those same neutrons were hitting un-enriched, or even depleted uranium, they would be creating a secondary fission reaction (probably not a chain reaction, but still...). I wonder if that kind of synergy would ever be practical.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    to my understand the neutrons are removed from the reactor via the same way the helium is removed.


    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I always thought the problem with fusion was that it needed such a high temperature, which could only be achieved by detonating a fission bomb. Hence the search for "cold" fusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    It does require large heat and they use super heated plasma for the reaction.

    They hold the heat in place using magnetic fields to protect the reactor
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    It does require large heat and they use super heated plasma for the reaction.

    They hold the heat in place using magnetic fields to protect the reactor

    They have been manufacturing with fusion for years. Sometimes they do it with chemical or plating reactions.

    There is not really a lot of power gained from joining the hydrogen atoms. There would be power stored seperating the H2. When it recombined to form H2. Or Helium, He under pressure, and then He2, perhaps under great pressure. Yes energy would be released. However it would be energy like any other condensing material energy. This process is highly disintegrative/ fission like.

    When you condense a gas it gives off heat and energy.

    When something condenses, it is actually becoming cold, it gives off energy. It actually just blocks ambient radiation, slows the ambient radiation, and creates heat rays. Germany had super weapons before World War Two.

    If you want heat, fission is your friend, I consider spliting H2 into H a form of atomic reaction. I believe that during this process you do lose some atoms of hydrogen, they turn into a splatter of electrons. This blocks ambient radiation and causes the heat you get from splitting H2 into H1.

    It is called atomic hydrogen welding in industry. Or was. It is used occasionally in plasma cutters. So is the splitting of He2.

    When they first found radiation. They found that there were three groups, alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha and beta were effected by polarity, an abundance of electrons, or a shortage of electrons, just like electricity, and cathode rays.
    And then there was gamma and it was not effected as much by electricity. It was more like light.

    All three radiations are just electrons. They are just traveling at different velocities and densities.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    To my knowledge the only sucessful fusion that has been achieved is in nottinghamshire where they have a small reactor which can last 30 seconds at a time, which is the template for the larger reactor in france which should be able to last much longer.

    Fusion is the most efficient form of power we know of, once started it produces 5 times the energy required to heat up the reactor, with no pollution apart from a large amount of helium due to the reactor, which they just pump out of the reactor to stop it filling up to much which can cause it to become unstable.

    If you want heat, fission is your friend, I consider spliting H2 into H a form of atomic reaction. I believe that during this process you do lose some atoms of hydrogen, they turn into a splatter of electrons. This blocks ambient radiation and causes the heat you get from splitting H2 into H1.
    Splitting H2 in H is not an atomic reaction. An atomic fission reaction would be firing neutrons into a block such as uranium which would cause it to break down into smaller atoms of even mass. They causes them to release many more neutrons and this starts a chain reaction of which causes a massive release of energy. If the neutron had never been discovered, or does not exist as you claim, fission would not be possible.

    All three radiations are just electrons. They are just traveling at different velocities and densities.
    No there not, Alpha radiation if a helium atom. Beta radiation is an electron, and Gamma radiation is (No idea on this one but it' said to be like light)

    Germany had super weapons before World War Two.
    They did not "have" super weapons but all countries had the idea of a bomb which could destroy an entire city. When the idea was proposed to hitler he though it was stupid and kicked the 2 scientists out of the country. They were kicked to England where they gave us a theory and we gave it to the Americans whom used it to make the first nuclear bomb.

    Also as we have already discovered, your theory on ambient radiation is wrong. Please stop using it to prove your points.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    There have been other successful attempts at Fusion although they last for much shorter periods of time. The Scientists in Nottinghamshire could not get any government funding they built it using scrap or unwanted materials. Once they created a reactor that worked better than any that had been created before by scientists WITH government funding they were given a grant and have since progressed.

    Gamma radiation is an electromagnetic wave which is what light is yes but further along the spectrum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    William McCormick:
    Please do not introduce your bizarre ideas into this thread. This is for serious discussion only. Also, do not reply to me within this thread. If you have a problem with this request send me a pm.
    Thank you
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Gamma radiation is an electromagnetic wave which is what light is yes but further along the spectrum.
    As to the position of Gamma radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum, the definition is a bit fuzzy. Commonly, it overlaps with the X-ray regime. But the convention is that X-rays are caused by electrons, while Gamma rays originate from the nucleus of atoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Gamma radiation is an electromagnetic wave which is what light is yes but further along the spectrum.
    As to the position of Gamma radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum, the definition is a bit fuzzy. Commonly, it overlaps with the X-ray regime. But the convention is that X-rays are caused by electrons, while Gamma rays originate from the nucleus of atoms.
    I was in a group that believed as you know from my other posts, that all particles are electrons. They were able to explain the Gamma radiation as different velocity radiation within a range. Similar to different color light within a range of light.

    Atomic hydrogen welding is a very old process. That was revived for plasma cutting some years ago. And then mysteriously fell out of favor. I know some equipment is still around that uses helium to cut. They are also wild systems. Also hard to find.

    With the same power input, you can blast through many times the thickness of titanium, or stainless plate.



    The output is incredible when you use these thinner gases. I did these stairs using 90 amps of power and helium gas coverage, using a TIG machine. That is pretty remarkable.
    That is silent, Straight polarity DC beam welding at 90 amps. Normally in Argon coverage I could not even do this with the torch I used.

    That tiny weld penetrated the side stringer on those stairs, that is over 3/8" thick.

    The torch is charged (-) as currently marked on a car battery. It is of course abundant with electrons and flows a silent beam to the work piece. I can weld that in a suit there are no sparks.




