|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
24 May 2006 11:56:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jumbie" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 12:12:01 AM |
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 07:29:01 AM |
|
|
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 08:24:56 AM |
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 10:23:39 AM |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jumbie" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 10:32:56 AM |
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
I have a watch that has nano-fision going on all the time, it is from the
50's with glow in the dark hands, and if you look really close you can see
the sparklies.
Is that of any use in renewable energy ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 10:37:16 AM |
|
|
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
I have a watch that has nano-fision going on all the time, it is from the
50's with glow in the dark hands, and if you look really close you can see
the sparklies.
Fusion is better than fission. Sadly, fusion require a more complex
ignition source than fission. After that, fusion is more
energy-efficient than fission.
BTW, how much energy is derived from fusing two neutrons together?
Is that of any use in renewable energy ?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zod, General" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 12:54:51 PM |
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148571436.337525.30390@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
I have a watch that has nano-fision going on all the time, it is from the
50's with glow in the dark hands, and if you look really close you can
see
the sparklies.
Fusion is better than fission. Sadly, fusion require a more complex
ignition source than fission. After that, fusion is more
energy-efficient than fission.
how can it be better? I can buy fissionable material on ebay right now, and
no ignition sourse is needed.
Fusion is only more effcient than fission in hygrogen bombs, where you dont
have to make more U235 extreamly expensive, and you just add "gas boost"
like heavy water to a fission bomb.
In either case everything around either reaction becomes highly radioactive
and unusable in 30 years. Steel becomes like a soft sponge, full of holes
caused by the radiation.
BTW, how much energy is derived from fusing two neutrons together?
I'm trying to measure that, but I dropped one of the little buggers.
Is that of any use in renewable energy ?
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 03:01:37 PM |
|
|
Radium wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
Femtofusion is the norm.
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
That could get you a deuteron. Sure, it's possible. Not as an energy
source, though. Heck, you could hardly say any type of terrestrial
fusion is an energy source right now, unless bombs count. And fusion
isn't really renewable, there's just a lot of potential energy laying
around to be used.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 03:54:42 PM |
|
|
Greg Hansen wrote:
Radium wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Femtofusion is the norm.
Femtotechnology is even better than nanotechnology.
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron. I wonder if this could
be of any use in renewable energy?
That could get you a deuteron. Sure, it's possible. Not as an energy
source, though.
Heck, you could hardly say any type of terrestrial
fusion is an energy source right now, unless bombs count.
How likely is it that nuclear fusion will be used for power in the next
20-50 years?
And fusion
isn't really renewable, there's just a lot of potential energy laying
around to be used.
I'd love a world where everything -- from the neutronic scale and up --
is computerized with digital fusion-pumped 400nm lasers. It would be
even better if the computer processing is totally-parallel like the
human brain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 12:59:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron. That's about the worst
way to proceed. On the other hand, you can fuse deutron to deutron
quite easily, with tabletop equipment.
I wonder if this could be of any use in renewable energy?
No.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 02:26:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron. That's about the worst
way to proceed. On the other hand, you can fuse deutron to deutron
quite easily, with tabletop equipment.
I was just curious about the neutron thing. Is neutron-neutron fusion a
type of nuclear fusion.
I wonder if this could be of any use in renewable energy?
No.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
25 May 2006 02:57:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1148585171.301212.179640@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron. That's about the worst
way to proceed. On the other hand, you can fuse deutron to deutron
quite easily, with tabletop equipment.
I was just curious about the neutron thing. Is neutron-neutron fusion a
type of nuclear fusion.
Sure, only it is a very, very poor way to do it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 12:14:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1148585171.301212.179640@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
wrote:
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron. That's about the worst
way to proceed. On the other hand, you can fuse deutron to deutron
quite easily, with tabletop equipment.
I was just curious about the neutron thing. Is neutron-neutron fusion a
type of nuclear fusion.
Sure, only it is a very, very poor way to do it.
How so?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 01:55:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1149441264.627635.322530@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1148585171.301212.179640@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron. That's about the worst
way to proceed. On the other hand, you can fuse deutron to deutron
quite easily, with tabletop equipment.
I was just curious about the neutron thing. Is neutron-neutron fusion a
type of nuclear fusion.
Sure, only it is a very, very poor way to do it.
How so?
Because you've no handle on the neutrons. You can't accelerate them
and you can't control them. And even if you could, they still
wouldn't fuse any better then protons, and that's also a ***** poor way
of doing fusion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 04:18:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Because you've no handle on the neutrons.
Um yes I do.
http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-25.pdf
The above link talks about "neutron-neutron fusion"
So *yes* it *is* possible
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 04:45:02 PM |
|
|
Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Because you've no handle on the neutrons.
Um yes I do.
No, you don't.
http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-25.pdf
The above link talks about "neutron-neutron fusion"
And talks about neutron beams, which is *NOT* what the subject was.
