Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ?
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 19 Jun 2010 12:10 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 18, 8:25�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP >> >> <ThatWouldBeTell...(a)thevillage.com> wrote: >> >dlzc wrote: >> >> >> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >> >> energy (the rest is there just for chance). >> >> >1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >> >E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg >> >> >1 megaton = 46.49 grams. >> >> >Eric >> >> � Grams? �Grams of WHAT? �I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield >> less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium. >> >> � Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". �For one thing, it >> does not get "converted", it gets "released". >> >> � The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. >> >> � Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where >> they include more than they need. �To claim so is just stupid. >> >> � Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is >>: stupid as well. >> >> � Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. �There cannot be any more >> than that after stupid statements like the one you made here. > >Wikipedia say: > >In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total >mass�energy is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, into >a form which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about >0.1% of its mass, and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can >fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, >so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% >of the total mass appears as energy in the end. So FORTY POUNDSm was in fission. So "the rest is just there for chance" is total bullshit. It would not go critical without it, and the part that gets converted could never do so unless the atoms that ARE releasing the energy were not completely surrounded by similar material. There must be enough media there for the collisions to get going.
From: dlzc on 19 Jun 2010 15:29 Dear George Neuner: On Jun 19, 7:06 am, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:49:49 -0700, Archimedes' Lever > <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:20:51 -0400, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> > >wrote: > > >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:07:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever > >><OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > > >>> Are matter anti-matter annihilations being observed in uni labs on a > >>>regular basis? > > >>Yes ... and in (big) hospitals too. Google "PET scan". > > >>George > > > Ah... molecular level stuff. Only about one ten millionth of what one > >would need to take care of a dust particle. > > > Still quite implausible. > > Sorry, I missed something. What's implausible? Using antimatter to destroy dust particles in situ in semiconductor manufacture. David A. Smith
From: Archimedes' Lever on 19 Jun 2010 15:34 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote: >Dear George Neuner: > >On Jun 19, 7:06�am, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:49:49 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >> <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:20:51 -0400, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> >> >wrote: >> >> >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:07:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >> >><OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >> >>> Are matter anti-matter annihilations being observed in uni labs on a >> >>>regular basis? >> >> >>Yes ... and in (big) hospitals too. �Google "PET scan". >> >> >>George >> >> > �Ah... molecular level stuff. �Only about one ten millionth of what one >> >would need to take care of a dust particle. >> >> > �Still quite implausible. >> >> Sorry, I missed something. �What's implausible? > >Using antimatter to destroy dust particles in situ in semiconductor >manufacture. > >David A. Smith Amazing world full of TV educated, (not the learning channels) sci fi idiots, eh?
From: Richard Henry on 19 Jun 2010 16:32 On Jun 19, 9:10 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry > > > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Jun 18, 8:25 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > >wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP > > >> <ThatWouldBeTell...(a)thevillage.com> wrote: > >> >dlzc wrote: > > >> >> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to > >> >> energy (the rest is there just for chance). > > >> >1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules > >> >E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg > > >> >1 megaton = 46.49 grams. > > >> >Eric > > >> Grams? Grams of WHAT? I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield > >> less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium. > > >> Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it > >> does not get "converted", it gets "released". > > >> The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. > > >> Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where > >> they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid. > > >> Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is > >>: stupid as well. > > >> Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. There cannot be any more > >> than that after stupid statements like the one you made here. > > >Wikipedia say: > > >In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total > >mass energy is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, into > >a form which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about > >0.1% of its mass, and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can > >fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, > >so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% > >of the total mass appears as energy in the end. > > So FORTY POUNDSm was in fission. So "the rest is just there for chance" > is total bullshit. It would not go critical without it, and the part > that gets converted could never do so unless the atoms that ARE releasing > the energy were not completely surrounded by similar material. > > There must be enough media there for the collisions to get going. Do you know what "goes critical" means? The total mass, shape and density of the fissile material, convolved with the material's neutron cross section and the presence of neutron moderating and reflecting materials, affect the "chance" of an efficient fission occurring.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 19 Jun 2010 16:40
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:32:36 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 19, 9:10�am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry >> >> >> >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jun 18, 8:25 am, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> >> >wrote: >> >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP >> >> >> <ThatWouldBeTell...(a)thevillage.com> wrote: >> >> >dlzc wrote: >> >> >> >> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to >> >> >> energy (the rest is there just for chance). >> >> >> >1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules >> >> >E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg >> >> >> >1 megaton = 46.49 grams. >> >> >> >Eric >> >> >> Grams? Grams of WHAT? I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield >> >> less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium. >> >> >> Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it >> >> does not get "converted", it gets "released". >> >> >> The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical. >> >> >> Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where >> >> they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid. >> >> >> Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is >> >>: � stupid as well. >> >> >> Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. There cannot be any more >> >> than that after stupid statements like the one you made here. >> >> >Wikipedia say: >> >> >In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total >> >mass energy is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, into >> >a form which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about >> >0.1% of its mass, and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can >> >fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, >> >so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% >> >of the total mass appears as energy in the end. >> >> �So FORTY POUNDSm was in fission. �So "the rest is just there for chance" >> is total bullshit. �It would not go critical without it, and the part >> that gets converted could never do so unless the atoms that ARE releasing >> the energy were not completely surrounded by similar material. >> >> � There must be enough media there for the collisions to get going. > >Do you know what "goes critical" means? The total mass, shape and >density of the fissile material, convolved with the material's neutron >cross section and the presence of neutron moderating and reflecting >materials, affect the "chance" of an efficient fission occurring. The idiot said that only a few nanogra,s get converted, and that the rest was "just there". He ain't real bright. He epitomizes the lay view. |