    The use of hydrogen may have fallen out of favor because of the very small amounts that were tolerable within the cutting equipment. If you ran out of your primary gas like Argon, or nitrogen. You might get hurt.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Atomic hydrogen welding is a very old process. That was revived for plasma cutting some years ago. And then mysteriously fell out of favor.
    No idea, how this is related to the topic of this thread, but reasons for hydrogen being so unpopular might be that it is very dangerous to handle and it is extremely difficult to keep it contained. The hydrogen atoms are so small that they evaporate even through the walls of the gas bottles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund

    They did not "have" super weapons but all countries had the idea of a bomb which could destroy an entire city. When the idea was proposed to hitler he though it was stupid and kicked the 2 scientists out of the country. They were kicked to England where they gave us a theory and we gave it to the Americans whom used it to make the first nuclear bomb.

    Also as we have already discovered, your theory on ambient radiation is wrong. Please stop using it to prove your points.
    All sides had a super weapon. However which country would lose in a super weapon blast off?

    The tiny country where 300 bombs would wipe them out. Or America where it would take tens of thousands just to disable America temporarily? Germany for the sake of the earth, did not feel that was an option. Blasts that large and many could have wiped out the earth.

    That call was Hitlers paranoia taking control. If Hitler had played by the book, and shared his knowledge of super weapons. American and England would have been overrun by rabbles in their own country. America almost fell into a revolutionary war during these times.


    No one ever proved ambient radiation wrong. No one ever. They side stepped that important process. And said "lets just believe in a whole bunch of colorful particles that might explain it too". They actually felt that Universal Scientists were making things up as they went along. Because they could not grasp. A world that was made out of electricity.

    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.

    And the proof that no one ever proved ambient radiation wrong is when you hear someone try to explain attraction. Or demonstrate it. It becomes all to obvious who got the counterintelligence education. Often these guys that try to explain attraction, come over to our side. And laugh at themselves and the scheme they fell for. It was an elaborate scheme. I could not believe the energy behind it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Atomic hydrogen welding is a very old process. That was revived for plasma cutting some years ago. And then mysteriously fell out of favor.
    No idea, how this is related to the topic of this thread, but reasons for hydrogen being so unpopular might be that it is very dangerous to handle and it is extremely difficult to keep it contained. The hydrogen atoms are so small that they evaporate even through the walls of the gas bottles.
    We use these processes up close and personal. And I can assure you that the tiny amounts we use, demonstrate clearly the power that is available. If we were to increase the size of the event. The effects would become far reaching.

    And would obviously show that this is the effect that has been so mystifying.

    I have never heard of hydrogen leaving the metal cylinder through the walls. The valve maybe.

    However hydrogen is rather excitable by magnetic and radio activity. If it was to be excited, it may disintegrate and leave as electrons. Over time.

    Or if there were radio active contaminates present, they could disintegrate the hydrogen. And it would leave the tank as electrons.

    The MRI destroys some hydrogen atoms. They leave and disperse as electrons. Kind of like UV light destroys some cells. Not really dangerous unless you do it everyday.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund

    They did not "have" super weapons but all countries had the idea of a bomb which could destroy an entire city. When the idea was proposed to hitler he though it was stupid and kicked the 2 scientists out of the country. They were kicked to England where they gave us a theory and we gave it to the Americans whom used it to make the first nuclear bomb.

    Also as we have already discovered, your theory on ambient radiation is wrong. Please stop using it to prove your points.
    All sides had a super weapon. However which country would lose in a super weapon blast off?

    The tiny country where 300 bombs would wipe them out. Or America where it would take tens of thousands just to disable America temporarily? Germany for the sake of the earth, did not feel that was an option. Blasts that large and many could have wiped out the earth.

    That call was Hitlers paranoia taking control. If Hitler had played by the book, and shared his knowledge of super weapons. American and England would have been overrun by rabbles in their own country. America almost fell into a revolutionary war during these times.


    No one ever proved ambient radiation wrong. No one ever. They side stepped that important process. And said "lets just believe in a whole bunch of colorful particles that might explain it too". They actually felt that Universal Scientists were making things up as they went along. Because they could not grasp. A world that was made out of electricity.

    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.

    And the proof that no one ever proved ambient radiation wrong is when you hear someone try to explain attraction. Or demonstrate it. It becomes all to obvious who got the counterintelligence education. Often these guys that try to explain attraction, come over to our side. And laugh at themselves and the scheme they fell for. It was an elaborate scheme. I could not believe the energy behind it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    You seriously do live in a world of your own.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard the chief complaint against using Hydrogen + Hydrogen fusion is that it releases large amounts of high energy neutrons that destroy the reactor's walls.
    I think the main problem is that the neutrons absorb a lot of the reaction's energy output as kinetic energy. Since it's very hard to capture the kinetic energy of a neutron and turn it into usable energy, most of that energy is wasted. This makes it very hard to get more energy out of the reaction than you spend creating it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    dude how come you end each post with

    sincerely

    William McCormick

    we know who made the post as it gives your forum name with the post.
    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.
    Yeah, but was it ever proven?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard the chief complaint against using Hydrogen + Hydrogen fusion is that it releases large amounts of high energy neutrons that destroy the reactor's walls.
    I think the main problem is that the neutrons absorb a lot of the reaction's energy output as kinetic energy. Since it's very hard to capture the kinetic energy of a neutron and turn it into usable energy, most of that energy is wasted. This makes it very hard to get more energy out of the reaction than you spend creating it.

    If you are talking about condensing matter type reactions. You can create more energy then you put into them. The real problem is safety in doing so.

    Steam can become self perpetuating. If you compress steam around another tank of water.
    The problem is knowing when it will blow. When the pressure will reach that critical point, where it will detonate spontaneously. Rather then to build slowly and blow off.

