Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB

>From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB
>Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:56:38 +0100
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> > >You still don't seem to have understood what the difference in
energy
> > >output
> > >implies.
> > >
> > *snip*
> >
> > Done now? Fell better?
> >
> > Good.
> >
>[...]
> > If by implying that forces might want to take along fuel conversion 
>gear,
>I
> > offended your scientific sensibilities, I apologize.  However, there
was
>no
> > need to take such a condescending tone.  I DO understand just how
> > significant operable fusion power would be for energy efficiency.  I
>simply
> > understood that it was beside my point.
>
>Sorry, I phrased it somewhat harshly.
>
>OK, eh ?

Well handled, my good man.  No hard feelings.

2B^2

_________________________________________________________________