Vaporizing dust during chip manufacturing ? [Design]

Prev: A question regarding probe point on high speed digital circuits
Next: SMD Code E6G

From: Proteus IIV on 20 Jun 2010 10:48

On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dl...(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?

YOU COXNET FREAK
KEEP TROLLING AND HARRASING MSN CUSTOMERS
YOU WILL HAVE TO EAT YOUR CABLE BOX AND MODEM

I AM PROTEUS

From: Proteus IIV on 20 Jun 2010 10:49

On Jun 19, 12:10 pm, 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.

GO ON FOOL

BLOW YOURSELF UP

I AM PROTEUS

From: Proteus IIV on 20 Jun 2010 10:49

From: Archimedes' Lever on 20 Jun 2010 12:39

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT), Proteus IIV
<proteusiiv(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 19, 3:34�pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dl...(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?
>
>YOU COXNET FREAK

Are you having a bad day, troll boy?

> KEEP TROLLING AND HARRASING MSN CUSTOMERS

Neither the person I responded to, nor the person he was referring to
are MSN customers, you bent brained, deluded dumbfucktard.

>YOU WILL HAVE TO EAT YOUR CABLE BOX AND MODEM

In a right world, you would have to eat a nice big .50 cal hunk of my
favorite breakfast food for trolls... LEAD.

From: Ken Hagan on 21 Jun 2010 04:47

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:22:31 +0100, EricP
<ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately that Wikipedia value of 17.975e16 J/kg is wrong.
>
> In SI units, a joule = newton*meter = (kg*m/s^2)*m = kg*m^2/s^2 =
> kg*(m/s)^2
>
> E = MC^2 ~= 1.0 kg *(3e8 m/s)^2 = 9e16 J

But the WP figure is for 1kg matter plus 1kg antimatter, not half a kilo
of each. I think they are entitled to regard the latter as "the explosive
ingredient" and assume that unlimited amounts of the former are available
for free.

Oh, and by the the way...

"Well trolled, Skybuck! You've dragged them *all* out this time and no
mistake."

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: A question regarding probe point on high speed digital circuits
Next: SMD Code E6G