Xav
Full Member
Rules are for the obeyance of Fools and the guidance of wise Men
Posts: 119
|
Post by Xav on Apr 24, 2005 1:15:06 GMT
I would like to bring to the Forums notice the Farnsworth Fusor and the later derivative, the Hirsch-Meek Fusor.
I dont intend to explain this as it is easy enough to do ones one research on these promising devices. Suffice it to say that these fusors are only about a meter across are light and although they are not a viable source of power at the moment, it seems to me that something comparable may grow from further research, especially if the move away from the H > He is possible...possibly using the proton+boron 11 > He
There is a catch. There has been some theoretical objections to all aneutron fusion cycles (lit:without neutrons)where the calculations predict that these devices will radiate away energy faster than it is being produced. However, it may be that there will be progress here eventually, even though at the moment most work seems to have stopped.
On a more practical level, I should have made it very clear that when I was referring broadly to the weight of all fission/fusion reactors I was not simply discussing just shielding...it was ALL of the associated gear that goes from the H > He = electricity reaction. The EU look as if they are going to build the first Fusion reactor in France and it will be a spherical tokamak, a promising shape but it will still be a damn great heavy piece of gear.
Lensman....I always appreciate your comments but I must admit that I am puzzled by you comparing electric motors with IC engines and claiming they are lighter for equal power. DC motors have a lot of grunt, especially on start up, I agree. There are some super-cooled submarine engines that turn out a lot of power also. Some magnificent podded marine electric engines are now in use, developing 30 Mwatts of power...truly amazing but also massively heavy.. But I do not think that any electric motor can compare to the gas turbine, in terms of power/weight.. In any case, to get the complete picture, we would have to agree on the requirements and then slot in an appropriate power plant. Not always easy or obvious.
I think that I would also go for the Martians having a small but powerful fusor system (about 4 or 5 Mwatts)that uses something like the proton+boron11 reaction, the green gas is the working fluid, perhaps charged for the musculature, driving onboard gear and also allowing plenty for powering the heat ray. All totally speculative but fun.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 24, 2005 6:03:58 GMT
[Lensman wrote: I, on the other hand, am talking about "advanced fusion" as it's described in some science fiction literature.] Which is why it's science fiction, and not physics... Gee, Lancer, I thought science fiction is what we were talking about. Or do you know of any device now available which could power the Fighting Machines, including the Heat Ray? Today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality. But I agree that the term "fusion" may is probably not the best for an advanced atomic-electric power plant. I used the term "advanced fusion" to describe an advanced, sophisticated form of atomic power because that's the term I've seen used in literature. If we're talking science fiction, I'd go straigt for a zero point, or vaccum energy unit. That sounds attractive, and when I first heard of the Casimir Effect it sounded very exciting. However, I've read that a theoretical analysis indicates the energy density is on the level of chemical power, not nuclear power, so I seriously question a ZPM (Zero Point Module-- to use as Stargate term) would put out enuff energy to power a Heat Ray. -all- of them are H->He processes, which is the most energetic of the fusion processes. other nuclear fusion processes produce less energy, untill you get to the iron where they end up producing less energy than it takes to produce the reaction (i.e it becomes endo, rather than exothermic) I read an allegorical tale where some older stars encourage a young, massive star to successively "burn" heavier and heavier elements, until it "burned" silicon into iron-- whereupon it blew up into a supernova! Very amusing, and I could kick myself for not making a note of where I read that. (Lancer probably doesn't need the following explanation, but to explain to others following this thread: Since fusing silicon into iron is, as Lancer said, endothermic-- that is, it absorbs energy rather than releasing it-- it causes a star's core to collapse very quickly, which results in the temperature spiking into the millions of degrees, whereupon the star explodes in a supernova.) The H->He reaction may release the most energy on a quantum level, but the exchange rate between particles as the energy released makes its way out of the fusing mass is relatively slow. IIRC it takes millions of years for the fusion energy in the core of a star to work its way to the surface. Perhaps that's not an important factor-- a thermonuclear ("hydrogen") bomb doesn't have to wait long before its energy is released! But I'm not sure that the H->He reaction is the best for a power plant. I think it's what we're trying for just because it's the easiest. And is there anything that says you can't skip a few steps, and fuse hydrogen directly to carbon or even silicon? Yeah that wouldn't be a naturally occuring fusion process, but again if you can control matter on the quantum level, is there any