The spin is that the Planned Viperhood videos were edited, and therefore fake. Evidently, the only editing was to edit out completely irrelevant portions. Pure spin, or to put it more bluntly, LIES.
Another spin is that Planned Pukerhood does a lot for women, but that too is taken down as yet another LIE.
The sad thing that this video shows is that people believe the LIES.
H/T Free Republic
The truth doesn't matter in a sick society. Nuff said.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
To the chick who said I had an evil laugh
She had this punk hair cut, and this was 30 years ago. If she ever heard of this, she would have forgotten all about it by now. Funny how you remember things like that. That was back before I learned about having the ability to laugh at yourself is most important---maybe the most important thing to ever know. Things like that may have bothered me then, but not now. In fact now, I would have just laughed it off, only to irritate her all the more. Maybe if I could, I'd sing this little tune.
Random musings on the home front
As you may know, I've been holding down the fort lately, as a manner of speaking. Aside from writing about the AGW issue, can't say that I've thought of much else to write. Maybe at this point, there's some writing blockage, or what I'm actually thinking, I'd rather not say.
It's an old story, no need to go over it again, so I won't.
So, I'll move on to another topic. Just read Dick Morris on Hillary again. From what he is saying, it seems doubtful that she will be the nominee. Her poll numbers aren't holding up. Curious how Bernie Sanders isn't well received either. His reception reminds me of Trump's. The powers-that-be don't like either of them.
So, who'll be the nominee? If the powers-that-be don't like Sanders, and Hillary can't hack it, then that leaves somebody else. Morris mentioned Warren. Know what? That just might be what they'll do. She can work the same angle Obama did with the identity politics. Whereas Obama was the first black president, she can be the first woman president. Would that angle work? It just might.
I think Trump may not get it because the powers-that-be won't allow it. Why do the powers-that-be have so much influence on the GOP? Shouldn't they be fighting the powers-that-be? Yes, they should, but they won't. That's the main problem with the GOP. They pretend to be the opposition, but then it is only pretense. You get a real chance at change, like with Trump, and they won't go along with it because, it's just too different. The GOP is in a rut, and they will likely never get out of it. So, Trump won't be the nominee.
Will Trump run as an independent? Don't know, but indications are that he just might. If he runs as an independent, it is not likely that he will win. He may be the spoiler that allows the Democrat to win.
It's either Walker or Bush if Trump doesn't win. If Bush wins, I won't vote for him. If Walker wins and Trump runs as an independent, it might be a tough call. But the two of them running together will doom us to another 4 to 8 years of Democrat rule.
The GOP is a failure. They should be cleaning the Democrat's clock. Instead, they may go the way of the Whigs.
Moving on to another topic...
It's been nearly five years now that I began blogging full time. Nearly ten thousand posts. I think I've covered everything that I could think of. I've never been prouder of my stuff than I have been lately. But then, we are back to an area that I'd just as soon avoid right now.
A thought just occurred to me. It is said that bullies can never be cured. If you defeat a bully, they may actually become dangerous. So much effort goes into defeating one another. Yep, and I did it too. I want to defeat the AGW theory so badly that I might even succeed. But will it help me personally? Nope. It may make me some enemies. Does that mean, then, that I should stop? No, I won't stop. Truth is truth, but bad human beings aren't much interested in truth. If you defeat them personally, you won't cure them. You may end up having to fight them on a battle ground somewhere. That thought doesn't give much comfort.
Now that I've gotten along in my years, I look back and see that I made some enemies along the line. Funny how it all happened, too. For I didn't intend to make enemies. It just seemed to happen. Yet, I don't think I was doing anything wrong, but being true to myself. This leads me to believe that if you live a true life, you can't help but make enemies. For to avoid making enemies, you may have to give up your true self.
Nobody taught me to be the way I am. I had no mentor. As for my Dad, he got sick when I was about 13. Before that, he was gone a lot. Can't say that I had that much guidance. What I learned, I did pretty much on my own. If someone taught me to be the way I am now, I would have been warned of some of the dangers. I had to learn the hard way. That's assuming that I ever did learn anything after all.
If there's anything at all that I've learned, maybe it is humility. It is hard to know everything, or even a lot. Mistakes are inevitable, but try not to make too many.
It's an old story, no need to go over it again, so I won't.
So, I'll move on to another topic. Just read Dick Morris on Hillary again. From what he is saying, it seems doubtful that she will be the nominee. Her poll numbers aren't holding up. Curious how Bernie Sanders isn't well received either. His reception reminds me of Trump's. The powers-that-be don't like either of them.
So, who'll be the nominee? If the powers-that-be don't like Sanders, and Hillary can't hack it, then that leaves somebody else. Morris mentioned Warren. Know what? That just might be what they'll do. She can work the same angle Obama did with the identity politics. Whereas Obama was the first black president, she can be the first woman president. Would that angle work? It just might.
I think Trump may not get it because the powers-that-be won't allow it. Why do the powers-that-be have so much influence on the GOP? Shouldn't they be fighting the powers-that-be? Yes, they should, but they won't. That's the main problem with the GOP. They pretend to be the opposition, but then it is only pretense. You get a real chance at change, like with Trump, and they won't go along with it because, it's just too different. The GOP is in a rut, and they will likely never get out of it. So, Trump won't be the nominee.
Will Trump run as an independent? Don't know, but indications are that he just might. If he runs as an independent, it is not likely that he will win. He may be the spoiler that allows the Democrat to win.
It's either Walker or Bush if Trump doesn't win. If Bush wins, I won't vote for him. If Walker wins and Trump runs as an independent, it might be a tough call. But the two of them running together will doom us to another 4 to 8 years of Democrat rule.
The GOP is a failure. They should be cleaning the Democrat's clock. Instead, they may go the way of the Whigs.
Moving on to another topic...
It's been nearly five years now that I began blogging full time. Nearly ten thousand posts. I think I've covered everything that I could think of. I've never been prouder of my stuff than I have been lately. But then, we are back to an area that I'd just as soon avoid right now.
A thought just occurred to me. It is said that bullies can never be cured. If you defeat a bully, they may actually become dangerous. So much effort goes into defeating one another. Yep, and I did it too. I want to defeat the AGW theory so badly that I might even succeed. But will it help me personally? Nope. It may make me some enemies. Does that mean, then, that I should stop? No, I won't stop. Truth is truth, but bad human beings aren't much interested in truth. If you defeat them personally, you won't cure them. You may end up having to fight them on a battle ground somewhere. That thought doesn't give much comfort.
Now that I've gotten along in my years, I look back and see that I made some enemies along the line. Funny how it all happened, too. For I didn't intend to make enemies. It just seemed to happen. Yet, I don't think I was doing anything wrong, but being true to myself. This leads me to believe that if you live a true life, you can't help but make enemies. For to avoid making enemies, you may have to give up your true self.
Nobody taught me to be the way I am. I had no mentor. As for my Dad, he got sick when I was about 13. Before that, he was gone a lot. Can't say that I had that much guidance. What I learned, I did pretty much on my own. If someone taught me to be the way I am now, I would have been warned of some of the dangers. I had to learn the hard way. That's assuming that I ever did learn anything after all.
If there's anything at all that I've learned, maybe it is humility. It is hard to know everything, or even a lot. Mistakes are inevitable, but try not to make too many.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on "Climate Change" (AGW)
Note the emphasis on listening to the scientists. Sanders goes after the GOP for not listening to the scientists. Sorry. You cannot listen to scientists who aren't being allowed to be scientists. For if the left is going to browbeat the rest of us into believing in AGW, or be called an odious name of "climate denier", then they sure aren't going to allow the scientists to do real science based upon the objective evidence. For if any scientist on the government payroll contradicts them, they will be hounded out of their jobs in the same way that the left is trying to hound everybody into silence or compliance.
Planned Ghoulishiness
Rush says that the lack of outrage over the Planned Pooperhoods says something bad about our culture. Sure, I know what he feels, but I felt that way about homosexual marriage, and nobody seemed to give a poop.
Its been since 1973 that there has been nationwide legal abortions. Homosexual marriage is relatively new. It's a better barometer of how the culture has degraded, but I don't see him having a cow over that.
I haven't written a thing about it. But I certainly do not approve.
Its been since 1973 that there has been nationwide legal abortions. Homosexual marriage is relatively new. It's a better barometer of how the culture has degraded, but I don't see him having a cow over that.
I haven't written a thing about it. But I certainly do not approve.
As for how long heat can be retained by water
As you may recall, an earlier post called into doubt the AGW due to the possibility that heat cannot be retained so that it may build up.
To answer that question definitively, an easy experiment can be setup. Like the GEICO commercial said, "even a caveman can do it." Bwah, hah, hah
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is said. Which is believable, but what does that mean if it cannot hold heat for longer than a night? It can't, and we shall see why.
Definition
One BTU is the measurement for the amount of heat required to heat up one pound of water one degree Farenheit.
Given
One square foot of surface area is subjected to 100 watts of energy from the Sun for at most 12 hours per day on the average. Since the discussion is about the entire Earth, only 1/2 of it can be in the Sun at one time.
Therefore, at most, each square foot can deliver so many BTU a day. Since a BTU equals 1055 joules, and 100 watts for 12 hours equals 1.2 kwh, and 1 kwh equals 3.6 million joules, we can calculate the following:
(3.6e6x1.2)/1.055e3 equals 4095 BTU rounded.
A gallon of water weighs UK imp = 10 lbs rounded. Obviously, more water is needed. With 10 gallons of water, you can use the equivalent energy from sunlight on 1 square foot to raise its temperature from 39 Farenheit to about 80 Farenheit. Assuming air temperature then of about 39 deg F, then do you believe that if left for 12 hours, that the water will retain any of that heat? I DON'T.
Not to worry about the water amount being too much. Three quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by water, and it is well over an average of a thousand feet deep. Given that a cubic foot holds about 7 gallons of water, the world has plenty of water on its surface. The land isn't useful for trapping heat. It quickly radiates away.
The reason I don't believe water will retain the heat is through experience. When I was a kid, I liked to hang around swimming pools. I liked it so much that I would spend entire days down at the pool. In the morning, the water was COLD. In the late night hours, the water was very WARM, nearly HOT. So, over the night hours, the water lost all of its heat.
It can be tested and confirmed experimentally. Just heat up a bucket of water and watch it get back to room temperature. It will before 12 hours have passed. You can heat it up at night and check on it in the morning.
I'm sure it will be at room temperature in the morning.
The point? Gases cannot retain heat as well as water and if water cannot hold heat for 12 hours, then how can there be any such thing as a Greenhouse Effect?
If I am wrong, then I'll admit it freely.
Is there any way to do this experiment?
Maybe. You can assume that the stove top is about 1000 watts. If you can keep all the numbers in the proper proportion, the proof should not be too hard to obtain.
Let's say you can calculate temperature loss per hour in BTU. Heat up a pound of water to boiling. From 72 F to 212 F is 140 degrees. That's 140 BTU. If it takes 7 hours to return to room temperature, then it loses 20 BTU per hour.
In the above opening paragraphs, the number needed would be 4095/12. That 341 BTU per hour needed. Seventeen pounds of water would do it, but maybe we want to compress time. If 140 BTU raises a pound to boiling point, then if it cools in 140/341 hours ( 25 min) , then we have a proof! My hunch is that it would take longer to cool.
Gonna try it! Bwah, hah, hah!
Update:
By golly, by gosh, I did it. I placed about a pound of water into a pan and boiled it. Then I began measuring how fast it cooled off. After 25 minutes, it cooled to 105 Farenheit. That's a lot of cooling. I was right in that it took longer than 25 minutes to cool down to room temp. It's now over 40 minutes and I think I will take the temperature again.
Update:
Took the temperature at 45 minutes. I'd say it was close to room temperature. Surely, by an hour it would definitely be at room temperature.
Back to the pool example: Now, if the average pool depth is 5 feet, and if you assume a column of water one square foot extending from the surface to the floor, that would give an mass of approx 300 lbs of water in that column. Thus, 4095/300 gives 13.65 degree of heating. That makes sense. Houston's low temperatures in summer is about 75 degree or a bit higher. If it heats up nearly 14 degrees, then it is nearly 90 degrees. That would feel pretty warm, or maybe hotter than you would like if you wanted to cool off from a hot day.
Conclusion: I think this little experiment casts doubt on Greenhouse Theory itself. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't one, because it isn't even possible for there to be one. In other words, it doesn't make any difference what you do to the atmosphere--- it cannot hold heat long enough in order to accumulate, and thus to raise temperatures.
To answer that question definitively, an easy experiment can be setup. Like the GEICO commercial said, "even a caveman can do it." Bwah, hah, hah
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is said. Which is believable, but what does that mean if it cannot hold heat for longer than a night? It can't, and we shall see why.
Definition
One BTU is the measurement for the amount of heat required to heat up one pound of water one degree Farenheit.
Given
One square foot of surface area is subjected to 100 watts of energy from the Sun for at most 12 hours per day on the average. Since the discussion is about the entire Earth, only 1/2 of it can be in the Sun at one time.
Therefore, at most, each square foot can deliver so many BTU a day. Since a BTU equals 1055 joules, and 100 watts for 12 hours equals 1.2 kwh, and 1 kwh equals 3.6 million joules, we can calculate the following:
(3.6e6x1.2)/1.055e3 equals 4095 BTU rounded.
A gallon of water weighs UK imp = 10 lbs rounded. Obviously, more water is needed. With 10 gallons of water, you can use the equivalent energy from sunlight on 1 square foot to raise its temperature from 39 Farenheit to about 80 Farenheit. Assuming air temperature then of about 39 deg F, then do you believe that if left for 12 hours, that the water will retain any of that heat? I DON'T.
Not to worry about the water amount being too much. Three quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by water, and it is well over an average of a thousand feet deep. Given that a cubic foot holds about 7 gallons of water, the world has plenty of water on its surface. The land isn't useful for trapping heat. It quickly radiates away.
The reason I don't believe water will retain the heat is through experience. When I was a kid, I liked to hang around swimming pools. I liked it so much that I would spend entire days down at the pool. In the morning, the water was COLD. In the late night hours, the water was very WARM, nearly HOT. So, over the night hours, the water lost all of its heat.
It can be tested and confirmed experimentally. Just heat up a bucket of water and watch it get back to room temperature. It will before 12 hours have passed. You can heat it up at night and check on it in the morning.
I'm sure it will be at room temperature in the morning.
The point? Gases cannot retain heat as well as water and if water cannot hold heat for 12 hours, then how can there be any such thing as a Greenhouse Effect?
If I am wrong, then I'll admit it freely.
Is there any way to do this experiment?
Maybe. You can assume that the stove top is about 1000 watts. If you can keep all the numbers in the proper proportion, the proof should not be too hard to obtain.
Let's say you can calculate temperature loss per hour in BTU. Heat up a pound of water to boiling. From 72 F to 212 F is 140 degrees. That's 140 BTU. If it takes 7 hours to return to room temperature, then it loses 20 BTU per hour.
In the above opening paragraphs, the number needed would be 4095/12. That 341 BTU per hour needed. Seventeen pounds of water would do it, but maybe we want to compress time. If 140 BTU raises a pound to boiling point, then if it cools in 140/341 hours ( 25 min) , then we have a proof! My hunch is that it would take longer to cool.
Gonna try it! Bwah, hah, hah!
Update:
By golly, by gosh, I did it. I placed about a pound of water into a pan and boiled it. Then I began measuring how fast it cooled off. After 25 minutes, it cooled to 105 Farenheit. That's a lot of cooling. I was right in that it took longer than 25 minutes to cool down to room temp. It's now over 40 minutes and I think I will take the temperature again.
Update:
Took the temperature at 45 minutes. I'd say it was close to room temperature. Surely, by an hour it would definitely be at room temperature.
Back to the pool example: Now, if the average pool depth is 5 feet, and if you assume a column of water one square foot extending from the surface to the floor, that would give an mass of approx 300 lbs of water in that column. Thus, 4095/300 gives 13.65 degree of heating. That makes sense. Houston's low temperatures in summer is about 75 degree or a bit higher. If it heats up nearly 14 degrees, then it is nearly 90 degrees. That would feel pretty warm, or maybe hotter than you would like if you wanted to cool off from a hot day.
