Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 10:23 John Larkin wrote: [....] > What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, > blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) You are showing a bit of a lack of imagination here. The guys a Chernobyl were do an "experiment" where they were attempting to control the reactor in the "no mans land" of the low output end of the range. The carbon moderated reactors are dynamically unstable at the level. The output oscillates wildly and the controllers were trying to manually force it to be stable. When the large overshoot happened, they would have closed the throttle If Chernobyl had been done on purpose, the fire would have been much harder to put out. > didn't vaporize > its own control buildings. TMI had a core meltdown and didn't escape > containment. Power reactors can't be made into bombs. Yes this is certainly true. > > John
From: Michael A. Terrell on 27 Oct 2006 10:30 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > In article <Dg80h.5$e06.363(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >In article <ehqa97$8qk_008(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >>In article <iLOdnYf2fLhzz6LYRVnyuw(a)pipex.net>, > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>> > >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>news:ehndut$8qk_001(a)s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>> In article <5bmdnTiQpMD62KPYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:ehl0hs$8qk_001(a)s772.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>>>> In article <xeidnaGqVPjT7abYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > >>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:ehfm39$8qk_006(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that > >>>>>>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the > >>>>>>>best > >>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. > >>>>> > >>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some > >>>>>one > >>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect > >>>>>because of [insert reason here]. This is not prohibited by anything in > the > >>>>>scientific method. > >>>> > >>>> No. No matter how the concept is refined, the lab method worked. > >>>> I can then use that method to predict similar setups. That's > >>>> how science works. > >>> > >>>I know how science works. > >>> > >>>We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what > >>>happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your > >>>understanding of what you are observing. > >>> > >>>A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new > >>>(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens > we > >>>[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*. > >>> > >>>That is how science works. > >> > >>I know. What you seem to omit is that the old method will still > >>continue to work within the range of the old measurements. > >> > >>I get real annoyed when people say that Newtonian physics doesnt' > >>work. It does work with crude measurements of certain things. > > > >Crude? For nearly all macroscopic situations we encounter Newtonian > >physics is good to 7-8 decimal places or better, far more accurate > >than the input parameters typically are. Not so crude:-) > > Yea. Thanks. It was the only word I could produce to make the > contrast. :-) > > > >>I know what the scientists mean; but it's a bad form to use > >>because the cranks and the newbies do not know what they mean. > > > >It is even worse than bad form, under most circumstances it is pompous > >twittery. > > <GRIN> > > > You know, you've the kind of people who enjoy saying "all > >you know is wrong, I know better, nah nah nananah...". You would > >think they should grow out of this by the end of adolescence but some > >people never do. > > I had my virtual baseball bat that stopped a little bit; alas > it was never a permanent cure. > > > > >Sure, Newtonian physics is not exact. It is an approximation, and a > >damn good one over a broad range of physical parameters. Calling it > >"wrong" is stupid. > > Thanks for the clarification. I'm not only hip deep in allygaters, > I think they're raining down. > > /BAH Just wait till gator mating season when they make so much noise that you can't sleep. :( -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 10:45 John Larkin wrote: [...] > A bar is ideal for brainstorming. Having "important" people around, > management or critical peers, makes people reluctant to expose > uncertainty, and makes them formal and dogmatic. The alcohol or > caffein may help to... altered states. Where I work we have an informal rule that nothing said over the lunch table is to be taken too seriously. I actively work towards making sure that new people understand this so that it doesn't change. Technical subjects are often the lead in for bad puns and there are many references to upsidasium and unobtainium but mixed in, some very good ideas have gotten their start over lunch. There was even a case in the past where a new product came out of it. It started off with someone in sales saying "someone needs an XYZ". Before lunch was over we had figured out that if we took ABC and DEF and put them in a weather proof box we would have a perfectly good XYZ.
From: MooseFET on 27 Oct 2006 10:52 Frank Bemelman wrote: [....] > As if the US is so brilliant when it comes to minimizing > death and preventing mess. But what can you expect, with > a bunch of morons and cowboys Objection: There are no cows in Crawford TX. I have met a few real cowboys and got to know one fairly well. As a group they are nothing like those currently in charge. To be a cowboy you would have to out smart a cow and I doubt many of the ones you are talking about could do that.
From: Eeyore on 27 Oct 2006 11:37
MooseFET wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > [....] > > What reactor could do that? Even a design as stupid as Chernobyl, > > blowing up in the worst possible way (which it did) > > You are showing a bit of a lack of imagination here. The guys a > Chernobyl were do an "experiment" where they were attempting to control > the reactor in the "no mans land" of the low output end of the range. > The carbon moderated reactors are dynamically unstable at the level. > The output oscillates wildly and the controllers were trying to > manually force it to be stable. When the large overshoot happened, > they would have closed the throttle If Chernobyl had been done on > purpose, the fire would have been much harder to put out. " the control rods were designed with graphite tips, which when initially inserted into the reactor, speed up the reaction, instead of slowing or stopping it. This design flaw caused the first explosion of the Chernobyl accident, when the emergency button was pressed to stop the reactor. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK |