Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Energy efficiancy question? PostPosted: 2004-03-22 10:54pm
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Quote:
Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. First, as mentioned SEVERAL TIMES TO YOU IN THE EARLIER THREAD, the theory calls for a 5km ball, not an 80km ball.


Were did you read that? Both of the articles that I read had dimentions of 25-50 miles and 31-62 miles. ( see POPULAR SCIENCE.)

Quote:
Second, you need 1E38 J, not 4E32 J.


What makes you think it takes that much energy to blow up a planet? There are several compeeting theories and the better ones come up with much less energy than that, generated by the overcomeing gravity model.

Quote:
Third, this "uranium droplet" would not be composed of 100% fissile material, you moron, or it would have gone off already!


Of course not I would expect it to be 99.3% U-238, just like all the rest of the U we have found anywere else on the planet.

Quote:
How fucking stupid can you be? Don't you realize that most uranium is useless for that purpose, which is why uranium in which the fissile isotope has been removed is called DEPLETED uranium and considered garbage?


You have just proven your ignorance beyond all shadow of a dought!

Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons. That is why all larger Thermonuclear weapons get 50% or more from the Depleated Urainium sleeve that is placed around the thermonuclear "Secondary". At least one isotope of Thorium, U-233, U-235 and all the isotopes of plutonium that I can remember will all fission when struck by so-called slow "thermal" nutrons which is why they are used to make small Fission bombs. It is easy to get slow nutrons but hard to make fast ones.

I recomend that you read Richard Rhodes's THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN. They are probably the best un-clasified works on the subject and after you have read them you will not be so ignorant on the subject.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:00pm
Offline
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Posts: 28367
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
I suggest you, Stewart, produce numbers, not bullshit. Our figures were for 100% efficiency fission.. The kind only undergone by the unstable isotopes. Moving to stable isotopes reduces the energy released and increases the size of the Uranium core you insists exists.

Further, your claim that we don't need 1e39J is quite laughable. The calculations to prove Alderaan's energy state was elevated to 1e39J are trivially easy to reproduce.. Or are you so under-qualified that you'd need eight 'phd plus' individuals to do it for you?



Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Energy efficiancy question? PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:06pm
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Were did you read that? Both of the articles that I read had dimentions of 25-50 miles and 31-62 miles. ( see POPULAR SCIENCE.)


You can provide exact figures but not exact references (i.e. publication date, page #)?? Bullshit.

Quote:
What makes you think it takes that much energy to blow up a planet? There are several compeeting theories and the better ones come up with much less energy than that, generated by the overcomeing gravity model.


It's called observation, fucktard.

Quote:
Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA

Do you KNOW why U-238 is stable? It's because it requires a net input of energy to cause it to fission!!!


BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

U-238 fission consumes more energy than it releases! It is a net-loss reaction!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA :lol: :lol: :lol:

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:10pm
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Quote:
Utterly irrelevant. The possibility that the superlaser system may not operate at 100% efficency does not negate the observed phenomenon of the weapon delivering enough energy to blow apart a terrestrial-sized planet very violently.


It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)

Quote:
Your laughable (and unoriginal) theory has been dealt with and shredded several dozen times before.


But answering a posit with a false argument does not win the debate, no mater how many times it has been mooted.

Quote:
And as has been pointed out already, the fact that the superlaser blasts apart an entire planet is observed evidence that it can deliver the energy required.


Wrong again. The fact that the planet explodes does not favor any one theory. Only that it does explode. It is up to us to find THE THEORY that requires the least conjecture and suspension of disbelife. The DET model fails on many fronts. I propose that you list all of the defects with my theory that you can point out in current common science, then make a list of all the things that we must suspend our colective disbelife to make yours work. It is not fair to list the piont that my theory makes the DS less powerfull than you would want to belive as a defect.

Quote:
The fact that the Death Star was never affected by any observable problem with disposal of waste heat testifies to the capacity of its energy control and transport system.


Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.

Your defective logic is showing. Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:15pm
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
DaveJB wrote:
And Stewart, if you try and use the Exhaust Port as "proof" that the DS had trouble with heat overproduction, bear in mind that the Athlon 64 and Opteron processors both have circuitry to prevent a thermal overload, but that doesn't mean that they have trouble with excess heat! It's there as a precaution - in fact, I seem to remember the novel stating that.