Conclusion: I think this little experiment casts doubt on Greenhouse Theory itself. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't one, because it isn't even possible for there to be one. In other words, it doesn't make any difference what you do to the atmosphere--- it cannot hold heat long enough in order to accumulate, and thus to raise temperatures.
Obligatory, 8/1/15
Ah, a new month.
A little disappointment this morning. I was hoping to feel better than this. Well, at least it isn't worse.
Also, regrets for the late start. As usual, though, I've been thinking. Maybe you won't believe this, but I thought up another argument against AGW. AGW has become my whipping boy, ha ha. I do enjoy it so, bwah, hah, hah. ( my evil laugh. BTW a girl at work said I had an evil laugh. That's my representation of it. Bwah, hah, hah!)
More on that argument later today.
A little disappointment this morning. I was hoping to feel better than this. Well, at least it isn't worse.
Also, regrets for the late start. As usual, though, I've been thinking. Maybe you won't believe this, but I thought up another argument against AGW. AGW has become my whipping boy, ha ha. I do enjoy it so, bwah, hah, hah. ( my evil laugh. BTW a girl at work said I had an evil laugh. That's my representation of it. Bwah, hah, hah!)
More on that argument later today.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Analysis of Polywell videos
Three of them. They were made shortly after Bussard's death in 2007.
I put them up to confirm what I remembered about the electron losses being a problem.
Update:
You could adapt this idea written up on Next Big Future earlier this year. It involves using lasers to move spacecraft. Now, if you can move spacecraft with a laser, surely you can confine electrons?
A micronewton is a lot more force than you need, and it uses ( presumably on 1.7 W), so it won't thermalize the polywell.
Update:
Some readings confirm that you can move electrons with a laser beam, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it can be done in this context. I'd love to fool around with it, but can't. My project is a lot more modest.
I put them up to confirm what I remembered about the electron losses being a problem.
 |
| Bussard's Polywell Device: The electron cloud is the star shaped mass in the center. What I suggest is to fire a laser beam into the cloud in order to help confinement of the electrons. Electron losses are a major hurdle to overcome in making the machine net energy. |
You could adapt this idea written up on Next Big Future earlier this year. It involves using lasers to move spacecraft. Now, if you can move spacecraft with a laser, surely you can confine electrons?
Dr. Y.K. Bae demonstrated a Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) built from off-the-shelf optical components and a YAG gain medium, and the maximum amplified photon thrust achieved was 35 µN for a laser output of 1.7 W with the use of a HR mirror with a 0.99967 reflectance.--- Next Big Future articleElectrons have 1/2000th ( approx ) the mass of a neutron or proton. The big Tokomaks are trying to confine particles even more massive than mere protons.
A micronewton is a lot more force than you need, and it uses ( presumably on 1.7 W), so it won't thermalize the polywell.
Update:
Some readings confirm that you can move electrons with a laser beam, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it can be done in this context. I'd love to fool around with it, but can't. My project is a lot more modest.
With respect to the energy issue..
Listening once again to the Space Show broadcast with Moynihan, which I didn't finish yesterday. I got a little further into it, and I think the reason I stopped is that he starts talking "climate change", and that was it for me.
Keep in mind that fusion research is trying to get to the point that molten-salt reactor tech was 40 years ago. These folks like to say that everybody is looking for a new energy source, but they keeping overlooking something that was proven in the lab. Why not implement that?
I'm all for fusion, don't get me wrong. But fusion is hard. Fission is doable now. The problems with fission are manageable, but people are convinced for some reason that the problems aren't manageable.
As long as that capability is available, it should be used, while at the same time, new capabilities can be developed. The environmentalists are against everything. Even solar and wind. There isn't anything out there that will please everybody. But if the enviros win, everybody loses. You cannot run a modern society with what they propose. That's the point, the deep enviros don't want modern tech; because in their view, modern tech causes more problems than it solves.
That kind of thinking assumes that the world before the industrial revolution was a bowl of cherries and that everybody was living in harmony with nature. That's a lot of wishful thinking. Environmental degradation can occur with animal species. It isn't unique to mankind.
Humans are defined by technology. Even chimps use a type of technology to fish for termites. Just because humans are better at tech doesn't mean it should stop. Otherwise, you have to wipe out all intelligent life forms---even the great apes. Now if you did that, what could be the guarantee that another life form couldn't arise and do what humans are doing?
Isn't it better to keep improving tech as opposed to throwing it out the window?
Keep in mind that fusion research is trying to get to the point that molten-salt reactor tech was 40 years ago. These folks like to say that everybody is looking for a new energy source, but they keeping overlooking something that was proven in the lab. Why not implement that?
I'm all for fusion, don't get me wrong. But fusion is hard. Fission is doable now. The problems with fission are manageable, but people are convinced for some reason that the problems aren't manageable.
As long as that capability is available, it should be used, while at the same time, new capabilities can be developed. The environmentalists are against everything. Even solar and wind. There isn't anything out there that will please everybody. But if the enviros win, everybody loses. You cannot run a modern society with what they propose. That's the point, the deep enviros don't want modern tech; because in their view, modern tech causes more problems than it solves.
That kind of thinking assumes that the world before the industrial revolution was a bowl of cherries and that everybody was living in harmony with nature. That's a lot of wishful thinking. Environmental degradation can occur with animal species. It isn't unique to mankind.
Humans are defined by technology. Even chimps use a type of technology to fish for termites. Just because humans are better at tech doesn't mean it should stop. Otherwise, you have to wipe out all intelligent life forms---even the great apes. Now if you did that, what could be the guarantee that another life form couldn't arise and do what humans are doing?
Isn't it better to keep improving tech as opposed to throwing it out the window?
People must like noise, not peace and quiet
That's because it's the thing that gets rewarded. Make a lot of noise and you get attention. You get the clicks. You get the pageviews. You get good ratings.
But try to bring some order out of the chaos and its yawning time. Who wants that? It's boring.
Everything in life isn't about being entertained. Sometimes you have to take things a bit seriously. Maybe not all of the time, but at some of the time.
Babies need to be entertained all the time. Adults don't have that luxury.
Grow up. Dammit.
But try to bring some order out of the chaos and its yawning time. Who wants that? It's boring.
Everything in life isn't about being entertained. Sometimes you have to take things a bit seriously. Maybe not all of the time, but at some of the time.
Babies need to be entertained all the time. Adults don't have that luxury.
Grow up. Dammit.
Is it possible to agree upon something?
Polls have consistently showed that the public believes this country is on the wrong track. Is it possible to agree on that? Or does that fact go out the window, too?
Can everybody agree that facts matter anymore? If facts don't matter anymore, then what does?
Obama says he thinks he could win a third term. It amazes me that he could think that, much less say it. Why would someone who cannot turn that poll around have the gall to think that he could win, and even more gall to actually say that he could win?
If you cannot make agreements about anything, how can you move forward? Things must fall apart. There must be a way to start finding ways to get agreements or that's all she wrote as far as this country is concerned. If there's no agreement on even the most fundamental things, how is that sustainable.?
Can everybody agree that facts matter anymore? If facts don't matter anymore, then what does?
Obama says he thinks he could win a third term. It amazes me that he could think that, much less say it. Why would someone who cannot turn that poll around have the gall to think that he could win, and even more gall to actually say that he could win?
If you cannot make agreements about anything, how can you move forward? Things must fall apart. There must be a way to start finding ways to get agreements or that's all she wrote as far as this country is concerned. If there's no agreement on even the most fundamental things, how is that sustainable.?
Obligatory, 7/31/15
On the medical front, no news is good news. If it isn't getting worse, it may be getting better. Sorry to have to be so vague, but it is an attitude thing. No need to say every doggone thing going on, ya know? I'm a private person. Yet, I'm running a blog, which isn't exactly private. It's a fine line, I suppose.
The thing on my mind, besides health, is this societal malaise we're in. More on that later today. It may be the theme of the day. Or for a few posts anyway.
This blog has always been about finding solutions. But it is also about being realistic. Sometimes there isn't a solution. When that is the case, good things can't happen. Know what I'm saying?
The thing on my mind, besides health, is this societal malaise we're in. More on that later today. It may be the theme of the day. Or for a few posts anyway.
