Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:12:24 -0800: Hi, [snip] The immediate problem is passing the tipping point where the methane is released. The tipping point is presumably when the temperature rises above zero deg C and the ground starts to melt. Since the permafrost has already started melting in Siberia, the process has already begun. That means we are now in a race against the clock. Not only do we need to reduce CO2, we need to do it fast enough to actually drop the temperature back below freezing so that the methane production stops. Methane is 20 times more effective than CO2 at the greenhouse effect, and is lighter than air. It eventually oxidizes into CO2, but at high altitude. High altitude water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas, and at some point the more you get the more you get. Even low altitude water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, despite the fact that it rains out regularly. If we get enough of it we're permanent toast - fully burnt toast at that. The oceans will boil off and the surface of the earth will likely end up over 200 deg. C. Welcome to New Venus. If the oceans were to boil off, where would all the water to go? Besides, there is also the evaporative cooler effect. The faster the hydrological cycle takes place, the more rapidly heat is removed. I think this is the major negative feedback effect. Also increasing rainfall tends to dissolve more CO2 and carry it into the oceans. Though I don't know how close they are to saturation (another tipping point), though I suspect that they are already effectively in balance with the CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also the possibility that increasing geothermal action will release the methane from the clathrates (and they want to put CO2 down there too???). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Horace - If you don't think it's relevant, then you don't think you know exactly what's driving it (and you'd be right), and therefore you couldn't possibly know where it would go if you tried driving it yourself. But Horace, if you *know* that you *can* predict and even steer an immense chaotic system like planetary climate - please please pretty PLEEEASE email me your stock picks NOW!!! Again, here in a nutshell are our areas of common ground: climate change risk management (but not direct mitigation/manipulation attempts), and energy alternatives to oil. That's it. If you're good with those two and are willing to broom off the rest of the chaff - the socialist takeovers and loss of liberties, carbon caps trades, crazy high taxes and similar shenanigans, I think we could rather quickly become successful in dealing with climate change. Change in the climate would still be inevitable, as usual. Probably hotter, maybe colder. But then we'd be much better positioned to adapt flexibly and intelligently without clobbering our prosperity. Remember Rapa Nui. When you're down to your last few stands of trees and the food is running out, collective rational action to deploy the resources you have left towards practical solutions for your survival would be the right call to make. Using up those precious resources to carve giant tikis and drag them across the island to impress imaginary gods - not so much. Although, they do look pretty cool on post cards. We can prepare for the weather, but we cannot control it. That much has got to be obvious to any rational citizen of this planet. - Rick -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 5:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: (typo: 2009 in last heading) Thanks! Good points Horace, but note Rick doesn't deny global warming, he only disputes the anthropogenic explanation for some reason (maybe he owns oil fields or something?) Michel It strikes me as not directly relevant as to whether we caused this disaster or not. The fact remains that we might be able to fix it. If I had my hand in a pot of scalding water I'd want to either turn off the heat or pull my hand out. We know what our contribution of greenhouse gasses is. We have a pretty good quantitative handle on what that means in terms of greenhouse effect and overall atmospheric effect, though the effect has been grossly underestimated by calibration that occurred without understanding global dimming. If we have our hand in a pot that is 0 C and we add 30 deg.C no big deal. If we start out with the pot at 30 deg.C and add 30 deg. C we might be very uncomfortable. Now if we can prevent the extra 30 deg. C I'd think we might find we want to do that regardless the cause of the extra initial heat. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Nick - Yes, I believe that right should be taken away. Responsibilities outweigh rights. We can debate and disagree and be sarcastic and so forth on a forum like this. But to really declare for taking down the voices of dissent, you've placed yourself in a very special category, and I promise you I won't ever forget that. We Americans are actually quite fond of our right to dissent, you see. You'd think folk from your country in particular would have learned that by now. So it's not responsible from your perspective that I and others point out facts that tend to undermine the foundations of your faith. Ok, but is this all you've got? Are you sure you wouldn't care to go a step further and declare it to be, oh, I don't know, maybe ...pathological? Then you'd have a real basis for taking action. Perhaps then you could, for instance, have me relocated to a place waaay up north where I could chill out away from books and computers and things, and also have someone prescribe some medicine to keep me nice and calm so I could forget all about those heretical scientific ideas. As a fellow hang glider can we draw a truce on this now? As a fellow hang glider pilot, if I knew you were lurking anywhere near the launch site, I'd be checking my wires very carefully for file marks. . . . 'Scuse me, I must go feed the cat now. 'Scuse...must...go...feed cat ... - Rick
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
Gosh, golly, gee guys, you mean to say you don't trust our guv'ment ? Anybody in here ever serve in the military? Ask ole Ben Franklin why they didn't trust the king, They wrote the constitution to protect us from guv'ment, not the other way around. Don't trust the guv'ment.. don't even think about it. want proof? the medicare program. Way back when the Israelites wanted a king, Samuel tried to tell them, the first thing a king would do is make servants of your daughters, put your sons in the army and take your best land for himself. Things ain't changed much over time. If you want to have some fun.. try contacting one of these green groups, non profits that are begging for funds so they can get sum'tin done about the weather, the pandas.. whatever the cause. In Texas, where no man's life nor property is safe while the legislature is in session, there is a new joint operation http://earthshare-texas.org/ (For Jones, this is not a UT-Austin hemp society,) They operate a syphon to get money..just don't ask them to do anything. Richard Jones wrote, And you know this, how? After all, the whitewash has only been out a few days, and yet these thousands of agenicies, which are entrenched bureaurcracies that require weeks to change a lightbulb - yet they magically mobilized because of the cogency of this computer simulation? Steven wrote, I suspect much of that is do to the fact that they simply did not trust the government anymore, no matter what they were now promised.
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
At 05:51 AM 9/9/2008, Rick Monteverde wrote: Horace - If you don't think it's relevant, then you don't think you know exactly what's driving it (and you'd be right), and therefore you couldn't possibly know where it would go if you tried driving it yourself. But Horace, if you *know* that you *can* predict and even steer an immense chaotic system like planetary climate - please please pretty PLEEEASE email me your stock picks NOW!!! This analogy is flawed. Predicting climate change in the future is like predicting the overall trend of the market. Predicting the weather for one location is like predicting the outcome for a particular stock. In 1950 a person might have predicted that over the next 30 years the stock market as a whole would rise. That would be a very safe, fact-based prediction. Knowing which stocks in particular would rise is a very different proposition. Even the best markets some stocks fail, just as even during periods of global warming, in some locations, you may have days or months of unseasonably cold weather. Actually, in some ways you have it backward. You think that short-term trends are easier to predict than long-term trends. This is true with some complex systems, but not the stock market or the weather. The outcome of the stock market on any particular day is unpredictable but the overall trend is often clear. That is why financial geniuses tend to be long-term investors. They make tons of money whereas daytraders seldom do. Our knowledge of physics and the atmosphere makes it easier for us to predict the weather in 30 years than tomorrow in Atlanta (assuming CO2 emissions do not decrease). - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
I wrote: Also, I believe you are exaggerating the complexity of the atmosphere. It is nowhere near as complex as, say, an ecosystem or a living cell. The mechanisms by which DNA controls cells, and the workings of the human brain, are perhaps the most complex phenomena in the known universe. But not as chaotic as the atmosphere, of course. Chaos and complexity are two separate and unrelated characteristics. There are some systems that are completely chaotic but quite simple (at some levels), such as radioactive decay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Again, repeating a snippet of Rick Monteverde's prior comment: ... But Horace, if you *know* that you *can* predict and even steer an immense chaotic system like planetary climate - please please pretty PLEEEASE email me your stock picks NOW!!! I would second Jed's comment in regards to interpreting complex computer simulations, specifically attempts to predict global weather patterns. It is absurd to insinuate that complex computer systems attempting to predict weather patterns have been designed to pinpoint and predict specifics, such as what the