Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
At 7:12 PM 2/9/5, revtec wrote: God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward God sized problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant. A more complete answer and some corrections, follow. Note last paragraph. The objective of achieving even a 10 percent reduction in solar insolation factor seems to me to be feasible. This might be met by dispersing orbiting aluminum (or CaO, or lunar soil) nanopowder from latitudes 50 to -50, at, say, an altitude of about 800 km. This might be accomplished by deploying a ring of satellites that orbit between those latitudes, and then firing rockets in a direction normal to the direction of travel and a radial line through the earths center and such a satellite. The rocket firing would thus not change the orbit altitude, only the poles of the orbit. In this manner the nanpowder would be deployed at a constant altitude. During the firing the nanopowder would be deployed, possibly into the exhaust. It might be possible to design an electric rocket that uses the nanopowder as a reaction mass, and which runs on solar power. It is presently possible to obtain metal nanopowders of dimension 8 nm. These then have volume of (8x10^9 m)^3 = 5.12x10^-22 m^3/particle, or 1.95x10^21 particles/m^3 of, say, aluminum. Aluminum weighs 2.70 g/cm^2 = 2700 kg/m^3. There is thus (1.95x10^21 particles/m^3)/(2700 kg/m^3) = 7.22x10^17 particles/kg. If we assume that one such particle can reflect incoming photons of about 10^-6 m wavelength about 10 percent of the time within a radius of 10^-6 m, then each nanoparticle has the required coverage of Pi*(10^-6 m)^2 = 3.14x10^-12 m^2. This gives a coverage of (7.22x10^17 particle/kg)(3.14x10^-12 m^2/particle) = 2.98x10^6 m^2/kg. The radius of the earth is 6.38x10^6 m, and if we deploy at 800 km then the effective radius of our deployment sphere is 7.18x10^6 m. Given that the area of the zone of a sphere is 2 Pi R h, the total deployment area is 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)*((7.18x10^6 m)*sin(50 deg.)) = 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)^2*(.766) = 4.96x10^14 m^2. The total deployed mass is thus (4.96x10^14 m^2)/(2.98 m^2/kg) = 1.66x10^8 kg, or 166,000 metric tons. Assuming the deployment of this amount of payload can get the price down to $10,000/kg, the cost of deployment is (1.66x10^8 kg)($10,000/kg) = $1.66x10^12. The price of, for a limited time, saving the earth when it is at the defined point of stress is about 1.7 trillion dollars. The worst assumption in this rough first estimate is probably the assumption that an 8 nanometer particle can provide 10 percent reflection back into space of low infrared to visible radiation, radiation averaging about 10^-6 m wavelength, over an area about (10^-6 m)^2. If lunar soil is used, then much less energy is requred to get it into orbit and transport it, so there is no practical constraint the mass that can be moved in a multi-trillion dollar project. Hopefully such a dispersal will be planned to occur at sufficient altitude that it will last long enough for us, or subsequent generations, to solve the global warming problem. This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary. There is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF. If that gas can be produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming. Elimination of all of mankind's energy consuption is about equal to a half of a tenth of a percent decrease in energy trapped by the greenhouse effect. Similarly, if we reduced the solar input by a similar amount, roughly 0.04 percent, we could double our energy use with no net effect - provided there were no additional greenhouse gases generated. It is the emission and retention of greenhouse gasses that is the problem, not the waste heat from energy generation/utilization. Annual world energy use is about 1/2000 the energy the energy the sun sends us each year. The world energy consumption is about 400 quads/year, i.e. 400x10^15 BTU/y = 1.17x10^14 kWh/y, and is forecast to be about 470 quads in 2010. The world power consumption is thus roughly (1.17x10^14 kWh/y)/((365 d/y)*(24 h/d)) = 1.34x10^10 kW. The sun puts out roughly a kW/m^2, the earth's radius is 6.38x10^6 m, so the earth presents about 3.2x10^13 m^2 cross section to the sun, thus obtains energy at a rate of about 3.2x10^13 kW from the sun. The total energy consumed by humanity is equivalent to an increase
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
But what effect would this have on satellites and future spaceships? If this is a good idea (and I doubt it) the orbit of the particles would have to be limited so they are easy to steer round. Horace Heffner wrote: At 7:12 PM 2/9/5, revtec wrote: God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward God sized problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant. A more complete answer and some corrections, follow. Note last paragraph. The objective of achieving even a 10 percent reduction in solar insolation factor seems to me to be feasible. This might be met by dispersing orbiting aluminum (or CaO, or lunar soil) nanopowder from latitudes 50 to -50, at, say, an altitude of about 800 km. This might be accomplished by deploying a ring of satellites that orbit between those latitudes, and then firing rockets in a direction normal to the direction of travel and a radial line through the earths center and such a satellite. The rocket firing would thus not change the orbit altitude, only the poles of the orbit. In this manner the nanpowder would be deployed at a constant altitude. During the firing the nanopowder would be deployed, possibly into the exhaust. It might be possible to design an electric rocket that uses the nanopowder as a reaction mass, and which runs on solar power. It is presently possible to obtain metal nanopowders of dimension 8 nm. These then have volume of (8x10^9 m)^3 = 5.12x10^-22 m^3/particle, or 1.95x10^21 particles/m^3 of, say, aluminum. Aluminum weighs 2.70 g/cm^2 = 2700 kg/m^3. There is thus (1.95x10^21 particles/m^3)/(2700 kg/m^3) = 7.22x10^17 particles/kg. If we assume that one such particle can reflect incoming photons of about 10^-6 m wavelength about 10 percent of the time within a radius of 10^-6 m, then each nanoparticle has the required coverage of Pi*(10^-6 m)^2 = 3.14x10^-12 m^2. This gives a coverage of (7.22x10^17 particle/kg)(3.14x10^-12 m^2/particle) = 2.98x10^6 m^2/kg. The radius of the earth is 6.38x10^6 m, and if we deploy at 800 km then the effective radius of our deployment sphere is 7.18x10^6 m. Given that the area of the zone of a sphere is 2 Pi R h, the total deployment area is 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)*((7.18x10^6 m)*sin(50 deg.)) = 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)^2*(.766) = 4.96x10^14 m^2. The total deployed mass is thus (4.96x10^14 m^2)/(2.98 m^2/kg) = 1.66x10^8 kg, or 166,000 metric tons. Assuming the deployment of this amount of payload can get the price down to $10,000/kg, the cost of deployment is (1.66x10^8 kg)($10,000/kg) = $1.66x10^12. The price of, for a limited time, saving the earth when it is at the defined point of stress is about 1.7 trillion dollars. The worst assumption in this rough first estimate is probably the assumption that an 8 nanometer particle can provide 10 percent reflection back into space of low infrared to visible radiation, radiation averaging about 10^-6 m wavelength, over an area about (10^-6 m)^2. If lunar soil is used, then much less energy is requred to get it into orbit and transport it, so there is no practical constraint the mass that can be moved in a multi-trillion dollar project. Hopefully such a dispersal will be planned to occur at sufficient altitude that it will last long enough for us, or subsequent generations, to solve the global warming problem. This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary. There is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF. If that gas can be produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming. Elimination of all of mankind's energy consuption is about equal to a half of a tenth of a percent decrease in energy trapped by the greenhouse effect. Similarly, if we reduced the solar input by a similar amount, roughly 0.04 percent, we could double our energy use with no net effect - provided there were no additional greenhouse gases generated. It is the emission and retention of greenhouse gasses that is the problem, not the waste heat from energy generation/utilization. Annual world energy use is about 1/2000 the energy the energy the sun sends us each year. The world energy consumption is about 400 quads/year, i.e. 400x10^15 BTU/y = 1.17x10^14 kWh/y, and is forecast to be about 470 quads in 2010. The world power consumption is thus roughly (1.17x10^14 kWh/y)/((365 d/y)*(24 h/d)) = 1.34x10^10 kW. The sun puts out roughly a kW/m^2, the earth's radius is
Re: Suppressed science web site
At 11:20 am 09-02-05 -0500, you wrote: See: http://www.suppressedscience.net/ http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html Many thanks for those two URLs Jed. They contain some very useful stuff. It's nice to have it all together in one document. Frank Grimer
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
OK revtec, at least I read your posts! you wrote "The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant" The thermal condition of the planet is set by the output of the sun PLUS the heat "retaining" capacity of the atmosphere and land. Without the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, Earth would be an ice planet. This solar output red herring is the latest rhetorical trick of the global warming deniers. Obviously it has an effect and so does volcano CO2 output -another (earlier) rhetorical trick, also water vapour. THESE are all irrelevant because they are NATURAL variations we have little or no control over. If the solar output was dropping and we could predict that there would be no large scale volcanic outpourings for a century or twothen environmentalists may look kindly on INCREASING our output of CO2 etc to stabilise things. The point is, the arguments of the global warming deniers are more or lessfunctionally equivalent to the guy who doesn't switch the electricity off when herewires a house because peoplecanget struck by lightning... Nick
Re: Cluster Chemistry
At 01:31 pm 10-02-05 -, you wrote: Clusters of Aluminum Atoms Found to Have Properties of Other Elements Reveal a New Form of Chemistry transparent aluminium Scotty? Shouldn't that be transparent aluminum Scotty? ;-)
Re: Cluster Chemistry
That's what happens if you get a Canadian pretending to be Scottish... Thought I'd redress the balance
Re: Cluster Chemistry
At 02:45 pm 10-02-05 -, you wrote: That's what happens if you get a Canadian pretending to be Scottish... Thought I'd redress the balance I love it 8^)
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Horace Heffner wrote: However, since the energy provided by CF would for the most part *replace* carbon based fuel consumption, it is mostly an offset . . . This all assumes the efficiency of CF is similar to heat enigines, or that waste heat is used effectively. I think those are very safe assumptions. It is easier to use cold fusion heat effectively than it is to use other sources of heat such as combustion, because these other sources produce poison gas, and they are much too hot (i.e., there is an impedance mismatch). Also, efficiency is bound to improve in the future. It could hardly be worse than it is now! As I said, I discussed this in the book in some detail. - Jed
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
--- Nick Palmer wrote: The thermal condition of the planet is set by the output of the sun PLUS the heat retaining capacity of the atmosphere and land. Without the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, Earth would be an ice planet. This solar output red herring is the latest rhetorical trick of the global warming deniers. Yes and no. You are leaving out a big item here, perhaps the biggest item of all - natural CO2 removal, which is negatively impacted by thermal pollution. There seems to be denial by those who do not think that human produced thermal pollution is a risk factor. It is a huge factor. On the positive side, it can become less so IF distributed sources such as cold fusion or ZPE can be perfected before it is too late. It is not 'just' the heat itself but WHERE the heat is dumped. If heat rejection from power plants takes place directly in the river/ocean environment as a heat sink, which is often the case with nuclear and coal-fired plants, then the effect of human thermal pollution is magnified many fold over dumping heat into the atmosphere where some of it can radiate away much faster than in the oceans. But there is much more to the interlocking cycle than re-radiation. Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution has already dissolved into the world's oceans! with some positive and some adverse effects for marine life. But also helping tremendously to slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 as some of that has already been safely removed by blue-green algae. This factor has led short-sighted individuals, even at the highest levels of government, to think that the Earth is self-regulating. NO! that is not the case past a certain tipping point. That self-regulation is only true in the short term, and we are now passing rapidly through the stage of self-regulation. The most active marine life for taking CO2 _out_ of the ocean is algae and single celled organisms which are FAR more productive in colder water. Fish know this but humans, even some environmentalists, do not seem to get it. Yet fishermen from California and even Mexico for instance, routinely go to all the way to Alaskan waters at great expense- why ... duh ... that is where the fish are, and the fish go there because that is where their food is. It is not that algae like cold water, and in fact they could grow faster in warm water, in theory, it is just that cold water holds far more CO2 in the surface layers where they can get both the carbon and the light necessary to convert it into protein easily. ALGAE (and humans, eventually) NEED COLD WATER to flourish. Period. Let me try to hammer this in one more time as there seems to be some strong persistent and incorrect opinions on this. Scientists who undertook the first comprehensive look at ocean storage of carbon dioxide found that the world's oceans serve as a massive sink that traps the greenhouse gas - up to a point - that point being ocean temperature. If ocean temps do not rise much, then CO2 is removed and there is a self-regulating effect. But the effect of thermal pollution is MAGNIFIED in the oceans, which is where 90% of CO2 can be removed easily. The hotter oceans get, the less CO2 can be dissolved in the surface layer. The less that is dissolved, the less that algae can remove. It's not rocket science. The research says that the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming considerably for 150 years, but that *grace-period* has effectively ended because of rising ocean temperatures. And the CO2 removal cycle is now failing at a faster rate in recent years because the oceans have gotten too warm to absorb any more CO2. The self-regulation effect in now on hold and will turn to runaway before it returns to self-regulating, unless something is done. Ironically, the melting glaciers have actually helped to oceans cooler, but that is also self-deceptive to think of as a real fix for the problem. This is the big point... no the HUGE point about focusing attention on thermal pollution - but ocean not atmospheric. Do not fall prey to the suggestion that Earth is self-regulating in the long term. It is not. The reason we are not in a runaway situation already is that single-cell ocean life has kept up the pace with us, but that process is now fully maximized and can do no more. We are 15-25 years away from a run-away greenhouse effect now. I can only pray that God, however that force is personally defined in the sense of discretion or foresight, has 'chosen' the later date, which will permit us some extra leeway needed to overcome entrenched ignorance and greed, such as we see now at the highest levels of our great petrocracy. Jones
Re: Albedo Modification vs Orbiting Lime
Got through the Realty Problem, Now for the Reality Problem White marble chips ( prone to acid rain degradation) and other reflective roofing materials (Gypsum, made by the Megaton by power plant Sulfur Cleaning)on most housing could lower the earth's temperature by altering the Albedo (at will). When it gets too cold, change the roofing.. :-) http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/rsnote/cp1/cp1-8.htm "Reflectance is defined as the ratio of incident flux on a sample surface to reflected flux from the surface as shown in Figure 1.8.1. Reflectance ranges from 0 to 1. Reflectance was originally defined as a ratio of incident flux of white light to reflected flux in a hemisphere direction. Equipment to measure reflectance are called spectrometers (see 2.6). Albedo is defined as the reflectance using the incident light source from the sun. Reflectance factor is sometime used as the ratio of reflected flux from a sample surface to reflected flux from a perfectly diffuse surface. Reflectance with respect to wavelength is called spectral reflectance as shown for a vegetation example in Figure 1.8.2. A basic assumption in remote sensing is that spectral reflectance is unique and different from one object to an unlike object. " http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html "Reflectivity of the surface is often described by the term surface albedo. The Earth's average albedo, reflectance from both the atmosphere and the surface, is about 30 %. Figure 7f-5 describes the modification of solar radiation by atmospheric and surface processes for the whole Earth over a period of one year. Of all the sunlight that passes through the atmosphere annually, only 51 % is available at the Earth's surface to do work. This energy is used to heat the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere, melt and evaporate water, and run photosynthesis in plants. Of the other 49 %, 4 % is reflected! back to space by the Earth's surface, 26 % is scattered or reflected to space by clouds and atmospheric particles, and 19 % is absorbed by atmospheric gases, particles, and clouds." Reflectance of Gypsum (White Sands the White Cliffs of Dover are visible from the ISS) http://www.tec.army.mil/research/products/desert_guide/lspectra/intro/fig8.htm This sample, from White Sands National Monument in New Mexico, contains particles that passed through a lmm sieve. Water is an important component of gypsum, and the overtones are evident at 1000, 1200, and 1700 nm, as well as the broad, deep dips at 1400 and 1900 nm "Reflectance measurements by the Illinois State Geological Survey on high-calcium limestone samples from most of these deposits range from 57.6% for the Wapsipinicon Limestone from Rock Island County to 88.9% for the Burlington Limestone in Adams County. Values for some of the deposits exceed 80% and therefore compare favorably with reflectance specifications for filler and coating clays." Hope this helps. Frederick
[OT]God's Solution
I love this kind of argument. Let's see how obnoxious I can get with the answer. Free Will God works in mysterious ways The argument that a god (does not have to be the christian God whose name is not known) would save us from our own folly is laughable. The last time God chose to save the world from the folly of man, he flooded the world. The theory that we should not concern ourselves with the environment because God will save us reminds me of a joke... (which I will tell poorly) There was a flood down south, and as the rescue workers were evacuating those stranded by the flood they cam across a particularly pious man sitting calmly on his roof. He refused assistance saying, "The good Lord will provide." Later a second boat came along to try and rescue the man, but again he refused saying, "The good Lord will provide." As the water reached the man's neck, a helicopter flew over and offered him a rope ladder, but again he refused. The man finally drowned and went to heaven, where he asked God, "Why did you not save me Lord?" God replied, "I provided you with two fine boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?" Just because we expect a miracle does not mean we would recognize it when it comes. FWIW I'm probably a deist, I haven't checked lately. MerlynMagickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
RE: [OFF TOPIC] Time to start Filtering again
Intelligent discussion of any topic is not a waste of time... inspiration usually comes from unlikely places. -john -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Time to start Filtering again At 1:13 PM 2/9/5, Don Wiegel wrote: I noticed that: Frederick Sparber signed his last Reply as: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Signing off the list. Frederick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vortex is the greatest news list on the internet for stimulating conversations. Personally .. I enjoy most all of the subjects discussed. However ... There are some Great Minds out there who do not like the Off Topic conversions. For awhile you all put [OFF TOPIC] in the subject line .. When you were Off Topic This allows those who want to .. To Filter out this type of conversion. Could you all start doing this again .. Maybe this would get Mr. Sparber back. Also .. Remember PlainTEXT only. -DonW- Fred will be back when he has something to say. He signs off and on the list frequently. He just signs off when he doesn't have time to or doesn't want to converse. I certainly do agree with use of the [OFF TOPIC] or [OT] designations when the discussion drifts completely away from a science topic. I should also note I personally have enjoyed reading some of the OT discussions. Regards, Horace Heffner -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 10-Feb-05
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Jones Beene's excellent treatise on Global Warming is worthy of praise. A Liquid Nitrogen fuel economy (as opposed to hydrogen) for Cryocars and other LN2-powered vehicles ranging from scooters to mail trucks would concurrently offer a way to extract CO2 and particulate pollutants from the atmosphere. LN2-powered vehicles function well at 60 below zero and even better at 100 degrees above (offering great air conditioning to boot). Apparently the effort in this direction (University of Washington) was quashed before it got beyond preliminary trials: http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid nitrogen as the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a steam engine, except there is no combustion involved. Instead, liquid nitrogen at 320° F (196° C) is pressurized and then vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient temperature of the surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the radiator of a car but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to heat and boil liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is fed to an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine, converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is nitrogen, which is the major constituent of our atmosphere As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-hr/kg) of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to gasoline but better than that of readily available battery systems. Studies indicate that liquid nitrogen automobiles will have significant performance and environmental advantages over electric vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with a 60-gallon tank will have a potential range of up to 200 miles, or more than twice that of a typical electric car. Frederick.
Re: Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
From: Frederick Sparber Jones Beene's excellent treatise on Global Warming is worthy of praise. A Liquid Nitrogen fuel economy (as opposed to hydrogen) for Cryocars and other LN2-powered vehicles ranging from scooters to mail trucks would concurrently offer a way to extract CO2 and particulate pollutants from the atmosphere. ... Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid nitrogen as the fuel. For those curious about nitrogen powered engine technology that is currently under development in other parts of the globe check out: http://www.perendev-power.com/contacts.htm and http://www.perendev-power.com/home.htm It would not surprise me if the University of Washington ended up having a battle on their hands as Perendev has also been hard a work developing the same technology for quite some time. I would think they might consider claiming a patent infringement. Steve Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Suppressed science web site
That site is the brian-child of former mathematics grad student Rochus Boerner (Arizona State) who moved back to Germany last year. http://www.suppressedscience.net/ http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html Many thanks for those two URLs Jed. They contain some very useful stuff. It's nice to have it all together in one document. Frank Grimer
Frank Close still bragging about his role in CF
Google Alerts brought me this little gem: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0502/S00025.htm I am sure Close himself wrote the blurb announcing this lecture at the Royal Society of New Zealand. . He and the other hard core components are amazing. I'll bet they have not seen a single paper since 1989. He probably does not have a clue what is happening at Mitsubishi, for example. It would be fun to plant a mole in the audience at the Society, to ask him about Mitsubishi during the QA session. - Jed
How useful is liquid N2 if as a fuel source?
Ok Vorts, what do all you Big Guns (and you know who you are) have to say about using liquid N2 as a viable fuel source? I believe liquid N2 is fairly cheap to make, costing around or slightly less than a gallon of milk volume wise. N2 is a commonly used product. It?s used in many applications from freezing sperm to making super conductive devices. N2 is a plentiful element. Seventy percent of our atmosphere comprises unbound nitrogen. No energy would be expended cracking N2 from other elements like O2 as we would have to do in order to get H2. I would imagine the most difficult stumbling blocks in running N2 based steam engines would be to make sure all the moving parts don't freeze up, literally, or that critical parts don't become too cryogenically brittle and shatter under normal stresses. Brings a whole new meaning to the word: freezer burn. Ironic when one considers the fact that N2 typically doesn't burn or explode in a dangerous manner as combining oxygen and hydrogen would in our atmosphere. How much energy is expended producing liquid N2, and how would this potential resource compare to equivalent alternative fuel source energy carriers. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
At 7:45 AM 2/10/5, Jones Beene wrote: We are 15-25 years away from a run-away greenhouse effect now. Is this just a guess? It seems to me entirely possible we may be a runaway mode right now. Measurements of the tundra surface show methane release is increasing and the area of thawing regions are increasing. The arctic is warming and the warming produces a strong postitive feedback effect. The environment has a capacity to convert CO2 to oxygen that is inversely related to temperature. It could take a long time to cook us all, but that doesn't change the fact that a feedback driven runaway is unstoppable except possibly by unprecedented world scale efforts, or a dramatic shift in ocean currents. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