(Not the best example I'm sure, but it was the first one I thought of)


That has nothing to do with the post in either way. The prior post said that the DS did not have any problem with thermal dissipation. I pointed out that not showing a problem and the existance of the port do not exclude or include each other. Therefore the film is not silent on the subject but we do not know if they have problems or not, but that measures have been taken to aleaviate a problem or potential problem.

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:19pm
Offline
Charismatic Cult Leader
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm
Posts: 13766
Location: Wheeeee!!
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Not true again. The fact that they had atleast one "small, unshielded, thermal exhaust port" is proof that they had at least some concerns on this matter. Other wise the film is silent on the matter and we are left to make better conjecture than your last sentance.


Stewart at SDI wrote:
That has nothing to do with the post in either way. The prior post said that the DS did not have any problem with thermal dissipation. I pointed out that not showing a problem and the existance of the port do not exclude or include each other. Therefore the film is not silent on the subject but we do not know if they have problems or not, but that measures have been taken to aleaviate a problem or potential problem.


Hmmm....what's wrong? Can't make up your mind? Yes? No? Maybe? Flip a coin? Would you like to buy a vowel?



Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Energy efficiancy question? PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:20pm
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Stewart at SDI wrote:
You have just proven your ignorance beyond all shadow of a dought!

Several isotopes of Thorium and U-238 (Depleated Urainium.) all fission when struck by fast nutrons like those generated in D-D and D-T reactions in thermonuclear weapons. That is why all larger Thermonuclear weapons get 50% or more from the Depleated Urainium sleeve that is placed around the thermonuclear "Secondary".

You're a moron. If the Death Star must subject the planetary core to the same intensity of neutron radiation found inside a nuclear warhead, then you have hardly reduced its energy requirements, dumb-fuck! Fast fission is more difficult to produce than slow fission, and it can only work in the ridiculously neutron-dense environment of a nuclear warhead, which is why nuclear reactors don't even bother with fast fission at all.
Quote:
At least one isotope of Thorium, U-233, U-235 and all the isotopes of plutonium that I can remember will all fission when struck by so-called slow "thermal" nutrons which is why they are used to make small Fission bombs. It is easy to get slow nutrons but hard to make fast ones.

You're a moron. The reason nuclear reactors have neutron moderator fluid is that fast neutrons are more common and undesirable than slow ones. Why? Because fast fission has a far lower reaction probability than slow fission. Why do you think they need various tampers and such to reflect escaping neutrons back into the core? Fast neutrons are bad; they tend to fly right out of the core without capture.

Sure, the ridiculous neutron density in a detonating nuclear warhead can make it happen anyway, but that only makes my point for me, moron. Even given all of your other assumptions, you have to subject the planet to ridiculous conditions in order to make this happen. In short, you are arguing that stable uranium isotopes will undergo fission when subjected to massively intense nuclear radiation like that found at the surface of a detonating thermonuclear warhead, then you postulate that this condition exists uniformly throughout an entire 80km wide sphere at the Earth's core and an 80km wide column up the planet's surface.

So why don't you back up your bullshit? Produce an energy estimate for subjecting an entire 80km wide sphere at the Earth's centre to this enormous uniform super-intense neutron flux with an energy beam from outside the planet. Show that this energy requirement is below 2.4E32 J. Not that this matters given the requirement for 1E38 J, but you have spent an awful lot of time claiming that you have nuclear weapons expertise and precisely zero time demonstrating it.
Quote:
I recomend that you read Richard Rhodes's THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB and DARK SUN. They are probably the best un-clasified works on the subject and after you have read them you will not be so ignorant on the subject.

I used to work for Ontario Hydro in a nuclear power plant, moron. Don't bullshit me with your pathetic claims of superior knowledge.



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Energy efficiancy question? PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:43pm
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
The Dude wrote:
Do you KNOW why U-238 is stable? It's because it requires a net input of energy to cause it to fission!!!

U-238 fission consumes more energy than it releases! It is a net-loss reaction!


Overstated my case here; U-238 is metastable; nonetheless, there is an activation energy requirement; I would love to see Stewie's energy balance.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:45pm
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Stewart at SDI wrote:
It is realivant. If a compeeting theory can explain the effects seen, without having to suspend our disbelife on the efficiancy of the mechanism, THEN IT IS THE BETTER THEORY and it must take president over the infirior one that it replaces. (According to the rules on this web site, anyway?)