temperature in Atlanta, GA will be on October 13, 2009, or when the next category 5 hurricane is predicted to crash into New Orleans. To insinuate such an argument suggests a profound lack of understanding of what these complex computer systems are attempting to do. They were designed to predict general trends, and in that department they are getting better and better at it. Jed has already stated the obvious better than what I could say, so I shan't repeat the generalities. With that said, I do get the impression that we are all on the same page when it comes to the fact that evidence shows the planet is warming up. Indeed, we can quibble forever over the details in regards to WHOSE responsible. Both proponents and skeptics should at least try to be on the same page over the fact that had all better prepare for the consequences. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Steven - No such insinuation was made or implied by me, but you go on and on as if I had, leading inevitably to the conclusion that I don't know what I was talking about, which of course discredits the position I have taken on this issue. Is this what you call an intellectually honest discussion? I was of course (and quite obviously) referring to the point at hand, which, instead of some pinpoint prediction of the midday temperature of Palmer AK on June 22 2031, was our predictive ability to expect climate warming given our carbon contribution. That is indeed a very large bracket, and this has always been my understanding of how attempts to understand and predict on the system have been applied, despite your baseless claim to the contrary. - Rick -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless Again, repeating a snippet of Rick Monteverde's prior comment: ... But Horace, if you *know* that you *can* predict and even steer an immense chaotic system like planetary climate - please please pretty PLEEEASE email me your stock picks NOW!!! I would second Jed's comment in regards to interpreting complex computer simulations, specifically attempts to predict global weather patterns. It is absurd to insinuate that complex computer systems attempting to predict weather patterns have been designed to pinpoint and predict specifics, such as what the temperature in Atlanta, GA will be on October 13, 2009, or when the next category 5 hurricane is predicted to crash into New Orleans. To insinuate such an argument suggests a profound lack of understanding of what these complex computer systems are attempting to do. They were designed to predict general trends, and in that department they are getting better and better at it. Jed has already stated the obvious better than what I could say, so I shan't repeat the generalities. With that said, I do get the impression that we are all on the same page when it comes to the fact that evidence shows the planet is warming up. Indeed, we can quibble forever over the details in regards to WHOSE responsible. Both proponents and skeptics should at least try to be on the same page over the fact that had all better prepare for the consequences. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Jed This analogy is flawed. Predicting climate change in the future is like predicting the overall trend of the market. Predicting climate change in the future is like predicting the overall trend of the market. This analogy is flawed. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Jed - Chaos and complexity are two separate and unrelated characteristics. Well, they're separate anyway. A chaotic system could be very simple and still have very complex outputs. Or it might have simple and much more predictable outputs. Depends on the structure, but not necessarily the complexity, of the system. As you said, they're different. A chaotic system could also be very complex and have relatively simple and predictable outputs. The claim that the global climate has those characteristics is false to a high degree of certainty given historical records. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
I'm not laughing! Smirking a little maybe, but... Didn't I see something somewhere about Lizzies from planet #10 zapping us with rays to warm us up, kinda like preheating the oven for dinner when they arrive in 2012? Ok, forget the Lizard people if you want to, at your own risk of course g, but consider the rest of it. Something about an outer solar system body sweeping out a path for more cosmic rays or something to make it to earth, seeding more nightime clouds which reflect heat normally radiated off to space at night. Hey, there's a lot of different theories out there. One of them might be right... (probably not this one though). - Rick -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless You laugh, but I have a friend that seriously believes that, that our planet is being venusiaformed. (Okay, I laugh too. heh) On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Good points Horace, but note Rick doesn't deny global warming, he only disputes the anthropogenic explanation for some reason (maybe he owns oil fields or something?) /Michel Thanks, I guess, but my reasons were also clearly posted. You mean my motivation? I'm an alien. Didn't you see The Arrival? Got to get the place ready for our kind to take over. Adjusting head-flap for comfort. Eesh...is it getting cooler in here? Better ramp up production in our clandestine South American CO2 facilities. