On 13 Sep, 21:25, kT wrote:
phil hays wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

In point of fact, it cost more to shut the supercollider project down
than it would have cost to finish it.

This make me think you are yet another Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superco...Super_Collider

Says that "the cost projection exceeded 12 billion" and at the time of
shutdown "nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the
massive facility".

No way did it take 10 billion dollars to fill in a hole that too less
than 2 billion dollars to dig.

Tell the truth, don't be Republican.

Lying is part of the educational curricula in America today.

I'm pretty sure they didn't tear anything down and fill in the hole.

These kinds of monstrosities are hard to sell after they fail, for
instance, Biosphere II, etc. People are still stupid enough, though.

The Europeans can have their high energy accelerators.

http://xdb.lbl.gov/Section2/Sec_2-2.html

http://www.src.wisc.edu/about/erowe.htm

You'll just have to trust me that this is where the real competition is.

Clearly the trend is towards lower energy, for example, the real world :

http://www.wifel.wisc.edu/

I'll see you there ... in the future!- Hide quoted text -

This is a very good example of how spin off can occur. Synchrotron
radiation is the only bright source of Vacuum Ultraviolet and soft X
rays. This is of great inportance in bilogy and also in the fabricaion
of integrated circuits. Originally they were devised for particle
physics.


- Ian Parker