I am waiting for your mathematical calculations to demonstrate the feasibility of your theory, particularly with regard to the generation of neutron flux similar to that found inside a thermonuclear warhead throughout an entire 80km wide sphere of uranium as well as an 80km wide column of matter leading all the way up to the surface of the planet.

Until then, you have not shown that it can explain the effects seen. Why don't you put your "strategic defense institute" skills to work on this, Stewart? Surely, if you were willing to waste $800 driving around asking mysterious nameless professors for testimony, you can apply some of your much-vaunted nuclear weapons expertise to this simple question, can you not? Or will you be man enough to admit that you've been full of shit since Day One?



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines. PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:50pm
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
SirNitram wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately for you, fission reactions would require a ball of solid uranium twice the Earth's mass. This fact shows you not only are wrong, but are lying about any comprehension of the physics involved.


Were are you getting your figures? That is the stupidest thing I've read on this board, ever.


Quote:
I know; the mere idea that the Earth's core could be fissile material stored at densities which would have it go off already is an outrageously stupid idea, but I've gotten used to you posting stupid things.


Your ignorance of nuclear physics and weapons is showing. Read Rhodes books.

Quote:
A ball 80klicks OD would mass about ~5^18 kilos at surface dencity more at core pressures. That amount of fisile mass times 20,000 tons of TNT equivilant each equals 4.5^32 Joules. Unless I've screwed up the math in my head some place.


Quote:
You merely forget a few things. Copied from the first time I posted this and you ran away in fear from actual math:

To illustrate the problem...

1e39 J. The canon energy state of Alderaan following the explosion.


I dispute that the above figure is cannon! If so where? The movies are silent on the energy out put. The EU matierial is of a lessor cannon acording to His Highness and the figures derived from faulty assumptions are them selves faulty. If the velosity of the leading fragments from the explosion, as shown in the film is ~17,000 Km/S, then the energy of the typical planet burst would be ~4^32J.

Quote:
8.9e13 J. The factual, 100% release of fission, per kilogram of material. Keep in mind we're talking about a naturally occouring fission bomb, so your efficiency will be closer to 1%.


8.36e13J acording to my DoD manuals. Where did you get your figure from?

Why? The very best bomb design ever published quoted compressions of 27 to 64X for the "Polish atomic hand grenade". Will send copies of the article for a finn. ($5.00) Normal "implosion" bombs make do with 8-27X and get efficiancies much higher than 1%. I wonder if Mikie could compute the compression of a 80 klick ball of the three most common elements that will fission when struck by fast nutrons when compressed by the weight of the entire planet? After all, this is the kind of problem CME's are trained to do. I'll bet it's higher than 27X.

Quote:
~1e25 kg. The mass of the nuclear material required to blow the hell out of Alderaan, derived from the above. Someone check this math, please.


Again this argument is based on faulty assumtions that have no bassis in weaponeering. In addition, they make other assumptions that are based on faulty logic and or ignorance of the effects as shown. More enlightened figures are 2.7e14M^3 at sea level pressure. That is a ball only 40,052M in radius. There are very many effects that could rais the efficiancy much higher.

Quote:
5.974e24 kg. The mass of Earth, and thus, logically, Alderaan.


You know what they say about people whu assume things they know nothing about.

Hrm.

Quote:
For this to work, you need twice the Earth's mass in fissile material, in a naturally occouring state, just happening to be weapons grade.


Faulty assumptions again. Read Rhodes books. Then you might have a glimmer of knowledge on this topic.

Quote:
Fuck the energy requirements for this; this boondoggle is ridiculous once you actually look at the amount of stuff involved!


You are right, lets chuck the whole argument based on your ignorance and faulty assumptions.

Quote:
Yea, they claim it. They offer no evidence.


If you had read any of the articles, there are several interesting theories that still await proof. But they are all better than the problem of waist energy in the DET Model DS beam.

Quote:
You offer no evidence. Guess what? That makes them worthless via Parsimony. Game, set, match.


That same thing could be said of the DET Model. It requires much more in the way of suspension of disbelife that this does. Also, no one has daired answer the origional question. How efficiant is the DS Laser machine?


Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-22 11:50pm
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
Mike: feasibility aside, do you know off-hand what the net yield of fast fission of U-238 is?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:00am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Darth_Zod wrote:
Stewpot wrote:
I have read at least two articles that claim that there must be a ball of Urainium/Plutonium in the center of the Earth to explain the heat and magnetic field for so many billions of years.

wow, a whole two articles. probably not from very reliable sources. ya know what? basic geology proves this WRONG! of course it would be too much to assume you know anything about that. here's the actual reasons: the earth's core is composed of semi liquid iron, with other metals around it.