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: The immediate problem is passing the tipping point where the methane is released. Methane is 20 times more effective than CO2 at the greenhouse effect, and is lighter than air. It eventually oxidizes into CO2, but at high altitude. High altitude water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas, and at some point the more you get the more you get. If we get enough of it we're permanent toast - fully burnt toast at that. The oceans will boil off and the surface of the earth will likely end up over 200 deg. C. Welcome to New Venus. And then the carbonates boil out of the rocks and the curtain comes down for the last time, and the last thing we hear is the voice of a fundy saying We *told* you it was the end times, and this proves we were right! But it's very unlikely. If that was that easy to achieve it would have happened already. Not necessarily true. If it can happen on venus it can happen here. Also not valid is the argument it hasn't happened before. Things are different now in several regards. Our dumps, landfills, and the oceans are spewing out manufactured chemicals that we have been producing daily by the hundreds of tons for a century. The stuff is increasing in our atmosphere. For example see: http://www.sft.no/publikasjoner/overvaking/1970/ta1970.pdf We are dumping tons of stuff into the stratosphere daily via jet flights. That has never happened in earth's history. There is some evidence of solar system warming. We may be in a regime the earth has not seen since life evolved. Man adding to the problem may be just enough to tip us into the regime of no return. The *rate* of CO2 increase and temperature change is unprecedented in any record, and we can measure the fact most of the CO2 increase so far is from man. We know what we are producing in the way of CO2. Here's why: Check out the snowball Earth era(s) which occurred in the past. Glaciation was extreme, reaching all the way -- or nearly all the way -- to the Equator. The Earth's albedo went sky-high, as a result of which the effective insolation rate plummeted -- runaway cooling. Why, you may ask, do we no longer have a snowball Earth? What finally stopped the runaway? Apparently what ended it was volcanism coupled with the fact that plant life on Earth was basically dead or dormant. Little CO2 was being pulled from the atmosphere by the plants, but volcanoes went right on pumping the stuff out. The result was massive CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Finally the greenhouse effect grew strong enough to melt the snowball, despite the high albedo. But to get to that point the CO2 level had to go sky-high -- many times higher than the baseline value, and far, far higher than it is now. I haven't seen any evidence this is true. My understanding is the ice melted due to vulcanism changing the albedo by depositing dust on the ice. If this happened then there would be no CO2 overshoot. But when the ice melted and the albedo dropped again, all that CO2 was still in the atmosphere, and the result was massive overshoot: Toasted Earth. If we were ever in danger of turning into Nouveau Venus, that was the moment! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Rick Monteverde wrote: A chaotic system could also be very complex and have relatively simple and predictable outputs. The claim that the global climate has those characteristics is false to a high degree of certainty given historical records. No one claims that the climate is simple or that it has easily predictable outcomes (outputs). It is complex and chaotic. However, we have extensive knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere, and our computers give us the ability to grasp immensely complex system such as the entire human genome. This ability would have been unthinkable even 30 years ago. Short-term predictions for both weather and the stock market are probabilistic and somewhat ad hoc, so they quickly branch off into so many different possibilities, and after a week or so they become useless. Long-term predictions for both are also probabilistic but they are based on a different factors and methodology. The complexity of short term predictions does not carry over to long term ones. It is not as if we are branching off into 10E150 possibilities 30 years from now. One of the reasons wind power is successful and cost-effective these days is vastly improved weather prediction both long-term and short-term. The average wind speed for different locations is now known with remarkable accuracy (a long term prediction). And they can predict the wind a week or two in advance, which helps schedule maintenance (a short-term prediction that goes much further into the future than anyone could have managed 30 years ago). - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: Sunspotless