    A friend of mine worked with a fellow and he touched an ARC welder to an air compressor tank that was being hydrostatically tested. He just wanted to seal a tiny leak that was barely visible. As he put the ARC rod to the tank it exploded. They found his arm two blocks away.

    Now you can see that the heat or electrical wattage from an ARC rod and machine that is about 90 volts max at about 225 amps max. For a repair like that. Would not create that kind of energy, in under two seconds. So if you are a rugged son of a gun, you can witness these things all around you.

    Many do not know but there were steam cars in America. One fellow I knew had built a steam car and crossed the United States on two logs, before World War Two.
    Every time you stopped. If you wanted to shut off the steam compressors that had to stay running. You would have to light a log under the main tank to start it going again.

    Years back we changed out these compressors in a building the State rents. Hillary Clinton has friends in this building. Her pictures with employees in the building are all over the break room.

    These are Coupland ™ Compressors. They are rack mount compressors. Each compressor has one water cooled condenser. And each share a single evaporator, that cools water that is piped through coils throughout the building. For Air-conditioning.

    When running properly they draw about 40 amps at 240 volts. The condenser that cools them is feed with well water that is pumped in and out of the ground. To cool the condenser.

    Well we got there and I never saw racks in this bad a condition. They were awful. All the safeties were jumped out to just make them run. In some cases the units sucked filter dryers, and in other cases the units burned up and contaminated the systems with their magnet winding wire coatings, that burned. The systems had to be cleaned out. And rebuilt compressors installed.

    The problem was getting around the equipment with hydraulic equipment to move them safely in the mechanical room. This room is in pretty poor shape.

    Well, we installed a couple new compressors and determined that some of the others were ok, and that their electrical or cooling systems were no good. I was working with a crazy old timer. I mean out there. He would sit in a puddle of water, Indian style and work with the high voltage. I mean out there.

    Well, he had the last of about ten electrically operated safeties that the system has to shut it down, disabled just to see if the system would run.
    The other nine were already disabled. I suggested that this was not such a good idea, because we did not know if we had well cooling water. He said what the heck hit the switch. He was the senior man, I said what the heck.
    So I throw the switch and I look over at the gauges, as I am watching the gauges approach 325 psi on the high side. I feel this strange radiant heat, coming from a couple hundred pound brass heat exchanger. The tubes that cool it are filled with water. The casing is a rather thick wall, metal casing. It usually takes about a minute before the heat that is generated reaches the surface of the condensers, enough to be felt.

    But in under five seconds I am feeling radiant heat. Three to four feet away. I look at the gauges and they are at 375 psi heading to 400 psi, with that the final safety in the condenser tank a 375 psi blow off valve, lets loose, and one hundred pounds of Freon are shot into the room. There was actually, like snow in the room. It took a year or two off my life. Ha-ha.

    The building ventilation system removed most of it rather quickly.

    But the point is that in under ten seconds, the compressor was able to remove enough heat from the Freon R22 to heat that rather heavy metal container, to give off radiant heat, Well over 250 degrees. I would put the wattage to do that with electrical heaters at over 3,600,000 watts for about ten seconds.

    You really do have to see some of this stuff to believe it. I would not have believed that if I did not see it.

    But you can see that this is where some just cannot understand the tremendous possibilities using condensing type energy. That may already be in there. We are just getting it out very quickly.

    When you blow hydrogen through a narrow venturi, it is decompressing in that narrow opening. When you pass it through an ARC, where you will find the most powerful vacuum on earth. In this condition, it apparently absorbs energy. Then it is placed back under normal pressure in the room, it now wishes to give off an inhuman amount of heat/radiation.

    I believe that the hydrogen in that tremendous vacuum of the arc, is capable of absorbing a massive amount of energy. That you cannot give to other elements as easily.

    This is the wire that feeds one leg of the compressor.


    This shows the power coming into the unit.

    This shows the power feeding the compressor, through a Seal Tight ™ conduit.






    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I think McCormick is confusing reactions that create an H2 molecule out of two H atoms (or maybe splits an H2 molecule in half) with a reaction that smashes two H atoms together to make He.

    I used to be subscribed to a "Waterfuel" thread because it made for interesting entertainment, but it ultimately bogged down my email so I abandoned it. You can really hone your logic skills trying to take apart all the "free energy" arguments people make on those threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard the chief complaint against using Hydrogen + Hydrogen fusion is that it releases large amounts of high energy neutrons that destroy the reactor's walls.
    I think the main problem is that the neutrons absorb a lot of the reaction's energy output as kinetic energy. Since it's very hard to capture the kinetic energy of a neutron and turn it into usable energy, most of that energy is wasted. This makes it very hard to get more energy out of the reaction than you spend creating it.
    At last, an answer that kind of seems sensible.

    So, what I'm wondering is whether it would ever be practical to try and harness those neutrons by directing them toward depleted uranium?

    In theory, the U238 atoms would split when a neutron hits them, creating the normal nuclear waste. It just isn't a chain reaction. Only an amount of u238 proportional to the number of neutrons hitting it would react. We'd probably even get some plutonium out of the deal, but it would be mixed with more vile by-products.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.
    Yeah, but was it ever proven?
    Actually it was proven blatantly. And simply. And denied resentfully.

    Did your father ever let you shoot a BB gun and your mother just goes crazy because she does not like guns. Not that you cannot use one safely. Or that by aiming a three thousand pound automobile around, all day long at people, you are actually taking much more risk.

    But rather that your father knows that being able to put an evil tyrant in your sights is good for you to have under your belt. And that it is a man thing.
    And your mother is more unhappy that your father came back from the shooting range alive then she is that you do not run over people with the car.

    New Chadwick scientists are like mom's.



    That is how I was taught to end, any kind of letter or memo in school. It is also great to find my posts with search engines.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think McCormick is confusing reactions that create an H2 molecule out of two H atoms (or maybe splits an H2 molecule in half) with a reaction that smashes two H atoms together to make He.

