thomas malloy wrote:
Taylor J. Smith wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Nice simulation; but human greed and stupidity, which are impossible
to over-estimate, are not
Personal reflections:
I hope they're right. Not sure that I do.
Does your calculation factor in an increase in the supply of oil
- Original Message -
From: John Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Hi Mike,
Is the new solid fuel process commercially viable? The implication
over at the BLP web site has been that the new-and-improved process
has been proven experimentally to self-generate through well-known
chemical
From Mike Carrell:
IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to commercial
viability of anything so far posted by BLP. BLP usually
can back up such posts by experimental work, as stated.
The fact that critical details are glossed over I interpret
as evidence of ongoing patent application
Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop emitting all
forms of CO2 as a result of our technology:
How many active volcanoes would it take to produce an equivalent
amount of CO2 that humanity currently produces and/or is indirectly
responsible for producing, such as deforestation
I don't know how many volcanoes it would take but the global total CO2
emissions of active volcanoes is about 1/150th of what humans are doing.
see this site
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
OrionWorks wrote:
Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop emitting all
forms of CO2 as a result of our technology:
How many active volcanoes would it take to produce an equivalent
amount of CO2 that humanity currently produces and/or is indirectly
Compared to the volcanoes,
thomas malloy wrote:
Compared to the volcanoes, all 6,000,000,000 of us are the
equivalent of a pimple on an elephant's rear end.
That is incorrect, as shown by the stats Nick Palmer found. It is
also obviously wrong because in North America, we burn roughly twice
as much fossil fuel as
From the Centre Européen pour la Recherche et le
Développement de Nouvelles Technologies
Energétiques Alternatives (CERNTEA), see:
http://cerntea.canalblog.com/archives/2008/03/15/7163644.html
Further to my previous comment - there seems to have been some black
propaganda put about that the output of volcanoes dwarfs what humans
produce - and we are invited by this fact to imagine that nature's effects
are much larger than humans and therefore all the talk of manmade global
warming
- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of
Dr. Randell Mills
From Mike Carrell:
IMHO the solid fuel reactor is the closest to
Mike Carrell wrote:
You need several in a bulletproof demo -- or one tested in a skeptic's lab.
NO! No, no, no! Big mistake.
You need some pretty good demos that are tested in a friendly supporter's lab.
Ignore the skeptics and their labs. After the last battle has been
fought, victories
OrionWorks wrote:
Assuming we could magically, starting tomorrow, stop
emitting all forms of CO2 as a result of our technology:
How many active volcanoes would it take to produce
an equivalent amount of CO2 that humanity currently
produces ...
thomas malloy wrote:
Compared to the volcanoes,
I'm at Emerson Electric, in Pittsburgh, performing a factory acceptance test on
a Distributed Control System.
This system will be used in a power plant in NC.? I will start the place up.
The Emerson Ovation computer control system is very good.? This facility has
expanded by a factor of 2 since
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:22:59 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
If volcanoes added far more CO2 to
the mix then we do, than plants would have a negligible effect and
the atmosphere and there would be practically no free oxygen. (By the
way, decreasing levels of free oxygen
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
(By the
way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and
recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.)
[snip]
At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is
derived from
carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of
Dr. Randell Mills
Mike Carrell wrote:
You need several in a bulletproof demo -- or
From Mike Carrell:
Mills is no fool, nor are his board of directors. He
business strategy is very different from Jed's concept
-- but there could be a global scramble of
entrepreneurship when BLP becomes real. Mills has to
have his 'ducks in order' for what might be a firestorm.
The new
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:27:59 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The whole point of the exercise is that we seem to have reached the
world peak in oil production, and supply cannot be increased, due to
lack of resources.
[snip]
I think a better definition of the oil peak
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:19:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
(By the
way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and
recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.)
[snip]
At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:09:25 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
No it wouldn't be, but even with my limited QM skills, I know that fortunately
you don't have to get that close for nuclear fusion. Nucleus is fm scale
(10^-15 m), but its De Broglie wavelength (roughly the
Thomis,
It's 'Randell Mills'. He does not get an 'A'.
Teri
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Carrell wrote:
A standard tactic of patent examiners is deny and cite objections and
force the applicant to overcome the objections. Objections of this
21 matches
Mail list logo