So *yes* it *is* possible
No one said it was impossible in general.
Learn to read and comprehend.
Until you do, you are a total waste of time.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 04:35:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1149455936.588527.141940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Because you've no handle on the neutrons.
Um yes I do.
http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-25.pdf
The above link talks about "neutron-neutron fusion"
So *yes* it *is* possible
I'm not sure why should I bother to respond to you if you do not
bother to read and comprehend the responses. What part of
"Exceedingly small chance" you don't understand?
The issue is *never* whether fussion is possible. Understood? Fusion
is quite easy. You can fill a gas discharge tube (such as is used for
a Geiger counter with deuterium (or, better yet, a deuterium-tritium
mix), raise to voltage to the point where you get discharge, and
obtain fusion. You can build a desktop linear accelerator (a measly
energy of few tens of keV is all you need, a TV power supply will be
adequate), accelerate a beam of deutrons on a deuterium (or, again,
better yet tritium) soaked target and get fusion. No problem at all.
What was and remains at issue is how to get a fusion process going, in
a controlleable fashion, so that you get *more* energy out than you
put in. That's *all*. So far, even with the best candidates, we
can't quite manage. And neutrons are the *worst* candidates, because
you've no handle on them. Period.
I'm not in the mood to waste more time, unless you show that you're
capable of learning. Is the above understood or not? Only "yes" or
"no" answer are acceptable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Radium" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 05:07:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1149455936.588527.141940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
wrote:
Because you've no handle on the neutrons.
Um yes I do.
http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-25.pdf
The above link talks about "neutron-neutron fusion"
So *yes* it *is* possible
I'm not sure why should I bother to respond to you if you do not
bother to read and comprehend the responses. What part of
"Exceedingly small chance" you don't understand?
The issue is *never* whether fussion is possible. Understood? Fusion
is quite easy. You can fill a gas discharge tube (such as is used for
a Geiger counter with deuterium (or, better yet, a deuterium-tritium
mix), raise to voltage to the point where you get discharge, and
obtain fusion. You can build a desktop linear accelerator (a measly
energy of few tens of keV is all you need, a TV power supply will be
adequate), accelerate a beam of deutrons on a deuterium (or, again,
better yet tritium) soaked target and get fusion. No problem at all.
What was and remains at issue is how to get a fusion process going, in
a controlleable fashion, so that you get *more* energy out than you
put in. That's *all*. So far, even with the best candidates, we
can't quite manage. And neutrons are the *worst* candidates, because
you've no handle on them. Period.
I'm not in the mood to waste more time, unless you show that you're
capable of learning. Is the above understood or not? Only "yes" or
"no" answer are acceptable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
"Yes"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
04 Jun 2006 05:16:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1149458841.708483.153080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1149455936.588527.141940@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Because you've no handle on the neutrons.
Um yes I do.
http://www.triumf.ca/publications/pub/arch05/pp-05-25.pdf
The above link talks about "neutron-neutron fusion"
So *yes* it *is* possible
I'm not sure why should I bother to respond to you if you do not
bother to read and comprehend the responses. What part of
"Exceedingly small chance" you don't understand?
The issue is *never* whether fussion is possible. Understood? Fusion
is quite easy. You can fill a gas discharge tube (such as is used for
a Geiger counter with deuterium (or, better yet, a deuterium-tritium
mix), raise to voltage to the point where you get discharge, and
obtain fusion. You can build a desktop linear accelerator (a measly
energy of few tens of keV is all you need, a TV power supply will be
adequate), accelerate a beam of deutrons on a deuterium (or, again,
better yet tritium) soaked target and get fusion. No problem at all.
What was and remains at issue is how to get a fusion process going, in
a controlleable fashion, so that you get *more* energy out than you
put in. That's *all*. So far, even with the best candidates, we
can't quite manage. And neutrons are the *worst* candidates, because
you've no handle on them. Period.
I'm not in the mood to waste more time, unless you show that you're
capable of learning. Is the above understood or not? Only "yes" or
"no" answer are acceptable.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
"Yes"
Excellent. You make progress. Keep it up.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Nanonuclear-fusion possible? |
26 May 2006 04:34:31 AM |
|
|
In article <ygmdg.24$25.2459@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1148570618.980449.257140@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Radium"
<glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148560141.411551.172690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jumbie wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1148532983.164961.243530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, Radium, you at least make up for Ed Conrad's volume.
Huh?
I am asking a serious question -- no offense.
Is nanonuclear-fusion possible?
w
what is nano ?
A very small amount of nuclear fusion at room temperatures or lower.
What is "very small"?
The fusion of one neutron to a another neutron.
Why would you want to fuse neutron to neutron.
<GRIN> Think about it, Mati. Neutron begins with "n" and
so does nano.
<snip>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