    I used to be subscribed to a "Waterfuel" thread because it made for interesting entertainment, but it ultimately bogged down my email so I abandoned it. You can really hone your logic skills trying to take apart all the "free energy" arguments people make on those threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard the chief complaint against using Hydrogen + Hydrogen fusion is that it releases large amounts of high energy neutrons that destroy the reactor's walls.
    I think the main problem is that the neutrons absorb a lot of the reaction's energy output as kinetic energy. Since it's very hard to capture the kinetic energy of a neutron and turn it into usable energy, most of that energy is wasted. This makes it very hard to get more energy out of the reaction than you spend creating it.
    At last, an answer that kind of seems sensible.

    So, what I'm wondering is whether it would ever be practical to try and harness those neutrons by directing them toward depleted uranium?

    In theory, the U238 atoms would split when a neutron hits them, creating the normal nuclear waste. It just isn't a chain reaction. Only an amount of u238 proportional to the number of neutrons hitting it would react. We'd probably even get some plutonium out of the deal, but it would be mixed with more vile by-products.
    No, I understand what you mean. There is no real energy gained from joining two hydrogen atoms. The energy is from smashing other atoms to create enough heat/pressure to do it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.
    Yeah, but was it ever proven?
    Actually it was proven blatantly. And simply. And denied resentfully.

    Did your father ever let you shoot a BB gun and your mother just goes crazy because she does not like guns. Not that you cannot use one safely. Or that by aiming a three thousand pound automobile around, all day long at people, you are actually taking much more risk.

    But rather that your father knows that being able to put an evil tyrant in your sights is good for you to have under your belt. And that it is a man thing.
    And your mother is more unhappy that your father came back from the shooting range alive then she is that you do not run over people with the car.

    New Chadwick scientists are like mom's.



    That is how I was taught to end, any kind of letter or memo in school. It is also great to find my posts with search engines.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    How was it proven?
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    William McCormic, you seriously need to stop wasting our time with your nonsensical posts. You, along with a few other people are highly degrading the quality and reputation of this forum.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    From what I have recently heard, we are only getting around 25% efficiency with fusion reactors. Though, it apparently does have the potential obtain over a thousand percent efficiency.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    William McCormic, you seriously need to stop wasting our time with your nonsensical posts. You, along with a few other people are highly degrading the quality and reputation of this forum.
    No, I am putting it to you, that your current theories are degrading this forums reading material, and you are wasting your own time.

    You do not have any of your own scientific beliefs to back up what you are spewing. Because if you said you believe all that multi- particle junk, you may as well say you cannot read or comprehend reading material.

    You have nothing that you feel comfortable with, to combat what I say. So you take cracks and claim to speak for others, rather then have the decency to allow me my point of view. You could learn something. Because what I am saying, I am relaying to the best of my ability to relay.

    I have a serious number of years of doing serious often life threatening experiments to prove reality, if only to myself.
    You have a concatenation of blatant lies and conflicting information to back you up. With a newer and newer theory every second, to hide the last one.

    Super relativity is using the same vehicle as the neutron used to be introduced as a particle. It offers nothing but more lies.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Nothing in our Universe has mass or weight. Electrons can only repel all things. This was never dis proven.
    Yeah, but was it ever proven?
    Actually it was proven blatantly. And simply. And denied resentfully.

    Did your father ever let you shoot a BB gun and your mother just goes crazy because she does not like guns. Not that you cannot use one safely. Or that by aiming a three thousand pound automobile around, all day long at people, you are actually taking much more risk.

    But rather that your father knows that being able to put an evil tyrant in your sights is good for you to have under your belt. And that it is a man thing.
    And your mother is more unhappy that your father came back from the shooting range alive then she is that you do not run over people with the car.

    New Chadwick scientists are like mom's.



    That is how I was taught to end, any kind of letter or memo in school. It is also great to find my posts with search engines.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    How was it proven?
    Experiments with electricity. Showed that electricity like light was not effected by gravity. It was done, over. Finished beyond all doubt.

    At that point they needed to stop the neutron. If only until another experiment could prove that electricity is subject to gravity. But they went ahead anyway. In the face of science with Bolshevism/suicide.

    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well. That just happened to act like massless weightless particles.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Final Warning:William McCormick

    1. Stay on topic.
    2. Stop references to Universal Scientists, conspiracy theories, etc
    3. Make it clear when you are introducing ideas that are not mainstream science.

    Your choice is simple. Comply with these instructions or be banned.

    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Here´s a video I found intressting regarding fusion power :
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21846673788606

    It´s somewhat lengthy, but worth it. Explains how fusion could be used to provide cheap (relativly) non-radioactive power.

    I don´t know if this is the same, or a different theory :
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article...24242&from=rss

    But seems someone is starting to actually try and construct something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    I thought that was to do with beinding space and not the light itself, which caused the lights to be going straight but around the bend in space.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Which in effect is the same as something moving towards a gravitational source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, what I'm wondering is whether it would ever be practical to try and harness those neutrons by directing them toward depleted uranium?

    In theory, the U238 atoms would split when a neutron hits them, creating the normal nuclear waste. It just isn't a chain reaction. Only an amount of u238 proportional to the number of neutrons hitting it would react. We'd probably even get some plutonium out of the deal, but it would be mixed with more vile by-products.
    That might work, I'm not really sure. But then you wouldn't be able to smugly claim that your fusion reactor produced no nuclear waste and ran on water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, what I'm wondering is whether it would ever be practical to try and harness those neutrons by directing them toward depleted uranium?