Wrong again the core is "THOUGHT" to contain iron and nickle with other denser metals inside that. The heavy stuff does not float on the liquid iron it sinks.

Quote:
the friction caused by the plates moving and the magma churning around the core eventually magnetizes the core, creating the earth's magnetic field. no uranium required.


Boy do you have to go back to school. Your ignorance is showing. You just said that the friction caused the heat and that then caused the magnetism! The facts are that the heat drives the tectonics, not the other way around.

[quoite] this isn't to say of course that there might not be uranium floating in the mantle or near the core,


Your ignorance is showing again. Why would a metal with a density of ~20 float on a liquid with a density of ~8?

Quote:
however it's a rather big leap of logic to assume that it's what's making it stay warm,


Why not? If the conventional model has defects that can not be explained by other means, why sould this model be less good.

Quote:
when in fact it's more likely due to the immense pressure as a result of the plates, the crust and the mantle around it. pressure + objects = friction = heat. see? simple.


See above. No wonder everyone on this board is so hard to convince.

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:02am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Darth Wong wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:
So the theory that Earths core is heated by the decay of radiactive isotopes is wrong. Right ?

No, it's not been discredited. It's just that some people have a theory that the uranium all collected in a 5km wide ball at the centre, whereas others think it's more evenly distributed throughout the planet's mass. Doesn't change anything either way since neither theory makes the preposterous assertion that it's all pure fissile material. Not to mention the fact that it would be many orders of magnitude too small anyway, and would have gone off by now if that were the case.


This poster is ignorant of fission facts. I sugjest reading Richard Rhodes books on the nuclear weapons history.

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: The energy required to blast the planet to smitherines. PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:11am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Ender wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Quote:
At least you are not propagating this funny/stupid "fusion/fission-bomb planet" theory... this theory is so horrible stupid that's even hard to laugh about.


Yes I am. It is my theory that the DS some how caused the core of the planet to fision, just like a nuclear bomb.


So it is actually your position that a material mostly made up of iron, was induced to fission?

Do you know anything whatso ever about nuclear physics?


Yes, do any of the posters on this board?

If the pressure is high enough, Iron will undergo "FUSION" and add to the energy liberated by the fission in the "DEPLEETED MATIERIAL CORE". AFTER ALL, IT IS HOW ALL THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS WERE MADE.

Quote:
No, I dispute that the gravitational binding energy is not the lower limet. If all the mass of the planet had escape velosity, why would the fragments shown in the film clearly be moving parrallel to and in the same direction as the Milenium Falcon as it approched the last known pos of the planet?


Quote:
Because it flew through it moron.


Realy? What do you base this hypothisis on?

Quote:
You have to be very carefull about the assumptions that you start with if you are going to get good data.


Quote:
Like your assumptions that you can induce anything to fission?


If you had read my post you would know that I only possited that "HEAVY" elements will fission in this case, JUST AS WE ALREADY KNOW THEY WILL WHEN HIT WITH FAST NUTRONS!

Again I recomend that everyone on this board read Rhodes books on the history of Nuclear weapons.

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:13am
Offline
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Posts: 28367
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
Why would reading a book on the history of nuclear weapons matter in a discussion involving nuclear physics? Knowing the history of who made the bomb pales in comparison to comprehending the physics involved in it's detonation. That's the difference here, Stewart: People here know how and why such things work, unlike you.



Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:14am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Ender wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
What is the efficiancy of the mechanism that generates, controles and directs the energy required to destroy the planet? IE, what pecentage of the energy generated was absorbed by the machine that did it?


Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial so far as the observed effects of the superlaser are concerned. The weapon delivered sufficent energy to blow a terrestrial planet apart in a tenth of a second.


No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

With my theory, the total energy is much lower and is something that the DS might have actualy been faintly, future possably able to do. With the DET Model some of the energy to destroy the planet must have been lost in the machine. The DET numbers are so huge that the efficiancy must be millions of times beyond anything we can forsee. Then the energy dissipation mechanism must also be millions of times more effective than anything we can think of now.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?
That they are sufficiently advanced that it is not an issue; afterall they have no problem disposing of thewaste heat from Coruscant.


