RE: [Vo]:Griggs finally successful... don't mention OU?
Is not this the way forward? A successful company, using a small over-unity effect to gain an edge over the competition, but not mentioning OU? Might it be better to 'slug' some OU device so it's not overtly OU but is still better than the rest? Stephen R Lawrence, Cambridge Jed Rothwell wrote: Griggs left the company many years ago. There is no mention in the NASA documents or in any documents published by Hydrodynamics Inc. that the device is sometimes over-unity. They don't want to talk about that. It is more trouble than it's worth. They are friendly people, on the up and up. They are not trying to cover up anything, but they don't want to get involved in disputes with the physics establishment. - Jed /div
RE: [Vo]:Griggs finally successful... don't mention OU?
Stephen Lawrence wrote: Is not this the way forward? A successful company, using a small over-unity effect to gain an edge over the competition, but not mentioning OU? The fact that it sometimes slightly over unity is no advantage. It reduces the electric bill very slightly, but not enough to detect. It is still more expensive than a gas fired heater per megajoule, but gas-fired heaters cannot be used in the applications the Hydrosonic devices is used for. The customers are unaware of the fact that it is over-unity. Based on my conversations with some of them, I doubt they would care if they knew, or think twice about it. People are remarkably incurious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Griggs finally successful... don't mention OU?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Quote from the article: The secret to the HPump's success, according to the inventor, is the use of shock waves to produce the heat, rather than electric heating elements or fossil fuels. But where does the electricity to run the device come from then..? The point of mentioning that now well-known evil, fossil fuels, is to imply that they're actually, finally dispensing with that messy stuff... Which would most likely be false, certainly. -- Which, of course, is not exactly the real point here: moving beyond the use of inconvenient heat sources at the point of application. They should be clear on this distinction. Being NASA, after all. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * BOYCOTTS: Organized; Ad Hoc; Anticipated; Hoped-For: * Critical endorsement only *** Most sites need donations * http://www.unitedboycott.org Join the War On Corporatism * * http://www.unitedboycott.org/mediaboycott.htmMedia Holdings * * http://www.boycottbush.org Boycott Bush (boycott the U.S.A.) * * http://www.saanet.org/alcant Alcan't In India Campaign * *** Military Technology: The Ultimate Prostitution of Science *** GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm37IUACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GQ/QCcCbzLoDBCILk/bOSjeT+lSCBm 1soAn1XXA/WeRS3LToRy/l0Qg2mxSE0Q =4Z/1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:EEStor inventor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, thomas malloy temal...@usfamily.net mounted the barricade and roared out: I just talked to a F E researcher. The inventor of EEStor's ultracapacitor has gone missing. Have they found him yet? As someone who's had/having too much experience with Nasty Powerful People, I have no problem believing foul play could be involved. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott the Bourgeois Economy: BUY PROGRESSIVE * ** Critical endorsement only * Gift-giving Year-round ** * http://www.counterpunch.org/books.htmlCounterPunch Books * * Consumer-Powered Conservation Products: * * http://www.wildlifeworks.com Wildlife Works * * http://www.palestineonlinestore.com Palestine Online Store * * http://www.greenpeace.ca/tissue Greenpeace Shopper's Guide * * http://www.leftbooks.com leftbooks.com * * http://www.mehring.com Mehring Books * * http://www.ufwstore.comUnited Farm Workers Store * ** Where the barricades end -- real democracy begins * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm39CgACgkQXo3EtEYbt3G36gCg9HKbpBTr116asIpziqXLrvbB kHUAn3Oyvr7E8CiXwQ01vy5HF9RoVGuU =G1h6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Vortexians; Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. Mr. Horner began by explaining how the AGW promoters have falsified data which conflicts with their assertions. He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1236798185sr=1-1 --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. . . . He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. . . . He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. - Jed So have Malloy explain the record-low Arctic pack ice cover 2 summers ago, and the near-record pack ice low last summer. For starters. - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott bourgeois analysis:*Get your daily dose from the * * Pundits are propagandists* best english-language Blogs * Critical endorsement only *** Most sites need donations * http://worklessparty.org/wlitblogWork Less Party * * http://www.juancole.com Juan Cole blog * * http://www.empirenotes.org Empire Notes * * http://blogs.zmag.org/killingtrain The Killing Train * * http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches Iraq Dispatches * * http://warblogging.com Warblogging.com ***Civil Liberties * * http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/xml/rss.xmlWatch * HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERIALISM: NEW FACE OF OLD EXPLOITATION GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm4E/oACgkQXo3EtEYbt3EMZQCgyN7e69PbV0WHe9f9LmHPCTvu 3osAn0z9a6MdafZ1we+cnk4k0Wn/E6gh =opJh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Thomas sez: Vortexians; Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the Oligarchy is planning making a lot of money off of the AGW hysteria. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. Mr. Horner began by explaining how the AGW promoters have falsified data which conflicts with their assertions. He concluded his remarks by mentioning that Algore has a $300 million budget and that various media organs are complicit in promoting this hysteria. http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1236798185sr=1-1 From the Inside Flap: Liars--Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits--as well as your tax dollars and your liberties-- with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of climate change. In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists --and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money--resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner-- himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears--exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of balance. The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of saving the planet, anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run your life, and they can brook no opposition. But the actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren't nearly as scary as their fiction. * * * * * Don't worry, be happy. The coming rapture will take care of everything. In the meantime I want to stuff as many gummy bears as I can into my own pockets. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Two seemingly similar but completely different situations. In LENR there is good evidence of heat and nuclear processes evolving from singular experiments where the parameters are well known and easily contained. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). For all we know, AGW has tipped already (as is claimed by alarmists). Or maybe not. Our maybe are activities have in fact been partly responsible for the cooling, etc. We can't properly evaluate the anthropogenic contribution to potential climate change at this time, and those who claim they can are either deluded or frauds. And unlike the case with LENR, they have produced no evidence that they can. So it's inappropriate to compare AGW with LENR in those terms, although the subjects of fraud-for-funding and psychological tendencies (belief paradigms, etc.)are indeed closely involved with each of them. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies ... you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann ...
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Rick Monteverde wrote: Two seemingly similar but completely different situations. In LENR there is good evidence of heat and nuclear processes evolving from singular experiments where the parameters are well known and easily contained. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). For all we know, AGW has tipped already (as is claimed by alarmists). Or maybe not. Our maybe are activities have in fact been partly responsible for the cooling, etc. We can't properly evaluate the anthropogenic contribution to potential climate change at this time, and those who claim they can are either deluded or frauds. Perhaps you overlooked this line in Thomas's message: The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling off since 1998. Thomas is not simply denying AGW -- he's denying GW, period. He's claiming that, despite the melting permafrost, retreating glaciers, and agreement by all significant organizations and mainstream scientists studying the issue, that the Earth is not only not warming up, it's *cooling off*. If I understand your earlier posts, Rick, you're of the opinion that things have gotten hotter but the science simply isn't in place to let us be sure why that's happening. In fact, IIRC, in Thomas's earlier posts he occasionally claimed the same thing, and also claimed that lots of other bodies in the solar system are warming up too, which indicates it's a solar effect, not a local anthropogenic effect. That's a plausible position, whether or not I happen to agree with it. In his present post, on the other hand, Thomas seems to be saying there is a vast conspiracy involving NASA, the U.N., global weather researchers, Horace Heffner (who claims to have observed the warming first hand), Stephen Harper (who also says things are getting hotter), and just about everybody else except my maiden aunt Bessie, and the conspiracy's goal is to delude everybody that things are getting hotter, when really, at least in Thomas's world, they're getting colder. As to the question of whether things have gotten hotter or colder since 1998, it's hard for an amateur to say for sure, but there sure seems to be a lot of very *suggestive* evidence floating around. See, for example, Decade of 1998-2007 the warmest on record: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm 2005 tied for hottest year ever: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html 2007 tied for the second hottest year ever: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm Now if these stories are all a fabric of lies, please try to count up how many people must be involved in the conspiracy to make this fabric hold together. Two people can keep a secret ... if one of them is dead We're talking more like 20,000 people in the conspiracy, though, not just two.
