Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB

On  7-Feb-02 at 02:36, K.H.Ranitzsch (KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de) wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> > >As an illustration: The effect Nuclear weapons is measured in
Megatons,
> > >that is a million (10^6) tons of conventitional explosives. In fact
the
> ratio,
> > >in energy output is more like a billionfold (10^9) , because you
only
> need
> > >kilos, not tons, of nuclear material.
> 
> > Either way, it still means my point was valid, that a smart
high-tech
> force
> > will take along hydrogen conversion equipment or have a built-in
> conversion
> > capacity to prevent a loss of fuel supply.
> 
> You still don't seem to have understood what the difference in energy
> output implies.
> 
> If you just assume the factor 1 million:
> Take a tank whose conventional chemical engine has enough hydrogen
fuel to
> run for a day (about typical for today's tanks). Exchange the engine
for a
> nuclear engine and the same fuel will last for a million days ! That
is
> about 3000 years. If Pharao Ramses had had such a tank, it would still
have
> fuel today, but we would start to worry about finding a gas station.
> If you take the 1 billion factor, a tank built by Australopithecus
would
> still be going.

Pharoh Ramses did not have a null-gravity tank nor was he firing
Plasma weapons.  You are also assuming high efficiency.  You
shouldn't be jumping down anyones throat when your assumptions
are as much a shot in the dark as his.

Remember, we don't have anti-matter with a 50% heat efficiency.
We have fusion, even if we only use 0.0001% of the energy
we are still in wonderful shape because we are burning water.