This blog has always been about finding solutions. But it is also about being realistic. Sometimes there isn't a solution. When that is the case, good things can't happen. Know what I'm saying?
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Fusion ideas
Matthew Moynihan was on the Space Show on May 26th of this year. He discussed Polywell future, which is of interest to me. The show prompted me to think about means by which fusion might be obtained.
One thing I liked about Polywell was that it aims to confine electrons as opposed to much heavier protons or deuterons. This makes the prospect much more feasible ( or just much smaller ) than a Tokomak device, like the ITER.
Now, my memory is hazy, so this show be taken as a speculation alert. One of the problems with Polywell is the loss of electrons, if memory serves. The idea occurred to me, why not compress the electrons with a laser device? Is that feasible?
Considering that lasers will give off light pressure, which can move objects like a spacecraft, it seems feasible to me that it could be used to confine electrons. Indeed, it may well be what is being attempted with the National Ignition Facility (NIF), but with the much heavier ions mentioned. Since the mass of electrons is 3 orders of magnitude smaller, then a much more modest amount of laser power than what is being used at the NIF could confine the electrons instead. It could confine them within the "wiffle ball" construction of the Polywell. Other than the addition of a laser, the Polywell could work the same way it does now. The advantage, if it works, would be much more efficient confinement of the electrons and possibly net energy production.
One thing I liked about Polywell was that it aims to confine electrons as opposed to much heavier protons or deuterons. This makes the prospect much more feasible ( or just much smaller ) than a Tokomak device, like the ITER.
Now, my memory is hazy, so this show be taken as a speculation alert. One of the problems with Polywell is the loss of electrons, if memory serves. The idea occurred to me, why not compress the electrons with a laser device? Is that feasible?
Considering that lasers will give off light pressure, which can move objects like a spacecraft, it seems feasible to me that it could be used to confine electrons. Indeed, it may well be what is being attempted with the National Ignition Facility (NIF), but with the much heavier ions mentioned. Since the mass of electrons is 3 orders of magnitude smaller, then a much more modest amount of laser power than what is being used at the NIF could confine the electrons instead. It could confine them within the "wiffle ball" construction of the Polywell. Other than the addition of a laser, the Polywell could work the same way it does now. The advantage, if it works, would be much more efficient confinement of the electrons and possibly net energy production.
Love of Money...the root of all evil
There was a guy at work who died recently. A black man, whose name was Jerome. I'll use his real name, even though it is against my policy, because he probably won't mind.
Jerome liked to say that "it's a white man's world, and I'm just trying to live in it." Once upon a time, I told him something I thought was hard-hitting. This was several years ago, long before I started this blog. I told him that--- the dumbest crime you could commit would be to rob a bank. That's because the solution rate of that crime was nearly 80%. If you were to kill somebody, your chances were a lot better. That shows where our society's priorities are.... Yeah.
If Jerome was alive to day, I would add that the new slave master is money. You work for money, money doesn't work for you. That's what's wrong with it. It is a good bet that almost everything that has gone wrong in this society is wrapped up in the fact that people put too high a value upon the acquisition of money.
Should we all be poor then? No. But a proper sense of values would put money on down the scale. If society cares more about money than people, what kind of society is that?
Jerome liked to say that "it's a white man's world, and I'm just trying to live in it." Once upon a time, I told him something I thought was hard-hitting. This was several years ago, long before I started this blog. I told him that--- the dumbest crime you could commit would be to rob a bank. That's because the solution rate of that crime was nearly 80%. If you were to kill somebody, your chances were a lot better. That shows where our society's priorities are.... Yeah.
If Jerome was alive to day, I would add that the new slave master is money. You work for money, money doesn't work for you. That's what's wrong with it. It is a good bet that almost everything that has gone wrong in this society is wrapped up in the fact that people put too high a value upon the acquisition of money.
Should we all be poor then? No. But a proper sense of values would put money on down the scale. If society cares more about money than people, what kind of society is that?
Question answered in Wikipedia...
...article. The question is: How much radiative cooling takes place at night?
The answer: Nobody knows!
The models all assume that heat cannot escape. That's a big hole their models. You cannot ignore the time factor.
More reading uncovered that the heating that is not being found is finding its way into the oceans. I'm skeptical of that for the same reason. How long can the oceans trap the heat? I'm thinking it is in hours, not days. Therefore, it cannot build up.
Besides that are the Gas Laws. How can the oceans trap the excess heat when the atmosphere tends to reject heat away from the surface by expanding when heated? There is no plausible explanation for why the atmosphere would send heat back down to the surface. It is the other way around.
Update:
The thought just now occurred to me that if they do not know how much cooling takes place at night, then how do they know how much occurs in the day? Maybe because they've concentrated upon that only? Isn't that what you call an oversight? Could that not lead someone to doubt that you really know what you are talking about?
By the way, I googled the answer to that question before I wrote this piece. I wanted to know how much came out and how much was absorbed. I got an answer, but forgot how I found it, drat it. It may be about half is absorbed. Okay, that's daylight. If there's no daylight at night, then the other half is lost meaning no net absorption!
But that may not be justified. Nevertheless, I think they've got a hole in their theory that's big enough for a tractor trailer to go through.
The answer: Nobody knows!
The models all assume that heat cannot escape. That's a big hole their models. You cannot ignore the time factor.
More reading uncovered that the heating that is not being found is finding its way into the oceans. I'm skeptical of that for the same reason. How long can the oceans trap the heat? I'm thinking it is in hours, not days. Therefore, it cannot build up.
Besides that are the Gas Laws. How can the oceans trap the excess heat when the atmosphere tends to reject heat away from the surface by expanding when heated? There is no plausible explanation for why the atmosphere would send heat back down to the surface. It is the other way around.
Update:
The thought just now occurred to me that if they do not know how much cooling takes place at night, then how do they know how much occurs in the day? Maybe because they've concentrated upon that only? Isn't that what you call an oversight? Could that not lead someone to doubt that you really know what you are talking about?
By the way, I googled the answer to that question before I wrote this piece. I wanted to know how much came out and how much was absorbed. I got an answer, but forgot how I found it, drat it. It may be about half is absorbed. Okay, that's daylight. If there's no daylight at night, then the other half is lost meaning no net absorption!
But that may not be justified. Nevertheless, I think they've got a hole in their theory that's big enough for a tractor trailer to go through.
Man Made Global Warming: Are you kidding me?
This one is really like that line from the comedian Richard Pryor. Who are going to believe me, or your lying eyes?
What makes people believe in AGW Theory ( Anthropogenic Global Warming )? The only argument is an argument from authority. The climate scientists are the authority and they say it is happening, and since they know more than anybody else knows on the subject, we have to defer to them. If you don't defer to them, the question will be directed at you--- "who do you think you are?"
But you don't have to be a climate scientist to understand that this is a very improbable thing that they are proposing. I've written several posts on the subject, in which I express my skepticism on the theory. Funny thing, I just keep coming up with more reasons to doubt it, rather than fewer.
That's what I want to write about with this post. It seems like another killer argument to me. But since I'm not a PHD in climate science, it may well get dismissed as the ramblings of a numskull. So be it. However, what I tend to say is pretty straightforward and simple. I don't think it requires anything more than a high school education to understand it.
Perhaps I'm underestimating the understanding required. Maybe a high school graduate would have trouble with it. All I know is that when I was in high school, we studied Ideal Gas Laws, so that shouldn't be too hard to grasp.
This one isn't about the Gas Laws. It is just common sense. That's why I wrote the title the way I did.
Now the thought is this: If the AGW theorists want you to believe this, they should be able to show that the heat they claim is being trapped by the carbon dioxide should persist in the environment for more than one day. Now, that's not too hard is it? After all, the energy has to come from somewhere. If the usual amount of energy from the sun hits the Earth each day, the same amount must be radiated out each day for there to be equilibrium. However, if it is not radiated out, it will accumulate like in a piggy bank. What they are claiming therefore, is that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing heat to accumulate in the atmosphere.
That's where Richard Pryor comes into my thinking. The heat won't last that long. Not even close.
Look, if you go to a swimming pool on a summer day, you'll notice that the water is cold in the morning, but hot in the late afternoon and early evening. The water accumulates the heat, and keeps it there until after sundown. But if water can't keep it for more than a day, then the air won't.
