From: Archimedes' Lever on
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:20:51 -0400, George Neuner <gneuner2(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:07:40 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
>
>> Are matter anti-matter annihilations being observed in uni labs on a
>>regular basis?
>
>Yes ... and in (big) hospitals too. Google "PET scan".
>
>George

Ah... molecular level stuff. Only about one ten millionth of what one
would need to take care of a dust particle.

Still quite implausible.
From: krw on
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:25:41 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP
><ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote:
>
>>dlzc wrote:
>>>
>>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to
>>> energy (the rest is there just for chance).
>>
>>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules
>>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg
>>
>>1 megaton = 46.49 grams.
>>
>>Eric
>
> Grams? Grams of WHAT? I am sure that 46.49 grams of water would yield
>less than 46.49 grams of highly enriched Uranium.

AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong. How _do_ you do it? Mass is mass (didn't we
just have that discussion, Dimmie?).

> Also, a nuke does not "convert a few nanograms". For one thing, it
>does not get "converted", it gets "released".

Nope. It gets converted from mass to energy. E=MC^2, ya' (don't) know.

> The first ones REQUIRED 100lbs of material to go critical.

Irrelevant. It ended up 46ish grams short.

> Modern devices "need" less, but the designs are hardly set up where
>they include more than they need. To claim so is just stupid.

More irrelevance (your middle name).

> Also, ALL of it goes fissile, so the "just there for chance" remark is
>stupid as well.
>
> Your brain must only weigh a few nanograms. There cannot be any more
>than that after stupid statements like the one you made here.

AlwaysWrong, *HOW* can you be so wrong? Always!
From: Michael A. Terrell on

MitchAlsup wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 4:48 am, "Skybuck Flying" <IntoTheFut...(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Would it be possible to "vaporize" any dust particles during the chip
> > manufacturing ?
>
> It is easier to place most of the manufactuing process in a vacuum and
> eliminate the dust particles. {Hint: dust cannot float in a vacuum to
> land on the wafers, but drops like a rock to the floor.}


Just like Skyduck's ignorant trolling.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: John Larkin on
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP
<ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote:

>dlzc wrote:
>>
>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to
>> energy (the rest is there just for chance).
>
>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules
>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg
>
>1 megaton = 46.49 grams.
>
>Eric

So 46 micrograms == 1 ton of TNT.

46 ng == 2 pounds of TNT

So converting dust to energy might be a little hard on silicon wafers.

John


From: John Fields on
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:35:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:02 -0400, EricP
><ThatWouldBeTelling(a)thevillage.com> wrote:
>
>>dlzc wrote:
>>>
>>> A megaton nuclear weapon "converts" a few nanograms of mass to
>>> energy (the rest is there just for chance).
>>
>>1 megaton TNT = 4.184e15 joules
>>E=MC^2 = 9.0e16 J/Kg
>>
>>1 megaton = 46.49 grams.
>>
>>Eric
>
>So 46 micrograms == 1 ton of TNT.
>
>46 ng == 2 pounds of TNT
>
>So converting dust to energy might be a little hard on silicon wafers.

---
That embedded : "converting dust into energy might be a little hard"
makes the rejection of the proposition pretty much a no-brainer.

Not a criticism of you John, (for once ;) a criticism of the fancied,
but not really worked out process required to render silicon fissile.

Johm Fields