swansont

What he owes is even more, because they charge interest. It comes to more than $450 million https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/16/donald-trump-real-estate-fraud/72267145007/

When did he say this? As MigL said, context matters. Also, are these exact quotes, or are you changing the message by paraphrasing?

Depends on whether you've chosen to use a dynamic or static IP address. I know on my mac you can do both. If you have a dynamic IP address, you can't change it manually, but there is an option to renew the DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) lease. In Windows you go to the command prompt and type ipconfig /renew

I suspect your issue is due to the thermal expansion; various kinds of steel will expand probably 10-20 times as much as the glass used in stovetops. If it's constrained in any way, it will tend to buckle. Being thin probably doesn't help.

Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like. Physical size has little meaning in QM; it’s the interactions that matter. EM radiation requires no medium; electric and magnetic fields can and do exist in a vacuum.

Yes. He-4 is doubly magic and so is O-16 (filled shells at n=2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126)

Back to the original issue- The most likely mode of making a material radioactive is neutron absorption (called neutron activation) and most materials are susceptible to this. The exceptions tend not to be metals. The ones with the smallest absorption cross-section would likely be those with a “magic number” of neutrons, i.e. they have a filled shell of neutrons already. Hafnium has several stable isotopes, so neutron absorption will usually result in a stable isotope. (it’s used in some nuclear reactor control rods partly for this reason)

It’s far easier to get x-rays this way.

Gammas could heat a material and you could harness thermal energy from thermocouples. Or photoionization could cause a current. How will you extract the energy from fusion?

What do you mean by steady? Not affected by outside influences?

Reviewers make recommendations, AFAIK, but sure. A reviewer can point out missing references.

I don’t think this would remove the neutrons*, but why use this for the fusion scheme? Why not just use the energy directly? *28 MeV total, but the first neutron would take more than half of that. Not that many >14 MeV gamma sources out there.

The mass cancels from algebra. The forces are equal, and I was solving for the acceleration

The binding energy of He-4 is around 28 MeV and the resulting p-p system is not bound, so removing the neutrons costs you more than 28 MeV. As I said previously, the best you could possibly do is re-form the alpha and break even.

There’s no lift - there’s no upward force

No ma = GMm/r^2 the mass m cancels, as it’s on both sides, but M remains, so a = GM/r^2 Gravitational acceleration doesn’t depend on the mass of the object, but does depend on the mass of the (usually celestial) object exerting the gravity

There is a speed such that the centripetal force is equal to the gravitational force. v = sqrt(GM/r). That’s the speed of a circular orbit at r. You would be weightless, but not lift up. (but the earth would fall apart before this could happen) Far from throwing a wrench into it - the above equation uses the equation to solve for v The mass of the earth would be slightly larger, increasing the pull on the moon by a small amount. Any other effect on the moon would be found in GR

It takes energy to remove the neutrons and He-4 is more tightly bound than other light atoms. deuterium has a binding energy of ~2.2MeV. That tells you the nuclear binding between nucleans. The coulomb repulsion at typical nuclear separation has an energy of at least this amount - the p-p system isn't bound (there are other considerations; there isn’t a n-n bound state, either) p-p forming deuterium (and a positron and neutrino) only releases 0.43 MeV. You might note that that’s less than the binding energy, because of that excess of Coulomb repulsion. If you want to assess the feasibility you need to run the numbers.

Citations needed. If you paid attention to what happened in Texas, you’d see the renewables were more reliable than the fossil fuels. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/02/13/wind-solar-power-alternative-energy-extreme-weather-reliability/72568371007/ How about more evidence and fewer talking points?

You want to break up He-4, and then fuse it…to form He-4 You’re starting from a position where there would be no net energy released, if you somehow had perfect efficiency

I don’t know the details of what he’s proposing (and neither do you), so no. The issue here is that you are imagining what he’s proposing, and it’s not worth trillions. The first intelligent consideration would probably be “That’s not worth the money, so that’s probably not what the proposal is” You are making an argument from incredulity. You’re also suggesting that the potential investors can’t do their own due diligence. Can’t they just say “no thanks”?

“Massively, massively, FRAUDULENT, "developmental posture." The Samster said he's focused on raising funds from UAE (United Arab Emerates.....) so he's counting on the desert oil barons and UAE royal family members there to fall for his money-draining scheme?” You’ve not shown any fraud or criminal behavior. You assume it’s fraud, but you don’t know the details (or haven’t shared them). You don’t have any evidence. It’s all conjecture.

I didn’t specify what the hyperbole was. How is it reasonable to assume that this was it?

Who alleged that it was “non-interesting” The quote was that your thread was not fostering interesting discussion, and, frankly, it did not. It was just hyperbole. Your objections seem to be predicated on the UAE investors not being able to do their own due diligence and make an informed decision. Has any money changed hands, or even been obligated? Your link doesn’t seem to be supporting your claim. It’s not a news story. It’s an ad for a workshop.

A lot of people in science feel an obligation to review articles because others review their submissions. Even if the article is rejected, somebody spent time on it. The system doesn't work if people shirk their responsibilities. But if you feel it’s not something you can do, because you’re not familiar enough with the material, you should say no. That’s basically what I did. The community of my sort of physics was pretty small at that time; there weren’t six degrees of freedom. It was more like two or maybe three.