Switch off at the socket?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as
well with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general
mess that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty,
its dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth,
although if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is
that that is where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your
world warm, anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at
its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?

Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason.
Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying
whether we use it in reactors or not.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission reactors
have existed naturally (without actually making china) in the past.

http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#


for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it refuted
your other arguments.

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place. Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics. And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:23:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

And this is just one of a growing number of water crises with
international reprcussions, some of which threaten international
stability.

Yes, a number of commentators have remarked that the next time Middle
East states go to war against each other, it will not be over land or
oil, but over water rights.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:57:16 +0100, Jerry wrote:

...in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing, especially
one including uk.d-i-y!

So there is no room for discussing creating an atomic pile in the basement
or a fusion reactor down in the garden shed?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news : On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:57:16 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: ...in any of the cross posted groups, that takes some doing,
especially
: one including uk.d-i-y!
:
: So there is no room for discussing creating an atomic pile in
the basement
: or a fusion reactor down in the garden shed?
:

Technically speaking, yes, assuming it was a DIY project! :~)
--
Regards, Jerry.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission
reactors have existed naturally (without actually making china) in
the past.
http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#


for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all the
evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it
refuted your other arguments.

I don't think so. Where was that then?

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's hypothesis in
support which is 'not accepted by the scientific community'. I would
conclude from that that it isn't taking place at all.



Whether its a
reactor or not is semantics.

Quite so.

And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should be.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission is
taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks, not in
batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs, not anywhere else
in fact.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:23:52 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

And this is just one of a growing number of water crises with
international reprcussions, some of which threaten international
stability.

Yes, a number of commentators have remarked that the next time Middle
East states go to war against each other, it will not be over land or
oil, but over water rights.

Indeed. Hopefully I'll be able to sell one of those states the contents of my
garden water butt for about a hundred quid ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip
: But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when
it
: refuted your other arguments.
:
: I don't think so. Where was that then?

Actually I think it was I who questioned the relevance/worth of
Wikipedia citations, hence one of my sig-lines goes like this...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

snip

[ in reply to The Natural Philosopher ]

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!


Whilst you seem to be a pillock that, even if correct, can't or
won't reference why you concider that you are correct.

But in general that's asking me to prove a negative, which of course can't
be done. If someone makes a ridiculous sounding assertion it is surely for
that person to prove he's right rather than for anyone else to prove him
wrong, isn't it? That's the normal way after all.

Besides, just as an example, I've asked him three times now to define 'mass'
and give a source for the definition he uses. Every time he has been unable
to do even that. On the other hand, I gave the definition I use and quoted
the source. So, please don't accuse me of not doing so.

"Andy Furniss" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:

Is it not the case that without the Hoover Dam, the bright lights of Las
Vegas would not be possible?

I went on a tour at the hoover dam aged 14 and one of the things the guide
said was that Vegas didn't get it's power from them and "They pay a pretty
price for those pretty lights".

It was nearly 30 years ago though, so it may be different now.


Vegas has a coal fired plant that produces about 50% of what it uses, the
rest comes from the "grid".

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Are you saying the earth doesn't go around the Sun (as a first
approximation)?