At 1:23 AM 2/11/5, John Berry wrote: But what effect would this have on satellites and future spaceships? If this is a good idea (and I doubt it) the orbit of the particles would have to be limited so they are easy to steer round. Horace Heffner wrote: [snip] This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary. There is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF. If that gas can be produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming. [snip] This concept in general and the issues you raise were developed and debated in the very recent thread A last resort attack on global warming. You can review it at http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex. The concept was proposed as a final option in the event of *runaway* global warming, which could make earth like venus, with a surface temperature above boiling. Better to do without GPS, communications satellites etc. than to stew all life. However, there is a launch window through the polar regions, and possibly even directly through the nano-belt provided appropriate external nano-particle shielding is provided, possibly aerogel: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=399812page=1 (URL courtesy of Terry Blanton.) All other means should of course be pursued first, including production of methane hydrates and conversion of that methane to hydogen, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, geothermal power. At the same time conservation measures, which have barely been utilized, may have the capacity to get us half way there. Also, read the post Message from Russ George about ocean CO2. This is really stunning information. It may be possible to reduce atmospheric CO2 by fertilizing the oceans with iron. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Albedo Modification vs Orbiting Lime
At 8:46 AM 2/10/5, Frederick Sparber wrote: Got through the Realty Problem, Now for the Reality Problem White marble chips ( prone to acid rain degradation) and other reflective roofing materials (Gypsum, made by the Megaton by power plant Sulfur Cleaning) on most housing could lower the earth's temperature by altering the Albedo (at will). When it gets too cold, change the roofing.. :-) Coincidentally, I resurfaced my flat tar roof last summer. I used a nylon fabric imbedded in a siliconized rubber containing zinc oxide, a combination intended for use on mobile homes and RV's, but which still seems to have worked well on my flat roof. It makes for a very reflective roof. My dark sunglasses barely made the glare tolerable. Living in Alaska, I have no air conditioning. However, things have been heating up here, and sometimes in the summer the house gets uncomfortably warm. The new white roof was intended to take care of this problem, and it did a great job. Here, it doesn't matter in the winter that it is white, because it is covered with snow anyway. The heating bills may be a bit higher in spring and fall though, but heating is cheaper than cooling. In lower lattitudes and on pitched roofs it is possible, on south facing roof surfaces, to make stepped shingles that are white on top and black on the sides, possibly with a slight overhang of the white surface or a receeding incline of the black surface. This achieve a high reflectivity when the sun is overhead in summer, and absorbtion when the sun is low in winter. A low pitch white roof with a large overhang, covering a building with a dark southern wall, would have a similar seasonally adjusted effect. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: How useful is liquid N2 if as a fuel source?
Steve wrote: Ok Vorts, what do all you Big Guns (and you know who you are) have to say about using liquid N2 as a viable fuel source? In short, liquid N2 is not a FUEL source. At best it is an energy transfer medium, like a battery or compressed air. It also has a definite half life. It will not stay liquid at room temperature by just pressurizing it, like CO2 or LNG. It must boil - slowly but surely - so don't leave your car in the garage for a week and expect to find any liquid N2 to make it go. If you are willing to tow the car to the LN2 station and fill it up just before that trip, it's fine. You have to expend energy to liquify air to get the LN2. And then spend energy to get it to the point of use. And lose stroed energy from the time of liquefaction to the time of use. Valiant efforts are being made to make H2 a viable transportation fuel. While we are contemplating big problems, think about the essential role of air and ocean transport to the viability of populations the world over. If fuel reserves really get bad, we may divert those to air and ocean transport. I have the impression that one of the most efficient combusiton engines at present is the gas turbine, which is being used on new ships as well as aircraft. It is notable that FedEx bought a significant quantity of the new AirBus giant aircraft -- 800 passangers in the people version. Mike Carrell I believe liquid N2 is fairly cheap to make, costing around or slightly less than a gallon of milk volume wise. N2 is a commonly used product. It?s used in many applications from freezing sperm to making super conductive devices. N2 is a plentiful element. Seventy percent of our atmosphere comprises unbound nitrogen. No energy would be expended cracking N2 from other elements like O2 as we would have to do in order to get H2. I would imagine the most difficult stumbling blocks in running N2 based steam engines would be to make sure all the moving parts don't freeze up, literally, or that critical parts don't become too cryogenically brittle and shatter under normal stresses. Brings a whole new meaning to the word: freezer burn. Ironic when one considers the fact that N2 typically doesn't burn or explode in a dangerous manner as combining oxygen and hydrogen would in our atmosphere. How much energy is expended producing liquid N2, and how would this potential resource compare to equivalent alternative fuel source energy carriers. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Frank Close still bragging about his role in CF
Hey Jed, You have my synthesis. The same think happens with my voice re-order system two. Steve At 02:21 PM 2/10/2005 -0500, you wrote: I wrote: He and the other hard core components are amazing. I meant opponents. That is what you get when you dictate a message to voice input and press the send key without even looking at it. - Jed
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Horace, Is this just a guess? There have been a number of recent computer simulations. The number that keeps popping up, such as in this Oxford University report, is that dangerous levels of climate change will happen as early as 2026. Other studies how sooner but this date of 2026 seems most accurate for such things as the total extinction of seals, polar bears etc. and methane levels which will cause human deaths in large numbers in artic regions. http://baltimorechronicle.com/021005Davidson.shtml The United States is the only country with land in the Arctic region that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is a critical step because as you are no doubt aware, the Northern ice cap is warming at twice the global rate... That is probably why you feel that runaway has already begun. But in some areas, there is little or no warming, which is why there is any argument at all. If we could send all the skeptics of global warming to Alaska for a tour of the situation, there would probably be no skeptics left who were not on the petro-payroll. Jones
How to appear in the blogoshere?
From time to time I notice that bloggers have established links to our web page. Here is an example: http://atomicmotor.blogspot.com/ I have been thinking that it would be nice to introduce cold fusion to more people in the Blogosphere, in order to promote the field. The problem is, I know nothing about blogs. I have not read them. A couple of weeks ago I set out to learn more about them. Specifically, I wanted to find out: Which are the influential blogs, and is there a way to contact the authors? It is nearly impossible to contact influential media figures such as Bill Moyers. They get so much mail, they have to hire flunkies to sort out information and protect them from the outside world. Even if you do get through to one, there is no point, because these people will not risk their reputations to endorse cold fusion -- or even talk about it. However, my guess is that minor media figures might take a risk. Also, it is usually easy to reach them. A column in a regional newspaper such as the St. Paul Star Tribune probably includes the author's e-mail address. I suppose many blogs also include a way to contact the author directly. Anyway, I set out to learn about these blog things . . . and I was not impressed. Most of them seem poorly written and unorganized. Most appear to be right wing political diatribes, or self-centered gabbing about nothing in particular, or recursive comments about the blogosphere itself. So, if anyone in the audience here at Vortex is a blog aficionado, please do me a favor and contact them on behalf of LENR-CANR.org and my book. It would probably be better if the message came from other people, rather than from me. I have nothing against self-promotion, especially since I am not charging anything for the book so there can be no accusation of commercial interest or spam. But it still might look better if other people introduce the topic. There are two reasons I would like to promote the book as opposed to other material on the web site: 1. I would like to expand our audience, and I think the book may have broader public appeal than most of the papers. Perhaps there are other papers on the site that might appeal to a layman. Perhaps we should add some? Plus, as I say in the introduction, the book is intended to be a manifesto. That is, I hope it helps trigger political action. Readers have downloaded 1162 copies. That is gratifying, but it is not enough to have a political impact. 2. Technically oriented people who are looking for information on cold fusion already find us, quite easily, via Google and other search tools. Roughly a third of our visitors come from these sources. This does not necessarily mean readers have decided to look for cold fusion information on their own. My guess is that someone tells his friend, hey, have a look at this LENR thing on the web and people go to a search tool first. By the way, the total number of downloads since we began is now roughly 300,000, and the visitor count is roughly 590,000. The numbers from before last April are impossible to establish, but that is a conservative. estimate. It excludes things such as one person downloading the same paper several times in one hour, and the many robot readers from Google, Yahoo and so on. - Jed
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored. revtec wrote: What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF? Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming? Yes, this is an important goal. Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet? Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as is the usual approach? Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming will accelerate by direct heating alone! Could it be that with perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box? Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and sources internal to the earth. I brought this up before without getting a single comment. Did I have silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from revtec without reading a single word. I really don't know. God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward God sized problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant. Not true. We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun stays on earth. The earth is not a perfect absorber. Changes in the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy retained by the earth. This is the issue, not the total amount of energy emitted by the sun. Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat. Athiests think no one does. Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our increased heat load. People, who either don't believe in God or don't trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves. Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race has no understanding of how God works. Christianity teaches free will. If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we are free to do so. Why would God care? Many species on other planets would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that intelligent life would go on. We would be just one more attempt to produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational. Christians are thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle God sized problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think the solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental problems is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's surface. Where did you get this idea? This is not only not true, but not even rational. For anyone who wants to play the God game, the stakes are fantastically high. What will be the most likely cause of calamity: trusting God or playing God? The route to survival is to observe how nature works and adjust behavior to be consistent with a behavior that allows survival. This is true of individuals as well as nations. It does not involve playing God, but simply understanding the consequences of one's actions. The US, especially, has lost the ability to understand the consequence of actions, instead has substituted what a few people WANT to happen. Unfortunately, these wants seem to be justified by assuming that this is what God wants. The arrogance is overwhelming. Regards, Ed Storms Jeff
Re: How to appear in the blogoshere?
You have my sympathies Jed. Although I charge for my CF book, I, like you, didn't write it to make money. Getting out the word of my book, and the subject, is a tough sell right now and I think it's all about what you said, these people will not risk their reputations to endorse cold fusion -- or even talk about it. My strategy has been to spend massive amounts of time contacting any and every person I know or learn of that shows some sign of interest and bend their ear a bit. I think you'll agree, this subject should be paramount in scientific and respectable circles. At this point in time, it seems like the strong interest is still clearly in the fringe. Regardless, I do what I can, figuring that every little bit will help and that the results will show up some day. The other part of my strategy has been to avoid preaching to the deaf, as well as the converted. Steve
Thanks V Bill B Donations?
I also want to say to the Vortex group that I really appreciate the recent insightful, articulate and well-reasoned discussions that have occurred here of late. While there may not be any streets or homes here, this is clearly a well-defined and functional community. It is a place that I can count on for intelligent scientific debate and discussion. Thank you Bill B. Hey Bill, how about a Paypal-type system so we can donate? Steve
Re: Thermally Rechargeable Batteries Based on Intercalation in Graphite
This NASA sponsored research item caught my eye the other day. If this works as implied, low grade heat at50 C to 150 C (176 F at 80 C, is the radiator coolant temp of your car) from solar, fossil fuel-burning power plants, not to mention CF etc., could change the global energy picture. http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Feb01/NPO19824.html "Storage batteries based on intercalation of lithium and bromine in graphite have been proposed. Like other storage batteries, these could be recharged electrically. Optionally, these batteries could also be recharged thermally at relatively low temperatures by use of solar or waste heat, for example." Frederick
Re: How to appear in the blogoshere?
Anyway, I set out to learn about these blog things . . . and I was not impressed. Most of them seem poorly written and unorganized. Most appear to be right wing political diatribes, or self-centered gabbing about nothing in particular, or recursive comments about the blogosphere itself. . congrats. this here is a nail, and thats a rather large hammer in your hand, and you connected the two quite well. the majority of the blogosphere (puke) is just that. there are some sites dedicated to new that are or were pretty big. i used to be on agonist a bunch before they changed things around (scoop.agonist.org, no www. ). and i used to post a bunch of fringe science stuff, but, since we had a few real scientists, that got ignored. my suggestion, if you see that youve been linked by a blog, go there, sign up, add a link on your website back to that blog, and talk with people on the commenting systems. that will draw people. that, and you can make your own blog. recent things that have come up, news items you got from vortex, ect, with your own thoughts and comments, and a space for people to comment. theres lots of canned blogging programs. find a blog you like the looks of, and search the faq, youll usually find some info on how they put their blog together. On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:04:53 -0800, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have my sympathies Jed. Although I charge for my CF book, I, like you, didn't write it to make money. Getting out the word of my book, and the subject, is a tough sell right now and I think it's all about what you said, these people will not risk their reputations to endorse cold fusion -- or even talk about it. My strategy has been to spend massive amounts of time contacting any and every person I know or learn of that shows some sign of interest and bend their ear a bit. I think you'll agree, this subject should be paramount in scientific and respectable circles. At this point in time, it seems like the strong interest is still clearly in the fringe. Regardless, I do what I can, figuring that every little bit will help and that the results will show up some day. The other part of my strategy has been to avoid preaching to the deaf, as well as the converted. Steve -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
RE: How useful is liquid N2 if as a fuel source?
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote I believe liquid N2 is fairly cheap to make, costing around or slightly less than a gallon of milk volume wise. LOX from coal electricity costs about $140 per ton, so the LN2 by-product is about $200 per ton if you couldn't market the LOX which is being used for cleaner-burning power generation and industrial processes such as steel and glass manufacture glass-making Hydrogen Peroxide synthesis, medical oxygen and so on. N2 is a commonly used product. It's used in many applications from freezing sperm to making super conductive devices. N2 is a plentiful element. Seventy percent of our atmosphere comprises unbound nitrogen. No energy would be expended cracking N2 from other elements like O2 as we would have to do in order to get H2. Yes and natural gas (CH4) conversion to H2 ( which is currently costing over $10.00 for 40 lbs) wastes lots of energy and pollutes with CO2. You will be hard put to get CH4 or Coal-Derived Hydrogen for less than $3.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent. On top of that you can use power-plant waste heat (cogeneration engines) to run the Air Liquefaction Process. I would imagine the most difficult stumbling blocks in running N2 based steam engines would be to make sure all the moving parts don't freeze up, literally, or that critical parts don't become too cryogenically brittle and shatter under normal stresses. Not likely, and you probably won't need a gearbox in your Cryocar. Brings a whole new meaning to the word: freezer burn. Ironic when one considers the fact that N2 typically doesn't burn or explode in a dangerous manner as combining oxygen and hydrogen would in our atmosphere. Right, and it doesn't pollute either. and how would this potential resource compare to equivalent alternative fuel source energy carriers. Better, why else is it being suppressed? Frederick Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Edmund Storms wrote: Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as is the usual approach? Of course I agree. But this leads to an interesting point. People promoting conventional energy conservation, cold fusion, hot fusion and other energy improvements have made a big mistake, in my opinion. They have been trying to tell the public that we are running out of energy a crisis is approaching and we must do something rather than wait until the last minute. That may be true, but it is the wrong message. People will see that there is still plenty of gas in the price is not really gone up relative to inflation, and they will ignore us. What you should say instead is: Cold fusion will save money! It will work better. It will create many new opportunities. It will cause less pollution. Those with the themes I emphasized in the book, rather than talking about resource depletion. It is often said that the stone age did not and because we ran out of stones. People usually adapt new technologies because they work better, not because older resources are running out. However, there are some major exceptions to this rule, especially in the energy business. Old-growth hardwood forest firewood in the US really was depleted, and we were definitely running on a whale oil before we began using oil (underground oil, I mean). Oil production in the US peaked around 1974 and it has declined drastically. OPEC production peaked late last year, I think, just as Deffeyes predicted. There is no more available hydroelectric power, although there is a huge reservoir of untapped wind energy. It is a little ironic that we have, in fact, begun to run short of conventional energy, but that still is not a good sales message to promote cold fusion. Conservationists have cried wolf too often. They should have known better. Anyway, cold fusion has so many other outstanding advantages there is really no need to emphasize depletion. The original message starting this thread said: Christians are thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle God sized problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think the solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental problems is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's surface. Oh come now. No one in this forum has said anything like that! Engineers and scientists believe in solving people's problems, not in killing people off to bury the problem. Killing people -- or letting them die of AID or bird-flu, is like fixing a broken computer by bashing it with sledgehammer. (Okay, I have done that once and it was gratifying, but that sucker deserved it.) I myself hope that the terrestrial population will gradually be reduced to around 2 or 3 billion, perhaps with billions of other people living off planet if they want to. By the way, experts at the CDC and elsewhere are predicting that bird flu will probably infect people within a few years, because it remains pandemic among birds and of course virus evolution is rapid. If a virulent form crosses to the human population it will probably kill between 5 million and 1 billion people. A friend of mine at the CDC just left for Vietnam to work on this problem. Researchers have strongly suggested that governments worldwide fund the development of vaccinations and improved Third World poultry production facilities to prevent a pandemic. That is what scientists do -- they try to fix problems. Governments by and large are ignoring these recommendations. The U.S. government is spending $1 billion a week on war instead. It built several splendid new CDC facilities in response to 9/11 bio-threat hysteria, but it is now cutting back on funding for the professional staff and for equipment, so the splendid new buildings are sitting empty, and the clock is ticking, and the bird flu viruses -- contrary to the officially expressed views of the Cobb County Georgia Board of Education -- definitely are evolving. Here is a ghoulish question. If 50,000 children in Georgia are killed by bird flu, will the Board rethink its assertions and calls off the jihad against scientific knowledge? Probably not. - Jed
Re: It is worse because it works better
It turned out they literally flew by the seat of their pants. That's profound! s
Using liquid air as a fuel source to tap ZPE?
Several background items are useful to understand what will follow, hopefully, in pursuit of a scheme for a more eco-friendly transportation system. This is the preliminaries for continuing speculation. 1) LOEA = liquid oxygen enriched air = ~58% N2 ~40% O2 Cost to produce at home if everything is optimized using night-time power (from nuclear, wind or other non-carbon source, hopefully) = about $.10 per pound with power at $.08/ kwh (nightime rate) This includes overhead. 2) ROS = reactive oxygen species. You will not understand this post (which will continue tommorrow) unless you understand the chemistry of ROS: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/ROS.html 3) Bridgman effect, specifically the Bridgman effect with water ice, which does NOT require thermal input. Water ice has one big advantage in regard to exploiting Casimir. When a water molecule freezes rapidly, it becomes a fully hydrogen-bonded structure with strong and straight hydrogen bonds (such as hexagonal ice) then it can only have four nearest neighbors, due to the angles of its near tetrahedral molecular hydrogen sites. This give an incredible amount of built-in strain, all free due to the Casimir effect on hydrogen bonds. IOW that is where the OU part would come in, when the strain is released explosively. Especially with electroyzed water ice. In the liquid phase, molecules approach more closely due to the partial collapse of the tightly hydrogen bonded network. Closer neighbors mean higher density. As the temperature of liquid water increases, the continuing collapse of the hydrogen bonded network allows unbonded molecules to approach more closely so increasing the number of nearest neighbors. Sublimation results in the same kind of expansion ration that one finds with liquid air, about 800:1 which can match up well with the combustion of gasoline. The maximum density of water is a most curious feature, as it occurs at 4 degrees C. Regular ice is lower density so work is performed on collapse. How much energy is available and how does this fit into a hybrid concept with LOEA ? Stay tuned. Jones
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS _ Jared Diamond's Collapse
This post from Ed has roused me to comment. Everyone chewing on this problem should go to their bookstore and get Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Ecology, resources, and how people react to them are very much part of the problem, and there are no glib answers but Pogo's: We have Met The Enemy and He is Us. The specific catastrophes that have been discussed here are beyond the publication time window, but the pattern is there. And there is reason to hope, and Vortex and BLP and CF are part of that scene which are also outside the scope. I have written to Diamond to call his attention to these initiatives. Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored. revtec wrote: What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF? Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming? Yes, this is an important goal. But not the only result. In this discussion both Mills' BlackLight Power and CF should have equal voice, for their end result is very similar and BLP is probably much closer to commercialization than CF; it has corporate focus, finanace, and leadership. The far-reaching result is dismantling the economic and political power structures based on the monopolization of energy sources. Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet? Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as is the usual approach? See Diamond. One of his students asked what the thoughts were of the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island, which was once heavily forested. Fundamentally, it is the short time horizon of people as consumers and as investors in corporations who want quick returns and do not see the future creeping up on them. Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming will accelerate by direct heating alone! Could it be that with perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box? Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and sources internal to the earth. Correct. A heat engine produces a bit of heat and is done, but the greenhouse gases inhibit the cooling of the earth by radiation of far infrared to the cold blackness of space, as on a clear night. That continues 24/7 for decades or more. Whether that is *the* major cause of warming is open to debate, for the computer models are not as complex as the actual atmosphere of Earth. I brought this up before without getting a single comment. Did I have silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from revtec without reading a single word. I really don't know. God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward God sized problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant. Not true. We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun stays on earth. The earth is not a perfect absorber. Changes in the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy retained by the earth. This is the issue, not the total amount of energy emitted by the sun. True. But changes in the sun's output, coincident with man's activities, may increase effects. There have been profound climate changes long before man had any impact. Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat. Athiests think no one does. Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our increased heat load. People, who either don't believe in God or don't trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves. This is based on conceptions of God based on the Bible, which is not that of the majority of humanity. Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race has no understanding of how God works. Christianity teaches free will. If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we are free to do so. Why would God care? Many species on other planets would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that intelligent life would go on. We would be just one more attempt to produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational. I agree with Ed to an extent. I will add that a great many people have 'religious
Earthquake Coincidence?
Vorts, From: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ice_berg_ram.html Examine the collision damage from the Antarctic B-15a iceberg in the streaming video. That iceberg is the size of Long Island. Note the date of collision with the shelf. ( http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/105894main_crack_movie.mpg ) Estimate the velocity, metric tons, and momentum of the collision and recall the date of the earthquake 9 (Tsunami) was Dec 25th. This is merely a coincidence. Right? Colin
RE: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Hi Mike, you write: Labels are dangerous: We need some new labels, ones more descriptive rather than prescriptive. One might imagine from some posts here that liberals might be found sitting around the barbeque roasting unborn children, hot waxing their black helicopters and anxiously awaiting the luciferian UN one world government headed by the Clinton with two backs ...on the other hand, we have self described conservatives saying in this actual forum such as Actually the trees will be burnt up during the Tribulation. While I regard protection of the environment as irrelevant, I am quick to point out that there are more trees now than ever before. I'm pretty sure real conservatives are cringing right now. I propose a new label, in honor of those mighty statesman and religious leaders of that fabled island Easter, those who strove to build the mighty domes that grace that otherwise barren and wasted land. Those people who when given a tour of the island and shown the nature of things, lacked the simple will to live and turned away and down the path of death. I dub these folks RockHeads. Nominations? K.
Re: Thanks V Bill B Donations?
Paypal donations to Bill Beaty for maintaining Vortex. Steven, that is an excellent idea. I live in Canada so to send Bill a donation I have to first look up his address on the Internet, then a trip to the bank to get in line for a US money order, then find envelope and stamp and a trip to the post box to mail it off. It's been way too long since I've done that. I'm remiss.. But if I could use Paypal ... Colin - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:06 PM Subject: Thanks V Bill B Donations? I also want to say to the Vortex group that I really appreciate the recent insightful, articulate and well-reasoned discussions that have occurred here of late. While there may not be any streets or homes here, this is clearly a well-defined and functional community. It is a place that I can count on for intelligent scientific debate and discussion. Thank you Bill B. Hey Bill, how about a Paypal-type system so we can donate? Steve
