Presumably these five men were shielded by 10,000 feet of air while they stood directly under the detonation of 2Kiloton atomic bomb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlE1BdOAfVc Harry On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:41 PM, H LV <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > Unless the beam of gamma rays are emitted at high enough altitude most > of the beam energy will be reabsorbed by the atmosphere. > > harry > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >> Harry- >> >> No I do not think sending energy to space is equivalent to increasing the >> reflectivity of the earth. >> >> Its using kinetic energy released as heat or work or other useful form >> (existing already on Earth) to transfer heat stored in the atmosphere and >> oceans (more than is used by the transfer mechanism) to the thermal sink of >> outer space. Such energy, if properly directed from Earth, may even be used >> to heat a Moon habitat or a moon of Pluto habitat. >> >> As Jones has suggested, directing energetic muons in a certain direction, up >> for example, may work just as well as a gamma laser. >> >> Such laser magic is already used to cool matter down to near absolute zero. >> The trick will be to harvest the thermal energy from the ocean and >> atmosphere and change it to a coherent gamma beam that can escape the Earth. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> -----Original Message----- From: H LV >> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:53 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comparison of energy inputs to Earth climate >> >> Bob, >> >> That would be equivalent to cooling the Earth by increasing the >> reflectivity of the Earth. >> >> The advantage of "renewable" energy sources is that they don't add >> more energy to the environment so a global excess heat problem could >> not arise from their expanded use. >> >> The quest for "the holy grail of energy" is a quest for an energy >> source that is completely independent of the Sun. However, it is >> possible to achieve energy security without living independently of >> the Sun. Therefore the belief that some sort of ultimate energy >> source exists is emblematic of the dream to leave the Earth and to >> travel to the Stars. It is not emblematic of the pressing need to >> build a better life on Earth. It is important to have dreams but the >> pursuit of a dream should not serve as a substitute for the >> satisfaction of a pressing need. >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Harry-- >>> >>> If the use of non-polluting energy becomes too great and causes additional >>> warming and ocean rises, then energy production may need to be controlled >>> on >>> a global basis. Maybe a device to harvest infra-red EM and shoot it to >>> space to avoid warming the atmosphere is the next earth saving invention. >>> I >>> think such a device may already exist in the form of a gamma ray laser. >>> >>> Think about the mechanism for sending gamma ray bursts across the >>> universe. >>> >>> Bob Cook >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: H LV >>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 4:10 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Vo]:Comparison of energy inputs to Earth climate >>> >>> In defence of AGW, this link argues that heat fluctuations from within >>> the Earth are far too small to contribute to global warming. >>> >>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html >>> >>> The interesting thing is that according to fig. 4 energy produced by >>> fossil and nuclear sources is already 1/3 of the energy flow from >>> within the Earth. If LENR can really replace all other energy sources >>> and if the demand for energy grows a hundred times then the "holy >>> grail of energy" could bring about a global heat pollution problem. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>