    In theory, the U238 atoms would split when a neutron hits them, creating the normal nuclear waste. It just isn't a chain reaction. Only an amount of u238 proportional to the number of neutrons hitting it would react. We'd probably even get some plutonium out of the deal, but it would be mixed with more vile by-products.
    The Wikipedia article on fusion power states:
    Several drawbacks are commonly attributed to D-T fusion power:

    It produces substantial amounts of neutrons that result in induced radioactivity within the reactor structure.
    Only about 20% of the fusion energy yield appears in the form of charged particles (the rest neutrons), which limits the extent to which direct energy conversion techniques might be applied.
    The induced radioactivity (neutron activation) also happens in fission plants. It's not a show stopper, but makes life more difficult for operating and maintaining the plant. Also, although you would not be producing all those nasty fission products, you wouldn't have a "clean" plant with fusion, as you might have hoped.

    The second disadvantage mentioned in the Wikipedia article concerns direct energy conversion, i.e., generating power without a steam turbine. You would still get the energy out of the neutrons if you were using a turbine. It's not so hard to stop a neutron. Plain water will slow the neutrons down to thermal velocities. Boron or the various materials used in control rods in fission reactors work well, I think better than uranium would.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    The second disadvantage mentioned in the Wikipedia article concerns direct energy conversion, i.e., generating power without a steam turbine. You would still get the energy out of the neutrons if you were using a turbine. It's not so hard to stop a neutron. Plain water will slow the neutrons down to thermal velocities. Boron or the various materials used in control rods in fission reactors work well, I think better than uranium would.
    I believe the whole "direct energy conversion" thing is more an issue for things like hypothetical fusion-powered starships where the power output is relatively low but you want to extract the energy with extremely high efficiency so that you can get your ship up to a respectable fraction of the speed of light without a horriable fuel mass ratio for your ship. I don’t think anyone is seriously thinking about direct energy converion for large power plants. Alough someone please correct me if I’m wrong…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Which in effect is the same as something moving towards a gravitational source.
    Well,from an outside perspective it might seem as if it is going towards the blackhole, but really if time/space is actually being bent, from its own proportional perspective it is the same distance.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    I believe the whole "direct energy conversion" thing is more an issue for things like hypothetical fusion-powered starships where the power output is relatively low but you want to extract the energy with extremely high efficiency so that you can get your ship up to a respectable fraction of the speed of light without a horriable fuel mass ratio for your ship. I don’t think anyone is seriously thinking about direct energy converion for large power plants. Alough someone please correct me if I’m wrong…
    I'm no expert on the subject, but according to the following article, some proponents of aneutronic fusion think the capital cost of building a power plant could be reduced by direct conversion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    Jane the lens effect would be what took place. You have different densities of atmosphere near the sun. Just like different densities of air, cause a bending of light over a very hot desert or very hot roadway.

    You would not need relativity to explain this. I believe that article does more for my point of view then Einstein's.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Here´s a video I found intressting regarding fusion power :
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21846673788606

    It´s somewhat lengthy, but worth it. Explains how fusion could be used to provide cheap (relativly) non-radioactive power.

    I don´t know if this is the same, or a different theory :
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article...24242&from=rss

    But seems someone is starting to actually try and construct something.
    Did anyone ever say or tell you that you cannot fission, ordinary elements, and not create a radio active waste? Or write this down somewhere?
    Or was this just a rumor, that I also heard, but could never pin anyone down on?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, what I'm wondering is whether it would ever be practical to try and harness those neutrons by directing them toward depleted uranium?

    In theory, the U238 atoms would split when a neutron hits them, creating the normal nuclear waste. It just isn't a chain reaction. Only an amount of u238 proportional to the number of neutrons hitting it would react. We'd probably even get some plutonium out of the deal, but it would be mixed with more vile by-products.
    The Wikipedia article on fusion power states:
    Several drawbacks are commonly attributed to D-T fusion power:

    It produces substantial amounts of neutrons that result in induced radioactivity within the reactor structure.
    Only about 20% of the fusion energy yield appears in the form of charged particles (the rest neutrons), which limits the extent to which direct energy conversion techniques might be applied.
    The induced radioactivity (neutron activation) also happens in fission plants. It's not a show stopper, but makes life more difficult for operating and maintaining the plant. Also, although you would not be producing all those nasty fission products, you wouldn't have a "clean" plant with fusion, as you might have hoped.

    The second disadvantage mentioned in the Wikipedia article concerns direct energy conversion, i.e., generating power without a steam turbine. You would still get the energy out of the neutrons if you were using a turbine. It's not so hard to stop a neutron. Plain water will slow the neutrons down to thermal velocities. Boron or the various materials used in control rods in fission reactors work well, I think better than uranium would.

    In my day in my school, it was taught that the water speeded up radiation to make it harmless, Radiation in my school was taught to be electrons. All three types of radiation.

    For those that do not know I went to a school that offered different points of view to current multi-particle science. But adhered to men of science that classified the elements on the periodic table up to 86.

    We know of only one sub-atomic particle the electron, and matter was made of balls of electrons. Just like Benjamin Franklin had discovered. And was laughed at for doing so, by stuffy, English scientists. That we opened up a can of whup butt on.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    In my day in my school, it was taught that the water speeded up radiation to make it harmless, Radiation in my school was taught to be electrons. All three types of radiation.

    For those that do not know I went to a school that offered different points of view to current multi-particle science. But adhered to men of science that classified the elements on the periodic table up to 86.

    We know of only one sub-atomic particle the electron, and matter was made of balls of electrons. Just like Benjamin Franklin had discovered. And was laughed at for doing so, by stuffy, English scientists. That we opened up a can of whup butt on.
    It never happened, William. There was no school, no electron scientists. It's all in your imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    I thought that was to do with beinding space and not the light itself, which caused the lights to be going straight but around the bend in space.
    I have done some experiments, with super heated objects. I mean really hot objects. And it appears that at those temperatures, that a vacuum like condition takes place. Near the very hot surface of the object. It makes it look like gravity is present pulling things into this area. Actually there is a lack of repulsion in this area, and things are pushed into it. Super heated near the corona and race around the corona. Very interesting phenomena.