theoretical reason it can't be done? The third system, is "muon catalized" or "cold fusion", and what I think you're talking about Nope, not at all. I'm talking about controlling thermonuclear reactions on the quantum level, and instead of allowing the energy from the fusing of atoms to be released in a natural fashion, converting the quanta of energy to useful power. Direct conversion is not gonna happen, fusion is a -nuclear- process, involving the protons and neutrons at the heart of the atom, electricity involves the cascade of electrons around the atoms, as such, there is no -direct- method of producing electrical current out of the fusion process. Not today, which is why the power plant the Martians use in the Fighting Machines is science fiction and not something you can buy at TrueValue Hardware. Like I said, give us a century or two to get there. A photoelectric method, where high energy photons knock electrons out of orbit in a conductive material, similar to the effect of an EM pulse would be the most direct method, -if- you can get a material that would absorb the vast majority of the high energy photons and is still conductive. If gold won't do, I'd suggest scrith if you can't get refined powergamimum. I think if the Martians had scrith, their tripods would have been a mite more resistant to artillery shells... and an Internet search on powergamium turned up zilch, so I'm assuming that's a form of unobtanium...
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 24, 2005 6:27:50 GMT
Lensman....I always appreciate your comments but I must admit that I am puzzled by you comparing electric motors with IC engines and claiming they are lighter for equal power. DC motors have a lot of grunt, especially on start up, I agree. <snip> I do not think that any electric motor can compare to the gas turbine, in terms of power/weight.. Well, what are we including? If it's just the engine itself, okay I'll take your word for it. The average car engine needs a cooling system too, which electric engines don't, and which adds to the weight and complexity of the system. Maybe gas turbines don't need a cooling system. But I'll bet they still need a transmission-- a bulky and heavy item-- which again electric motors don't. In any case, to get the complete picture, we would have to agree on the requirements and then slot in an appropriate power plant. Not always easy or obvious. Hoo boy you said a mouthful there! Look how we went around and around in the "Controlled Landing?" thread on what the requirements were... and never did reach a consensus. I think that I would also go for the Martians having a small but powerful fusor system (about 4 or 5 Mwatts)that uses something like the proton+boron11 reaction, the green gas is the working fluid, perhaps charged for the musculature, driving onboard gear and also allowing plenty for powering the heat ray. All totally speculative but fun. I admire your attempt to work the "green gas" into the power system, but I confess I don't understand how you're suggesting it would work. Water is essentially incompressible, as I'm sure you know, and I don't know of any other liquid which is compressible... I think that's an inherent property of the liquid phase of matter. But let's pretend for one moment it is. You can used compressed gas to power things, but I fail to see how you think you're gonna get megawatts of energy out of a power plant driven by energy stored by compressing a fluid. And you're right, the Heat Ray will require power on the order of megawatts.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Apr 24, 2005 15:10:15 GMT
Gee, Lancer, I thought science fiction is what we were talking about. In the context of what "real" science might use to make the same effect, turning "soft" science fiction, which basically doen't care about the physics, into "hard" science fiction which does... I perfer quantum subspace myself, as Arthur C Clarke details in "Songs of Distant Earth", the figures he uses, suggests that the energy desnity is enough that a lightbulb would contiain enough energy to boil the oceans, if you could tap it... Mainly because of the thousands upon thousands of miles of ultradense plasma it has to penetrate, the energy gets absorbed and re-absorbed countless times before it hits the surface, shorter distances, minimally dense plasma, and it moves a lot faster... Which really doesn't specify anything, about the process, other than the additon of the phrase "controling on a quantum level" (whatever -that- means) to a description of what -any- fusion power plant would do, it's especially meaningless, because even quantum physics (or N theory) doesn't allow for any method of "direct conversion" the reaction -will- release a photon which has to hit an electron, and knock it out of orbit to start the electrical power cascade going, that's the most direct route, anything else, is adding that "another matter" that you say you the future will dispense with... I don't see any reason to, even the theroretical physics only goes so far....
|
|
|
Post by Stewymartian on Apr 24, 2005 22:18:50 GMT
Maybe an advanced varient of the propulsion system that the USAF experimented with in their nuclear bomber program would work. The heat from the reactor heats up air which powers a turbine (much like jet engine), providing all the electrical power a Martian machine could wish for. Since the reactor uses air as a coolant, it doesn't have to carry any heavy liquids to do the job.
