The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (Bob Wilson)
Subject: Re: How do I measure watch battery life?
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 02:24:56 -0000
Organization: Your Organization
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit)
In article ,
>> It's called Fusion.It ain't simple, and there is no way that you would
>> remotely be able to carry either a fission or a fusion device (once they
>> succeed in actually making a successful fusion device). Both processes
>> massive quantites of radiation (albeit different types).
>I thought afterwards that there might be a radiation hazard.
There "might" be a radiation hazard associated with a nuclear reactor? I
think the obvious answer to that is "Well, duh!"
>I've been rooting around in some books I have on Physical Chemistry to
>see how much energy is available from chemical reactions. Even if
>there is no possibility of devising a system to produce electricity
>from any given chemical reaction the value in the tables would still
>serve to give a ballpark figures for the maximum amount of electrical
>that say an AA battery can ultimately deliver. I hope to come up with
>some figures at some point. It's not a difficult task by any means. I
>need to make sure first however that I understand "enthalpy" something
>I used to know.
The best that it will tell you is the theoretical battery voltage. It has
very little to do with how much actual energy a cell can store. By the way,
"enthalpy" has nothing to do with this, since it is a thermodynamic issue,
not a chemical one.
>I know that fusion is also a way to get energy. There's a story I
>heard that when they switch on the fusion reactor in MIT the lights in
>Boston flicker. Is this true WH?
Obviously not. There is no fusion reactor. Anywhere. The best that anyone
has done is to spend massive amounts of money on Tokamaks (spelling?) and
other massive devices that have so far never come close to the break-even
>Can I ask you to be a little bit more open minded and consider the
>certain possibility that there will be all kinds of ways to get energy
>directly from matter in the future? It's just a case of stumbling on
>ways how to do it. We know the energy is really there.
As someone who has spent my working life in engineering, I have a problem
with starry-eyed dreamers who cannot talk in specifics, and who instead talk
in vague terms about "stumbling" on some undefined miraculous source of
energy directly from matter.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup