Fuelzilla
Hybrid Car - More Fun with Less Gas
Environmentally Friendly Driving

The Micronuke Long Bet Challenge
Groups | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Power - Home Power/Home-Made Power for Off-Grid Living. 

Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
The Micronuke Long Bet Challenge Neon John 12-20-2007
Posted by Arnold Walker on December 21, 2007, 11:30 am
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>I can't agree or disagree with the American Nuclear Society
>>definition unless I first read it and I would automatically
>>disqualify nuclear watch batteries and other similarly tiny
>>devices.
>
> Don't forget the nuclear powered pacemakers (yes, really)
> which were being played with two decades ago. They were
> phased out [a] in favor of the then new, and higher
> powered/longer life (compared to earlier types)
> lithium batteries.
>
> [a] as far as I know there aren't any currently
> being placed, but I could be wrong...
Beta voltaics and they are still being used.
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>



Posted by Neon John on December 21, 2007, 1:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 Just what I thought. You'd dodge and duck and run yer yap but your money would
never
appear where your mouth was.

Anyone else interested in this bet? I have better things to do with my $50 than
post
something on that site that just sits there.

John


On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:15:15 -0800, Anthony Matonak

>Neon John wrote:
>> Any dispute as to definition or existence shall be resolved by a recognized
industry
>> expert appointed by the President of the American Nuclear Society.
>
>My main problems with your definition.
>
>- I could find no definition from the American Nuclear Society.
>- You don't specify a lower limit to the size.
>- You seem to allow government, military and research reactors.
>
>I can't agree or disagree with the American Nuclear Society
>definition unless I first read it and I would automatically
>disqualify nuclear watch batteries and other similarly tiny
>devices.
>
>If something is not allowed to be sold to the public, does
>it matter if it exists or not? No matter how hard I try, I
>can't get together with the neighborhood watch and buy a
>nuclear bomb. Even if I could buy it, the government wouldn't
>allow me to keep or use it.
>
>Anthony
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either of
your wives.


Posted by on December 21, 2007, 4:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options


>Anyone else interested in this bet? I have better things to do with my $50
than post
>something on that site that just sits there.

Huh? You started off by egging on all comers. Now you don't want to go
to the most obvious place where there might be a taker? And since you
mentioned a $100 meal, what's the big deal about 50?

Wayne

Posted by on December 21, 2007, 7:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options

>On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:11:31 GMT, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>Anyone else interested in this bet? I have better things to do with my $50
than post
>>>something on that site that just sits there.
>>
>>Huh? You started off by egging on all comers. Now you don't want to go
>>to the most obvious place where there might be a taker? And since you
>>mentioned a $100 meal, what's the big deal about 50?
>
>The minimum bet is $200. The $50 is the posting fee. I'm not going to waste
that

It wouldn't be a waste if you get someone to accept the challenge,
which is far more likely there than here. Isn't that what you said you
wanted? And why are you suddenly worried about waste anyway? A couple
weeks ago you were writing about wasting lots of water, and you began
in the original thread here describing how you'd like to be able to
waste lots of electricity. It looks to me that you got sucked into
this by thinking that your "bet" was highly unlikely to ever cost you
a nickel, but have now got to the place where it could cost 50 bucks
to put up, and possibly 200 shortly thereafter. As in, real money, not
Usenet boasting.

> if
>there are no takers from this group of alligators. When someone here commits to
>countering my $200 bet then I'll post the challenge. Say, someone like you.

I already said that 1. I wasn't interested in making a bet if the
payoff was only a promised $100 two decades from now when you weren't
likely to be alive to pay, and 2. That I wasn't interested in any bet
unless it was a real bet, ie a way to take some money off you. Is that
clear enough yet?

Wayne

Posted by Anthony Matonak on December 21, 2007, 4:35 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I feel I'm being consistent with my original prediction that
none of these homepower style nuclear reactors will ever be
allowed to be sold to the public in the United States in my
lifetime.

I feel this is an appropriate prediction because this is,
after all, alt.energy.homepower and people are interested in
actually producing power for their homes.

Your prediction that a single solitary small nuclear reactor
will rest on the soil of the United States in the next 20 years
is completely different. I'm sure such a beast already exists
so this makes your bet a sure thing.

It's a form of the golden rule...
He who writes the rules gets the gold.

Anthony

Neon John wrote:
> Just what I thought. You'd dodge and duck and run yer yap but your money
would never
> appear where your mouth was.
>
> Anyone else interested in this bet? I have better things to do with my $50
than post
> something on that site that just sits there.
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:15:15 -0800, Anthony Matonak
>
>> Neon John wrote:
>>> Any dispute as to definition or existence shall be resolved by a recognized
industry
>>> expert appointed by the President of the American Nuclear Society.
>> My main problems with your definition.
>>
>> - I could find no definition from the American Nuclear Society.
>> - You don't specify a lower limit to the size.
>> - You seem to allow government, military and research reactors.
>>
>> I can't agree or disagree with the American Nuclear Society
>> definition unless I first read it and I would automatically
>> disqualify nuclear watch batteries and other similarly tiny
>> devices.
>>
>> If something is not allowed to be sold to the public, does
>> it matter if it exists or not? No matter how hard I try, I
>> can't get together with the neighborhood watch and buy a
>> nuclear bomb. Even if I could buy it, the government wouldn't
>> allow me to keep or use it.
>>
>> Anthony
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
> Serenity: That feeling of knowing that your secretary will never tell either
of your wives.
>

Similar ThreadsPosted
Long Run UPS and Window Unit Air Conditioner October 26, 2007, 1:26 am
Long Lasting Fuel Cell Batteries: Why I'd Buy Mechanical Technology January 24, 2007, 12:10 pm
Long Lasting Fuel Cell Batteries: Why I'd Buy Mechanical Technology January 24, 2007, 12:10 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
XML SitemapXML Sitemap