Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 22:50 MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >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. > > > > That was just over 100 Lbs of first generation weak grade material. > > NOW, we can do it with less weight, and much more responsive media. We can, but can a beginner get it right ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 22:55 MassiveProng wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: > > >Might be a gas stove, dumbbell. They're plugged into regular > >branch circuits. > > You're an idiot. > > >Here's one with an embedded computer: > > > snip > > Oh Boy. The BAHTard is still on a TTY console. Do you really think > that no desktop computer means that she is anxious to have a stovetop > computer? I still recall seeing my first "Glass Teletype" in a local college. Dumb terminals still have their uses. My first microcontroller project included a basic RS-232 port for diagnostics that you could hook one up to. Graham
From: mmeron on 1 Feb 2007 23:08 In article <2a354$45c22ade$4fe74a9$30207(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >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. > And given the currently available technology. Lets not forget that the Manhattan Project was run with 40s technology. True, the best 40s technology available, but that was still stone age, in many respects, in comparisons to what's currently available. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 1 Feb 2007 23:19 In article <87bqkdll8y.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> 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" > >Because all of the above had were in America, and had some >part > >> Einstein *never* worked on the bomb project. His input was >> limited to sending a letter at Szilard's request. > >And by doing so he validated the theories underpinning the >work. Theories come before practice. Ahh, so that's why James Watt had to wait for thermodynamics before developing his steam engine. > Without that input from >him, the research may well not have got underway in 1939. > There was no input from relativity required for this research. >> 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. > >Wrong. The US-based research got underway in 1939. > Only small potatoes research. The real effort started by end of 1941. >> > 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 > >Irrelevant. Szil�rd's results were from 1933. That alone >counters BAH's absurd claim. Szilard's had no results other than "if such and such may be happening, then such and such is possible". These are no results at all. No results were possible before the possibility of fission has benn discovered, and that was in 1939. > >> > BAH history is BAD history. >> >> She's accurate with her time scale of 3 years. > >Wrong. The US research was underway in 1939. 1945-1939 is 6 years. > Again, there was no serious work prior to end of 1941, just some small scale exploratory work. >Your maths and history are as bad as BAH's. > I'm afraid that your math, physics and history are all equally bad. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: mmeron on 1 Feb 2007 23:48
In article <87ps8tk0q7.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >> Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> > You are wrong. You know very little. All that became declassified >> > a decade ago. It all started in 1939. I keep saying this but your >> > clue-resistance is just too strong. I don't believe you'll >> > ever learn to tell the truth from falsity. >> >> No substantiation = bullshit > >Here's one claim of yours: ><<< >Nuclear chain reaction wasn't even proved till 1942. So much >for your earlier "research." >>>> >It was proved to be theoretically possible in 1933 by the work >of Szil�rd and independently by Curie the same year. The only >thing that wasn't known was the critical mass. Heisenberg had >the wrong model, Szil�rd and Curie had the right model. > No, nothing was proven. All there was, was a "flight of fancy" to the effect that "*if* there exists a material in which an exotermic nuclear reaction is induced by an absorption of neutrons and *if* said reaction is accompanied by the emission of more neutrons then were needed to induce it in the first place, *then* a release of an arbitrary large amount of energy is apriori possile". This is a statment which: 1) Is trivially (one may say, tautologically) true. 2) Is utterly useless unless all the ifs pointed were found to be true. 3) Is also quit euseless since it provides no guidance regarding how to find whether said ifs may be true. And, most important, it is not a proof of anything. If I say "if there exists a material which may withstand temperatures of 10^8 K then we can build fusion reactors without worrying about containment", this does not constitute a proof of a possibility of building fusion reactors without containment. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |