Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- From: "Mr. Garrison" <garrison-san@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42:44 GMT
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@xxxxxxx> wrote in message...
About the dumbest or perhaps intentionally misleading thing Teller does is use silly terms like "violence", etc. in something that was supposed to be a science or technical book.
What is "controlled" fusion supposed to mean? Even more, from a basic science POV, who really gives a rat's behind if it is "controlled" or not?
Huh? The difference is that controlled fusion can power a city while uncontrolled fusion can vaporize it. That seems to be a very big difference, just like the controlled combustion of gasoline in your car keeps you from being blown to bits. Also, I have no idea who this Teller person is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- From: Bret Cahill
- Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- From: Brian McDermott
- Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- References:
- "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- From: Bret Cahill
- "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- Prev by Date: Re: nobody listens to me so I might as well rant
- Next by Date: Re: Why Pay Attention To Cold Fusion Advocates?
- Previous by thread: Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- Next by thread: Re: "Fissionless Fusion" Instead of Emotional Value Laden Terms
- Index(es):