The band was originally formed in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1990 by friends Merritt and (percussionist/pianist/vocalist) Claudia Gonson. While 1991's Distant Plastic Trees and 1992's The Wayward Bus (now most easily available together as a compilation, The Wayward Bus / Distant Plastic Trees) are sung by Susan Anway (b. 1951 - d. 2021), all subsequent albums are principally sung by Merritt himself.
Longtime members include: Gonson, (cellist) Sam Davol, and (banjo player/guitarist) John Woo. Contributors include (but are not limited to) the singers Susan Anway, Dudley Klute, Shirley Simms, and LD Beghtol, and the accordionist/writer Daniel Handler (famous for writing the childrens' books A Series of Unfortunate Events under the alias Lemony Snicket).
Their most popular and best-selling album to date is 69 Love Songs issued on Merge Records as a triple album filled with many fairly short songs that are reminiscent of early Beatles productions.
The album is notable for its employment of many unorthodox musical arrangements and downright impressive quantity of material presented. Instruments used on this album include the ukulele, banjo, accordion, cello, mandolin, piano, flute, xylophone guitars, various percussion instruments, and a standard setup of synths and effects. It features several guest vocalists on several different tracks. The album is a three CD set, released in the US as three separate albums (also available as a boxed set) and in the UK as a triple album.
The album i (2004, Nonesuch Records) continues Merritt's fixation on the concept album, with each of the 14 songs beginning with the letter (and often the pronoun) "I".
The album Distortion, was released through Nonesuch on the 15th January 2008 and introduced noise pop to the array of styles utilized in their music. The album's release was followed by a sold-out U.S. tour starting in February. Additional albums followed in 2010, 2012, 2017, and 2020.
Stephin Merritt is involved in several other musical projects: The 6ths (featuring different guest performers on every track), The Gothic Archies (songs dealing humorously with dark themes) and Future Bible Heroes (with music written by Chris Ewen)
http://www.houseoftomorrow.com/
i don’t know what to say
The Magnetic Fields Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴
I could say I want you,
That would be a bore
Maybe in a font you
Haven't seen before
I could say I'll haunt you
Till your dying day
But what would I say?
See, I don't know what to say
I could say I crave you
Still, you little brat
I could rant and rave, you
Know I can do that
I could say I gave you
Everything I have
I could say I'll save you
You might think me mad
So I don't know what to say
I could try and lead you
Down the garden path
I could say I'll feed you
You can do the math
I could say I need you
Offer you a ring
I'll be guaranteed you
Don't believe a thing
I could try and shove you
Off the nearest cliff
I could say I lo
ve you
But that would be a skit
I could say I'll miss you
When you're gone away
I could bet and kiss you,
But what would I say?
These lyrics by The Magnetic Fields are an expression of confusion and uncertainty in a romantic relationship. The singer describes various things they could say to their loved one, but ultimately determines that none of them truly convey the depth of their feelings or the complexities of their situation.
The song opens with the singer suggesting that expressing their desire for their partner would be too cliche and uninteresting. They go on to suggest numerous other things they could say, ranging from playful teasing to declarations of everlasting love. However, none of these options seem to capture the full extent of the singer's emotions or the challenges they face as a couple.
The closing lines of the song suggest that the singer is at a loss for words, unable to find the right thing to say to their partner in this particular moment. It's possible that this frustration reflects a larger communication issue within the relationship, as the singer struggles to express themselves and connect with their partner on a deeper level.
Lyrics © ROUGH TRADE PUBLISHING, Kobalt Music Publishing Ltd.
Written by: STEPHIN RAYMOND MERRITT
Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind
@tipfertool5457
@CoachZed Of the two, I believe your manager was more correct... but I have a third option. The most likely person for this discovery goes to theoretician John Wheeler. When the phenomenon was observed at Pile B, the cause was unknown. Several ideas were proposed but it was Wheeler who made calculations that had previously been concerned about neutron poisons and other contingencies during the construction of the reactor piles. After at least two cycles of this mysterious effect, Wheeler narrowed down a mother/daughter decay pair to Iodine135/Xenon135 and Fermi arrived soon after and agreed after his own calculations.
I'm not sure who initially proposed the "poison" hypothesis but it is implied that many were aware of the possibility.
A strike against Wigner is that the original pile design would not have been as effective for Plutonium production due to the Xenon poisoning. Dupont company had opted to modify the design by adding additional fuel channels - which coincidentally allowed for getting past the "Iodine pit". Rhodes credits Wheeler for the alteration, but Wheeler commends a Dupont engineer for the modification.
I'm well aware that Wheeler may have been taking a bit of liberty (though his interview does not give off that impression) but if there is any doubt to Wheeler you can always go with the head honcho Fermi.