This could, of course, be extremely noisey, and no where does Wells describe the machines as producing an ear-splitting noise. But perhaps the Martians had got over this problem by using a small but highly efficient unit, or had good mufflers and silencers (maybe as part of the shielding?).
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 27, 2005 18:29:40 GMT
I believe the following is sufficient to disprove Lancer's claim that the quantum effects of electricity and fusion are so different that it's impossible to directly convert one to the other. I confess I hadn't realized it was already being done! From PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 729 April 27, 2005 PYROFUSION: A ROOM-TEMPERATURE, PALM-SIZED NUCLEAR FUSION DEVICE has been reported by a UCLA collaboration, potentially leading to new kinds of fusion devices and other novel applications such as microthrusters for MEMS spaceships. The key component of the UCLA device is a pyroelectric crystal, a class of materials that includes lithium niobate, an inexpensive solid that is used to filter signals in cell phones. When heated a pyroelectric crystal polarizes charge, segregating a significant amount of electric charge near a surface, leading to a very large electric field there. In turn, this effect can accelerate electrons to relatively high (keV) energies (see Update 564, www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/564-2.html). The UCLA researchers (Seth Putterman, 310-825-2269) take this idea and add a few other elements to it. In a vacuum chamber containing deuterium gas, they place a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one of its faces touches a copper disc which itself is surmounted by a tungsten probe. They cool and then heat the crystal, which creates an electric potential energy of about 120 kilovolts at its surface. The electric field at the end of the tungsten probe tip is so high (25 V/nm) that it strips electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. Repelled by the negatively charged tip, and crystal field, the resulting deuterium ions then accelerate towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2), slamming into it so hard that some of the deuterium ions fuse with deuterium in the target. Each deuterium-deuterium fusion reaction creates a helium-3 nucleus and a 2.45 MeV neutron, the latter being collected as evidence for nuclear fusion. In a typical heating cycle, the researchers measure a peak of about 900 neutrons per second, about 400 times the "background" of naturally occurring neutrons. During a heating cycle, which could last from 5 minutes to 8 hours depending on how fast they heat the crystal, the researchers estimate that they create approximately 10^-8 joules of fusion energy. (To provide some perspective, it takes about 1,000 joules to heat an 8-oz (237 ml) cup of coffee one degree Celsius.) By using a larger tungsten tip, cooling the crystal to cryogenic temperatures, and constructing a target containing tritium, the researchers believe they can scale up the observed neutron production 1000 times, to more than 10^6 neutrons per second. (Naranjo, Gimzewski, Putterman, Nature, 28 April 2005). The experimental setup is strikingly simple: "We can build a tiny self-contained handheld object which when plunged into ice water creates fusion," Putterman says. (http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion )
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Apr 27, 2005 22:12:35 GMT
I believe the following is sufficient to disprove Lancer's claim that the quantum effects of electricity and fusion are so different that it's impossible to directly convert one to the other. I confess I hadn't realized it was already being done! Except that it isn't -the fusion reactions here arn't producing electricty, (and are producing free neutrons, i.e. radition) and the electrical feild is only producing fusion with the help of the target, to say nothing of the fact that they're just using electromagnetic forces, there's no quantum effects involved....
