To a moose. :-)
T
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 6:52:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for fusion
of
electro-tweaking of the strong forces in the nucleus.
Harry
- Original Message
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:53:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for fusion definition
Useful comments, Jed,
The intent
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
I think nuclear physicists reserve the term fusion for interactions
involving the strong nuclear force, and the terms fission and neutron
absorption are terms reserved for interactions involving the electro-weak
force.
Harry, the electroweak is
Jones Beene wrote:
We should also add: A Canadian is a fellow wearing English tweeds, a Hong
Kong shirt and Spanish shoes . . .
As long as we are beating up Canadians -- quoting a Canadian author:
By rights our nation should be the proud inheritor of British
culture, U.S. technology and
Jed sez:
...
By rights our nation should be the proud inheritor of British
culture, U.S. technology and French cooking. Somehow we ended
up with British cooking, U.S. culture, and French technology.
Quit bashing the French! We envy their Nuclear utility technology! 8-0
Canadians... well...
Are Canadians proud of what happened at the UoO yesterday? I guess
freedom of speech is only okay if you believe in what the speaker has
to say.
T
At 04:41 PM 3/24/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
An alpha decay, say from Pd having been activated by a cold neutron is a QM
reaction - even if it involves an excited nucleus emitting an alpha
particle, which is of course identical to a helium-4 nucleus, since both
mass number and atomic number are the
At 04:41 PM 3/24/2010, Jones Beene wrote:
PS: in a followup to really important scientific insight, such as your
previous: A Canadian is someone who knows how to make love in a canoe
without tipping it.
We should also add: A Canadian is a fellow wearing English tweeds, a Hong
Kong shirt and
At 04:55 PM 3/24/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
That reminds me of JFK's comment that Washington DC is a city of
Southern efficiency and Northern charm.
That had me going for a minute, until I realized that he did *not*
get it backwards.
- Original Message
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 4:41:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Request for fusion definition
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
I think nuclear
physicists reserve the term fusion
Ann Coulter is luv'n it.
Harry
- Original Message
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 5:28:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for fusion definition
Are Canadians proud of what happened at the UoO yesterday? I
guess
freedom
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
Could fusion also be used to explain a mechanism or process, a
process that is not yet understood and as such is
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that
fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there
From Alexander:
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that
fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms.
...
That may indeed be the impression that many hold. It is, in fact, the
impression I hold as well.
Nevertheless, I'm also under the impression that many may NOT
At 01:56 PM 3/23/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
Absolutely not. Muon-catalyzed fusion does it
okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for , but a
theory of how fusion works?
Two different things my friend.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Alexander:
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
The term in question I think is nuclear
From Alexander:
okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for,
but a theory of how fusion works?
I'm not looking for a specific theory of how fusion works.
My original question was more in tune with what might be considered a
sociological query: What does the term fusion define?
fusion means to make two things one. It is a much older term than
anything we use it to mean. One could say that pouring water into a
pan and adding sugar, you have made a fusion of water and sugar.
Nuclear fusion is something different. You are being way to general,
it seems to be.
On Tue, Mar
At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
The term in question I think is nuclear fusion. There are many
definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it
appears plasma fusion is often assumed.
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear
Fusion mechanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fusion mechanism is the mechanism by which cell fusion takes place. Cell
fusion is the formation of a hybrid cell from two different cells of different
species.[1][2] Cells from the same organism may fuse together as well. This is
How do you make babies?
In a canoe or in a bed?
Harry
__
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new
Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear fusion.
A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter
Hagelstein called this kind of fusion vacuum reactions which I
think is a good term.
Regarding words and the
Useful comments, Jed,
The intent of my original query was to ask if there exists any kind of
a perceived battle or struggle going on (subtle or not-so-subtle)
pertaining to whether the use of the term, nuclear fusion, must
imply a mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by some brute
force
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
How do you make babies?
In a canoe or in a bed?
Intercourse. A method whereby a man and a woman remove their
clothes and come together in a bed to make babies.
Therefore if it happens in a canoe, it ain't intercourse.
Those people in the canoe,
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear fusion.
A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter
Hagelstein called this kind of fusion vacuum reactions which I
think is a good
On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
The term in question I think is nuclear fusion. There are many
definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it
appears plasma fusion is often assumed.
And the reason is
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 6:52:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for fusion definition
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
How do you make
babies
28 matches
Mail list logo
