Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[All-E] Re: The cost power production

Expand Messages
  • pulsed_ignition
    Fred - 55,211 PSI was the initial pressure in that test. How many times will you ignore engineering to mislead people? 150 pounds is the weight used to apply
    Message 1 of 73 , Aug 1, 2007
      Fred - 55,211 PSI was the initial pressure in that test. How many
      times will you ignore engineering to mislead people? 150 pounds is
      the weight used to apply the PRESSURE for the test (which you did not
      know) otherwise you would not have thought 150 pounds was so trivial.
      You may not be an engineer - but your opinions are entertaining.

      This is exactly why I reserve the test results for corporate
      ENGINEERS interested in my product, and its multiple benefits over
      ANY currently available lubrication.

      Chris Arnold
      www.hyperdiamond.com

      --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <imageiteverywhere@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > > I will say it one more time Fred - that was a HIGH PRESSURE test
      and
      > > coefficient of friction (COF) results have proven to be "pressure
      > > dependent."
      >
      > What are you talking about, the weight was only 150 pounds! The
      weight
      > of a wind turbine can weight 1,000 pounds to 18 tons in weight! All
      of
      > this weight is resting on bearings. This weight is further
      multiplied
      > by gusting wind pressing against the blades.
      >
      > > You also keep forgetting that wear was NINE times lower
      > > than with only the carrier oil
      >
      > This in no way helps the blades spin any easier.
      >
      > If you have newer data, i would suggest you post it, otherwise your
      > prior data is the only data available.
      >
      > fred
      >
    • Michael Redler
      Rubberhead? ROFLOL! The child speaks! Mike
      Message 73 of 73 , Aug 13, 2007
        Rubberhead? ROFLOL! The child speaks!

        Mike

        mauk_mcamuk wrote:


        Ah, another response from the latest rubberhead.

        >--- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@... >
        >wrote:
        >
        > Dear Mauk,
        >
        > Using the vocabulary of a juvenile delinquent to express your
        > frustration is hardly inspiring anyone to take you seriously.

        You remain an idiot and are doing nothing to dissuade me from my
        opinion with this verbal spew.

        It's easy to change my mind! Exhibit intelligence! Come on, you can
        do it! I'm rooting for you!

        > You're
        > revealing your true colors which will be recorded in the archives
        >for
        > everyone to see.

        OH MY GOD! Please, not the archives!

        LOL. :)

        >It will send a message to anyone who reads it;
        > "Disagree with this person and he will turn into an unruly child,
        >not
        > just having a fit, but actually expressing it as an email message".
        >

        I prefer to think of the message as: "Talk out your ass and expect
        to get called on it."

        Welcome to the Internet! :)

        > You wrote: "Define Dual Use so we can discuss it then."
        >
        > I already did.

        Please humor me and do it again. Just for clarity.

        Pretty please? :)

        >Reading comprehension/ retention and denial are not your
        > only problems. Based on your choice of words, it goes much, much
        >deeper
        > than that. There are a host of problems in your responses, not the
        >least
        > being the ease with which you are threatened.
        >

        Oh, yeah, I'm just a walking mass of problems. :D

        > I didn't start out emphasizing the connection between power plants
        >and
        > weapons production.

        Sensibly enough, because there isn't one. The only time its ever
        been tried was with Pu gained from the old MAGNOX reactors, and those
        things SUCKED. I mean, really. Most of the huge issues in the
        British nuclear sector stem directly from those awful things.

        Modern light water reactors? There's no practical way. Future
        designs? Even worse due to multi-recycle. CANDU's? Maybe. Very
        maybe. :) The Indian Thorium designs are a little worrisome. U233
        is a pretty viable material. But those aren;t built yet.

        >I was more focused on the facilities for >processing
        > fuel.

        Hey, lookit that. As it turns out the front-end fuel cycle IS where
        most of the risk is concentrated. Spent fuel is a very, very minor
        concern. Mainly, don't touch! :) Self-protective dose is...mean. :D

        In a nutshell, reactors good, centrifuges bad.

        And amazingly enough, this is exactly the issue addressed by the GNEP.

        >However, considering your response in this matter, I've become
        > even more curious. So, don't fret. You'll have many chances to
        >respond,
        > and perhaps redeem yourself, as I collect more and more resources
        >to
        > share in this forum.
        >

        This promises to be amusing as hell, watching you beat yourself
        senseless against the laws of physics.

        Basic question: What is the difference between Pu-238, Pu-239, and
        Pu-240?

        > You still have a chance to show some composure. Perhaps you have it
        >in
        > you to debate an issue without looking foolish.
        >

        You're a COMPLETE idiot. Prove me wrong. :)

        > Mike
        >
        >


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.