Arthur Member
  • Member since Jun 11th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Arthur

    Why did they allow the test to proceed?
    Two reasons
    1 They were trapped by their own propaganda. How could they admit it was nuclear when they had previously denied such a thing was possible?
    2 They have a war to fight. You can bet your bottom Dollar that the competition was not bound by any theoretical niceties.
    I'll leave you with your demented imagination as to how this will effect warfare.

    Was the heat from the "thermal runaway" all accounted for? I'm guessing not. Why sum the energy in and energy out when the assumption is that nothing interesting would be found?


    I'm impressed that ingenuity was substituted for cash by choosing a battery as the source of raw materials. Well done.


    Can the same ingenuity think up a way of measuring heat in/ heat out.? Heat in is easy, VI. Heat out may be measured by removing the heat with air and using the heat to melt ice blocks in a thermos flask. Immersing the experiment in ice could also work as long as sufficiently high temperatures could be achieved.


    Consider a stack of shaking screens, the kind that is used to sort sand into different sizes. If the screen is shaken too vigorously then the particles remain airborne and few pass through the screen. If, however the energy is turned down the sand particles remain in intimate contact with the screen and the sand particles pass through quickly.


    Now consider trying to achieve hydrogen saturation of the nickel. Too high a temperature and the brownian motion keeps the hydrogen "floating" above the nickel. To achieve efficient penetration of the nickel matrix the hydrogen needs to be persuaded to "flow" across the surface of the nickel. In the presence of a voltage to keep it in intimate contact.


    Consider the voltage applied to be in opposition to the brownian motion, the heat applied. Decrease the heat and increase the voltage.

    I am not inclined to baby-sit adults, Mary Yugo. Every adult at every moment is engaged in calculated risk/reward gambles. Mr Darwin remarked on this.
    To assume that the legal system dispenses justice would be naieve. Italy has the Cosa Nostra.
    I concern myself with the science and that means the empirical evidence.

    Chapter 1 page 1" How to Win Friends and Influence People". There is no such thing as a Bad Guy. Everyone believes in their own goodness. Therefore I beieve in them too. Only if they betray themselves and me do I abandon my faith in them.


    So, as an empiricist, if someone tells me for instance that the results of the Quantum Erasure Experiment imply that history is backloaded to support the present observation then I must concur, no matter if my "common sense" is screaming at me that this cannot be true.


    To my mind a Troll is someone whose paradigms are in conflict with the empirical evidence and he (invariably a he) takes out his neurosis on someone else or on the cat. If he cannot accept the presented evidence the onus is upon him to redo the experiment.


    I should not be exposed to his nervous breakdown. He must pay a psychiatrist for that.