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Rick Monteverde wrote: On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that humans have the ability in either measurement or computation to correctly take into account the dynamics of the vast paramater set of an ENTIRE PLANET (geez, how obvious can this be anyway???). That does not seem obvious to me. The weather system of ENTIRE PLANET is a complex system of course, but it is not more complex than, say, an E. coli bacteria. It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. Biology beats all other subjects when it comes to complexity. The number of possible permutations of human DNA far exceeds the number of electrons in the universe. Yet despite the unimaginable complexity of biological systems we do have a handle on them. Of course it is impossible to know everything about them! We will never be able to predict behavior of individual E. coli or humans with any assurance, but we can generalize about them with confidence. This assertion is rather like saying that because we will not fully understand E. coli in the rest of human history (probably true -- assuming people survive a few hundred million years into the future) we cannot possibly know or predict anything about E. coli today (manifestly false). We can observe the of the entire planet as one discrete weather system with weather satellites, and the details up close with individual sensors at ground level. We can model the weather with far more ease than we can model, say, the folding of a complex protein. The most computation intense projects these days are in biology, not weather. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Dennis Prager just interviewed Christopher Horner, the author of Red Hot Lies. The thesis of his book is that the And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:24:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] That does not seem obvious to me. The weather system of ENTIRE PLANET is a complex system of course, but it is not more complex than, say, an E. coli bacteria. It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
thomas malloy wrote: And if you believe that, you will also believe that Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Ed Storms, Mike McKubre and ~2,000 professional scientists are engaged in a massive deception to convince the world that cold fusion is real by publishing fake data. Non sequitur Not at all, but I did not explain what I meant as clearly as Stephen A. Lawrence did: Now if these stories are all a fabric of lies, please try to count up how many people must be involved in the conspiracy to make this fabric hold together. Two people can keep a secret ... if one of them is dead We're talking more like 20,000 people in the conspiracy, though, not just two. The 20,000 people is for global warming. For cold fusion you would have to enlist ~2,000 people in the conspiracy, and you have to swear them to scientific omerta. I know a large fraction of those ~2,000 people personally I assure you they would not keep secret what's for lunch in an hour, never mind an important secret for 20 years. I personally have been booted off of more than one discussion group because I keep no secrets. If I had any inkling that cold fusion data is fake, I would be the first to blab about it. The notion that thousands of climate experts are engaged in a massive fraud is preposterous beyond words. It is conceivable that they are wrong, but absolutely, positively out of the question that they are engaged in fraud or that Albert Gore (of all people!) is masterminding them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. (Or chemicals that used to be present in stable amounts, before the Industrial Revolution.) Obviously, life has a huge impact on the atmosphere with plants freeing up oxygen, and animals producing CO2 from respiration. Things like forest fires can only happen on a planet with life. The color of the ground being green in summer and brown in winter is another important input to weather. But these inputs are stable over long periods of time, and predictable, so they can be discounted -- you might say. The major contributions to weather are relatively simple and few in number -- mainly sunlight and about a couple dozen chemicals I believe -- and this is nothing compared chemicals that play a role in cells. The fact that some of those dozen chemicals (such as O2) come from living systems does not make them particularly unpredictable or complex. There have been dramatic short-term changes to weather from non-living natural phenomena such as the explosion of Krakatoa. If anything, these changes give credence to the global warming theories. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). That's the crux of the matter. Living creatures themselves have a predictable effect on weather. Industrialize intelligent species are a new phenomenon and the effect they may have is entirely different from what other species have had. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. If any of youse got my email about the CBC radio science series on MP3 podcast, you might know that one of them is a hour-long interview with James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis... killfiles can be a double-edged sword youse know. ;P - -- grok. - -- *** FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE! *** * Boycott the Bourgeois Economy: BUY PROGRESSIVE * ** Critical endorsement only * Gift-giving Year-round ** * http://www.cafepress.com/handsoffvenez Hands Off Venezuela store * * http://www.cafepress.com/tarantulabros Tarantula Brothers Emporium * http://www.southendpress.org South End Press * * http://store.publicintegrity.org Ctr for Public Integrity store * * http://www.assatashakur.org/books.htmAssata Shakur Books * * http://www.greenandblacks.com Green Blacks Fairtrade Chocolate * * http://www.fairtrade.org.uk Fairtrade Mark UK * * http://www.fairtrade.ie Fairtrade Mark Eire * * Neoconservatism: Where Borg Empire strike back thru The Matrix * GPG fingerprint = 2E7F 2D69 4B0B C8D5 07E3 09C3 5E8D C4B4 461B B771 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkm4ddMACgkQXo3EtEYbt3FQLgCcC0FKCX9Rn1LWBJNV5zmYrQ66 2NUAoLZdLquw/b6Qi7+jW+eFH73TwWZ/ =/Lix -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:42:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] Robin van Spaandonk wrote: It is infinitely less complex than the human body and brain, or the ecosystem of the Serengeti, or my back yard, for that matter. It is more complex than all of those things, because they all form a part of it. Every living thing on the planet affects the weather to some extent, just by living. I realize that, but the effect of short term inputs from living creatures (things that vary by the century or millennium) is much smaller than inputs from chemicals which are present in stable amounts. (Or chemicals that used to be present in stable amounts, before the Industrial Revolution.) Obviously, life has a huge impact on the atmosphere with plants freeing up oxygen, and animals producing CO2 from respiration. Things like forest fires can only happen on a planet with life. The color of the ground being green in summer and brown in winter is another important input to weather. But these inputs are stable over long periods of time, and predictable, so they can be discounted -- you might say. They are not necessarily stable. A drought, a flood, or human activity can change vast areas considerably. Migration of species due to changing climate can also. The average over the planet may stay stable for a while, but shifts in climate will change that too. IOW there are feedback loops between the climate and the biosphere, which can't be easily accounted for, and could result in rapid change. An example is the melting of the permafrost enabling the growth of bacteria, and release of CO2 and methane. IOW this is not simple to model (depending on how accurate an answer you want). If you insist on simplifying it, then you *will* get the occasional surprise, and some of those surprises will be massive (due to feedback generating a change of state in the whole system - e.g. change in the gulf stream). ...the beating of a butterfly's wings in the Amazon... The major contributions to weather are relatively simple and few in number -- mainly sunlight and about a couple dozen chemicals I believe -- and this is nothing compared chemicals that play a role in cells. The fact that some of those dozen chemicals (such as O2) come from living systems does not make them particularly unpredictable or complex. Oh, but it does. As soon as you include the biosphere in the calculations, then all the individual interactions that occur within the biosphere are also included, by default (and there are trillions of them). And you can't leave the biosphere out, because the annual swings in CO2 concentration due to seasonal changes are still about 2-4 times larger than the annual CO2 increase due to fossil fuel consumption. [snip] As an example of what could go wrong:- A slight warming might lead to a reduction in the viability of nitrogen binding bacteria in the soil, which in turn results in a severe reduction in plant growth over a wide area. That in turn results in a dramatic reduction in CO2 uptake, and a consequent increase in warming, resulting in a positive feedback loop. This is something I just made up, but it does demonstrate that there are potentially zillions of things that could have an effect, and that it's not at all simple. Humans perhaps more than most, because our intelligence magnifies our influence beyond our direct influence (i.e. beyond the amount of CO2 our bodies produce, and the amount of food we consume). That's the crux of the matter. Living creatures themselves have a predictable effect on weather. See above. Industrialize intelligent species are a new phenomenon and the effect they may have is entirely different from what other species have had. True. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Morton experiment
In reply to Kyle Mcallister's message of Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:33 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] 1. If it is overpressure, why isn't it going out the easier path, between the PVC pipe and the steel sphere? It is not air tight...there's a decent gap there that one could stick a screwdriver in. Much lower air resistance there. 2. How does the air impulse, if that is what it is, maintain coherence over a distance, in such an apparently beamlike fashion? Is this like the old WHAM-O air vortex launchers? 3. Put some smoke in the tube and see what comes out? Smoke rings? Put smoke around the device as it fires, an see what way things are moved around? [snip] ...all sounds good to me. If it turns out not to be air, then you might try putting different types of material in front of it, to see if there are some it will pass through. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Red Hot Lies
Stephen: ... Rick, you're of the opinion that things have gotten hotter ... Please insert may (have gotten hotter), since it seems to be a trend, although trends in complex dynamical systems are notoriously untrustworthy. Jed: The planet's weather is less complex than a bacterium? Funny you should mention that. There are more kinds of bacteria than all other animal and plant species combined by a factor of perhaps some hundreds of millions. Yes I wrote factor, as in multiples of. They are by some incredibly vast margin the largest biomass there is. And those bugs behave in ways that are not known or understood. They affect the climate. They sculpt and alter the makeup of the surface, ocean, and atmosphere of the entire planet, changing everything alive and not. (I wasn't going to mention it, but in addition: for every bacteria, there's a phage - interacting with all those bacterial hosts, and on and on it goes.) Some climate models use cows, sheep, etc. because of the gasses their bacteria make. If we were all vegetarians, greenhouse gasses would be reduced. Maybe - I'm a veg-o so I do my part. g But that's such a trivial portion of the bacterial load in the earth and oceans, and those others also interact with and process all sorts of chemicals and things connected to other significant processes. There must be astronomical numbers of possible reactions between and among them and their inputs and outputs that can cause one thing or another to cross some tipping point and all of a sudden our atmosphere is made of cyanide or something, or is frozen solid or evaporated into space. Apparently it happened before and it's why we have grown to like oxygen. Did someone program all that into their models? You think science *could ever* understand or make useful predictive models in that range? Really? And bacterial interaction, immensely complicated as it is, is just *one* (albeit significant) variable parameter in the enormous climate mix! There's one thing of which I am absolutely certain when it comes to interpreting a system this complex: from all starting points save perhaps overwhelming total runaway conditions, only a god could comprehend and predict what would be likely to happen. And they would have to be a very big and important god at that. Al Gore is kinda big, but he's no god. Despite all that, I think there is yet another way we might get better clues about how this single planetary climate system might evolve. Hint: Kepler's a good start. - R.
RE: [Vo]:Sakaurajima volcano erupts
Horace: Have you ever been to Kodiak Island? -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sakaurajima volcano erupts On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: A Meteorological Agency video camera captured dramatic images of a volcano erupting a few hours ago in Japan, at 6 am local time. The video is here at the Asahi newspaper website (text in Japanese): http://www.asahi.com/video/news/TKY200903100244.html The location is at Sakurajima, Kagoshima pref. in south Kyuushu. A Met. Agency official is quoted in paragraph 1: There have been no volcano related earthquakes, tremors or other indications that a large scale eruption is likely, so we do not think that citizens need to evacuate at this time. The latest eruption is 2.5 km from the nearest settlement, where 15 people live. - Jed The latest volcano to threaten my location is 9,000 ft high Mt. Redoubt, even though I live about 200 miles away: http://www.skimountaineer.com/ROF/NorAm/Redoubt/RedoubtPlume.jpg As you can see, the volcanoes here are more about ash plumes than lava. The last eruption dumped ash over a 20,000 km^2 area. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Redoubt_(Alaska) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1992 - Release Date: 3/9/2009 7:20 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1994 - Release Date: 3/10/2009 7:51 PM
[Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
This sounds too good to be true... a wind generator that doesn't need any wind! HYPERLINK http://pesn.com/2009/03/11/9501531_Boswell_windless_turbine/http://pesn.com/2009/03/11/9501531_Bos well_windless_turbine/ -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1994 - Release Date: 3/10/2009 7:51 PM
