Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 12:54 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>How do you measure the EMF in "noisy" environments? > >>>>>>>>Or don't you need numbers anymore? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Device off, sensors read baseline noise reading. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Device on, sensors read local differential. Extrapolations get > >>>>>>>made, figures get arrived at. Task complete. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Your test has a big huge unfixable flaw. > >>>>> > >>>>>Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that assertion ? > >>>> > >>>>The device has to be unplugged to get the baseline reading. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's what "device off" MEANS ! > >>> > >>>Good Lord ! How daft are you ? > >> > >>LOL > >> > >>These days "device off" isn't really off. > > > > > > It is when the power cord isn't plugged in you cretin. > > That's called, as BAH properly called it, "not plugged in." > > "Device off" may have the power connected to the device, > or it might not. > > Her point is valid, and as usual you're nothing more > than a DumbDonkey. And you're a blowhard wannabe. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 12:55 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >> > >>>It's not a nightmare [EMC compliance]. I should know, I'm the one dealing with it > >> > >>in > my work not you. > >> > >>You *should* know. > > > > > > I *do* know. > > Everything you've written proves you *don't* know. Do tell how many products you've taken through the compliance process. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 12:57 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > Oh puhleeeze ! All this fuss over what's actually on and what's off ! I am aware of > > the differences. > > > > I was only trying to address BAH's stupid stove. > > I'd want to make sure that there was no backup battery for > the clock. A battery clock is very unlikely to produce any radiation of interest. Graham
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 13:01 Phil Carmody wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>This included all of the infrastructure required. >>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>has to do that work. > > > It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. > > BAH maths is BAD maths. > > It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, > had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. Why didn't you simply include the entire history of mankind and start with "Adam" then" Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. The rest of them, including the important work done by Wheeler's group at Princeton and Bohr, started with the Manhattan Project. The problems to be solved were not whether or not a bomb could work, but actually making it work, and a contingent trying to figure out whether or not once started a chain reaction wouldn't extend to the entire planet. > Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same > time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing > his work for that very reason). Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage > BAH history is BAD history. She's accurate with her time scale of 3 years. And her point is also correct that any country with decent math, science and technology can duplicate the effort in ~3 years, perhaps less, by mounting an effort much smaller than the Manhattan Project was given the wealth of knowledge in the public domain.
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 13:35
unsettled wrote: > Phil Carmody wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > > > >>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. > >>This included all of the infrastructure required. > >>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody > >>has to do that work. > > > > > > It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. > > > > BAH maths is BAD maths. > > > > It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, > > had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. > > Why didn't you simply include the entire history of mankind > and start with "Adam" then" > > Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was > limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. > > The rest of them, including the important work done by > Wheeler's group at Princeton and Bohr, started with the > Manhattan Project. The problems to be solved were not > whether or not a bomb could work, but actually making it > work, and a contingent trying to figure out whether or not > once started a chain reaction wouldn't extend to the entire > planet. > > > Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same > > time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing > > his work for that very reason). > > Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans > were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to > destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage > > > BAH history is BAD history. > > She's accurate with her time scale of 3 years. And her point > is also correct that any country with decent math, science and > technology can duplicate the effort in ~3 years, perhaps less, > by mounting an effort much smaller than the Manhattan Project > was given the wealth of knowledge in the public domain. The big problem is making enough fissile material. A huge effort was required to make enough for the 3 bombs the USA exploded before the end of WW2. Graham |