    If that is true then we might find that near the suns corona, that there is actually, a lesser amount of gas density. If that is true then light would bend into the corona, because it is less repulsive. My tests show this as a definite possibility.

    Gas tends to slow light, liquids tend to speed light, and solids can vanquish light by accelerating them beyond the speed of light. At least according to my very unsubstantiated school where I learned about the Universe. From unmentionable scientists. Due to forum restrictions.

    I would love to see others, tests on this phenomena.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    At least according to my very unsubstantiated school where I learned about the Universe. From unmentionable scientists. Due to forum restrictions.
    Unsubstantiated is one word for it. Imaginary is another. Don't blame it on forum restrictions. That's never stopped you before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    In my day in my school, it was taught that the water speeded up radiation to make it harmless, Radiation in my school was taught to be electrons. All three types of radiation.

    For those that do not know I went to a school that offered different points of view to current multi-particle science. But adhered to men of science that classified the elements on the periodic table up to 86.

    We know of only one sub-atomic particle the electron, and matter was made of balls of electrons. Just like Benjamin Franklin had discovered. And was laughed at for doing so, by stuffy, English scientists. That we opened up a can of whup butt on.
    It never happened, William. There was no school, no electron scientists. It's all in your imagination.
    You would not say that to my face. You should not say it over the Internet.

    I meet thousands of truly intelligent individuals in all walks of life. In all branches of science and engineering. And when they are near me, they do not have any of those types of comments. We talk about the very same things. And we normally get along really well. And exchange real safety information. Taboo in most circles.

    Maybe up close they believe me, maybe the Internet hides some reality or truth checking system that we rely on. But that is my life you are talking about.

    State it that, you do not believe that there was such a school.
    That I am fine with. That will eventually show you up to be a bizarre liar and weirdo afraid to look at reality.

    I know you are not a scientist because you cannot even face where I went to school. I did the time there, it was hell. I had to learn all the different ways they were doing things across America. Because no one at that time knew which one of the wrong methods they would choose. I do not like you.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    At least according to my very unsubstantiated school where I learned about the Universe. From unmentionable scientists. Due to forum restrictions.
    Unsubstantiated is one word for it. Imaginary is another. Don't blame it on forum restrictions. That's never stopped you before.
    You should know that I have had posts removed, I have had topics locked on me. And I had real and important information to share yet. It is all tied together. To say it is not all related is just a very narrow peek at reality.

    And I think your attacks are the cause of some of the nonsense and extra posts.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You would not say that to my face. You should not say it over the Internet.
    Are you sure?

    I meet thousands of truly intelligent individuals in all walks of life. In all branches of science and engineering.
    And none of them are electron scientists, are they? Name one other person who believes your electron nonsense. Can you explain why there are no books on it? In the entire world? I'll tell you why, William. It's because you are the only electron scientist who ever existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    I thought that was to do with beinding space and not the light itself, which caused the lights to be going straight but around the bend in space.
    Well, according to relativity, space-time curvature and gravity are just two words for the exact same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    When light was found not to be effected by gravity they needed photons as well.
    On the contrary light was found to be affected by gravity in 1919!
    http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...steinTest.html

    Now stop making up your own BS about what did or did not happen in science!
    Jane the lens effect would be what took place. You have different densities of atmosphere near the sun. Just like different densities of air, cause a bending of light over a very hot desert or very hot roadway.

    You would not need relativity to explain this. I believe that article does more for my point of view then Einstein's.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    The problem with an extra-atmospheric lens effect is that it would be quite a coincidence for the amount of curvature to land so near to Einstein's predictions. The original experiment wasn't done with enough accuracy to be sure, but it's been repeated a few times from in space, where it's possible to simulate an eclipse by placing an object near to the lens of the telescope, and you actually get a more perfect blocking effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    Here´s a video I found intressting regarding fusion power :
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21846673788606

    It´s somewhat lengthy, but worth it. Explains how fusion could be used to provide cheap (relativly) non-radioactive power.

    I don´t know if this is the same, or a different theory :
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article...24242&from=rss

    But seems someone is starting to actually try and construct something.
    Did anyone ever say or tell you that you cannot fission, ordinary elements, and not create a radio active waste? Or write this down somewhere?
    Or was this just a rumor, that I also heard, but could never pin anyone down on?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    As a rule, you can't fuse atoms heavier than iron/nickel, or fission atoms lighter than iron/nickel. Well, I mean of course you can. You just won't get any energy out of the reaction. It still costs energy to do it, but you don't get any back.

    Indeed, the rule is that the further your atomic weight is from iron/nickel, the more energy the reaction yields. That's why Uranium (a very, very heavy element) is preferred for fission, and Helium or Hydrogen (the lightest of all elements) is preferred for fusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Nuclear fusion and fission power 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You would not say that to my face. You should not say it over the Internet.
    Are you sure?

    I meet thousands of truly intelligent individuals in all walks of life. In all branches of science and engineering.
    And none of them are electron scientists, are they? Name one other person who believes your electron nonsense. Can you explain why there are no books on it? In the entire world? I'll tell you why, William. It's because you are the only electron scientist who ever existed.
    Harold, did you ever read that they were going to keep the Atomic bomb a secret from the World? I have posted things to that effect. The funniest of all was right in the same article they tell you how to make it. So we must assume that is not how they make it.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Explosives...imahalfton.PDF

    If you did read and understand this then you know you cannot understand the all electron universe, and the real atomic bomb, at the same moment in time. And keep it a secret.