Desert nights are cooler than coastal nights like here in Houston. Check out some temperature readings to confirm this. Why is this? The influence of water. But if water will not retain it in a pool, the atmosphere will not either.
This especially true when you consider the Gas Laws and the other things I wrote.
It's bunk. Believe your own eyes and your own thinking. Don't blindly trust an authority because he just may be wrong for any number of reasons.
What makes people believe in AGW Theory ( Anthropogenic Global Warming )? The only argument is an argument from authority. The climate scientists are the authority and they say it is happening, and since they know more than anybody else knows on the subject, we have to defer to them. If you don't defer to them, the question will be directed at you--- "who do you think you are?"
But you don't have to be a climate scientist to understand that this is a very improbable thing that they are proposing. I've written several posts on the subject, in which I express my skepticism on the theory. Funny thing, I just keep coming up with more reasons to doubt it, rather than fewer.
That's what I want to write about with this post. It seems like another killer argument to me. But since I'm not a PHD in climate science, it may well get dismissed as the ramblings of a numskull. So be it. However, what I tend to say is pretty straightforward and simple. I don't think it requires anything more than a high school education to understand it.
Perhaps I'm underestimating the understanding required. Maybe a high school graduate would have trouble with it. All I know is that when I was in high school, we studied Ideal Gas Laws, so that shouldn't be too hard to grasp.
This one isn't about the Gas Laws. It is just common sense. That's why I wrote the title the way I did.
Now the thought is this: If the AGW theorists want you to believe this, they should be able to show that the heat they claim is being trapped by the carbon dioxide should persist in the environment for more than one day. Now, that's not too hard is it? After all, the energy has to come from somewhere. If the usual amount of energy from the sun hits the Earth each day, the same amount must be radiated out each day for there to be equilibrium. However, if it is not radiated out, it will accumulate like in a piggy bank. What they are claiming therefore, is that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing heat to accumulate in the atmosphere.
That's where Richard Pryor comes into my thinking. The heat won't last that long. Not even close.
Look, if you go to a swimming pool on a summer day, you'll notice that the water is cold in the morning, but hot in the late afternoon and early evening. The water accumulates the heat, and keeps it there until after sundown. But if water can't keep it for more than a day, then the air won't.
Desert nights are cooler than coastal nights like here in Houston. Check out some temperature readings to confirm this. Why is this? The influence of water. But if water will not retain it in a pool, the atmosphere will not either.
This especially true when you consider the Gas Laws and the other things I wrote.
It's bunk. Believe your own eyes and your own thinking. Don't blindly trust an authority because he just may be wrong for any number of reasons.
Obligatory, 7/30/15
No posts so far this morning. Sorry about that. But I've been thinking, and I'll write something about what I've been thinking, so there.
I'm still not working, and frankly this isn't looking good. I was hoping that time off would help, but it isn't improving. If anything, things may be getting worse. Therefore, I have to consider the possibility of a doctor visit, which I'd rather not do. Why? It means tests, but even more important than that, it could mean that there is something serious here. But not going to a doctor doesn't change that fact, does it? Yeah, I know. Denial doesn't do any good, and could do a lot of harm.
Still hoping though that things will get better soon, but that hope is fading.
I'm still not working, and frankly this isn't looking good. I was hoping that time off would help, but it isn't improving. If anything, things may be getting worse. Therefore, I have to consider the possibility of a doctor visit, which I'd rather not do. Why? It means tests, but even more important than that, it could mean that there is something serious here. But not going to a doctor doesn't change that fact, does it? Yeah, I know. Denial doesn't do any good, and could do a lot of harm.
Still hoping though that things will get better soon, but that hope is fading.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Hypothetical situation
Just fer grins.
Let's say you believe in something. But this in conflict with your society. Would you give that up in order to save yourself?
Putting it another way: Let's say you saw something. You tell everyone you know, but they don't believe you. In fact, not only do they not believe you, they threaten your life if you keep saying it. Would you stop in order to save yourself?
I know what this may sound like, and if you guess, you are probably right.
I don't wanna specify what it is that you believe or saw. Let it be anything. Oh what the heck, it could be global warming. Maybe something convinced you so thoroughly that it was really a major threat, but the society said "no dice, and shut the bleep up, or you're dead". Do you shut up, or do you keep talking it up?
What does this exercise do? Like any exercise, only what you put into it. If you can really imagine a scenario in which to believe or to say a thing might get you killed, do you let that dictate what you say or believe?
That may be an exercise you oughta practice, because you may need it someday.
Let's say you believe in something. But this in conflict with your society. Would you give that up in order to save yourself?
Putting it another way: Let's say you saw something. You tell everyone you know, but they don't believe you. In fact, not only do they not believe you, they threaten your life if you keep saying it. Would you stop in order to save yourself?
I know what this may sound like, and if you guess, you are probably right.
I don't wanna specify what it is that you believe or saw. Let it be anything. Oh what the heck, it could be global warming. Maybe something convinced you so thoroughly that it was really a major threat, but the society said "no dice, and shut the bleep up, or you're dead". Do you shut up, or do you keep talking it up?
What does this exercise do? Like any exercise, only what you put into it. If you can really imagine a scenario in which to believe or to say a thing might get you killed, do you let that dictate what you say or believe?
That may be an exercise you oughta practice, because you may need it someday.
Iran Nuke Deal
Well, I started to listen to the analysis of the deal, but couldn't take it for very long.
On the core of the matter, the impression I got is that they only delayed the Iranians a bit at best. They could have done the same thing by keeping the sanctions. In other words, the deal was more important than what they actually accomplished with a deal. Got that? They just want to say that they got a deal, never mind that the deal isn't any good. In exchange, the Iranians get a lot of advantages that they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten without a deal. Let's put it another way: Obama gave away the store for a song.
I can't believe people actually would support this even as a matter of party loyalty, but I suspect that this is what is going to happen. They have already set it up that way in Congress. The GOP only wants the issue to dangle before their voters and maybe some people on the other side. Obama gets to say he has accomplished something of value and they Democrats can try to run on that. Anybody who disagrees is just a Neaderthal or party hack.
At some point, the fact that you are destroying the country ought to have some restraint upon you, but people don't seem to care. It's their tribe that counts.
Update:
I read a friendly analysis of the deal ( in the Atlantic, I think ). What they like to say is "what do you propose?" Well, that was decided years ago when Obama was first elected. Obama's election was a repudiation of Bush, and that is what has brought us to this point.
If Bush's policies had been continued, it may have been possible to overturn the regime in Iran. It may have been possible to do this without war.
In any case, if Iran would not negotiate, we could have continued to tighten the sanctions. If necessary, we could have done some military strikes to take out their capabilities and delay it for awhile. In the meantime, we also could have developed missile defense.
The left is absolutely assured that the only way to do things is their way. But what happens when it doesn't work?
On the core of the matter, the impression I got is that they only delayed the Iranians a bit at best. They could have done the same thing by keeping the sanctions. In other words, the deal was more important than what they actually accomplished with a deal. Got that? They just want to say that they got a deal, never mind that the deal isn't any good. In exchange, the Iranians get a lot of advantages that they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten without a deal. Let's put it another way: Obama gave away the store for a song.
I can't believe people actually would support this even as a matter of party loyalty, but I suspect that this is what is going to happen. They have already set it up that way in Congress. The GOP only wants the issue to dangle before their voters and maybe some people on the other side. Obama gets to say he has accomplished something of value and they Democrats can try to run on that. Anybody who disagrees is just a Neaderthal or party hack.
At some point, the fact that you are destroying the country ought to have some restraint upon you, but people don't seem to care. It's their tribe that counts.
Update:
I read a friendly analysis of the deal ( in the Atlantic, I think ). What they like to say is "what do you propose?" Well, that was decided years ago when Obama was first elected. Obama's election was a repudiation of Bush, and that is what has brought us to this point.
If Bush's policies had been continued, it may have been possible to overturn the regime in Iran. It may have been possible to do this without war.
In any case, if Iran would not negotiate, we could have continued to tighten the sanctions. If necessary, we could have done some military strikes to take out their capabilities and delay it for awhile. In the meantime, we also could have developed missile defense.
The left is absolutely assured that the only way to do things is their way. But what happens when it doesn't work?