Jed - Chaos and complexity are two separate and unrelated characteristics. Sorry, I may have misunderstood your point. You meant that the complexity of a chaotic system's underlying structure versus the complexity of its range of outputs is not related? Those two can be very divergent in different examples, though I can't say that they're completely unrelated. But in that simple sense I agree they're generally unrelated as a practical matter. To me chaos and complexity are deeply related. And I still maintain climate is not one of those where the output is simple and predictable, as I think most experts would agree (nor is it simple in structure). So you may have a point, but there's no purpose to it in this context. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:NIST debunking
I wrote: Please note they concur with the NIST findings. And - you know this, how? I know this because I read Japanese newspapers and watch the NHK news. To be accurate, this is more a case of the dog that has not barked. Let me explain. The Japanese blogosphere and tabloid magazines are chock full of 9/11 conspiracy theory. Several Japanese bloggers believe that the US government used cold fusion to destroy the towers, and they have written to me for confirmation. (They read about cold fusion explosions in the Japanese edition of my book, a subject I sometimes regret mentioning.) If someone in the Japanese government or an organization similar to UL were to go before the microphones and say one word in support of the conspiracy theories, or express doubts about the NIST conclusions, you can bet it would be on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story in the seven o'clock news. As I said, those people hold no brief for NIST. They are not under the control or influence of Dick Cheney. If they felt there is a problem, they would say so. The opposition party in particular has been very critical of the U.S. administration and the LDP support for it, and they would go out of their way to discredit it. The effects of the 9/11 attacks are everywhere in Japan, and much on people's minds. Buses, stores, ferry boats and the public library smack in the middle of nowhere in rural Yamaguchi have notices saying Due to increased security concerns after the 9/11 attacks . . . bla, bla, as if the denizens of Al Qaeda are going to blow up the 6:00 a.m. ferry from Yanai to Matsuyama. (And don't try telling the ferry boat crew that's ridiculous!) People farthest from a threat sometimes fear it the most. - Jed
[Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Check out the snowball Earth era(s) which occurred in the past. Glaciation was extreme, reaching all the way -- or nearly all the way -- to the Equator. The Earth's albedo went sky-high, as a result of which the effective insolation rate plummeted -- runaway cooling. Why, you may ask, do we no longer have a snowball Earth? What finally stopped the runaway? Apparently what ended it was volcanism coupled with the fact that plant life on Earth was basically dead or dormant. Little CO2 was being pulled from the atmosphere by the plants, but volcanoes went right on pumping the stuff out. The result was massive CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Finally the greenhouse effect grew strong enough to melt the snowball, despite the high albedo. But to get to that point the CO2 level had to go sky-high -- many times higher than the baseline value, and far, far higher than it is now. Horace Heffner wrote: I haven't seen any evidence this is true. My understanding is the ice melted due to vulcanism changing the albedo by depositing dust on the ice. If this happened then there would be no CO2 overshoot. Hi All, The Snowball Earth evidence is condensed at http://www.avonhistory.org/lakes8.htm#n3 It was aired on The BBC at 2 9.00 pm on Thursday, 22nd February 2001 Below is a pertinent excerpt: Jack Smith ``... NARRATOR: But Kirschvink was racked by the insurmountable paradox of the runaway freeze, that if a snowball Earth had ever happened then science said we should still be entombed in ice today. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: How do you get out of it? Obviously the climate modellers had assumed that that was an irreversible step and that you would never get out of it and yet we're out of it now and if we had been in it before some point we must have gotten out of it. NARRATOR: To get out of the deep freeze what Kirschvink needed was a power that would stay hot, even when the whole planet had frozen over, something that Budyko hadn't thought of, something that could burn for ever, something like hell. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: Looking at an active volcano you realise that magma tens or hundreds of kilometres below the surface couldn't care less whether there was a thin layer of ice over the oceans. It will still emerge. NARRATOR: Volcanoes survive ice ages because they have a direct channel to the molten rock deep within the Earth, rock that reaches temperatures of over 1,000 degrees, but that would only melt ice in their immediate area. Kirschvink had spotted something else about volcanoes: they also produce gas, ten billion tons a year. One gas volcanoes emit in huge quantities is carbon dioxide, a gas that causes the greenhouse effect and global warming. Today carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere by both volcanoes and industrial activity, but what stops the Earth from overheating is that we have a natural way of removing the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Rain is the Earth's natural cleaning agent. As it falls through the atmosphere each droplet of rain absorbs carbon dioxide and cleans the air, but Kirschvink realised that on a snowball Earth there could have been no rain. The snowball was so cold all the water on the planet's surface was frozen solid. Without liquid water nothing could have evaporated into the air, so there would have been no clouds and without clouds there can be no rain and without rain, Kirschvink realised, there would have been nothing to cleanse the atmosphere of carbon dioxide. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: You can't have rain if you don't have evaporation, so I couldn't see anything that would scrub out the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere under those conditions. NARRATOR: It meant there would have been nothing to stop the carbon dioxide from the volcanoes from building up over millions of years. It would have caused global warming on an inconceivable scale. Kirschvink came across calculations showing that after ten million years without rain the atmosphere would have been 10% carbon dioxide. Today it is far less than 1%. This extra carbon dioxide would have created a greenhouse effect that raised the temperature to an average of 50 degrees Centigrade, hotter than the Earth has ever been, hot enough to melt the ice. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: And that seemed to be a natural and possible escape, certainly enough to break the snowball, the ice condition. NARRATOR: Joe Kirschvink had cracked it. He had found the way out of the runaway freeze, a way that made perfect scientific sense, a way that was consistent with the laws of nature. JOSEPH KIRSCHVINK: The realisation that we may have found the way out of the snowball was wonderful. NARRATOR: By 1990 Kirschvink had evidence that the tropics had frozen over for ten million years and he'd come up with a theoretical escape route from the runaway freeze, but the problem was it was just a theory. He had no physical evidence to prove the ice had melted because of an
[Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
Hi All, Correction: I should have said The Snowball Earth evidence is condensed at http://www.avonhistory.org/hist/lakes8.htm#n3 Jack Smith
[Vo]:Re: Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
A hydrino connection ? One more thought on a hypothetical active mechanism in superthermite - and other reactions which can produce more energy than what should be possible in the chemical reaction of valence electrons. This has been called a supra-chemical reaction, since the normal definition of chemical reaction generally only goes to the valence electrons. There are a few exceptions in normal chemistry but none where the energy involved cannot be recovered from the reaction itself. The exceptions: for which there is some tenuous proof in the literature are found in Mills CQM and in the reports about superthermite (and possibly a few other ballotechnics ). An oxygen molecule usually takes electrons rather than gives them, but it can provide a net enthalpy of a multiple of that of the 13.6 eV (1/2-Hartree) potential energy of the hydrogen atom by two alternative reactions (if not three). The bond energy of the oxygen molecule is 5.165 eV, and the first through the third ionization energies (IP) of an oxygen atom are 13.62 eV, 35.12 eV, and 54.9 eV, respectively. Iron, as it so-happens has almost the identical value of 54.8 eV enthalpy with its IP4. Arguably, iron oxide can release two oxygen ions, somewhat resonantly with oxygen and with this particular value, which is also seen in Helium - and in the process, EUV photons are released. Since hydrogen, helium, iron and oxygen the four most abundant atoms around, all share the double Hartree mass-energy level somewhere, there must be something going one resonantly, and possibly semi-coherently which operates like a chain reaction in the explosiveness of superthermite. In the Mills version of suprachemistry - oxygen as a catalysts can shrink [ground state hydrogen] more than one level at a time but O++ is normally rare since it is formed at very high temperatures or extreme conditions . However, with superthermite - the same positive ion O++ must be the active instrument of energy release, since there is no hydrogen (so far as we know). But even in Mills CQM when oxygen is active, if I am not mistaken, - it is the O++ catalyst and not the hydrino, which emits the excess energy. ERGO one might ask this pregnant question: ... in the superthermite reaction, where aluminum appears to steal two oxygen ions from iron oxide - and the result is an apparent 2xHartree energy gain - is this some kind of redundant ground state but hydrino-less reaction which involves oxygen, not hydrogen, facilitating the exchange by appearing to have a reduced orbital ? ...and/or is the Dirac sea providing virtual protons as some kind of an intermediary to facilitate the transfer? Most bizarre. No time to say Hello / Goodbye - Original Message The