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 28, 2005 6:29:22 GMT
they're just using electromagnetic forces, there's no quantum effects involved.... I think it's become quite clear we've gone past the point of reasoned discourse, and into the realm of refusal to concede points or admit being wrong. That being the case, there's no point in continuing. BTW-- I did use the term "quantum" correctly, Lancer. If you honestly think I didn't, then may I respectfully suggest you look up the word in a science dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Apr 28, 2005 15:57:17 GMT
I think it's become quite clear we've gone past the point of reasoned discourse, and into the realm of refusal to concede points or admit being wrong. That being the case, there's no point in continuing. The argument has pretty much been about the posibility of "direct" conversion of the energy released in a fusion reaction into electricty, I don't see how an article about a fusion process that didn't produce electical power (MeV apaprenetly being a measure of particle mass, 1 MeV being the mass of an electron/positron pair, and the energy released at their anhilation) as a result "disproves" my stance.. deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600129757,00.html As for the use of the word "quantum" I'm using it in the sense of particles below the scale of protons/neutrons/electrons... i.e. quarks and the like and other subjects of "quantum physics" which also were not mentioned in the above article... If you want to stop, fine, but I still don't see that I've made an error to concede..
|
|
Xav
Full Member
Rules are for the obeyance of Fools and the guidance of wise Men
Posts: 119
|
Post by Xav on Apr 29, 2005 2:15:33 GMT
I think that is a pity that you two gentlemen cannot simply agree to co-operate in the search for what may...emphasis on 'may'...be a source of electrical power, clearly with reference to humanity in particular and the fictional source that we are speculating on, for the Martians. There are a whole range of different devices, many of them quite small, that produce floods of neutrons---I mentioned two myself and only yesterday I think I came across another one, possibly the very one that Lensman mentioned. Several space craft have plutonium to run onboard electrics and as far as I know, there is a direct conversion of nuclear radiation to electrical energy here. I very much doubt that it is enough to power anything like the Martians machines and in any case, I am sure they wouldnt like a potential atom bomb underneath their seat and I go back to my own idea of several methods....one being a Fusor device. This may or may not produce heat, inwhich case a few simple but advanced on board converters are needed. The green gas I suspect actually carries a substantial charge to power the musculature in the legs and so on, while perhaps the 'brown fluid' is in a highly compressed state for perhaps the tentacles, and there is plenty left over to power the heat ray and keep lil marty cool. I can understand your both getting a little hot under the collar at each other and I wish that I could mediate.....agree to disagree, eh, what? Anyway, good to see a very cogent argument on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Apr 29, 2005 15:37:50 GMT
I think that is a pity that you two gentlemen cannot simply agree to co-operate in the search for what may...emphasis on 'may'...be a source of electrical power, clearly with reference to humanity in particular and the fictional source that we are speculating on, for the Martians. It's not a matter of co-operation, it's one of knowlege base, Lensmen is in the position of the scientist in the following cartoon... With "Miracle" replaced with "Quantum Effect" Details on the space probe reactors can be found at the article here... www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=244&ArchiveIssueID=29Basically, they use a theromcouple to generate electrical power, from the heat given off by the decaying plutonium pellets in the reactor, it's a simple design, with no moving parts, but hardly a direct conversion. Atomic Energy and Electricity involve diffrent fundamental forces, Electromagnetism, vs Strong Nuclear Force, If you want to put it another way, Electricty is energy in form Z, Nuclear Energy produces energy in form A,B,C,D (Fusion only producing C & E) you need -some- intermediary to convert one to the other, even lensman's "I'm talking about controlling thermonuclear reactions on the quantum level" is a description of an intermediary in the form of whatever is used to "control" the reaction. The closest you get to a "direct" conversion, would be if you used beta particles to start current flow, (when a radioactive nuclei loses protons, in alpha decay, it then sheds two electrons as beta particles) but beta particles arn't produced in a fusion reaction, they're a product of radioactive decay...
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 3, 2005 20:53:56 GMT
Lancer's stubborn insistance that over the next millenium or so we won't figure out a considerably more efficient method for converting nuclear forces (the "strong force" and/or the "weak force") into electricity reminds me of what's referred to as "Clarke's First Law":
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke
I find it particularly amusing that Lancer refuses to admit the possiblility of future technological improvements, considering he mentioned preferring a supposed power source based on virtual particles, from one of Clarke's stories, despite the fact that-- as I said in an earlier post-- it's been mathematically demonstrated that the energy density from such a source is most likely of chemical energy density, rather than the nuclear energy density Clarke proposed.
