On 20 Jan 2007 19:11:19 -0800, "an_old_friend"
wrote in .com:

snip
not every penny with any kind of crash program you get lots of waste
and bad results (witness our efforts to buy our way out of the
vproblems we sufer from in Homeland security and there I am not sure we
are being ripped off so much as pushinng from intersting prototype to
production WAY too fast)


There have been lots of crash programs that have been hugely
successful; one of them put a man on the moon.


but even fuision isn't needed that badly serious pursuit of Fission
tecjh we already have could make a BIG difference but fission like
fusion seems to suffer to suffer from the fact that the word bomb got
attached to them

indeed in college I work on Nuclear magnetic resoance scanner we had
BIG trouble geting funding till some bright eye got the idea of Calling
it Magentic Resonace scaning, then funding and production fast. indeed
I currently suspect we have had that tech years before if the word
"nuclear" had not appeared in our grant proposals


True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet. and
better for the environment is even questioable.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:27:10 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet.


They will be all of those things when fusion provides a source of
nearly unlimited energy.


and
better for the environment is even questioable.


Think positive, Jimmie!!!

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:19:31 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:56:39 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
The problem with fusion is containing it. It takes more energy to contain
it
than it generates.


If it were easy we'd be doing it already.



No, not until we have used the oil up. But in this case it may be impossible
to do. It has been suggested that controling a fussion reaction would take a
new technolgy that would actually make fussion obsolete.


All the more reason to get moving on the research.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:27:10 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:53:33 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote in
:

snip
No need to do it until we have to.


We have to -now-. I could list a jillion reasons but it's late....
Have you ever seen the movie "Eric the Viking"? Remember the scene
where the island sinks?


Why leave the oil in the ground as long
as you can sell it.


Why bother punching holes in the ground for crud of diminishing
quality when you can manufacture synthetic substitutes that are
cheaper, more profitable, functionally superior, and better for the
environment?




Because there is money to be made, the reasons you give is just wishful
thinking, they are not cheaper, superior, or more profitable, yet.


They will be all of those things when fusion provides a source of
nearly unlimited energy.

But for whom?


and
better for the environment is even questioable.


Think positive, Jimmie!!!

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:48:26 -0500, wrote in
:

snip
True, it has the dogma of being "nuclear". That's a public perception
issue. But in case you haven't noticed, public perception is easily
manipulated -- that's how politicians get elected.

but that takes one thing MONEY

and nobody has figured how to make that much money in the short term


Assuming you are right, how much money would it take? How hard is it
to convince people that a source of nearly unlimited energy is right
around the technological corner? Who would shy away from opportunities
that, until now, were only dreams? Who really cares if a few die-hard
investors lose their fortunes because they refuse to accept change?

The fortunes that will be made, in all stages of the development of
fusion energy, are going to drop Bill Gates into the middle-class tax
bracket. All that will be required is a little motivation and a little
imagination. And if you don't have that then you aren't going to make
your fortune anyway.



It is still wishful thinking that the solution is right around the corner
and the question is who will benifit from all this new wealth. You can rest
assured some form of enrgy will be their just in time to replace all the
oil.