    And no, I would bet that you do not say that to me, once you met me. We would be talking about all kinds of crazy stuff. Laughing it up and having a great time. I get along with everyone except on the Internet.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The problem with an extra-atmospheric lens effect is that it would be quite a coincidence for the amount of curvature to land so near to Einstein's predictions. The original experiment wasn't done with enough accuracy to be sure, but it's been repeated a few times from in space, where it's possible to simulate an eclipse by placing an object near to the lens of the telescope, and you actually get a more perfect blocking effect.
    There is not really any coincidence. You are going to get a spherical lens created. I don't even see where or why you would reach for relativity on this when there is a simple explanation.

    You could recreate that effect without gravity in my opinion. By creating a spherical pocket of excited gas.

    One other thing about predictions is that, really great Universal Scientists could and did make outrageous predictions. However, their really important predictions were cast aside for childish adventures, often dangerous and life threatening.
    So the world of science did not want real important predictions. That is why I am a little concerned about all the hype of prediction.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    One other thing about predictions is that, really great Universal Scientists could and did make outrageous predictions.
    Name one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    One other thing about predictions is that, really great Universal Scientists could and did make outrageous predictions.
    Name one.

    They said the one phony neutron would lead to countless other particles to explain what was already done and checked to 99.99 percent accuracy.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Where are these tests which prove your theories to 99.99% accuracy?

    Also i thought the people that mde the predictions are the book writers, not scientists.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    They said the one phony neutron would lead to countless other particles to explain what was already done and checked to 99.99 percent accuracy.
    That makes no sense. They predicted that there were many subatomic particles?

    William, why won't you admit it. There is no such thing as a Universal Scientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    I think he means than the discovery of the neutron (which does not exist in his world) caused the discovery or theories of many more particles which are all fake.

    But i thought the proton was dscovered before the neutron, the neutron just proves his theory wrong hence the denial.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    I think he means than the discovery of the neutron (which does not exist in his world) caused the discovery or theories of many more particles which are all fake.

    But i thought the proton was dscovered before the neutron, the neutron just proves his theory wrong hence the denial.
    Even if it were true that the imaginary universal scientists predicted that, it would not be a scientific prediction.

    I predict that William will not be able to name a single universal scientist, let alone name a prediction that scientist made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Even if it were true that the imaginary universal scientists predicted that, it would not be a scientific prediction.

    I predict that William will not be able to name a single universal scientist, let alone name a prediction that scientist made.
    I think thats going to be true
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Can we get back to science, please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Can we get back to science, please?
    I hope he answers Harolds questions first, as it is asking about his theories of science and where they come from.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Where are these tests which prove your theories to 99.99% accuracy?

    Also i thought the people that mde the predictions are the book writers, not scientists.

    They were tests like putting two apples on a table and putting two other apples on a table and coming to the conclusion that there were four apples. This is of course impossible today, for scientists to admit.

    Multi particle scientists, would scream out "maybe some are Fuji apples or Mackintosh"! Because if two apples and two apples always equals four apples their science would be worthless.

    There were tens of thousands of tests.
    You do not prove a theory right or wrong with just one test. You do a bunch, and the Universal Scientists did about one hundred thousand tests. All very conclusive. All very accurate.
    Highly accurate tests for the purpose of proving one thing.
    It was funny but Universal Scientists always going in the right direction for the right reason. Did experiments in a big conclusive way, and often by accident proved a hundred things true or false. By the size and weight of their tests.
    It was their lack of variables in a test that made their science and experiments outrageous. Often for the first time they did something with no variables. So when it was done all the observations were very useful. Because there were no variables.

    Muli particle schemers did not miss what caused the Universal Scientists success. That is why the created the super magnet. It was their big experiment. To give their experiments weight. Ha-ha.

    We can accelerate particles for a dollar ninety eight. Remember in physics accelerate can mean slow down.

    The multi particle people were so greedy of the Universal Scientists power, that they did away with them, and have waited till science was no more, and now rule by ignorance.

    You might be able to see a similar behavior from law makers/politicians. Slashing each others throats making total spectacles of each other. Universal Scientists, admitted science would be over for many years to come, and admitted defeat. Not in science, but rather in obtaining a place to practice science.
    I just thought I might regret not telling all I could about what happened. I could really not care what happens to multi particle scientists. No end would be to bad for them.

    The fact that all the Universal Scientists work that isolated the elements. Conclusively for us, and is missing, is my best proof. These guys did not need radio active material to end the world. If a Universal Scientist went into a Super market, yelling I am going to end the world. If I had a space ship, I would get in it and get to a safe place.

    We used to study the Universal Scientists work, it was very cool how they thought. They just smashed variables all day long. That is really all they did. And perfected the language of science.

    One thing that is very sad, because it highlights the state of our nation. And that is that Universal Scientists were very honest. Their honesty when talking to a bunch of spoiled multi particle scientists, was not always useful. Because the multi particle people just tried to twist the truth. That the Universal Scientists did not try to hide.

    Another prediction by Universal Scientists was that "Sure you could look at everything from another angle, an angle that you cannot prove or have no reason for supporting. And come up with some darn good arguments. However it will not be science.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Can we get back to science, please?

    Define Science.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    I think he means than the discovery of the neutron (which does not exist in his world) caused the discovery or theories of many more particles which are all fake.

    But i thought the proton was dscovered before the neutron, the neutron just proves his theory wrong hence the denial.
    Even if it were true that the imaginary universal scientists predicted that, it would not be a scientific prediction.

    I predict that William will not be able to name a single universal scientist, let alone name a prediction that scientist made.
    Harold, a scientific prediction highlighting fundamental flaws or weakness in foundation, is the basis of science cleaning itself up.