What Clarke confusingly refers to as "cold fusion", or the virtual particle effect, is the same old hand-waving "and here a miracle occurs" (to use one of Lancer's phrases) as "cosmic power" was in E.E. Smith's Lensman series, or the ability to tap suns for power as in John W. Campbell's The Mightiest Machine.
For Lancer to flatly state that it is not even theoretically possible to convert nuclear energy to electricity, calling it mere science fiction (actually he means fantasy; real science fiction is based on real science), then turn around and state that he prefer's Clarke's idea of "cold fusion" is surely proof that he's not interested in an honest exchange of ideas. He's clearly just engaging in one-upsmanship by belittling everyone else's ideas.
I also don't buy that Lancer honestly believes it's not even theoretically possible to convert nuclear energy to electricity. If he is knowledgable enuff to succinctly summarize electrical theory, then surely he knows that the forces of electromagnetism plus the strong and weak nuclear forces have been combined into one theory-- I think it's called the "electroweak theory" but I may be remembering wrong. Anyway, the point is that since the three forces have been combined into one theory, this indicates that any of the three forces can be used to create the other, just as Einstein's E=MC^2 indicated we could convert matter to energy-- and we certainly have, both in nuclear weapons and atomic power plants.
But since my use of the term "quantum" in this thread seems to be confusing, let me explain: As anyone will see by looking up the word in a dictionary, all it means is matter or energy at their smallest, most basic, irreducible size. A "quantum" of fusion would be a single instance of a few lighter atoms combining to form one single heavier atom. The reason I state it will (I think) be necessary to control the exchange between nuclear energy and electrical energy on a quantum level is because I think that degree of control will be necessary to cause the exchange to be efficient enuff that it won't require heavy shielding or powerful cooling mechanisms.
In an atomic power plant, all we want is for nuclear energy to be converted to heat. The heat is used to run a steam engine or steam turbine. All other energy-- light, hard radiation (alpha, beta and gamma particles) etc.-- emitted by current fission power plants is not only a waste, but requires heavy shielding to block.
By controlling the conversion of nuclear force to electricity on a quantum level-- on the smallest, irreducible, atomic (or smaller) level-- we may be able to sharply reduce or virtually eliminate undesirable by-products, and directly convert nuclear energy to electricity without having to go thru intermediate steps including exciting the electron shells of atoms so they emit the electrons which electricity is composed of. What is wanted is a process whereby atomic energy is released at one end of the "black box"-- or our "Mr. Fusion" device-- and at the other end a stream of electrons comes out in the form of electricity.
Lancer insists on labelling this "mere science fiction", and ridicules it by saying "here a miracle occurs". *I* call this an application of the electroweak theory, in the same way that a fission power plant is an application of Einstein's relativity theory.
The article I posted clearly demonstrates it's possible to directly convert electricity to fusion in a single process. Notwithstanding Lancer's rather desperate and transparent attempt to pretend this isn't true by calling the fusion target a "separate process". I think anyone interested in honest debate would concede the target was part of a single device, and not a "separate process". That's like calling the electromagnets in an electric motor a "separate process" and not really part of the electric motor.
Of course, being able to convert electricity to fusion power doesn't prove that the inverse is true-- what we want is to convert fusion power (or any form of nuclear energy) directly to electricity. Admittedly just because you can make a reaction go one way doesn't mean you can reverse it-- you can't make fire burn backwards, for instance-- but the electroweak theory certainly indicates it's at least theoretically possible.
Xav, I would be very interested in a discussion or debate of what would theoretically be possible that might power the Martians' fighting machines and other devices. Unfortunately, so far as I'm concerned, Lancer has poisoned this thread by his insistance on ridiculing everything which has not yet been demonstrated in the laboratory-- other than his own pet science fiction device(s), anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on May 4, 2005 3:31:38 GMT
I'm going to put it very simply, my objection is based on thing, the supposition that there will be some form of fusion that "directly" converts the energy from fusion to electricity, without some intermediary process, which produces waste heat, energy loss, etc...
Lensman talks about "controling the process on a quantum level" - but that process in and ove it's self -is- an intermediary process, that leads to waste heat, etc, etc...
In short, it won't happen by itself, and if we don't stick our fingers in the process -somewhere- along the line, we won't get usefull energy out, and our sticking our fingers in, automatically makes it an indirect process, regardless of the -nature- of that process.