pool of tears wonderland-style: Ok the following may be venturing way down into the rabbitt hole of Alice, so it is worth prefeacing these remarks as being generally unrelated to the prior discussion about thermite - such as used in demolition. Question to the Cheshire Cat: What do the most lethal weapons in the US arsena have in common - i.e. such as cave-buster bomb which has up to 10 time the detonation force per pound as conventional bombs (such as the older daisy cutter or MOAB mother of all bombs)? Answer from a cat-like smile: Doh! from the subject line, you should be able to guess it. Basic Thermite is comprised of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder and does not explode on its own. So far so good. When the powders are ground to “ultra-fine grain” in a vacuum chamber and are less than 100 nm in diameter, then nano-thermite is formed. When they get down to 10 nm, quien sabe? Even 100 nm changes the situation qualitatively and quantitatively and the result is not just an incendiary – it is a weapons grade explosive. This nanomaterial may well be one of the so-called ballotechnics, such as the infamous red mercury was once thought to be. In fact there are a few who will say that this is, and always was, the true identity of that strange material ... ... if it were not fully composed of red herrings, that is ;-) In one of Dr Steven Jones' papers he says: Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out, Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However,
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:49:11 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Sep 8, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: If the oceans were to boil off, where would all the water to go? Same place it went on venus, into building a higher altitude more dense atmosphere. [snip] I doubt there was ever much water on Venus. See http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:02:40 -0800: Hi, [snip] I haven't seen any evidence this is true. My understanding is the ice melted due to vulcanism changing the albedo by depositing dust on the ice. If this happened then there would be no CO2 overshoot. [snip] In how many places around the world, is the ice dirty due to volcanic dust? The problem with this theory is that snow falls tend to be a lot more frequent than volcanic eruptions, and the next snowfall will cover the dust again. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool
In reply to Taylor J. Smith's message of Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:29:10 +: Hi, [snip] On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Check out the snowball Earth era(s) which occurred in the past. Glaciation was extreme, reaching all the way -- or nearly all the way -- to the Equator. The Earth's albedo went sky-high, as a result of which the effective insolation rate plummeted -- runaway cooling. Why, you may ask, do we no longer have a snowball Earth? What finally stopped the runaway? [snip] Possible alternatives to a past snowball Earth:- 1) The crust has slipped several times, resulting in different land masses being located near the poles and accumulating ice, and leaving evidence that has been interpreted at snowball Earth. 2) Continental drift with the same result(?) IOW maybe there never was a snowball Earth. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nano-thermite aka Superthermite
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:51:39 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] But even in Mills CQM when oxygen is active, if I am not mistaken, - it is the O++ catalyst and not the hydrino, which emits the excess energy. In CQM, the O++ first absorbs 54 eV from the Hydrino, becoming O+++ in the process. Then later, the O+++ recaptures the lost electron to become O++ again, reemitting the 54 eV that it absorbed from the Hydrino. Usually it doesn't stop there, but also grabs as many other loose electrons as it can get it's paws on, trying to become O--. In the mean time, having relinquished 54 eV to O++, the Hydrino has become unstable and promptly drops to a stable level dumping even more energy in the process. ERGO one might ask this pregnant question: ... in the superthermite reaction, where aluminum appears to steal two oxygen ions from iron oxide - and the result is an apparent 2xHartree energy gain - is this some kind of redundant ground state but hydrino-less reaction which involves oxygen, not hydrogen, facilitating the exchange by appearing to have a reduced orbital ? I have wondered about He iso H undergoing shrinkage, and have previously also suggested that perhaps virtually any nucleus could steal a shrunken electron from a Hydrino. However I doubt that there is really anything like this going on in super thermite. From the very little that I have read, I get the impression that it just reacts faster than normal because the particles are (much) smaller. See your own quote:- The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out, Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research. Dr Son has now apparently been silenced by the powers that be, and has no further comment. Not surprising. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