    If the multi particle people, wanted neutrons, and they wanted them more then air to breath. Without putting them through the standard Scientific method, checks. This would scientifically lead to more behavior like that. Until it is corrected. This can be scientifically proven. Because it is behavior thought to be right or skewed to seem right. This will definitely lead to other wrong decisions.

    That is why until someone in charge screams out, there has been no science and neutrons in the same room. We are doomed.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Please, name a universal scientist (Not yourself), and please provide results from some of these thousands of tests which prove your theories.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Here are definitions more like I learned them. These are the foundations of your science. You can see when explained well, there is not really any confusion. Other then the confusion caused by particle scientists.












    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    So far William you appear to be backed into a corner and are doing an exemplary job of dodging questions. Put up or get off the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    So far William you appear to be backed into a corner and are doing an exemplary job of dodging questions. Put up or get off the forum.
    What question do you not wish to hear the answer?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Please, name a universal scientist (Not yourself), and please provide results from some of these thousands of tests which prove your theories.
    I don't know any names of any. And in fact the only one listed on the Internet is Enricho Fermi. And he was a poor one, according to the views they claim he had.

    That should tell you something about them. I could tell you what a boson or meson scientist ate for breakfast. But I cannot find information on Universal Scientists. Remarkable. Wouldn't you say honestly.

    Also remember it was the multi particle scientists that claimed they would not let the secret of the atom out to the world. When Universal Scientists already had given out the secret.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Harold, a scientific prediction highlighting fundamental flaws or weakness in foundation, is the basis of science cleaning itself up.

    If the multi particle people, wanted neutrons, and they wanted them more then air to breath. Without putting them through the standard Scientific method, checks.
    Multi particle people split atoms with neutrons. We use them to generate electrical power. That's more than you can say about your capacitor perpetual motion machine. If there weren't neutrons, or if neutron science were not correct, we couldn't make it work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Please, name a universal scientist (Not yourself), and please provide results from some of these thousands of tests which prove your theories.
    I don't know any names of any. And in fact the only one listed on the Internet is Enricho Fermi. And he was a poor one, according to the views they claim he had.

    That should tell you something about them. I could tell you what a boson or meson scientist ate for breakfast. But I cannot find information on Universal Scientists. Remarkable. Wouldn't you say honestly.

    Also remember it was the multi particle scientists that claimed they would not let the secret of the atom out to the world. When Universal Scientists already had given out the secret.
    I thought you were a universal scientist, how can you not know the names of those whom taught you all your knowledge? It's like asking any scientist if they knew the name of the creators of quantum physics, and every quantum physicist would know.... To be honest that is more proof that all the stuff you say is just not true.

    EDIT:

    Don't you mean Enrico Fermi?
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Please, name a universal scientist (Not yourself), and please provide results from some of these thousands of tests which prove your theories.
    I don't know any names of any. And in fact the only one listed on the Internet is Enricho Fermi. And he was a poor one, according to the views they claim he had.

    That should tell you something about them. I could tell you what a boson or meson scientist ate for breakfast. But I cannot find information on Universal Scientists. Remarkable. Wouldn't you say honestly.

    Also remember it was the multi particle scientists that claimed they would not let the secret of the atom out to the world. When Universal Scientists already had given out the secret.
    I thought you were a universal scientist, how can you not know the names of those whom taught you all your knowledge? It's like asking any scientist if they knew the name of the creators of quantum physics, and every quantum physicist would know.... To be honest that is more proof that all the stuff you say is just not true.

    EDIT:

    Don't you mean Enrico Fermi?
    I am an amateur scientist. I love science. I don't care who created it, as long as who ever is claiming to be in charge is not hiding who did.

    In other words, if I make something or do something. And I give it to someone. All they have to do when passing it along is say that they got it from me. I don't care if the fellow ever remembers or not.

    Because if I tell someone else that I made that for that guy "Joe". I just do not wish to be called a liar because someone else is falsely taking credit. That is the only reason for passing along where you got it from.

    Yea I probably did mean Enrico Fermi. But my point was that they only remember and publish the retards. Never the greats.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Harold, a scientific prediction highlighting fundamental flaws or weakness in foundation, is the basis of science cleaning itself up.

    If the multi particle people, wanted neutrons, and they wanted them more then air to breath. Without putting them through the standard Scientific method, checks.
    Multi particle people split atoms with neutrons. We use them to generate electrical power. That's more than you can say about your capacitor perpetual motion machine. If there weren't neutrons, or if neutron science were not correct, we couldn't make it work.
    That is what you were told. I am sure of it. Not even a slight doubt about the fact that you were taught that. Or that you were convinced totally of that. You have no doubts about it.

    That was the plan. That was another prediction from a Universal Scientist. That by the time most understand what took place it will be late.

    That is why I left school and gave up a science scholarship, that I received in the seventh grade for winning a first place in the Long Island Science congress.

    Science was working for Benjamin Franklin when he created the lightning rod for America. Strange he did not believe in neutrons, or need them. Come to think of it neither did General Motors need them. Grumman Aero Space did not need them either.

    Benjamin Franklin could hold a wet kite string and have an arc jump to his hand. Harmlessly. He was the best we have ever seen.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    If you are talking about Enrico Fermi, he does not have your theories of the elctron univese, he used the theories of the nuetron to study nuclear physics. So i don't quite see how he was a universal scientist. It is not noted anywhere about him.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    If you are talking about Enrico Fermi, he does not have your theories of the elctron univese, he used the theories of the nuetron to study nuclear physics. So i don't quite see how he was a universal scientist. It is not noted anywhere about him.

    To be honest, science after the combustion engine fell into the dark ages. Yet at the same time, the outrageous no name Universal Scientists were finishing up science. Putting the tinsel on it. It was really sad. You have a small group that can go anywhere do anything. Under God, very humble and fun loving.

    And most others were deciding who should die first. What weapons should be used to carry out mass genocide. It was almost comical.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •