Origin of Harada - discussion

[Dr. Solar]

The turbines create thrust, which creates a velocity relative to the surrounding airspeed. The force from frisction exerted on the air by the airfoil creates a rotation to the air around the airfoil. A rotation of air around a solid body creates an upwards force on that body. This force counteracts the downwards force of gravity, allowing the plane to stay airborne.

Saying that the turbines keep it up is like saying gravity creates electricity. Sure, gravity causes water to fall on one side of a generator axel, causing it to spin. It is this rotational movement within the generator, and the change of magnetic fields in a conductor that creates electricity.

[Dr. Solar]

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

I would also say that there is the question of how a bunch of particles that have been dissassembled into electromagnetic radiation can have a will.

That always kinda bothered me.

[ManofTheAtom]

The turbines create thrust, which creates a velocity relative to the surrounding airspeed. The force from frisction exerted on the air by the airfoil creates a rotation to the air around the airfoil. A rotation of air around a solid body creates an upwards force on that body. This force counteracts the downwards force of gravity, allowing the plane to stay airborne.

Saying that the turbines keep it up is like saying gravity creates electricity. Sure, gravity causes water to fall on one side of a generator axel, causing it to spin. It is this rotational movement within the generator, and the change of magnetic fields in a conductor that creates electricity.

Without the trust created by the turbines, the plane wouldn't stay airborne... so the turbines keep it up.

You just described the process by which the turbines function. That doesn't negate that the turbines are what keeps them up (or propellers, depending on the type of aircraft).

[Chiclo]

I... have no argument here.

Because there's nothing to argue against! If you negated the law of gravity, you'd float out of the atmosphere and into space. There'd be nothing to hold you on the face of the Earth as it spun around turning day into night and rolled in its orbit with the changing seasons. Airplanes work by affecting air pressure around the wings. The turbines make the plane move fast and the shape of the wings push the plane up in the air. Gravity is still there. If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to sit in your seat without being strapped in and certainly the restroom facilities would be considerably more complicated. But maybe they have special gravity in the plane itself while gravity is only negated by the fusilage.

They very specifically avoid describing the functions and processes of the Edgewater Nuclear Facility in Alpha and Omega and Second Death. What little description there is involves very science-y words, but it contradicts itself and involves bits and pieces of several different nuclear (and anti-matter) manipulation techniques that don't work together. The facility itself is nuclear in nature, but I don't remember if it is fission or fusion and don't have the books on hand to check. Seleski figures out the fault in the design was some sort of anti-particle pump (anti-proton?). You wouldn't use anti-particles in nuclear processes involving matter. You would for anti-matter, but there is no advantage as far as energy yield in using anti-matter and anti-matter is very expensive to make and difficult to store, move or even keep from exploding. Matter, on the other hand, is all around us. You can mine it and store it in simple containers.

[ManofTheAtom]

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

I would also say that there is the question of how a bunch of particles that have been dissassembled into electromagnetic radiation can have a will.

That always kinda bothered me.

They'd have a conciense.

[Chiclo]

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

I would also say that there is the question of how a bunch of particles that have been dissassembled into electromagnetic radiation can have a will.

That always kinda bothered me.

Soul.

[ManofTheAtom]

I... have no argument here.

Because there's nothing to argue against! If you negated the law of gravity, you'd float out of the atmosphere and into space. There'd be nothing to hold you on the face of the Earth as it spun around turning day into night and rolled in its orbit with the changing seasons. Airplanes work by affecting air pressure around the wings. The turbines make the plane move fast and the shape of the wings push the plane up in the air. Gravity is still there. If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to sit in your seat without being strapped in and certainly the restroom facilities would be considerably more complicated. But maybe they have special gravity in the plane itself while gravity is only negated by the fusilage.

By negating the law of gravity I was refering to the plane not falling down to the Earth but staying up there.

Don't be an *SQUEE*.

[Dr. Solar]

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

I would also say that there is the question of how a bunch of particles that have been dissassembled into electromagnetic radiation can have a will.

That always kinda bothered me.

Soul.

I'll buy that.

[Dr. Solar]

By negating the law of gravity I was refering to the plane not falling down to the Earth but staying up there.

Don't be an *SQUEE*.

So you meant "oppose" or "counteract" or something like that.

The thing about talking about science is that people tend to think you mean what you say. In other words, talking meaningfully about science requires accuracy.

When you don't do this, it falls more into the realm of "making $h!t up".

[ManofTheAtom]

So you meant "oppose" or "counteract" or something like that.

Sure

[slym2none]

could... Jesus ... Joan of Arc have been Harbingers in the Valiant Universe?

If Jesus was, Gilad didn't know about it (Eternal Warrior 17).

Joan of Arc was a geomancer (Geomancer 5).

/Magnus

-slym

[slym2none]

You would for anti-matter, but there is no advantage as far as energy yield in using anti-matter and anti-matter is very expensive to make and difficult to store, move or even keep from exploding.

I thought the energy expenditure to loss ratio was phenomenal for antimatter. Coal burning is highly inefficient, and even nuclear technology has what, a 30% return on usable energy versus what gets wasted during the process. I have heard that if (and that's a big if) we could harness antimatter, it would be at almost 100% efficiency. Now, the expenses and danger are another matter (pun intended) altogether.

Sorry, pardon my bit....



-slym

[Chiclo]

Right, but that's particle-anti-particle annihilation.

I am talking about anti-matter fusion (or if you just have to do it, anti-matter fission).

[ManofTheAtom]

You would for anti-matter, but there is no advantage as far as energy yield in using anti-matter and anti-matter is very expensive to make and difficult to store, move or even keep from exploding.

I thought the energy expenditure to loss ratio was phenomenal for antimatter. Coal burning is highly inefficient, and even nuclear technology has what, a 30% return on usable energy versus what gets wasted during the process. I have heard that if (and that's a big if) we could harness antimatter, it would be at almost 100% efficiency. Now, the expenses and danger are another matter (pun intended) altogether.

Sorry, pardon my bit....



-slym

Not that much off topic. We are trying to figure out what Phil's reactor did.

[Dr. Solar]

Not that much off topic. We are trying to figure out what Phil's reactor did.

Dude, all it did was blow up and turn him into Solar, Man Of The Atom. In a comic book. As in, a not-real story.

[ManofTheAtom]

Not that much off topic. We are trying to figure out what Phil's reactor did.

Dude, all it did was blow up and turn him into Solar, Man Of The Atom. In a comic book. As in, a not-real story.

What is it with people like you that feel the need to act like *SQUEE*?

Yes, it's only a comic book, no one has ever said it's real life.

Now, can we keep talking about it, or will you keep acting like an *SQUEE*?

So, once again... we were trying to figure out what Phil's reactor did.

Finding out details like that can make reading the comics more fun... something the *SQUEE* I quoted above doesn't understand.

[Dr. Solar]

Sure, it's fun. I agree.

But I think there is a point where you have to say, "well, it's just a thing they used as a plot device in a comic, and it isn't a real world posiibility". I think that is what Phil's reactor is.

We're not gonna know, and any explanation is gonna be based on something that is fiction. It may be scientific fiction, but still fiction. I think this is one of those things we have to just say is a comic book plot device.

Besides, you know I just argue with you to get you worked up about this anyway, right?

[Chiclo]

Look, I am not trying to be an *SQUEE* here.

I know more about nuclear engineering than the average bear. His machine was not based on any known, working design. They made it up. Nukes are not easy to understand, that's why I keep going to school. Edgewater is more believable than some comic book examples of advanced technology, like Galactus' Ultimate Nullifier, but it's not as realistic as Bloodshot's Desert Eagle Mark XIX in .357 Mag with the 9 round magazine. That facility would not work in the world outside my window.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sure, it's fun. I agree.

But I think there is a point where you have to say, "well, it's just a thing they used as a plot device in a comic, and it isn't a real world posiibility". I think that is what Phil's reactor is.

Yet oddly enough you chose not to phrase it like that. Instead it was easier to say it like an *SQUEE* would.

Funny...

We're not gonna know, and any explanation is gonna be based on something that is fiction. It may be scientific fiction, but still fiction. I think this is one of those things we have to just say is a comic book plot device.

Then don't take part in the conversation.

See how easy that works?

Besides, you know I just argue with you to get you worked up about this anyway, right?

Well, you are an *SQUEE*, so you would...

[ManofTheAtom]

Look, I am not trying to be an *SQUEE* here.

I know more about nuclear engineering than the average bear. His machine was not based on any known, working design. They made it up. Nukes are not easy to understand, that's why I keep going to school. Edgewater is more believable than some comic book examples of advanced technology, like Galactus' Ultimate Nullifier, but it's not as realistic as Bloodshot's Desert Eagle Mark XIX in .357 Mag with the 9 round magazine. That facility would not work in the world outside my window.

I haven't said that it needs to work.

All I said is that were're trying to figure out what kind of reactor it was.

You know, like Seth Brundle's pods were teleporters and not phone booths?

It may be a fictional reactor just like Brundle's mahcine was a fictional teleporter, but it still be fun to figure out what kind of reactor it was.

[Chiclo]

I think they said what kind of reactor it was. Fusion. I am not 100% sure about that and don't have my books handy to double-check my admittedly human memory.

One possibility is a CNO reactor. Some stars end up being CNO - Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen. Carbon fuses with hydrogen, becomes nitrogen, fuses with hydrogen again to become oxygen and then kicks out a helium nucleus to return to carbon.

[Dr. Solar]

Well, you are an *SQUEE*, so you would...

Yeah, I'm an a$$. It is one of my more reprehensible, yet charming qualities. Sometimes it's more fun that way

[ManofTheAtom]

I think they said what kind of reactor it was. Fusion. I am not 100% sure about that and don't have my books handy to double-check my admittedly human memory.

One possibility is a CNO reactor. Some stars end up being CNO - Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen. Carbon fuses with hydrogen, becomes nitrogen, fuses with hydrogen again to become oxygen and then kicks out a helium nucleus to return to carbon.

I'm sure that the reactor was designed to provide some kind of new fuel, so it wasn't your standard run of the mill nuclear reactor.

It could have been anything from anti-matter, to cold fusion, to nuclear fission, or ANYTHING in between.

For the government to approve such a reactor, Phil must have made a hell of a sales pitch, so it stands to reason that he was offering something new that hadn't been attempted before (hence why it exploded and turned him into energy).

I doubt it was comic booky science like "unstable molecules" or some such (like Dr Solar here would prefer), but something reality based that's been dismissed for being difficult or almost impossible to attain (like cold fussion or antimatter).

When antimatter was mentioned in this thread, the first thing that came to mind was Star Trek.

Was Phil building a warp reactor?

[Chiclo]

A warp reactor folds space.

As much as Oklahoma sucks, I don't think that's where I'd put such a thing.

[ManofTheAtom]

A warp reactor folds space.

As much as Oklahoma sucks, I don't think that's where I'd put such a thing.

So then it wasn't a warp reactor, meaning that maybe it wasn't an antimatter reactor at all.