Trump and Hannity
Nothing I see yet makes Trump to be the fire breathing monster that they are making him out to be.
If there's anything that worries me a bit is that he seems to think that winning trade deals is going to be good enough to restore prosperity here. Maybe it does, but I think that trade alone won't do it.
Other countries can protect their interests too. What then? War?
You have to innovate your way out of this. You have to be smarter than your competition. The trade part will take care of itself.
For instance, fracking made the US more competitive. This is a foretaste of what we could expect if innovative ways of making energy are ramped up, like molten-salt reactors. American products could have a cost advantage that it isn't available today. Besides, China is developing molten-salt reactors. If America doesn't, there goes a potential advantage right out the window. Molten-salt reactor technology promises to be cheaper than coal. Coal is currently the cheapest.
Windmills and solar panels aren't good enough, nor promise to ever be. To depend on these for the future is folly.
If there's anything that worries me a bit is that he seems to think that winning trade deals is going to be good enough to restore prosperity here. Maybe it does, but I think that trade alone won't do it.
Other countries can protect their interests too. What then? War?
You have to innovate your way out of this. You have to be smarter than your competition. The trade part will take care of itself.
For instance, fracking made the US more competitive. This is a foretaste of what we could expect if innovative ways of making energy are ramped up, like molten-salt reactors. American products could have a cost advantage that it isn't available today. Besides, China is developing molten-salt reactors. If America doesn't, there goes a potential advantage right out the window. Molten-salt reactor technology promises to be cheaper than coal. Coal is currently the cheapest.
Windmills and solar panels aren't good enough, nor promise to ever be. To depend on these for the future is folly.
Question: Does Man-made Global Warming Theory Violate Thermodyamics?
That is, is the gas ( carbon dioxide ) going to behave substantially different than what oxygen does? For that is what the warmists are proposing---that carbon dioxide really behaves differently than an ideal gas.
There are deviations in real gases ( as opposed to ideal gas law ), but these don't matter much at normal temperatures and pressures. These are the temperatures and pressures that you would encounter in an atmosphere like the Earth's. The differences in temperature and pressure would have to be much greater than you would ever encounter on Earth. So, carbon dioxide would have to act pretty much like what it replaces---oxygen.
In other words, in order for global warming theory to be true, carbon dioxide would have to deviate substantially from the ideal gas law. Since this unlikely, or more accurately, most likely an impossibility, I'm going to guess that it does violate Thermodynamics. In other words, Man Made Global Warming Theory is bunk.
There are deviations in real gases ( as opposed to ideal gas law ), but these don't matter much at normal temperatures and pressures. These are the temperatures and pressures that you would encounter in an atmosphere like the Earth's. The differences in temperature and pressure would have to be much greater than you would ever encounter on Earth. So, carbon dioxide would have to act pretty much like what it replaces---oxygen.
In other words, in order for global warming theory to be true, carbon dioxide would have to deviate substantially from the ideal gas law. Since this unlikely, or more accurately, most likely an impossibility, I'm going to guess that it does violate Thermodynamics. In other words, Man Made Global Warming Theory is bunk.
Couple of items I found on Trump
One of them is that he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. That's good.
Two is that he has someone in his entourage that has given him a major PR black eye. That's not good.
The best selling point for Trump is competence and the guy ( Cohen ) doesn't look competent.
Cohen also said something that lends support that Trump may not be a "nice" man. I'm not so interested in the "nice" part, but whether or not what he says is true. Cohen flubbed this one, so the other just looks that much worse. In other words, did Trump get ahead by being an asshole, or by being the best at what he does? The answer to that question is what is important.
Final point here is this: where was all this vetting with respect to Obama? I never seen such a cover up of a candidate's weak points than with that guy. We're six year into this guy, and they are still doing it. That's why one may get desperate and nominate a guy like Trump. The others just aren't tough enough to go against that machine.
Two is that he has someone in his entourage that has given him a major PR black eye. That's not good.
The best selling point for Trump is competence and the guy ( Cohen ) doesn't look competent.
Cohen also said something that lends support that Trump may not be a "nice" man. I'm not so interested in the "nice" part, but whether or not what he says is true. Cohen flubbed this one, so the other just looks that much worse. In other words, did Trump get ahead by being an asshole, or by being the best at what he does? The answer to that question is what is important.
Final point here is this: where was all this vetting with respect to Obama? I never seen such a cover up of a candidate's weak points than with that guy. We're six year into this guy, and they are still doing it. That's why one may get desperate and nominate a guy like Trump. The others just aren't tough enough to go against that machine.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Angelo Codevilla's Take on Trump
Rush Limbaugh dot com
Won't go into who Codevilla is. Look it up.
Codevilla isn't sure that Trump's the answer. Neither am I, but one thing I am sure of, is that he could be if he wanted to be.
Trump is leading in New Hampshire and is second in Iowa. If he wins both, he is the favorite to win the nomination. That's the history of the nomination process---who does best in the early ones tend to win. Unless something happens that changes all that, if he wins both, he's likely to be the nominee.
Won't go into who Codevilla is. Look it up.
Codevilla isn't sure that Trump's the answer. Neither am I, but one thing I am sure of, is that he could be if he wanted to be.
Trump is leading in New Hampshire and is second in Iowa. If he wins both, he is the favorite to win the nomination. That's the history of the nomination process---who does best in the early ones tend to win. Unless something happens that changes all that, if he wins both, he's likely to be the nominee.
See the world’s oldest organisms
Llareta of the Atacama Desert
Very interesting plant. It came to my attention while writing about the man-made global warming claims that are hyped over and over again by the left. What I was attempting to get at was that water is more important to the Greenhouse Effect than carbon dioxide. Without the oceans, there would be much less of a Greenhouse Effect on Earth. The Earth would resemble the Atacama Desert, with extremes in temperature.
This plant is densely packed in order to retain heat during the cold Atacama Desert nights. It is so dense that a human can stand on top of it and be supported by the densely packed leaves. The density keeps in the warmth, as you might expect.
I'd be interested in growing this plant on da Ranch if I can get some specimens of it. I'd like to grow it around the place in order to walk upon it instead of walking upon the dirt. Why not grass? Good question. This stuff can exist in very dry areas, however. Grass would need more water.
Update:
An idea is to plant the llareta and grow it about 6 inches tall so that I can walk on it. It will absorb heat, but not radiate it out until night time, thus moderating temperatures.
In addition, it may be possible that this may create a temperature gradient that can be exploited by a windmill. The breeze will flow around it the same way that it would a small lake. A windmill can be setup nearby.
Update:
One more thing before I let this one go. Over 30 years ago, I was visiting my sister and her husband at their new apartment. There was a lake nearby, and the breeze came off the small lake ( or pond ), and that memory has remained with me all this time. The trouble with windmills is that you cannot depend upon them always because the wind doesn't always blow. Hence, the idea that I could force the issue and have wind blow when I wanted it to blow. This may not work the way I envision, but it is a thought. Just sayin'.
Very interesting plant. It came to my attention while writing about the man-made global warming claims that are hyped over and over again by the left. What I was attempting to get at was that water is more important to the Greenhouse Effect than carbon dioxide. Without the oceans, there would be much less of a Greenhouse Effect on Earth. The Earth would resemble the Atacama Desert, with extremes in temperature.
This plant is densely packed in order to retain heat during the cold Atacama Desert nights. It is so dense that a human can stand on top of it and be supported by the densely packed leaves. The density keeps in the warmth, as you might expect.
I'd be interested in growing this plant on da Ranch if I can get some specimens of it. I'd like to grow it around the place in order to walk upon it instead of walking upon the dirt. Why not grass? Good question. This stuff can exist in very dry areas, however. Grass would need more water.
 |
| Photo taken by Professor Bikey Bike, May 2002, on the slopes of Nevado Coropuna, Peru. |
Update:
An idea is to plant the llareta and grow it about 6 inches tall so that I can walk on it. It will absorb heat, but not radiate it out until night time, thus moderating temperatures.
In addition, it may be possible that this may create a temperature gradient that can be exploited by a windmill. The breeze will flow around it the same way that it would a small lake. A windmill can be setup nearby.