Sources to look into:
Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (1986, pages 557-560)
John Wheeler 1962 "Fission then and now" IAEA Bulletin. Dec. 2
John Wheeler's Interview 1965 manhattanprojectvoices[dot]org
@utczulu8935
I thought Sorensen was a well informed enthusiast for thorium after viewing his presentations in shorter videos. Looking at this video to find he is actually a doctor of nuclear engineering and physics explains a lot… A WHOLE LOT. So now I am really intrigued and have the same question that maybe a whole lot of other people have… Why are we not already using thorium reactors?
Is everything about using thorium being told? Up until now, I have seen a lot of these videos that present thorium as the answer for all our energy needs with virtual no cons. There has to be some drawbacks or technical challenges not being addressed as to why someone has not already built one of these.
It is understandable that in the U.S. that money and special interests can hamper the development of a thorium reactor (oil, coal, those that support uranium reactors). If somebody comes up with something new that can threaten someone’s business and/or wallet then there will be resistance. The more powerful they are the more resistance. I get that part.
But what about France, Great Britain, China, and Japan? Especially China and Japan. These two countries alone would have a vested interest in building one of these and do not have the political hurdles that the U.S. has to deal with. China, being a mega-manufacturing giant that wants more energy and less pollution, would be all over this. Then there is Japan with natural disasters. I find it hard to believe that the most technologically advanced countries in the world have never heard of thorium or heard of it and decided not to use it. This makes me wonder if pro-thorium videos are only showing one side of the coin.
Searching for disadvantages I found this on the internet (I know anyone can type anything on the internet but these look credible.):
*Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still open.
*There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods.
*Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel.
*Unlike uranium, natural thorium contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964–1969, which was expected to be easier to process and separate from contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction.
*Fission product processing greatly complicated by the presence of Thorium
*Higher neutron leakage
*Weakly positive temperature coefficient, can be fixed but at large cost
*Pa removal needed unless both thorium and 233U loading increased substantially
Now I will say I am an enthusiast and the idea of using thorium sounds good, but all this excitement for thorium is starting to remind me of cold fusion and fueling cars with water.
@gordonmcdowell
Sorensen has now completed his masters in nuclear engineering. His education was underway while Thorium Remix 2011 was being shot.
.
I think the arguments you're citing here include those against thermal breeding in a solid fuel reactor.
.
"There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods." - There are NO fuel required. Thorium is dissolved in liquid (molten) salts.
.
"The feasibility of reprocessing is still open." - Well the very first power reactor did breed thorium into U-233 (Shippingport Reactor). I've heard Argonne researcher describe it as a complex clockwork process, one that you'd not want to replicate commercially. Those challenges were because the breeding was taking place inside solid fuel rods. So that reprocessing which was complex Kirk is looking to simplify by avoiding solid fuel rods altogether. The chemical processes used are described by Kirk as "off the shelf", although they are "off the shelf" in a non-neutron-flux environment.
.
"Thorium... will make uranium-232... emits gamma rays" - It does this within the reactor. Yes, U-232 would kill you. There's plenty chemical toxicity and radioactive materials inside the fuel salt though, that there's no need to single out U-232's gamma rays... it is a nuclear reactor... if you step inside the whole environment will kill you. Check out...
.
MSRE: Alvin Weinberg's Molten Salt Reactor Experiment - "Th" Thorium Documentary
.
...and you'll hear from researchers maintaining an experimental reactor they couldn't get close to, shielded by a thick layer of concrete. That reactor was run on Uranium, and did not include the thermal breeding cycle they'd have later tested (had the project not been cancelled).
.
U-233 is created. It is possible to weaponize U-233. The challenge of diverting U-233 out of the reactor (which would certainly alter the reactor's operation and be detected) ought to be compared to the process of enriching uranium and making a bomb from that. Did uranium up out of the ground. Enrich it to 90%. You have weapons grade material. It is not impossible to weaponize LFTR, but it is not the easiest way. Worst case: LFTR is restricted to countries which already have such weapons, and a denatured MSR such as I-MSR (by Terrestrial Energy) is offered to countries that might try re-purpose the reactor for non-energy purposes.
.
However, I'd like you to keep in mind there's a whole host of medical isotopes we could be harvesting from the fission products created in nuclear reactors. LFTR offers a practical means of extracting them, particularly short lived ones we'd never get out of solid fuel rods before they decay away. So the weaponizaton argument is sort of a flip-side to the medical isotope argument. Are we not going to treat dispersed cancers because pulling medically useful fission products out of liquid fuel salts might also mean someone might pull U-233 out of liquid fuel salts?
.
The next point again mentions fuel fabrication... not applicable. I'd suggest you find counter-arguments against LFTR specifically. Because the thorium fuel cycle is still too broad a category and solid fuel fits under that.
@gordonmcdowell
UTC Zulu
I do think there's always the possibility someone with lots of resources will come in and help. That's basically what Bill Gates does for the Traveling Wave Reactor.. that's a technology choice I'm not really qualified to critique, but I'd hope he'd hedge his bet by also supporting MSR. He defenitely does know MSR (/LFTR) exists, but his last comment on it was that he thought it would be difficult. Has he spoken to MSR researchers themselves (some of which are still alive)? I don't know.
.
But elected officials can't really drive technology. Simply stating that you favor nuclear cuts your support, never mind speaking on a specific technology that is not yet commercialized. Bill Gates has criticized USA renewable R&D as being way too timid... fear of another Solyndra when Solyndra was itself far too safe a bet to fundamentally move solar forward. Fundamental R&D advances means sometimes betting on losers, and politically no one is willing to take such a gamble any more.
.
Making LFTR commercial might take a billion dollars. Yet MSR research is often bottlenecked on the first million... Flibe Energy, Terrestrial Energy, Transatomic Energy are companies to watch. But any rich person not simply wanting to address poverty and climate chance, and who is also looking to turn a profit will be asking themself: Which of these companies will succeed and which will fail? If they pick wrong they'll lose all the money (millions?) they invest. The safest course of action is to wait and see.
.
Sucks for the planet of course.
.
Regulation is another challenge. NRC very difficult ship to turn, and right now they're set up to regulate PWR not MSR. So folks like Terrestrial Energy and TerraPower (Gates) look to outside the USA to actually build prototypes and maybe even start selling their first commercial units. Flibe and Transatomic still hope for prototyping inside USA, hopefully they'll be able to navigate (or improve) NRC regulations.
@wowassault
@@utczulu8935 Pretty sure this video covered that subject pretty well, it all comes down to the mass fear that is surounding nuclear power. This fear that is generally created by the uninformed slander that most politicians delve into.
Shortly put, It's not thoriums or radioactivity's fault that ithese type of reactors are not around yet, It's the fault of the general uninformed, and sadly uninterested civilian.
As well as, most energy companies realize that you can essentially "make more money'" by doing it the old fashioned way.
Or do you think that, once we get to a point where the creation of energy ( by for example thorium fission or perhaps even fusion ) would be so cheap ( disregarding the costs of having to build such a facility ) that the energy companies that control these reactors will sell electricty to the public for next to nothing?
I agree that's the dream, if I had the money to build one of these reactors, i'd be giving away the electricty it produces for next to nothing to the public with the thought of perhaps provoking more scientific breaktroughs. However in today's economics that doesn't seem like something feasable, where generally every single company is build on the premise of creating money, and solely money.
It mostly boils down to capitalism I guess?
@osakanone
@@tommorris3688True but Thorium hasn't moved ever since the projects requesting lighter reactors were terminated, and the chemical engineering problems were never solved. He has no giant shoulders to stand on.
Compare and contrast with the king of used cars salesmen Musk who takes technologies which are mature (often old, such) but crushed via cronyism and then recycles them for disruptive populism.
SpaceX's rocketry is just ripped off from NASA designs in the 1970's, wrapped in private-enterprise which congress has a huge boner for.
Tesla is even worse: Nothing they are doing is new.
Both companies depend heavily on government subsedies to be profitable, and are by many seen as pyramid schemes designed to milk share costs that have the side benefit of moving fields forward as a side-effect to make it worth Musk's while.
Instead of then being a used car salesmen king, I would say then that Musk is a welfare queen extracting tax payer money to advance a system broken by cronyist corruption of a free-market collapsing under the entropy of bad-actors within it.
@graemeab7634
Why am I only seeing this now?.....3 years later.
This should be the biggest story in "news".
@christalicable
I know right?!
@sammcrae8892
Maybe they don't want you to know...🤔
@corsair6
Thorium as a nuclear power source has been around for quite awhile, the hangup is really two-fold:
1. Lots of regulation, rightly so, however rather than being safety focused, the structure of these governing-oversight bodies actually discourage new developments and form an obstacle towards innovation.
2. Knee-jerk anti-nuclear attitudes foisted by the know-nothings of the world. The word nuclear usually generates a negative or, even visceral reaction amongst large segments of the populace. Mass media both news and entertainment attempt to explain nuclear energy in simplistic terms but, end up sensationalizing and generating hyperbolic contexts.
@iridescentkek7458
woah... why haven't i heard about this before? this is crazy cool.
@colin76545
More like FTL helped make bombs and idiots were running the show
@premchand828
@@colin76545 what's ftl now
@jvarennes
Thanks a million to John Laurie who did the translation into french.
Even if I'm able to understand english, such scientific subjects with dedicated vocabulary would have been too much for me, I could never watch this video for nearly two hours !
@aaronanderson9511
10:38
"in focus"
"not out of focus"
"maybe you need glasses"
"try squinting"
"try 3D glasses"
"ooops"
@francistalbot6584
I got your CDs on the thorium Reactors. We must bring this technology back to the USA.
I am a PE Nuclear Engineer in the State of Maryland and a US NRC reactor engineer inspector and technical reviewer.
I love this reactor technology.
It is total common sense and a must for the energy future of the world.