From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:26:34 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >   
   > I will not be having very much time available over the next few weeks. I   
   > will add my replieswhen I can.   
   >   
   >   
   >> That's still ridiculously low emissions, in reality you will be talking   
   >> a couple orders of magnitude more than that.  Expect something like at   
   >> least 10kW plus waste heat when running cold.   
   >   
   > Which can be completely absorbed by 100 tonnes of H2O for 400 days, or   
   > 25 tonnes for 100 days. Alternatively, 1000 tonnes (10m x 10m x 10m)   
   > will absorb 100 kW waste heat over a duration of 400 days, or 400 kW   
   > over 100 days. Sufficient insulation will suppress radiation emission   
   > from heat leakage.   
      
   Remember that those values are for when you generate steam that you will   
   either need large, strong, heavy tanks to hold, (a tank at 10atm would be   
   a minimum of 32m across to hold 1000t of steam, it would also be ~450K),   
   or that you have to vent to create a nice IR emitting cloud that's   
   following you around.   
      
   >> You assume that the trivial efforts we currently engage in represent   
   >> what would be done when watching for hostile military operations.   
   >   
   > Not really. I am assuming the limits imposed by physical laws.   
      
   Using input values that are utter BS.   
      
   >> OK, you missed the point:  You need environmental heating because you   
   >> are losing some of that heat as emissions.   
   >   
   > Not so much as you might think. The shuttle and ISS already have had   
   > problems with human bodies producing more energy than is "leaked".   
      
   That just means that the heaters are biological rather than electrical.   
      
   >> That is to say, not.   
   >   
   > That is to say, absolutely falsifiable.   
      
   Nope.  Further, this entire line of discussion is nothing more than a   
   meaningless digression.  By now you should understand what I meant and   
   the only further discussion beyond this post on my part of other ways of   
   interpreting it will be to call you out on using the digression as a   
   smokescreen and to accept your concession of the point.   
      
   >> Making an absolute statement that is then clarified with a caveat is a   
   >> common rhetorical flourish.  Furthermore, saying that something   
   >> "doesn't really exist," isn't actually an absolute statement of   
   >> non-existence.   
   >   
   > Rhetoric is often little more than politically convenient, socially   
   > acceptabe lies. It is a tool for those who can not debate honestly.   
      
   I was using the term in the sense of the use of language to persuade or   
   communicate.  Not that you complaining about a word choice there is   
   anything but a pointless digression that will, at best, head out into   
   more semantic quibbling.   
      
   >> Leaving aside that this would just be part of the military budget and   
   >> not something that the general populace would ever see broken out as   
   >> its own line item....   
   >   
   > Military budgets are not infinite. The military already makes tough   
   > choices beteen the various systems they wish to deploy. They tend to   
   > favour systems that allow them to project power over those systems that   
   > merely allow them to detect.   
      
   Asked and answered in another post.  What's more, it's a post that you   
   clearly read because you used information from it.   
      
   >> The costs of this sort of system is going to be peanuts next to the   
   >> cost of the warships, (whatever form they end up taking).   
   >   
   > I think that I have already mentioned that "peanuts" can prevent a   
   > warship from receiving funding. Even if your analysis were true,   
   > warships are systematically considered more important.   
      
   "Was I to die this moment, ‘Want of Frigates’ would be found stamped on   
   my heart." -- Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson   
      
   The sensor platforms we are talking about are to interplantary war what   
   frigates were to Napoleonic naval war. (or radar stations and satellites   
   are to modern war).   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)