Update:
One more thing before I let this one go. Over 30 years ago, I was visiting my sister and her husband at their new apartment. There was a lake nearby, and the breeze came off the small lake ( or pond ), and that memory has remained with me all this time. The trouble with windmills is that you cannot depend upon them always because the wind doesn't always blow. Hence, the idea that I could force the issue and have wind blow when I wanted it to blow. This may not work the way I envision, but it is a thought. Just sayin'.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Once again, the man made global warmists fail, because they are making extraordinary claims, yet they cannot come up with extraordinary evidence in support of their claims.
It is an extraordinary claim to say that man made global warming can take place in spite of the fact that the gas laws show that it cannot come from the creation of carbon dioxide gas alone. In fact, the warmists don't seem to be making that claim, but make the claim that it is the property of carbon dioxide itself that makes it a threat.
But that too is extraordinary because so little of it is being produced. Sure, lots of carbon dioxide is being produced when it is in comparison with human scales, but on a global scale such as the case would be for the entire planetary system, the amount being produced by humans is insignificant to the extreme. Doubling the carbon dioxide concentration seems significant, but really isn't once you consider that the measurements are in parts per million. Hence, the claim that such a small amount of carbon dioxide in comparison to what already exists, and in comparison with the rest of the atmosphere, is an extraordinary claim.
Where's the evidence to support this claim? The claims they make are in dispute. They are far from extraordinary, they are in dispute. Even here, the dispute has to be ginned up in order to be a dispute at all. Numbers have to be adjusted in order to provide the warmists with any evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence that is required for their extraordinary claims.
It is an extraordinary claim to say that man made global warming can take place in spite of the fact that the gas laws show that it cannot come from the creation of carbon dioxide gas alone. In fact, the warmists don't seem to be making that claim, but make the claim that it is the property of carbon dioxide itself that makes it a threat.
But that too is extraordinary because so little of it is being produced. Sure, lots of carbon dioxide is being produced when it is in comparison with human scales, but on a global scale such as the case would be for the entire planetary system, the amount being produced by humans is insignificant to the extreme. Doubling the carbon dioxide concentration seems significant, but really isn't once you consider that the measurements are in parts per million. Hence, the claim that such a small amount of carbon dioxide in comparison to what already exists, and in comparison with the rest of the atmosphere, is an extraordinary claim.
Where's the evidence to support this claim? The claims they make are in dispute. They are far from extraordinary, they are in dispute. Even here, the dispute has to be ginned up in order to be a dispute at all. Numbers have to be adjusted in order to provide the warmists with any evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence that is required for their extraordinary claims.
More or less the point of the global warming propaganda
It is directed at ignorant people who can be easily deceived.
Once again, another common everyday device shows that the assertions made by the warmists are wrong.
Consider a diesel engine. There is a difference in how a diesel engine works versus the gasoline engine. A gasoline engine uses spark plugs, while the diesel engine doesn't require one. Instead of a spark plug, a glow plug is used for cold weather starts. Other than this, the diesel engine relies solely upon the compression of the air in order provide the heat necessary to combust the diesel fuel. The following video explains this:
Thus, it is shown that compression of air is what determines heat in a gas in this instance. Compression just means more air molecules in a given space.
The same is true in a global context. There is no enclosed structure, as in an engine. So, when the air is heated, it expands, as in the engine. The air in the atmosphere will expand and it will cool while it expands.
Hence, there can be no heat retention. It is only retained by heat transfer from an energy source. Since that source is the sun, it is constant, so there's nothing that's going to increase the heat in the system unless more gas is generated. As indicated in a prior post, this doesn't happen during combustion.
It is better to make examples like this to average people because it is easy to understand and makes it harder for the deceivers to fool the majority of people. Let's face it, not everybody is equal. Some folks just need to have things explained to them sufficiently, and they will get it.
Once again, another common everyday device shows that the assertions made by the warmists are wrong.
Consider a diesel engine. There is a difference in how a diesel engine works versus the gasoline engine. A gasoline engine uses spark plugs, while the diesel engine doesn't require one. Instead of a spark plug, a glow plug is used for cold weather starts. Other than this, the diesel engine relies solely upon the compression of the air in order provide the heat necessary to combust the diesel fuel. The following video explains this:
Thus, it is shown that compression of air is what determines heat in a gas in this instance. Compression just means more air molecules in a given space.
The same is true in a global context. There is no enclosed structure, as in an engine. So, when the air is heated, it expands, as in the engine. The air in the atmosphere will expand and it will cool while it expands.
Hence, there can be no heat retention. It is only retained by heat transfer from an energy source. Since that source is the sun, it is constant, so there's nothing that's going to increase the heat in the system unless more gas is generated. As indicated in a prior post, this doesn't happen during combustion.
It is better to make examples like this to average people because it is easy to understand and makes it harder for the deceivers to fool the majority of people. Let's face it, not everybody is equal. Some folks just need to have things explained to them sufficiently, and they will get it.
Further proof of my claim?
Why do fire pistons work? Same principle in the Gas Law just mentioned in a previous post. If the compression is 25 to 1, it will bring the temperature up to 800 Farenheit! Yep, it does make that much difference.
I was on the right track
In an earlier post about the man made global warming theory being false. It's all about the number of molecules, or moles of a gas. This will increase the pressure, which will then enable the gas to better hold on to the heat.
In other words, in order for man made global warming to have any scientific credibility whatever, they would have to show that you are adding significantly more molecules of gas into the atmosphere than what is already there.
But isn't that what happens when you burn fossil fuels? No. You are merely converting the oxygen in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Essentially the same amount of gas. A lot like breathing. You breathe in essentially the same amount of gas that you breathe out. The amount of molecules of gas remains essentially the same.
In other words, in order for man made global warming to have any scientific credibility whatever, they would have to show that you are adding significantly more molecules of gas into the atmosphere than what is already there.
But isn't that what happens when you burn fossil fuels? No. You are merely converting the oxygen in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Essentially the same amount of gas. A lot like breathing. You breathe in essentially the same amount of gas that you breathe out. The amount of molecules of gas remains essentially the same.
Obligatory, 7/28/15
Not feeling well. The same was true yesterday. This couldn't have come at a worse time. Hopefully, I will get to feeling better soon. Blogging will be lite.
Monday, July 27, 2015
What do you do when the entire Federal government goes rogue?
When the President and Congress gang up on the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court refuses to honor the Constitution itself, what can be done about it?
Two possibilities:
The ruling class has thrown down the gauntlet. Either we are or are not a free people anymore. A free people would not capitulate to the ruling class. Their days are numbered, or ours are numbered as a free country.
Two possibilities:
- A Constitutional Convention, which would rein in the power of the Federal Government, or failing that
- A Civil War
The ruling class has thrown down the gauntlet. Either we are or are not a free people anymore. A free people would not capitulate to the ruling class. Their days are numbered, or ours are numbered as a free country.
Los Angeles' yearly rainfall
looks to be more than what I get at "da Ranch", yet I believe I can make it all work. So, why can't they?
Quick post, 7/27/15: Solutions that don't work v. those that do
The former is what the politicians want because you have to always come back to them in order to solve the problem they won't solve. They won't solve problems because once they do, they lose their reason for existence.
The latter is the one that is rejected because people would rather believe a liar than to believe someone who is telling the truth. A lie is more "fun", more "interesting", and "entertaining" than the truth. The truth isn't glamorous, it just is what it is. Boring.
The bottom line is that people would rather suffer, but only if they can make others suffer as opposed to suffering themselves, so that they can feel useful and important in comparison.
The latter is the one that is rejected because people would rather believe a liar than to believe someone who is telling the truth. A lie is more "fun", more "interesting", and "entertaining" than the truth. The truth isn't glamorous, it just is what it is. Boring.
The bottom line is that people would rather suffer, but only if they can make others suffer as opposed to suffering themselves, so that they can feel useful and important in comparison.
Obligatory, 7/27/15
A few ramblings from an old man:
- Hillary wants a lot of solar panels installed. Supposedly, this will help fight global warming. It's a dumb idea. But the whole idea of man made global warming is also dumb.
- Somebody must be joking at Free Republic. A commenter said if you want to know Trump's positions, read his book. Which book? There are several that he supposedly wrote. Which of these actually proposes anything at all? Trump could be cotton candy. But this is a cotton candy society, so he might fit in perfectly.