Lensman descibes a "black box" where atomic energy goes in at one end, and electrical energy comes out the other, the existance of that box and more importantly the mechanisms in is what I'm -insisting- must exist, what I find unbelivable is a situation the nuclei colide and fuse, and directly spits out electrical energy...
I have some issues whith how Lensman's characterized my refrence to Clarke's "Songs of Distant Earth" - I like the term he uses, but not much more, though I admdt the figures he used might be out of date. As for the Electroweak, by the technological level you're at when manipulating things on that level, you probably don't even need fusion, you could convert matter of anyform to energy by some process, without utilizing nuclear reactions.
This isn't a matter of oneupsmanship, It's that I belive that there are practical limits to any process, that I seriously doubt we'll be overcome, without going so far beyond that process that it becomes obselete.
In short form, I have a hot button when someone presses my willing suspension of disbelief ..
(You should have seen the argument I got into with the fellow who's fiction depended on a device that could re-write a person's genetic code by reconstructing their genes atom by atom, in every cell simetaneously, but had put it to -no- other use, he just wanted a scientific explanation for the werewolves in his story)
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 18, 2005 0:40:22 GMT
I have a hot button when someone presses my willing suspension of disbelief .. (You should have seen the argument I got into with the fellow who's fiction depended on a device that could re-write a person's genetic code by reconstructing their genes atom by atom, in every cell simetaneously, but had put it to -no- other use, he just wanted a scientific explanation for the werewolves in his story) Well I think we are back on the same page with that. Upon reflection, it does seem that a direct nuclear-electric conversion would imply a technology which had sufficient control of matter and energy on the quantum level that they would also have mastered mass transmution of matter. And it seems apparent that the Martians did not; they had to mine and refine aluminium, instead just dumping dirt into one end of a manufacturing machine and having things come out the other end made out of whatever yellowish metal their cylinders were made of. So perhaps it's better to merely suggest in a vague fashion that the Martians had an ability to convert atomic energy to electricity in a more efficient manner than our current fission reactors, in a manner requiring substantially less shielding and cooling apparatus. I never really thought the Martians had a "Mr. Fusion" device straight out of "Back to the Future"-- I'm presuming what they use is somewhat less efficient, and therefore substantially larger and more massive than that. Your comment about ultra-advanced technology not being used for a wide range of applications reminds me of a skeptic's question about Star Trek: If they had matter transmission ("transporters") and mass transumutation of matter ("replicators") then why do they *need* starships? More to the point, what commerce could there be in transporting goods, which could so easily be created on the spot? Roddenberry attempted to deal with that by saying "Starfleet doesn't use money", but according to what their other writers have put in, apparently the rest of the galaxy does! Why is gold-pressed latinum more valuable to the Feringi than lead? Can't you just order up some latinum bars from the replicator as easily as ordering your lunch? And if not, why not? George O. Smith, in one of his "Venus Equilateral" stories, explored what would happen if you marketed matter duplicators. Everyone used them to replicate money, in addition to gold, jewelry and everything else. The economy promptly collapsed. As someone in the story remarked, "When your maid owns a matter duplicator, it's not merely a case of your maid wearing the crown jewels-- rather, she's not the maid anymore." Smith cheated and didn't really deal with the problem, by inventing a fictional substance-- "identium"-- which could not be duplicated, and thereafter money was made from sheets of the stuff. But that doesn't deal with the basic problem. If all you need to live quite comfortably is a matter duplicator and a power supply-- and likely the matter duplicator can provide that, at least if your power requirements aren't too great (by creation of a large number of solar cells, or if necessary a diesel generator and fuel)-- then who's gonna collect the garbage, or fix the potholes in the road, or fix your plumbing? Perhaps you could order any prototype (an object to replicate) you want off the Internet. But who would be willing to work maintainting the Internet when money is worthless? (Sure there would be some-- the moderators on this forum alone are proof of that-- but would there be enuff??) For that matter, who's gonna drive the UPS truck to deliver your prototype? I spoze we'd have to adopt some sort of compulsory "community service"; perhaps everyone would be required to donate 10 hours a week to community service, or the like.
|
|