What has that to do with the other? I wish I knew what to call a debate tactic like this. You have still ducked the question with a snide remark and evasive answer that does not bear on this discussion.

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:15am
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
It's pretty funny how you keep bleating "Read Rhodes' Book" "Read Rhodes' Book" when your theory falls down on BASIC THERMODYNAMICS, not to mention relying on a ridiculously-sized, magically-fissile ball of uranium at the core of every planet in the SW galaxy. :roll:

BTW, Stewie, it's common practice among the scientifically competent to actually name relevant page numbers when citing a book; so please do so, so that I can easily find the passage that outlines the conditions for 100% fission of U-238 when I am at the library tomorrow.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:16am
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
While you're at it, provide a proper citation for this uranium ball article you keep referring to; "Maybe Popular Science some time in the last few years" does not pass muster, even in elementary school.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:23am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Ted C wrote:
Stewart at SDI wrote:
No it is very realivant. If the energy all came from the DS, then some of it was waisted durring production, transport and discharge. How much must then be dissipated by the mechanism bears directly on our discussion.

how do you explain the dicrepancy?


There is no discrepancy to explain.

Yes, the Death Star would undoubtedly have to dissipate some portion of the energy generated for the superlaser blast, but since you have no idea what portion, your argument against the DET theory is completely unfounded. We don't expect the mechanism to be 100% efficient, but virtually anything less might be feasible with Imperial/Republic technology. For all you know, the Death Star had to dissipate less than one megaton of energy (4.2E+15 J) in the course of delivering it's planet-shattering energy beam (1E+38 J).

Until you can demonstrate that inefficiency of the superlaser mechanism forced the Death Star to absorb more energy than the known laws of physics would allow it to reasonably handle, you have no basis for disputing the DET theory due to overheating of the weapon system.


That is exactly the point! No one knows how efficiant it is. But if it had to dissipate only "one megaton of energy" ~4.2^15J then it had to be ~4.2^15th more efficiant than any thing ever invisioned.

My theory only requires a change of mechanism for the planets destruction. It does not matter how efficiant that mechanism is because the energy level it assumes is so much lower than the DET Model.

Therefore, parsing the two choices, one that requires technology 15 OoM better than any we have dreamt of now and one that does not, which one should we chose based on the rules put down in the preamble to this site?

Sincerely, Stewart



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:23am
Offline
Roosevelt Republican
Roosevelt Republican
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Posts: 16449
Location: Delaware
I knew how to properly cite articles in eighth grade. In college, it's one of the few academic skills both liberal arts and science majors have to know. Either Stewie is lying about his sources or he's lying about his education--probably both.



Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:24am
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Actually, he's citing articles Creationist-style; he doesn't know the difference between a proper citation and meaningless name-dropping. He is utterly incapable of constructing an argument without relying upon appeals to authority, and he has ignored my challenge to back up his rhetoric by producing mathematical calculations to demonstrate the feasibility of his theory.



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:26am
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:27am
Offline
Pathological liar

Joined: 2004-01-28 09:19pm
Posts: 146
Location: Crystal Lake Il.
Darth Wong wrote:
I don't even see why we should humour his delusion that DET should be considered a "theory" at all. It is the default explanation of thermodynamics. It's like saying that you need to provide evidence for the "direct impact" theory when one football player runs into another. It is an inevitable outcome of the laws of physics, and he is going to need some pretty impressive evidence to support any alternative explanation.


That is the problem with theories based on faulty assumptions and poor logic.

If the thermodynamic laws had been applied to the DS efficiancy as well as the planets destruction, it, the DET Model, would certainly been discarded out of hand. If you use a branch of science to model your theory, it MUST BE APPLIED TO EVERYTHING!

Sincerely, Stewart.



Stratigic Defense Instatute, We provide Elegant Solutions to your Insolvable Problems.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:29am
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-15 10:37am
Posts: 665
Location: Toronto
http://www.discover.com/en/issues/aug-02/cover/

This claims a ball 8km wide, Stewtard.

It's 1000 times too small, even if it was 100% fissile (which it's not) and even if the Alderaan explosion was a ~1e32J event instead of a ~1e38J one (which it wasn't).

Where's the beef, Stewie??? :lol:

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject:  PostPosted: 2004-03-23 12:29am
Offline
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
WHERE ARE THOSE CALCULATIONS, STEWART?



Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group