- There are tons are possible solutions for problems written about in this blog. If any candidate for president would just implement a few of them, we would all be a lot better off. But that's not how the real world works. The real world gets people who do the exact wrong thing rather than the right thing.
- Still, I prefer an "egotistical" Trump over the bought and paid for politicians who are selling out the country. He may not actually solve anything, though. I'm hoping that he would for no other reason than he might get bored if he doesn't.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Coke production for the recovery of hydrogen as by products
An idea to obtain hydrogen from coke, which comes from ( drum roll please ) coal.
Process heat for the recovery can be obtained from molten-salt reactors. The coal is carbonized into coke and byproducts, including hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made into ammonia, which can be shipped through existing channels in order to transport the hydrogen for fuel cells.
Excess coke can be more easily sequestered than carbon dioxide.
Not that I believe that carbon dioxide is a real problem, but if you really want to do something about it, here's a way to do it and help the country at the same time.
Process heat for the recovery can be obtained from molten-salt reactors. The coal is carbonized into coke and byproducts, including hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made into ammonia, which can be shipped through existing channels in order to transport the hydrogen for fuel cells.
Excess coke can be more easily sequestered than carbon dioxide.
Not that I believe that carbon dioxide is a real problem, but if you really want to do something about it, here's a way to do it and help the country at the same time.
Obama's War on Coal
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Furious Coal CEO Lets It All Out: "Obama Is Nation's Great Destroyer"
By Tyler Durden
Created 07/25/2015 - 23:30
"His legacy will be that of the nation's greatest destroyer, and he certainly is the greatest enemy that I, personally, and my family and employees, have ever had."
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-25/furious-coal-ceo-lets-it-all-out-obama-nations-great-destroyer
Something I heard this weekend
From somebody who apparently keeps up with Houston's news, which I do not.
He said that they are planning to move the I-45 section of freeway that run through downtown Houston, and to turn the existing structure into a park. He also said that they did something similar in Dallas.
One thing to remember about Houston. It is and has always been a commercial city. Of course, the leftists that run things now will never understand this and will work to undermine that. They've already made delivery a tough enough job, but now will probably make that impossible.
Thought you might wanna know.
He said that they are planning to move the I-45 section of freeway that run through downtown Houston, and to turn the existing structure into a park. He also said that they did something similar in Dallas.
One thing to remember about Houston. It is and has always been a commercial city. Of course, the leftists that run things now will never understand this and will work to undermine that. They've already made delivery a tough enough job, but now will probably make that impossible.
Thought you might wanna know.
The door that SCOTUS opened
This from Instapundit:
21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: You Have a Constitutional Right to Buy and Sell Sex. Here’s Why: A new lawsuit seeks to make prostitution legal in California.
Why not? Isn't that what they do in Europe, which the left admires so much?
21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: You Have a Constitutional Right to Buy and Sell Sex. Here’s Why: A new lawsuit seeks to make prostitution legal in California.
Why not? Isn't that what they do in Europe, which the left admires so much?
Quick post, 7/26/15
Changed the title a bit. I have decided that the truth is known, but is being kept from the people as a matter of intent.
Hence the quest into the known as opposed to unknown. If we can only see the obvious.
Hence the quest into the known as opposed to unknown. If we can only see the obvious.
Obligatory, 7/26/15
The title "Ramblings of an old man" came to mind, but never mind. This post will be free form with thoughts coming from wherever.
Just now I was thinking about high school, when I was in a creative writing class. The assignment was to write a short story, and I wrote one about a Mars expedition. What they found when they got there was that there was a subterranean civilization--- which was forced to go underground because they ruined the surface through wars and environmental degradation. Yeah, the story was "under the influence" of the the leftists, I confess. After all, I was just a kid. The teacher said "write about your own experiences some day". In a way, on this blog, I have. Not that anybody is interested, mind you.
We could have gone to Mars in the eighties for real. We had the Saturn V rocket, plus a nuclear upper stage that could have nearly doubled the payload. Basically, the Constellation program that Obama ended was a Saturn class rocket that would have done the same thing and in the same way.
The excuse was that it would have cost too much. Well, that's nonsense. They have spent more money NOT GOING than what it would have cost to have gone. They already had the hardware and much of the know how and the facilities in place. This is how our government went wrong. That and the molten-salt reactor non-event that also could have been.
But back to my short story from high school. Philip K. Dick wrote something similar perhaps, that became Total Recall, but at that time, I didn't know about him. Actually, I read some Robert Heinlein when I was in elementary school. It may have been influenced somewhat by that.
I did not ever consider doing non-fiction because I never did develop any story telling skills. Perhaps I should have. That story was fairly original. Although it may have had some influences, it was original and with an original idea. What it lacked was some maturity that comes with experience. Shall I try it again?
Who knows? Dick seemed to be interested in psychology. Although I am too, I am also interested in achievement, and advancement. If I were to write a story now, perhaps it would be about the roads not taken. I can relate that to my own life. Imagine what kind of life I would have now if I had done things a bit differently. Hoo boy, that's a question for you right there.
Instead of a civilization pushing out to the stars, we have one that is regressing into backwardness. Those two very bad decisions may have been the beginning of the downfall. Or the downfall could have began sooner. Once the West lost confidence in itself, it began to go into decline. It's decline can be definitely charted at about 1968, or perhaps sooner, depending upon your theoretical inclinations. ( By the way, if you go to that link just above a sentence or two, you'll see that BBC blocked the video. Why? Isn't BBC a public entity? Why would they block this? Is there something they don't want people to see? )
True to the type, I am going to ramble a bit more like the old man that I am. I was read the Gospel of John yesterday. A verse mentioned that god was the Spirit of Truth. Could it be that Satan is the Spirit of Untruth? Hasn't the West fallen under the influence of Satan? Think Political Correctness there, sonny. Just a thought.
Just now I was thinking about high school, when I was in a creative writing class. The assignment was to write a short story, and I wrote one about a Mars expedition. What they found when they got there was that there was a subterranean civilization--- which was forced to go underground because they ruined the surface through wars and environmental degradation. Yeah, the story was "under the influence" of the the leftists, I confess. After all, I was just a kid. The teacher said "write about your own experiences some day". In a way, on this blog, I have. Not that anybody is interested, mind you.
We could have gone to Mars in the eighties for real. We had the Saturn V rocket, plus a nuclear upper stage that could have nearly doubled the payload. Basically, the Constellation program that Obama ended was a Saturn class rocket that would have done the same thing and in the same way.
The excuse was that it would have cost too much. Well, that's nonsense. They have spent more money NOT GOING than what it would have cost to have gone. They already had the hardware and much of the know how and the facilities in place. This is how our government went wrong. That and the molten-salt reactor non-event that also could have been.
But back to my short story from high school. Philip K. Dick wrote something similar perhaps, that became Total Recall, but at that time, I didn't know about him. Actually, I read some Robert Heinlein when I was in elementary school. It may have been influenced somewhat by that.
I did not ever consider doing non-fiction because I never did develop any story telling skills. Perhaps I should have. That story was fairly original. Although it may have had some influences, it was original and with an original idea. What it lacked was some maturity that comes with experience. Shall I try it again?
Who knows? Dick seemed to be interested in psychology. Although I am too, I am also interested in achievement, and advancement. If I were to write a story now, perhaps it would be about the roads not taken. I can relate that to my own life. Imagine what kind of life I would have now if I had done things a bit differently. Hoo boy, that's a question for you right there.
Instead of a civilization pushing out to the stars, we have one that is regressing into backwardness. Those two very bad decisions may have been the beginning of the downfall. Or the downfall could have began sooner. Once the West lost confidence in itself, it began to go into decline. It's decline can be definitely charted at about 1968, or perhaps sooner, depending upon your theoretical inclinations. ( By the way, if you go to that link just above a sentence or two, you'll see that BBC blocked the video. Why? Isn't BBC a public entity? Why would they block this? Is there something they don't want people to see? )
True to the type, I am going to ramble a bit more like the old man that I am. I was read the Gospel of John yesterday. A verse mentioned that god was the Spirit of Truth. Could it be that Satan is the Spirit of Untruth? Hasn't the West fallen under the influence of Satan? Think Political Correctness there, sonny. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)